1383 GI/2025
(857)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजहक
WEEKLY
सं. 08]
नइ ददल् ली, मार्च 2—मार्च 8, 2025, िजनवार/फाल् गुन 11—फाल् गुन 17, 1946
No. 08]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 2— MARCH 8, 2025, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 11– PHALGUNA 17, 1946
आस भाग में जभन् न ृृ् सं् या दी िाती हज जिससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ 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—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजधक अदेि और ऄजधसूर्नाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवदेि मन्त्रालय
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 286—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2
के खंड (क) के ऄनुसरण में वजधाजनक अदेि ।
एतद् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के दूतावास, ररयाद मे श्री सुख सागर ृटेल, सहायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी, को
फरवरी 27, 2025 से सहायक कांसुलर ऄजधकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवचहन करने के जलए ऄजधकृत
करती हज ।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(09)]
एस.अर.एर्. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-18032025-261681
CG-DL-W-18032025-261681
858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 286.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and
Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Mr.
Sukh Sagar Patel, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Riyadh, to
perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from February 27, 2025.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025 (09)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV)
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 287.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2
के खंड (क) के ऄनुसरण में वजधाजनक अदेि ।
एतद् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के दूतावास,जमन्स्ट्क मे श्री यतीि कुमार, सहायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी, को
मार्च 04, 2025 से सहायक कांसुलर ऄजधकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवचहन करने के जलए ऄजधकृत
करती हज ।
[फा.सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(10)]
एस.अर.एर्. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 287.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and
Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints
Mr. Yatish Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Minsk,
to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from March 04, 2025.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025 (10)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV)
कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय
(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 2 िनवरी, 2025
का.अ. 288—केंद्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का ऄजधजनयम
सं. 25) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत ऄृराधों को जवजनर्ददष्ट करती हज,
जिनका ऄन्वेषण भी ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों द्वारा दकया िाना हज (ददनांक 23.04.2023 से
कायोत्तर प्रभाव से), नामतः :-
(क)
“मध्य प्रदेि जनक्षेृकों के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2000 (2001 का ऄजधजनयम सं. 16)’’ के
ऄंतगचत दंडनीय ऄृराध।
(ख)
ईृयुचि ऄृराध(धों) से िुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा
ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न कोइ ऄन्य ऄृराध।
[फा. सं. 228/14/2023-एवीडी-II/1)]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजर्व
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
859
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2025
S.O. 288.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following
offences which are also to be investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, (ex-
post facto w.e.f 23.04.2023) namely :-
(a) Offences punishable under ―THE MADHYA PRADESH NIKSHEPAKON KE HITON KA
SANRAKSHAN ADHINIYAM, 2000 (Act No. 16 of 2001)‖.
(b) Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned
offence(s) and/or for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of
the same facts.
[F. No. 228/14/2023-AVD-II/1]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 2 िनवरी, 2025
का.अ. 289.—केंद्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का ऄजधजनयम
सं. 25) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत ऄृराधों को जवजनर्ददष्ट करती हज,
जिनका ऄन्वेषण भी ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों द्वारा दकया िाना हज (ददनांक 23.04.2023 से
कायोत्तर प्रभाव से), नामतः :-
(क)
“गुिरात िमाकताचओं के जहतों का संरक्षण (जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में) ऄजधजनयम, 2003 (2004 का
ऄजधजनयम 1)’’ के ऄंतगचत दंडनीय ऄृराध।
(ख)
ईृयुचि ऄृराध(धों) से िुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा
ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न कोइ ऄन्य ऄृराध।
[फा. सं. 228/19/2023-एवीडी-II/1)]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2025
S.O. 289.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following
offences which are also to be investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, (ex-
post facto w.e.f 23.04.2023) namely: -
(a)
Offences punishable under ―THE GUJARAT PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS
(IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS) ACT, 2003 (Act No. 1 of 2004)‖.
(b)
Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned
offence(s) and/or for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of
the same facts.
[F. No. 228/19/2023-AVD-II/1]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नइ ददल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 290.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए िाखा प्रमुख, केन्द्रीय
ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोधक िाखा, धनबाद के ददनांक 27.12.2024 के ृत्र सं्या – 503/सीओ-
15/2024 द्वारा दकए गए ऄनुरोध ृर ऄजधसूर्ना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.अइ.-401/2025-310/रांर्ी,
ददनांक 16.01.2025, गृह, कारागार एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से िारी झारखंड राज्य सरकार की
सम्मजत से श्री प्रणय कुमार सरकार, जलजृक एनइइ ऄनुभाग, बीसीसीएल, कोयला भवन, धनबाद के जवरुद्ध
ददनांक 20.01.2025 को ृंिीकृत अरसी. 01(ए)/2025-डी का भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988
(यथासंिोजधत 2018) की धारा 7 के ऄंतगचत दंडनीय ऄृराध तथा आस मामले के ऄन्वेषण के दौरान सामने
अने वाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ृंिीकरण एवं ऄन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से िुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध
दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न
दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और
क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (ददनांक 20.01.2025 से कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/2/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 13th February, 2025
S.O. 290.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I-401/2025-310/Ranchi, dated
16.01.2025, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made via letter number
503/CO-15/2024, dated 27.12.2024 of Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, hereby extends the powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f 20.01.2025) for
registration and investigation into the offence(s) in RC.01(A)/2025-D registered on 20.01.2025 against Shri
Pranay Kumar Sarkar, Clerk NEE Section, BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad for offence punishable under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and any other offence that may come
to light during investigation of this case and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in
connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction
or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/2/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 291.—केंद्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंद्रीय
ऄजधजनयम सं. 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए
ऄजधसूर्ना सं. एफ.19(52)गृह-5/2024, ियृुर, ददनांक 31.12.2024, गृह (िीअर.-v) जवभाग के माध्यम से
िारी रािस्ट्थान राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से, नइ मण्डी हहडोन थाना, जिला-करौली (रािस्ट्थान) में भारतीय दंड
संजहता की धारा 307, 34 के तहत दिच प्राथजमकी सं. 231/2024 और ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से िुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध
दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा एवं/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न
दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और
क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट्थान राज्य में करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/105/2024-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजर्व
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
861
New Delhi, the 13th February, 2025
S.O. 291.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the
consent of the State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(52)Home-5/2024, Jaipur,
Dated 31.12.2024, Home (Gr.-V) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Rajasthan for the investigation of FIR No.
231/2024 under section 307, 34 IPC registered at Police Station New Mandi Hindon, District Karauli
(Rajasthan) or any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the said case
and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for
any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/105/2024-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 292—केन्द्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंद्रीय
ऄजधजनयम XXV) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए महाराष्ट्र
राज्य सरकार की ऄजधसूर्ना सं. टीइअर-1115/सी.अर.163/एसृीएल-1बी, ददनांक 30.05.2024, गृह जवभाग,
मंत्रालय, मुंबइ के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से 71 मामलों, जिन्हें महाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार की ऄजधसूर्ना सं. टीइअर-
1115/सी.अर.363/एसृीएल.1बी, ददनांक 13.11.2015, गृह जवभाग, मंत्रालय, मुंबइ के माध्यम से िारी
सम्मजत से ऄजधसूर्ना सं. 228/56/2015-एवीडी-II, ददनांक 22.11.2015 द्वारा डीएसृीइ ऄजधजनयम, 1946 की
धारा 5 के ऄंतगचत ऄजधसूजर्त दकया गया था, में से 03 मामले ऄथाचत िुहू थाने का मामला सं. 385/2006,
बोररवली थाने का मामला सं. 202/1999 और जतलक नगर थाने का मामला सं. 33/2010 को जवमुि करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/56/2015-एवीडी-II]
रािीव कुमार खरे, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th February, 2025
S.O. 292.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with
the consent of the State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Notification No. TER-1115/C.R.163/SPL-1B,
dated 30.05.2024, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, hereby de-notifies 03 cases i.e. Case No. 385/2006
of Juhu Police Station, Case No. 202/1999 of Boriwali Police Station & Case No. 33/2010 of Tilak Nagar
Police Station out of 71 cases notified u/s 5 of DSPE Act, 1946 vide Notification No. 228/56/2015-AVD-II,
dated 21.11.2015 with the consent of the State Government of Maharashtra issued vide Notification No. TER-
1115/C.R.363/Spl.1B, dated 13.11.2015, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
[F. No. 228/56/2015-AVD-II]
RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.
स्ट्वास्ट्थ्य और ृररवार कल्याण मंत्रालय
(दंत जिक्षा ऄनुभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 293.—दंत जर्दकत्सक ऄजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की ईृधारा (2) द्वारा
प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत ृररषद के ृरामिच के ृश्चात, एतद् द्वारा ईि
ऄजधजनयम की ऄनुसूर्ी के भाग-I में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, ऄथाचत्:-
भोजिया डेंटल कॉलेि एवं ऄस्ट् ृताल बददी, जहमार्ल प्रदेि के बीडीएस छात्रों के संबंध में ऄटल
मेजडकल एंड ररसर्च यूजनवर्मसटी, मंडी, जहमार्ल प्रदेि द्वारा प्रदान की गइ दंत जर्दकत्सा जडग्री की मान्यता से
862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
संबंजधत दंत जर्दकत्सक ऄजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 16) की ऄनुसूर्ी के भाग-I में क्रम सं्या 155 के सामने
कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौिूदा प्रजवजष्टयों में जनम्नजलजखत प्रजवजष्टयां ऄंत:स्ट्थाजृत की िाएंगी, ऄथाचत:
भोजिया डेंटल कॉलेि एवं ऄस्ट् ृताल बददी, जहमार्ल प्रदेि
डेंटल सिचरी में स्नातक
(यदद 19.09.2024 को या ईसके बाद ऄनुमोदन
ददया िाता हैं तो 60 सीटों के साथ)
बीडीएस,
ऄटल मेजडकल एंड ररसर्च यूजनवर्मसटी, मंडी,
जहमार्ल प्रदेि
[फा.सं. वी.12017/06/2024-डीइ]
ऄजमत कुमार, ऄवर सजर्व
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Dental Education Section)
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2025
S.O. 293.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act.
1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby,
makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-
In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 155, in Part-I of the Schedule to the
Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of Dental Degrees awarded by Atal Medical and
Research University, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in respect of BDS students of Bhojia Dental College &
Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, the following entries shall be inserted, namely:
Bhojia Dental College & Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh
Bachelor of Dental Surgery
(With 100 seats if granted on or after 21.09.2024)
BDS,
Atal Medical and Research University, Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh
[F. No. V.12017/06/2024-DE]
AMIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 294.—दंत जर्दकत्सक ऄजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की ईृधारा (2) द्वारा
प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत ृररषद के ृरामिच के ृश्चात, एतद् द्वारा ईि
ऄजधजनयम की ऄनुसूर्ी के भाग-I में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, ऄथाचत्:-
जहमार्ल आंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ डेंटल साईंसेि, ृोंटा साजहब, जहमार्ल प्रदेि के बीडीएस छात्रों के संबंध में
ऄटल मेजडकल एंड ररसर्च यूजनवर्मसटी, मंडी, जहमार्ल प्रदेि द्वारा प्रदान की गइ दंत जर्दकत्सा जडग्री की मान्यता
से संबंजधत दंत जर्दकत्सक ऄजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 16) की ऄनुसूर्ी के भाग-I में क्रम सं्या 155 के सामने
कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौिूदा प्रजवजष्टयों में जनम्नजलजखत प्रजवजष्टयां ऄंत:स्ट्थाजृत की िाएंगी, ऄथाचत:
जहमार्ल आंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ डेंटल साईंसेि, ृोंटा साजहब, जहमार्ल प्रदेि
डेंटल सिचरी में स्नातक
(यदद 21.09.2024 को या ईसके बाद ऄनुमोदन ददया
िाता हैं तो 100 सीटों के साथ)
बीडीएस,
ऄटल मेजडकल एंड ररसर्च यूजनवर्मसटी, मंडी, जहमार्ल प्रदेि
[फा. सं. वी.12017/06/2024-डीइ]
ऄजमत कुमार, ऄवर सजर्व
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
863
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2025
S.O. 294.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists
Act. 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby,
makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-
In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 155, in Part-I of the Schedule to the
Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of Dental Degrees awarded by Atal Medical and
Research University, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in respect of BDS students of Himachal Institute of
Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, the following entries shall be inserted, namely:
Bhojia Dental College & Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh
Bachelor of Dental Surgery
(With 100 seats if granted on or after 21.09.2024)
BDS,
Atal Medical and Research University, Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh
[F. No. V. 12017/06/2024-DE]
AMIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय
नइ ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2024
का.अ. 295.—केन् द्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के ईृजनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन
सावचिजनक क्षेत्र के ईृक्रम के जनम् नजलजखत कायाचलयों को, जिसके 80 या ऄजधक प्रजतित कमचर्ारी वृन् द ने जहन् दी
का कायचसाधक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया हज, ऄजधसूजर्त करती हज:-
1.
भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, राज्य कायाचलय,
कनाचटक एएमएम बेंगलुप , डुृाकच ररजनटी, 7वीं मंजिल,
17 एम िी रोड, बेंगलुप , कनाचटक-560001
2.
भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,
प्रादेजिक कायाचलय ररटेल मजसूर,
एफसीअइ गोदाम के ृीछे, मजसूर जडृो,
मजसूर, कनाचटक-570016
[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.(2024)]
डॉ. ज्योजत जमश्रा, ईृ जनदेिक (रािभाषा)
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2024
S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official
purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the
Public Sector undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in
which 80 or more percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, State Office,
Karnataka AMM Bengaluru, Dupark Trinity, 7th Floor,
17 M G Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001
864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Regional Office Retail Mysore,
Behind FCI Godown, Mysore Depot,
Mysore, Karnataka-570016
[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL (2024)]
Dr. JYOTI MISHRA, Dy. Director (OL)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 296. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj हसगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंृनी जलजमटेड,ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
हजदराबाद ds iapkV (ृहर्ान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/43/2015.
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 25th December, 2025
S.O. 296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 75/2015) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 22/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/43/2015–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2015
Between:
Sri Kovvuri Mallesh
S/o Sri Chandraiah,
Janagama (V),
Ramagundam (M)-505209
Karimnagar Dist.
..….Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
865
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area,
Godavarikhani-505209.
Karimnagar Dist.
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : A.Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.22012/43/2015 (IR(CM-II)) dated
29.07.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for
adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam- I Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist. In terminating the services of Shri Kovvuri
Mallesh, Ex-Coal Filler, GDK-2 Inc., SCCL, Ramagundam-1 Area, Godavarikhani with effect from
14/05/2001 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?‘
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 75/2015 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
Petitioner submitted that he is not in contact of LR of deceased petitioner. Perused the
record. Counsel for petitioner informed to the court that on 29th March, 2023, petitioner has died since then,
the present matter is fixed for bringing LRs on record, but no LR has appeared or impleaded to pursue the
present claim. It seems LRs do not want to prosecute the case on behalf of deceased petitioner Late Kavvuri
Mallesh. Therefore, in such circumstances, ‗no claim-award‘ is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 1st day
of January, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 297. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj हसगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंृनी जलजमटेड, ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
हजदराबाद ds iapkV (ृहर्ान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/48/2019.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन. एन, ईृ जनदेिक
866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 73/2020) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 22/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/48/2019 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 13th day of December, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 73/2020
Between:
The General Secretary
(Sri Riaz Ahmed)
Singareni Mines & Engg.
Workers Union (HMS),
H.No. C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani
Peddapalli Dist.,-505209
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur,
ADILABAD-504303.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : K. Vasudeva Reddy & B. Kiran Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/48/2019 (IR(CM-II)
dated 13.05.2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication
to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen.
The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management in non-granting of annual increment and promotional
increment to Shri Mandala Malla Reddy, Electrician Helper and 29 others Tradesman, Srirampur I
Incline, Srirampur Area (Annexure I) as per tradesmen Cadre Scheme Agreement dated 03-03-1989
is fair and justified. If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date.‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 73/2020 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Docket
reveals that despite of providing sufficient opportunity petitioner did not filed any claim statement.
Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is ‗No
Claim‘ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 13th
day of December, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
867
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 298. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/25/2022-23)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/83/2022.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन. एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/25/2022-23)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/83/2022 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/25/2022-23
Date: 21.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The General Manager,
Umrer Area of WCL,
Post – Umrer Project,
Distt. – Nagpur – 441204.
V/s.
Party No.2:
The General Secretary,
Lalzhenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,
(CITU), Qtr No. 1B/156, Umrer Area of
WCL, Tehsil – Umrer, Distt. – Nagpur.
Pin – 441204.
AWARD
(Dated: 21st January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and their workman, Shri Jagdish L. Chouhan for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/83/2022-IR (CM-II)
dated 28.09.2022, with the following schedule:-
―Whether demand of the Union ( Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union ) vide letter dated
12/07/2017 against the management of the WCL (through its GM, Umrer Area, SAM Umrer, Sub-
Area of WCL for protection of pay of the workman Shri Jagdish L. Chouhan, on his conversion from
piece rated to time rated is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant did
not filed any statement of claim and management also not filed any written statement.
3.
Today the case called out. None appeared on behalf of the parties. Petitioner is not coming since
15.12.2022 i.e. from last two years. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and did not
want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed. The Petitioner neither filed any statement of claim nor
adduces any evidence to prove his case.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The demand of the Union ( Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union ) vide letter dated
12/07/2017 against the management of the WCL (through its GM, Umrer Area, SAM Umer, Sub-Area
of WCL for protection of pay of the workman Shri Jagdish L. Chouhan, on his conversion from piece
rated to time rated is improper, illegal and unjustified. The Workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 299.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds iapkV
(सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/19/2017-18) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/31/2017-vkbZ- vkj
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/19/2017-18)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/31/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2017-18
Date: 10.02.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Durgapur O/c Mines of WCL,
Post: Urjanagar, Distt. Chandrapur,
Chandrapur (M.S.).
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
869
V/s
Party No.2:
The Jt. General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
RC. Tembhre House, Vaidha Nagar,
Near Ayyappa Mandir, Tukum Ward No. 2,
Chandrapur (M.S.).
AWARD
(Dated: 10th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL, Durgapur Open Cast
Mine, Post. Durgapur, Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur and their workman, Shri Mohd. Imran Ilias, for
adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/31/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 18.09.2017, with the following
schedule:-
―Whether the action of management of WCL, Durgapur Open Cast Mine, Post. Durgapur,
Tah. And Dist. Chandrapur is denying employment to Shri Mohd. Imran Ilias the dependant son of
Shri Mohd. Ilias, Retire employee who has already put more than 37 years of service, which is
contrary to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of NCW-III is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?‖
2. Case is called out. Both the parties are absent on repeated calls. Petitioner is not attending the
Court since very beginning i.e. 27.10.2017. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by
the parties. Parties have not produced any evidence to prove their say/claim. It seems that the Petitioner is
not interested to contest the case. Case is not proved. Hence it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of management of WCL, Durgapur Open Cast Mine, Post. Durgapur, Tah. And
Dist. Chandrapur is denying employment to Shri Mohd. Imran Ilias the dependant son of Shri Mohd.
Ilias, Retire employee who has already put more than 37 years of service, which is contrary to the
provisions of Para 9.4.4 of NCW-III is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 300.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds iapkV
(सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/07/2012-13) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/106/2012-
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/07/2012-13)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/106/2012 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/07/2012-13
Date: 21.01.2025.
Party No.1:
1) All India SC/ST Backward Class Employees,
Co-ordination Council
Through it‘s The Joint General Secretary,
Wani, Yavatmal (M.S.)
2) Shri R.R. Sattiwale,
R/o Post Belora, Tha. Wani,
Dist. Yeotmal (M.S.)
V/s.
Party No.2:
1) The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfield Limited
Post Urjagram Tadali,
Chandrapur
2) The Sub-Area Manager,
Neeljai O/C mines, Wani Area,
Western Coalfields Ltd., Post- Neeljai,
Tah-Wani, Yavatmal (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 21st January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri R.R Sattiwale for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/106/2012-IR (CM-II)
dated 12.07.2012, with the following schedule:-
―With reference of CIL‘s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, Whether
management‘s denial to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri R.R. Sattiwale, ITI
Certificate Holder at per with his juniors who are drawing more wages in Wani Area of WCL is legal
& justified? To what monetory benefit the workman is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed
statement of claim and management filed written statement. Petitioner also files Rejoinder and evidence on
affidavit. Which has not proved by the witness concerned being present before the Court.
3.
Today the case called out. None appeared on behalf of the parties. Petitioner is not coming since
long back i.e. from last five years. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and did not
want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed. As no evidence filed by the petitioner to prove the
contents of statement of claim
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
With reference of CIL‘s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder,
Management‘s denial to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri R.R. Sattiwale, ITI
Certificate Holder at par with his juniors who are drawing more wages in Wani Area of WCL is legal
& justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
871
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 301.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/03/2019-20) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/97/2017-vkbZ- v
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/03/2019-20)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/97/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2019-22
Date: 20.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Tawa Mine, PO:Pathakhera Area
Distt. Betul-460330
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Regional Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
WCL, Region Nagpur(MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 20th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
Tawa Mines and their workman, Shri Sudama Pasi for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/97/2017-IR
(CM-II) dated 16.11.2017, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the demand of the union to change the date of birth of Shri Sudama Pashi
(Workman) from 07.08.57 to 01.11.59, as per the copy of the School Leaving Certificate is just &
proper? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed
statement of claim and management filed written statement.
3.
Today the case called out. None appeared on behalf of the parties. Petitioner is not coming since
16.04.2021 i.e. from last four years. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and did not
want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The demand of the union to change the date of birth of Shri Sudama Pashi (Workman) from
07.08.57 to 01.11.59, as per the copy of the School Leaving Certificate is unjust & improper. The
workman Shri Sudama Pashi is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 302. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/36/2018-19) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/43/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/36/2018-19)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/43/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/36/2018-19
Date: 20.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Tawa Mine, PO:Pathakhera Area
Distt. Betul-460330
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Regional Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Regional Camp(WCL) Hotel Banjara Area,
Bagdona, Post. Pathakhera,
Distt. Betul (MP) - 460449
AWARD
(Dated: 20th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri Prurushotttam Sharma for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/43/2018-IR (CM-
II) dated 23.10.2018, with the following schedule:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
873
―Whether the demand of Shri Purushottam S/o. Shri Narayan Prashad Sharma, Senior Head
Chainman under WCL, Tawa Mines, PO. Pathakheda Area, Distt. Betul (MP) to change his date of
birth as 29.12.1960 in place of 01.01.1959 is just fair & legal? If yes, to what relief Shri Purushottam
S/o. Shri Narayan Prashad Sharma, Senior Head Chainman is entitled to from the management of
Western Coalfield, Ltd. Pathakhera?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed
statement of claim and management filed written statement. Petitioner also files evidence on affidavit.
Examination-in-chief and cross examination of the petitioner‘s witness recorded. Management also filed
their evidence on affidavit. Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination of the management witness also
recorded.
3.
Today the case called out. None appeared on behalf of the parties. Petitioner is not coming since
16.04.2020 i.e. from last five years. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and did not
want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The demand of Shri Purushottam S/o. Shri Narayan Prashad Sharma, Senior Head
Chainman under WCL, Tawa Mines, PO. Pathakheda Area, Distt. Betul (MP) to change his date of
birth as 29.12.1960 in place of 01.01.1959 is unjust, unfair & illegal. The workman Shri Purushottam
S/o. Shri Narayan Prashad Sharma is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 303. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/32/2013-14) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/67/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/32/2013-14)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/67/2013 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/32/2013-14
Date: 23.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Dhoptala Sub Area of Ballarpur Area of WCL,
Post Sasti, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)
874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s.
Party No.2:
The General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,
Post Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 23rd January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Dhoptala Sub Area of
Chandrapur Area, Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman, Shri Shailendra Lodhi for adjudication,
as per letter No.L-22012/67/2013 IR(CM-II)) dated 30.05.2013, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Chandrapur Area Western
Coalfields Limited, in denying employment to Shri Shailendra Lodhi the dependent son of Shri
Ramaji Lodhi who has already put in more than 37 years service, which is contrary to the provision of
para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
Case called out. Learned Counsel Shri. Ghare is present for the Respondent but none is present on
behalf of petitioner since long back i.e. 16/01/2020 near about five years. Application dated 01/11/2018 has
been moved by party no. 2 but none is present to press this application. Hence, this application is dismissed
being not pressed. Although statement of claim and written statement have also been filed by the parties but
petitioner is not attending the Court since long back nor he filed any evidence on his behalf to establish his
case.
3.
As the petitioner is not coming since 16/01/2020 it shows that petitioner is not interested to contest
the case and did not want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Chandrapur Area Western Coalfields
Limited, in denying employment to Shri Shailendra Lodhi the dependent son of Shri Ramaji Lodhi
who has already put in more than 37 years service, which is contrary to the provision of para 9.4.4 of
NCWA is legal and justified. Shri Shailendra Lodhi is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 304. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/12/2013-14)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/3/2013-vkbZ- vkj
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/12/2013-14)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/3/2013 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
875
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/12/2013-14
Date: 10.02.2025.
Party No.1:
The Director (Personnel).
Western Coalfields Limited,
Coal Estates, Civil Lines,
Nagpur – 440001
V/s
Party No.2:
The President,
Rashtriya Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
604-Giripeth,
Nagpur - 440001
AWARD
(Dated: 10th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
(HQ), and their workman, Shri Shri W.D. Mone and 15 others for adjudication, as per letter No. L-
22012/3/2013 (IR(CM-II)) dated 03.04.2013, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited (HQ), Nagpur in
posting Shri W.D. Mone, Clerk Spl. Grade & 15 others as mentioned in the list annexed, at a grade
lower with bottom seniority on accepting their request for transfer to Nagpur HQ or WTI Wardha, is
just fair or legal? If not, to what relief is entitled to the concerned workmen to?‖
2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. From perusal of the order sheets, it is apparent that,
both the parties are not appearing since 17.11.2020. Although, statement of claim on behalf of the Petitioner
and written statement on behalf of the Respondent has been filed. On behalf of the Petitioner, Shri Lal P.S.
has filed affidavit as evidence. Some cross-examination has been performed by the Respondent on this
witness and 42 Photostat documents have been wrongly and illegally exhibited, while Photostat copies are
not admissible in evidence and that cannot be legally exhibited. No other evidence has been adduced by the
Petitioner to prove his case. Available evidences are not sufficient to establish the claim of the Petitioner.
3. Therefore, contents of the claim of the petitioner are not proved and the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited (HQ), Nagpur in posting Shri
W.D. Mone, Clerk Spl. Grade & 15 others as mentioned in the list annexed, at a grade lower with
bottom seniority on accepting their request for transfer to Nagpur HQ or WTI Wardha, is just fair or
legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 305. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdka vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/69/2013-14) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/153/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/69/2013-14)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/153/2013 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/69/2013-14
Date: 24.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Sasti U/G Mines Dhoptala Sub Area of Ballarpur Area
WCL, Post Sasti, Tah, Rajura,
Distt. Chandrapur. (M.S.)
V/s.
Party No.2:
Shri Lomesh Khartad,
General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,
Post Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 24th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Ballarpur Sub Area of
Western Coalfields Limited and their workman, Shri Shaikh Niyaz for adjudication, as per letter No. L-
22012/153/2013 (IR(CM-II)) dated 12.11.2013, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur Sub Area of Western Coalfields Limited
in denying employment to Shri Shaikh Niyaz the dependant son of Shri Shaikh Kasam Allaudin who
had already put in more than 38 years of service, which is contrary to the provision of Para 9.4.4 of
NCWA is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
2.
Case called out. Counsel for the management is present. Petitioner is absent on repeated calls.
Petitioner is not attending the Court since 03/07/2019 i.e. near about 6 years. Although, petitioner has filed
his statement of claim and written statement has also been filed by the respondent. Petitioner has filed his
evidence on affidavit dated 05/01/2015 but petitioner is not present to prove his case which is contended in
the statement of claim. No other evidence is adduced by the petitioner to establish his case.
3.
As the petitioner is not coming since long shows that petitioner is not interested to contest the case
and did not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Ballarpur Sub Area of Western Coalfields Limited in
denying employment to Shri Shaikh Niyaz the dependant son of Shri Shaikh Kasam Allaudin who had
already put in more than 38 years of service, which is contrary to the provision of Para 9.4.4 of NCWA
is legal and justified. Shri. Shaikh Niyaz is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
877
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 306. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/14/2020-21) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/32/2020-vkbZ- vkj
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/14/2020-21)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/32/2020 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/14/2020-21
Date: 16.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Umrer Sub Area, PO & Tah. Umred
Distt. Nagpur - 441204
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU),
Branch: Umred Sub Area, Qtr. No. 1B/156,
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur - 441204
AWARD
(Dated: 16th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri Devendra Chhuttu Singh for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/32/2020-IR
(CM-II) dated 21.08.2020, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Sub Area, Post &
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in denying for payment of Basic Pay as
deducted by the management of WCL Umrer Sub Area i.r.o. Shri Devendra Chhuttu Singh, Drill
Operator, Gr. ‗B‘ along with interest is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement. After perusal of record it appears that none is present on behalf of the parties since
13/11/2020 i.e. near about 4 years. The reference notification no. 22012/32/2020 (IR(CM-II)) dated
21/08/2020 has been received from the Ministry and has registered case vide case no. CGIT/NGP/14/2020-
21. The dispute has been raised by the workman. The Government has already directed the parties for raising
the dispute and to file a statement of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses within 15
878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
days of the receipt of the order or reference and also to forward the copies of the said statement to which one
of the opposite parties involved in the dispute. But from the date of registration of reference of this Court no
parties turned up to prove his case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the
parties till date. It appears that both the parties are not interested to contest the case referred by the Ministry.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Sub Area, Post & Tah.
Umrer, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in denying for payment of Basic Pay as
deducted by the management of WCL Umrer Sub Area i.r.o. Shri Devendra Chhuttu Singh, Drill
Operator, Gr. ‗B‘ along with interest is just fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 307. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/15/2020-21) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/33/2020-vkbZ- vkj
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/15/2020-21)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/33/2020 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/15/2020-21
Date: 16.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Makardhokda Sub Area, Umrer Sub Area,
Post: Umrer Project, Tah. Umred, Distt.
Nagpur - 441204
V/s
Party No.2:
The President,
Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),
WCL. Umrer Area,
Tah. Umrer, Distt
Nagpur - 441204
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
879
AWARD
(Dated: 16th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri Yogesh Soni for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/33/2020-IR (CM-II) dated
21.08.2020, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Makardhokda Sub Area,
P.O. Umrer Project, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in deducting amount of Pay Scale
and denying to release Pay Scale amount as deducted by the management, denying to correct
designation and denying to give promotion to Shri Yogendra Soni is just, fair & legal? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman/ union is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement. After perusal of record it appears that none is present on behalf of the parties since
13/11/2020 i.e. near about 4 years. The reference notification no. 22012/33/2020 (IR(CM-II)) dated
21/08/2020 has been received from the Ministry and has registered case vide case no. CGIT/NGP/15/2020-
21. The dispute has been raised by the workman. The Government has already directed the parties for raising
the dispute and to file a statement of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses within 15
days of the receipt of the order or reference and also to forward the copies of the said statement to which one
of the opposite parties involved in the dispute. But from the date of registration of reference of this Court no
parties turned up to prove his case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the
parties till date. It appears that both the parties are not interested to contest the case referred by the Ministry.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Makardhokda Sub Area, P.O.
Umrer Project, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in deducting amount of Pay Scale and
denying to release Pay Scale amount as deducted by the management, denying to correct designation
and denying to give promotion to Shri Yogendra Soni is just, fair & legal. The workman is not entitled
to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 308.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/18/2020-21) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/36/2020-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/18/2020-21)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/36/2020 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/2020-21
Date: 16.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sr. Manager (Mining)/ Mines Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Adasa Mine, Saoner Sub Area,
Tah. Saoner, Distt.
Nagpur - 441107
V/s
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Branch: Adasa Mine,
Tah. Saoner, Distt
Nagpur - 441107
AWARD
(Dated: 16th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri Bala Matru Harde for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/36/2020-IR (CM-II)
dated 21.08.2020, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Adasa Mine, Saoner Sub
Area, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur through its Sr. Manager (Mining). Mines Manager in denying to
correct of date of birth in respect of Shri Bhola Matru Harde is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement. After perusal of record it appears that none is present on behalf of the parties since
13/11/2020 i.e. near about 4 years. The reference notification no. 22012/36/2020 (IR(CM-II)) dated
21/08/2020 has been received from the Ministry and has registered case vide case no. CGIT/NGP/18/2020-
21. The dispute has been raised by the workman. The Government has already directed the parties for raising
the dispute and to file a statement of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses within 15
days of the receipt of the order or reference and also to forward the copies of the said statement to which one
of the opposite parties involved in the dispute. But from the date of registration of reference of this Court no
parties turned up to prove his case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the
parties till date. It appears that both the parties are not interested to contest the case referred by the Ministry.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Adasa Mine, Saoner Sub Area,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur through its Sr. Manager (Mining). Mines Manager in denying to correct of
date of birth in respect of Shri Bhola Matru Harde is just fair & Legal. The workman is not entitled to
any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 309.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
881
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/17/2020-21) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/35/2020-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 309.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/17/2020-21)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/35/2020 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2020-21
Date: 16.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Umrer Sub Area,
Post & Tah. Umred, Distt
Nagpur - 441204
V/s
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU),
Branch: Umred Sub Area, Qtr. No. 1B/156,
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur - 441204
AWARD
(Dated: 16th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri Santosh Vishwas for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/35/2020-IR (CM-II)
dated 21.08.2020, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Sub Area, Post &
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in denying to give promotion as EP Welder
Gr. B to Shri Santosh Vishwas is just fair & Legal? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman/union is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement. After perusal of record it appears that none is present on behalf of the parties since
13/11/2020 i.e. near about 4 years. The reference notification no. 22012/35/2020 (IR(CM-II)) dated
21/08/2020 has been received from the Ministry and has registered vide case no. CGIT/NGP/17/2020-21.
The dispute has been raised by the workman. The Government has already directed the parties for raising the
dispute and to file a statement of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses within 15 days
of the receipt of the order or reference and also to forward the copies of the said statement to which one of
the opposite parties involved in the dispute. But from the date of registration of reference of this Court no
882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
parties turned up to prove his case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the
parties till date. It appears that both the parties are not interested to contest the case referred by the Ministry.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Sub Area, Post & Tah.
Umrer, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in denying to give promotion as EP Welder Gr.
B to Shri Santosh Vishwas is just fair & Legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 310. — vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/22/2017-18) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/10/2017-vkbZ- v
(सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/22/2017-18)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/10/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/22/2017-18
Date: 17.02.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Ballarpur Area, WCL, Post. Sasti
Tha. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur.
Chandraput (M.S.)
V/s
Party No.2:
The Zonal Secretary,
Coal Mines Engineering Worker Association,
Ward No. 10, Gudhi, Post: Palachouri,
Distt. Chhindwara (M.P.).
Chhindwara.
AWARD
(Dated: 17th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
883
Ballarpur Colleiry, Post. Sasti, Tah. Rajura Dist. Chandrapur and their workman, Shri. Ashish Suresh Puri
for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/10/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 16.10.2017, with the following
schedule:-
―Whether the action of Management of Western Coalfields Limited, Ballarpur Colliery, Post.
Sasti, Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur is denying employment to Shri Ashish Suresh Puri the
dependant son of Shri Suresh Narayan Puri, Retd. Employee who has already put more than 38 years
of service, which is contrary to the provision of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?‖
2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri.R.E. Mohirir is present before the
Court but none is present on behalf of petitioner. Both the parties are not attending and responding the Court
since 01/10/2018. Today only Counsel for the respondent is present. Although statement of claim and written
statement have been filed by the parties respectably. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his claim
till today. Petitioner is not attending the Court since long back. Meaning thereby petitioner is not interested
to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved so the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of Management of Western Coalfields Limited, Ballarpur Colliery, Post. Sasti,
Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur is denying employment to Shri Ashish Suresh Puri the dependant son
of Shri Suresh Narayan Puri, Retd. Employee who has already put more than 38 years of service,
which is contrary to the provision of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal and justified. The workman is not
entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 311. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टनच कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] नागृुर ds
iapkV (सीिीअइटी/एनिीृी/16/2020-21) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/34/2020-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2025
S.O. 311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/16/2020-21)of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/34/2020 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2020-21
Date: 16.01.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Umrer Sub Area,
Post & Tah. Umred, Distt
Nagpur - 441204
884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU),
Branch: Umred Sub Area, Qtr. No. 1B/156,
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur - 441204
AWARD
(Dated: 16th January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited
and their workman, Shri Santosh Vishwas for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/35/2020-IR (CM-II)
dated 21.08.2020, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Sub Area, Post &
Tah. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in denying to give promotion as EP Welder
Gr. B to Shri Santosh Vishwas is just fair & Legal? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman/union is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement. After perusal of record it appears that none is present on behalf of the parties since
13/11/2020 i.e. near about 4 years. The reference notification no. 22012/35/2020 (IR(CM-II)) dated
21/08/2020 has been received from the Ministry and has registered vide case no. CGIT/NGP/17/2020-21.
The dispute has been raised by the workman. The Government has already directed the parties for raising the
dispute and to file a statement of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses within 15 days
of the receipt of the order or reference and also to forward the copies of the said statement to which one of
the opposite parties involved in the dispute. But from the date of registration of reference of this Court no
parties turned up to prove his case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the
parties till date. It appears that both the parties are not interested to contest the case referred by the Ministry.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Sub Area, Post & Tah.
Umrer, Distt. Nagpur through the Sub Area Manager in denying to give promotion as EP Welder Gr.
B to Shri Santosh Vishwas is just fair & Legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 312.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a24/2017-
18) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/107/2016-
(बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2017-18) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Hyderabad their workmen
[No. L-12012/107/2016– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
885
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/24/2017-18
Date: 31.01.2025.
Party No.1:
1) The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Sengaon Branch, Nagnath Road, Sengaon,
Distt. Hingoli (M.S.) - 431542
2) Sh. Deepak Ramanna Ratnalu,
Contractor, Mauli Tea House, Akola Road,
Near State Bank of Hyderabad, Hingoli
Distt.Hingoli.
V/s.
Party No.2:
Sh. Dinesh Bajrang Paighaan,
R/o At Post: Jaipur, Tah. Sengaon,
Distt. Hingoli (M.S) - 431542
AWARD
(Dated: 31st January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Br.
Sengaon, Distt. Hingoli and their workman, Shri. Dinesh Bajrang Paighan for adjudication, as per letter
No. L-12012/107/2016 (IR(B-I)) dated 17.10.2017, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Br. Sengaon, Distt.
Hingoli, in terminating the service of the Sh. Dinesh Bajrang Paighan w.e.f. August, 2015 is just fair &
legal? If not, to what relief Shri Dinesh Bajrang Paighan is entitled to?‖
2.
Case called out. None appeared on behalf of both the parties. Petitioner as well as his counsel is not
appearing before the Court since 05/08/2019 i.e. near about six years. Though statement of claim has been
filed by the petitioner No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner in support of his statement of claim.
No written statement is also filed by the management.
3.
As the petitioner is not coming since long shows that petitioner is not interested to contest the case
and do not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Br. Sengaon, Distt. Hingoli, in
terminating the service of the Sh. Dinesh Bajrang Paighan w.e.f. August, 2015 is just fair & legal. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 313.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a04/2021-
22) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-
(बी-I)-25]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2021-22) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Reserve Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-25]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2021-22
Date: 04.02.2025
Party No.1:
1) The Manager,
M/s M.K. Enterprises, Proprietor,
Branch Office: House No. G-21,
Behind Maharaja Shuttewrs,
Ghat Road, Nagpur (M.S.).
2) The Manager,
M/s M.K. Enterprises, Proprietor,
Plot No. 189, Teacher Colony,
Tajbagh, Nagpur – 440024.
3) The Additional General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India,
P.B. No. 15, Dr. Raghavendra Rao Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001.
V/s.
Party No.2:
Shri Pralhad Santosh Tekade
& 2 others, R/o Plot No. 53,
Savita Society, Zingabai Takli,
Nagpur - 440030
AWARD
(Dated: 04th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s M.K. Enterprises,
Contractor, and Reserve Bank of India, and their workmen, Shri Pralhad Santosh Tekade, Shri Akash
Rameshwar Utkhede & Shri Manish Janrao Thakre for adjudication, as per letter No.N-8(05)/2021-ID/IR
dated 26.03.2021, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action M/s M.K. Enterprises, Contractor, House No. G-21, Behind Maharaja
Shuttewrs, Ghat Road, Nagpur and the Management of Reserve Bank of India, P.B. No. 15, Dr.
Raghavendra Rao Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur in not reinstating the workman Shri Pralhad Santosh
Tekade, Shri Akash Rameshwar Utkhede & Shri Manish Janrao Thakre over the alleged illegal
termination from the service w.e.f. 01/08/2020 are just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?‖
2. Case called out. Representative of Management Shri Shivdas Rathod, Assistant Manager is present before
the Court. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Though notice was issued to the petitioners and
acknowledgement is received by this office, petitioners are not appearing before the Court since beginning.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
887
No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by parties. No evidence was also adduced by the
petitioners to establish their claim.
3.
As the petitioners are not coming since long shows that they are not interested to contest the case
and do not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed.
The case of the petitioners is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action M/s M.K. Enterprises, Contractor, House No. G-21, Behind Maharaja Shuttewrs,
Ghat Road, Nagpur and the Management of Reserve Bank of India, P.B. No. 15, Dr. Raghavendra
Rao Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur in not reinstating the workman Shri Pralhad Santosh Tekade, Shri
Akash Rameshwar Utkhede & Shri Manish Janrao Thakre over the alleged illegal termination from
the service w.e.f. 01/08/2020 are just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 314.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a34/2014)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/50/2014-
(बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 34/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
State Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12012/50/2014 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/34/2014
Date: 21.01.2025.
Party No.1:
1) The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Shyam Vatsa,
Doctor‘s Lane, Vazirabad,
Nanded (M.S.) 431601
2) The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Regional Office, New Mondha,
Nanded (M.S.) 431601
V/s.
Party No.2:
Sadashiv s/o Narayan Hanumante
Aged about 47 years, Occ- presently Nil
R/O Samta Nagar, Pawdewadi Naka
P.O. Yashwant Nagar, Nanded (M.s)
Pin 431601
888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Dated: 21st January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their
workman, Shri Sadashiv Narayan Hanmante for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/50/2014-IR (B-I)
dated 27.10.2014, with the following schedule:-
1. ―Whether the applicant Shri Sadashiv Narayan Hanmante is a workman.
2. Whether the action of the management to terminating him from service orally is legal and
justified. If not, to what relief Shri Sadashiv Narayan Hanmante is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed
statement of claim and management filed written statement. Petitioner also files rejoinder, evidence on
affidavit and some documents on record.
3.
Today the case called out. Learned Counsel for the Respondent is present before the court.
Petitioner and his counsel are absent today. Previously on 03.03.2020 Petitioner has filed some documents
with application no. I.A. No.1, but the papers are not proved and no other evidence has been filed by the
petitioner till date. Statement of claim is not proved by the petitioner. As the petitioner is absent since long
it appears that he is not interested to contest the case and did not want to proceed with the reference, so it was
closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The applicant Shri Sadashiv Narayan Hanmante is a workman is not proved. The action of
the management of terminating him from service orally is legal and justified. Shri Sadashiv Narayan
Hanmante is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 315.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a35/2014)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/51/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 35/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
State Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12012/51/2014 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/35/2014
Date: 21.01.2025.
Party No.1:
1) The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai (M.S)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
889
2) The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Shyam Vatsa,
Doctor‘s Lane, Vazirabad,
Nanded (M.S.)
V/s.
Party No.2:
Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehboob,
Aged about-61 Yrs., Occ-Presently Nill,
R/o Islampur, Nanded
(M.S)-431601
AWARD
(Dated: 21st January, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their
workman, Shri Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehboob for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/51/2014-IR (B-I)
dated 27.10.2014, with the following schedule:-
1. ―Whether the applicant Shri Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehaboob is a workman.
2. Whether Shri Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehboob has worked for 240 days continuously in a
calendar year.
3. Whether the action of the management of terminating him from service orally is legal and
justified. If not, to what relief Shri Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehboob is entitled to?‖
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed
statement of claim and management filed written statement. Petitioner also files rejoinder, evidence on
affidavit and some documents on record.
3.
Today the case called out. Learned Counsel for the Respondent is present before the court.
Petitioner is not coming since 02.12.2021.Only on 10.10.2024 learned counsel for petitioner was present, but
today he is also not present. Petitioner has filed some documents with application no. I.A. No.6, but the
papers are not proved and no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner till date. Statement of claim is
not proved by the petitioner. As the petitioner is absent since long it appears that he is not interested to
contest the case and did not want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The applicant Shri Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehaboob is a workman is not proved. Shri Shaikh
Hamid Shaikh Mehboob has worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year is not proved. The
action of the management of terminating him from service orally is legal and justified. Shri Shaikh
Hamid Shaikh Mehboob is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 316.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनउ ds iapkV (a67/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/58/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 67/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of North Eastern Railway and their workman.
[No. L-41011/58/2013 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 67/2013
Ref. No. L-41011/582013-IR(B-I) dated: 18.10.2013
BETWEEN
Shri Parvez Aalam, Mandal Sangathan Mantri, Uttar Railway Karmachari Union, 283/63 KH, Garhi Kannora
(Premvati Nagar), PO: Manak Nagar, Lucknow-11
AND
Sr. Divisional Personnal Officer, North Eastern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow
AWARD
By order No. L-41011/582013-IR(B-I) dated: 18.10.2013 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this CGIT, Lucknow in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government,
with following schedule:
“क्या उत्तर रेऱवे प्रबंधन, ऱखनऊ द्वारा अऩने कममकार श्री आर०के० ममश्रा, जे० ई०-11/ टी. एस. उत्तर रेऱवे /
ऱखनऊ को कननष्ठ कममकार श्री ए० के० ममश्रा के ऊऩर दि० 30-12-2010 से ऩडोनननि न दिया जाना उचिि
एवम् वैधाननक है? यदि नहीं िो कामगार क्या दहि ऱाभ प्राप्ि करने का ऩात्र है ?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 67/2013 has been registered.
On 22.01.2014 claimant filed claim statement with following prayer:
“ववनम्रिाऩूवमक ननवेिन है कक कममकार श्री, आर०के० ममश्रा को कननष्ठ कममकार ए०के० ममश्रा के उऩर वेिन
आदि सभी दहि ऱाभों सदहि दि० 30/12/2010 से एस०एस०ई० के ऩि ऩर ऩिोन्ननि प्रिान करने हेिु अवाडम
ऩाररि करने की कृऩा करें। महान कृऩा होगी।”
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 119/22.06.2015, denying the claim of the
workman.
Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder on 03.08.2015 and evidence in support of his cased vide affidavit dated
18.01.2018.
After filing of the evidence on affidavit, the workman did not turned for his cross-examination, in spite of
several opportunities given to workman, he did not turn for his cross-examination.
Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid
by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
891
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, Ghaziabad 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.”
And by the 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;
wherein it has been 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.”
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable
to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
13th January, 2025
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 317.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a02/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/76/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of
Baroda and their workman.
[No. L-12011/76/2014 – IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE
―Shram Sadan‖,
G G Palya, Tumkur Road,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022
DATED
: 4th DECEMBER 2024
PRESENT : Smt. K. P. INDIRA B.A., LLB.
Presiding Officer
C R No. 02/2015
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
Bank of Baroda
Employees Union,
C/o Bank of Baroda, K
G Road,
BANGALORE – 560 009.
The Deputy General Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,
III Floor, Lexington Avenue,
Brigade Road,
BANGALORE – 560 025.
Appearances
I Party :
Shri Muralidhara
Advocate
II Party :
Shri Ramesh Upadhayaya
Advocate
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12011/76/2014-IR(B-II) dated
02/08.01.2015 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ―The Act‖) (14 of 1947)
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Bangalore in refusing to regularize
Shri Praveen B and 17 other workmen, mentioned in the annexure to the dispute raised by the
Union is legal and justified. What relief are they entitled for?‖
2.
After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 18.03.2015 and Claim Statement
was filed by the 1st Party on 16.03.2017 and Counter Statement of the II Party was filed on 17.11.2020.
Then the matter was posted for cross-examination of WW 1 as the 1st Party filed his Affidavit in lieu of
his examination-in-chief on 15.11.2019 and got marked Ex W-1 to Ex W-8. When the matter stood
thus the 1st Party Union General Secretary along with his Counsel on 03.12.2024 filed a memo stating
that a comprehensive dispute has been raised for regularization of 292 casual employees in which the
all the 18 casual employees of this dispute are also included and hence, requested the claim to be closed
as not pressed.
3.
Perused the records. The 1st Party Union has filed a Memo dated 03.12.2024 which bears the
signature of the 1st Party Union and counter signed by the learned counsel for the 1st Party on record.
Therefore, in view of the above, the Memo is recorded and prayer is allowed. The reference is thus
dismissed as not pressed. Transmit.
AWARD
Reference is dismissed as not pressed.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 4th December 2024)
K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
893
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 318.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a02/2016-
17) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/6/2016-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2016-17) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Union Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12012/6/2016 – IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/02/2016-17
Date: 17.02.2025.
Party No.1:
Shri Gajanan S/O Mahadeorao Mapale,
R/o Kachari Sawanga,
Tah. Katol
Distt. Nagur.
V/s
Party No.2:
The Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Kakchari Sawanga Branch,
Tahsil-Katol Distt. Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 17th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their
workman, Shri. Gajanan S/o Mahadeorao Maple for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/6/2016 (IR(B-
II)) dated 31.03.2016, with the following schedule:-
Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, through Branch Manager,
Branch Kachari Sawanga, Tahsil-Katol Distt. Nagpur in terminating the service of Shri. Gajanan S/o
Mahadeorao Mapli is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖
2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. Dadu Sachdeva is present before the
Court. None is present on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since
09/04/2020. IA no. 2 is pending for disposal but none is present to press this application on behalf of
petitioner. Hence application IA no. 2 is rejected being not pressed. Although petitioner and respondent has
filed their respective statement of claim and counter claim. Petitioner has filed his affidavit on 11/12/2017
but contents of the affidavit and claim are not proved by the petitioner. No other evidence has been filed by
the petitioner to prove his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved so it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Union Bank of India, through Branch Manager, Branch
Kachari Sawanga, Tahsil-Katol Distt. Nagpur in terminating the service of Shri. Gajanan S/o
Mahadeorao Mapli is just fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 319.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a56/2014-15)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/74/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Bank of Maharashtra their workmen.
[No. L-12012/74/2014 – IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/56/2014-15
Date: 10.02.2025.
Party No.1:
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office,
Nagpur Region, Mahabank Building,
Dr. Munje Marg, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur – 440012.
V/s
Party No.2:
Shri Tulsiram S/o Shriman Raut,
R/o Saundad, Tehsil: Sadak Arjuni,
Distt. Gondia.
AWARD
(Dated: 10th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch
Saundad and their workman, Shri Tulsiram S/o Shriman Raut, for adjudication, as per letter
No.12012/74/2014 (IR(B-II)) dated 06.01.2015, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Saundad,
terminating the service of Shri Tulsiram S/o Shriman Raut and denying the claim of applicant for
reinstatement in service is just fair & legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?‖
2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel Renuka Puranik Nalanwar has filed vakalatnama today on
behalf of the Respondent. None is present on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner as well as the
Respondent are not attending the Court since 27.02.2020. Only today Counsel for the Respondent is present
before the Court. Petitioner has filed his statement of claim on 14.01.2019 but no written statement has been
filed by the Respondent till today. No evidence has been filed by the Petitioner to establish his say/claim.
Contents of the statement of claim are not proved by any evidence available on record. Petitioner is not
attending the Court since 27.02.2020. Petitioner is not interested to contest the case. Case is not proved so it
is closed.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Saundad, terminating the
service of Shri Tulsiram S/o Shriman Raut and denying the claim of applicant for reinstatement in
service is just fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
895
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 320.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a87/2018-
19) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/56/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.87/2018-19) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Union Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12012/56/2018 – IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/87/2018-19
Date: 04.02.2025.
Party No.1:
1) The Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Tiroda Branch, Tah. Tiroda,
Distt. Gondia – 441911
2) The General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Branch: Tiroda, Tah. Tiroda,
Distt. Gondia - 441911
V/s.
Party No.2:
Shri Ravindra Baburao Chachane,
R/o At. Sarra, Post : Kodelohara,
Tah. Tiroda,
Distt. Gondia - 441911
AWARD
(Dated: 04th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred
the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Union Bank of India, Tiroda
Branch and their workman, Shri. Ravindra Baburao Chachane for adjudication, as per letter No. L-
12012/56/2018 (IR(B-II)) dated 11.02.2019, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the respondents management i.e., Union Bank of India, Tiroda
Branch, Tah. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia through its Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Tiroda
Branch, Tah. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia through its General Manager in terminating the services of Shri
Ravindra Baburao Chachane w.e.f. 16/12/2017 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?‖
2.
Case called out. Petitioner is not coming since 01/09/2021. Learned Counsel for the respondent is
present before the Court. Statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties and
petitioner has also filed rejoinder and affidavit as evidence. But petitioner has not turned up to prove the
contents of the affidavit filed by him as well as contents of statement of claim and rejoinder.
3.
As the petitioner is not coming since long shows that petitioner is not interested to contest the case
and do not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed.
896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the respondents management i.e., Union Bank of India, Tiroda Branch, Tah.
Tiroda, Distt. Gondia through its Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Tiroda Branch, Tah. Tiroda,
Distt. Gondia through its General Manager in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Baburao
Chachane w.e.f. 16/12/2017 is just, fair and legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 321.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
”
ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a34/2021)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/47/2021-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 34/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Western Railway their workmen.
[No. L-41011/47/2021 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 19th December, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 34 / 2021
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380016
............. First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri R. S. Sisodiya
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
897
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/47/2021-IR (B-I) dated
16.11.2021 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of Railway Administration in transferring Mr. Pradeep Dambre, SSC (Drawing)
from Ahmedabad to Valsad and back to Ahmedabad within a period of 6 months and further reverted
him to the lower post of Jr. Engineer and placing him at bottom seniority of Jr. Engineer is fair, legal
and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 29th November, 2021. The second party submitted
statement of claim on 16.02.2023. The case is listed for filing of written statement by the first party.
2. The matter is taken up today. None present on behalf of the first party. Shri R. S. Sisodiya, General
Secretary of union is present on behalf of claimant with his workman. He filed withdrawal
application at Ex. 8.
3. The application Ex. 8 is allowed. As the claim of the second party has been withdrawn by him, it is
established that there is no claim pending from the second party against first party management.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering ―no claim‖ filed by the second party.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI , Presiding Officer (I/c)
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 322.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj सेंरल बैंक ऑफ आंजडया ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a37/2022)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/69/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 37/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
Central Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12011/69/2022 – IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 37 OF 2022
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
1. Central Bank of India, and
2. M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Bank Employees‘ Federation, West Bengal.
898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance :
On behalf of Central Bank of India: Absent.
On behalf of M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd.: Absent.
On behalf of the Union
: Mr. Sudipta Saha Roy, Authorised Representative.
Dated: 28th January, 2025
AWARD
By order no. L-12011/69/2022 IR(B-II) dated 12-08-2022, Central Government, Ministry of
Labour and Employment, in exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of the I.D. Act,
1947 has referred the following issue to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd., contractor
of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kolkata in retrenching Sri Chiranjit Banerjee, Security Guard
without paying him retrenchment compensation as per I.D. Act, 1947 is fair, legal and justified? If not, what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖
The facts giving rise to the present case is that Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kolkata had
sourced out the job of security guards and as such it had engaged M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt.
Ltd., a service provider, for supply of security guards at its establishment.
It is the case of the workman that Central Bank of India has a training college at Salt Lake with
hostel facilities. That Security Guards are deployed in such training college, in order to guard such
establishment of the bank. Thus, he was engaged by M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd as a
Security Guard and posted at such training college. He has further alleged that he was working as a Security
Guard in such training college of bank since 18-11-2010 and worked under different contractors engaged by
the bank and lastly he was engaged by M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd. on 01-03-2015. That he
discharged his duty with utmost sincerity and diligently. Unfortunately, he was served with a show cause
notice on 11-09-2020 by his employer for damaging its reputation and called for explanation. That he
submitted explanation on 15-09-2020, but the employer not being satisfied with his explanation placed him
under suspension for the period from 17-09-2020 to 23-09-2020 by issuing an order dt. 16-09-2020.
That on expiry of such suspension period he approached the employer to permit him to resume his
duty, but his employer sent him for medical test at ESI Hospital. That on the medical fitness report he went
to join his duty but his employer served him with a transfer order dt. 23-09-2020 asking him to join Central
Bank of India, Regional Office, Durgapur.
It has been alleged by him that he went to Durgapur to join his duty on several occasion but
management of the bank did not allow him to join his duty on the plea that the bank already has a security
guard. That he could not join the place of his transfer as his transfer order was designed and implemented by
his employer with sole purpose to retrench him from the service. Thus, he alleged that was illegally
retrenched from the service without adhering the provisions of section 25-F of I.D. Act and prayed for
declaration that his retrenchment to void ab initio and for payment of compensation u/s 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
Record shows that M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd. has failed to appear and contest the
claim of the workman despite due service of notice upon it and as such it has been proceeded exparte.
The case of the workman has been contested by the principal employer bank by filing written
statement, where it has categorically alleged that it had no relationship of employer and employee in between
it and the concerned workman as concerned workman was engaged as a Security Guard by its service
provider/ contractor engaged by it for supply of security guards at its establishment.
That it was the prerogative right of the contractor/ employer to decide whom to retain or to retrench
from the service. That it cannot be held responsible for the decision taken by the contractor employer in
respect of the employees employed by contractor or for retrenchment of the concerned workman, an
employee of its contractor. It has also alleged that employees supplied by contractors are controlled and
supervised by the contractor and not by it. Therefore, it has alleged that the present case is not maintainable
against it and has prayed for dismissal of the same. Ultimately, bank too failed to proceed with the case and
as such the present case has been proceeded exparte against it.
That concerned workman to prove his case has examined himself as a witness before this Tribunal
and he has produced following documents in support of his claim and case:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
899
1. Copy I.D. Card issued to workman by Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd. as Exb.W-1.
2. Copy of workman‘s petition dt. 15-09-2020 to the management of Vaishali Security
Investigation Pvt. Ltd. as Exb.W-2.
3. Copy of letter dt. 16-09-2020 addressed to workman by Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt.
Ltd. as Exb.W-3.
4. Copy of letter dt.24-09-2020 of Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd. to Medical
Superintendent, ESI Hospital as Exb.W-4.
5. Copy of OPD slip of workman issued by ESI Hospital on 28-09-2020 as Exb.W-5.
6. Copy of prescription of workman dt.25-09-2020 issued by ESI Hospital as Exb.W-6.
7. Copy of transfer order of workman dt.23-09-2020 issued by Vaishali Security Investigation
Pvt. Ltd. as Exb.W-7.
8. Copy of train tickets and bus ticket dt.05-10-2020, 06-11-2020 are marked as Exb.W-8, 8/A,
8/B and 8/C.
9. Copy of representations of workman dt.24-10-2020 and 30-09-2020 to the Chairman of
Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd. are marked as Exb.W-9 and W-9/A
10. Copy of my Provident Fund slips are collectively marked as Exb.W-10.
11. Copy of union‘s letter dt.04-01-2021 to DLC ( C), Kolkata is marked as Exb.W-11.
12. Copy of conciliation proceeding dt.23-02-2021, 06-04-2022 and 09-06-2022 are marked as
Exb.W-12, W-12/A and 12/B.
13. Copy of conciliation failure report dt. 22-06-2022 as Exb.W-13 and
14. Copy of agreement executed between Central Bank of and M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation
Pvt. Ltd as Exb.W-14.
Having regards to the pleadings of the parties, oral and documentary evidence adduced by workman and
submission made by authorised representative of union, it appears that Central Bank of India had outsourced
the job of security guards at its establishment. From Exb.W-14 dt. 06-07-2020, it appears the agreement
which the bank had with M/s. Vaishali Security Investigation Pvt. Ltd. was further renewed for deployment
of 4 security guards at its Zonal Office building for the period from 01-06-2020 to 31-05-2021 on terms and
conditions contained in the agreement.
From the documents that have been produced and exhibited by the workman it appears that
workman was served with a was show cause and placed under suspension, when he was found in sleeping
condition during duty hours on 11-09-2020. That he was placed under suspension for the period from 17-09-
2020 to 23-09-2020. That before permitting him to rejoin his duty as a security guard on expiry of
suspension period, he was sent for medical fitness at ESI hospital. The Doctor of ESI Hospital had declared
the workman fit for normal activities. Then he was transferred from bank‘s Training College at Salt Lake to
Regional Office, Durgapur on 23-09-2020 and directed him to join immediately at his new place of posting.
The copy of workman‘s letter dt. 30-09-2020 addressed to the employer shows that he would be able to
join his new place of posting only in between 4th to 10th October, 2020 and also sought leave in between 4th
to 10th October, 2020.
The workman to prove that he went to join his new place of posting on 04-10-2020, 05-10-2020 and on
06-11-2020 have produced CTC Bus and South Bengal State Transport Corpn. Bus Tickets. That he in his
letter dt. 14-10-2020 addressed to the employer shows that he went to join his new place of posting on 05-
09-2020 but he was not allowed to join by another security guard Sri Arup Kar and his men and as such he
informed about such incident to Sri Ravi K. Govind and union on 06-10-2020 and 10-10-2020, but he failed
to file copy of such letters as mentioned above, to prove that he was sincere and diligent in complying the
transfer order with immediate effect as desired by his employer.
It is true whatever evidence that have come on record stands unchallenged as both the employers have
failed to contest the case but whatever documents that have come on record show that the workman was
show caused for dereliction of duty as he being a security guard was found sleeping during duty hour.
That transfer order dt. 23-09-2020 shows that he was transferred to Regional Office, Durgapur in view
of paragraph 2 of renewal work order dt. 12-07-2020 that was executed in between principal employer and
contractor employer. That he was transferred in place of one Sri Arup Kar with immediate effect.
900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is very interesting to note from Exb. W-9/A dt. 30-09-2020, that workman wanted to join his new
place of posting as per his convenience and desire and on the date of his choice, when the transfer order
invariably directed him to join his new place of posting immediately. He in such letter had informed the
management that he would join in between 4th October, 2020 to 10th October, 2020 and at the same time he
has sought leave for the period from 4th October, 2010 to 10th October,2020. So, it is not known what he
actually wanted.
The bus tickets show he is a resident of Barasat, North 24 Parganas and earlier he was posted at
Training College of the bank situated at Salt Lake, which is within the district of North 24 Parganas and
distance of around 20 K.M. Further, he had sought change in his transfer order from Durgapur to Regional
Office at Kolkata.
Such conducts on the part of the workman proves that he being an employee of a contractor in the
capacity of a Security Guard lacks sense of responsibility and he wants to discharge his duty not as per the
terms and conditions and convenience of the person for whom he was engaged to work as a security guard.
The job of a security guard in a bank is a responsible job, but the attitude and conduct of the concerned
workman reflected above proves he is not a fit person for the job of a security guard.
No doubt, the bus tickets show that he went to join his new place of posting, not immediate after getting
the transfer order on 23-09-2020 but on 5th/6th October, 2020 and thereafter one month‘s later on 06-11-2020.
Such conduct further proves irresponsible, no care attitude of the workman as a security guard and least
adherence to the transfer order.
However, no cogent and corroborative evidence have come on record to prove indeed the workman was
prevented and threatened to join his new place of posting by Sri Arup Kar and his men as he has failed to
produce any police complaint to that effect or any witness to that effect, rather it can be inferred from his
conducts mentioned above that he being a resident of Barasat, North 24 Parganas was not willing to join at
Durgapur as a security guard. The job of security guard of a bank cannot be discharged by commuting daily
from Barasat to Durgapur. That security guard of a bank has to discharge duty on shift by doing day duty or
night duty. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the workman that he was prevented
from joining as a security guard at Durgapur Regional Office. For the sake of argument even if we assume
that he was threatened and prevented by Sri Arup Kar, another security guard of same agency, then he could
have brought such fact to the notice of the management of the Bank at Durgapur, in whose establishment he
was to join and work, but he has failed to produce any petition to that effect filed before the bank authority in
this Tribunal. Having regard to such facts this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of workman that he
was terminated from the service in the guise of transfer order by his employer, rather it appears he
voluntarily did not join his new place of posting. If the job was so essential to him then he would have made
an effort to join the duty immediate after the issue of transfer order on 23-09-2020, but the bus tickets filed
by him show he went to Durgapur on 5th and 6th October, 2020 and one month thereafter i.e. on 06-11-2020
and which prove he was not interested or keen to join at Durgapur, a distant place from his residence at
Barasat.
In view of the above, this Tribunal holds that there was no retrenchment of the concerned workman by
his employer as alleged by him, rather it appears he voluntarily failed to join his assignment at new place
and as such he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, Reference No.37 of 2022 is
dismissed and an award to that effect is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 323.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj अयुध जनमाचणी बोडच ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a31/2023)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-26]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
901
Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
Ordinance Factory Board their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR (B-I)-26]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 31 OF 2023
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Ordinance Factory Board.
Versus
Smt. Arunima Karmakar & Ors.
Appearance:
On behalf of Ordinance Factory Board: Mr. Bikramjit Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of Smt. Arunima Karmakar & Ors: Mr.Debraj Mallick . Ld. Advocate.
Dated: 5th February, 2025.
AWARD
By order No. Kol-700020/18/2023-Dy. CLC (C) dated 29-11-2023, the Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Kolkata in exercise of power conferred under section 12 (5) read with sub-section
(2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and in view of notifications of the Government of
India Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O.1262 (E ) and 1263( E ) both dated 17-03-23 has referred
the following issue for determination to this Tribunal :-
―Whether the action of the management of Directorate of Ordinance (Coordination & Services),
Ordinance Factory Board, Kolkata in terminating the Stenographers without giving any advance notice and
not regularising in service is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?‖
However, all six workmen have filed six separate withdrawal applications supported by affidavit
and where they have stated that they want to withdraw the case voluntarily and without any undue influence
as they are contemplating to seek relief in some other alternative forum.
Ld. Counsels for both sides are present. The withdraw petitions are taken up for consideration. Ld.
Counsel for Ordinance Factory Board, Govt. of India raises no objection and submits, he has no objection if
the workmen are allowed to withdraw the dispute which they have raised before Labour Commissioner and
referred by Ministry of Labour.
Since all the six workmen do not want to proceed with the dispute referred by Dy. CLC, Kolkata in
exercise of power conferred u/s 12(5) read with section 10(2) (a) of the I.D. Act and by virtue of gazette
notification dt.17-03-2023 issued u/s 3(ii) and as such their prayers are considered and allowed as they want
to seek relief in some other forum.
Accordingly the Reference Case No.31/2023 stands withdrawn and disposed of. An award to that
effect is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 324.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj कंटेनर कॉृोरेिन ऑफ आंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds
iapkV (a15/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-27]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2025
S.O. 324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
Container Corporation of India Limited their workmen.
[F. No. L-12025/01/2025- IR (B-I)-27]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
CGIT. NO. 15 OF 2018
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
1. Container Cooperation of India Limited, and
2. M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corporation Limited.
Versus
Sri Janardan Giri
Appearance:
On behalf of Container Cooperation of India Limited: Mr. Debasish Sarkar , Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corporation Limited: Absent.
On behalf of the Workmen : Mr. Saibal Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.
Dated: 28th January, 2025
AWARD
This case is u/s 2A of I.D. Act, filed by the workman Sri Janardan Giri,
challenging his termination from the service as an Armed Security Guard or Gunman.
The facts giving rise to the present case is that Container Cooperation of India Limited had sourced
out the job of security guards and incidental services at its establishments at its Container Terminal to the
DGR sponsored agencies. That it had an agreement with M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corporation Limited,
one of the DGR sponsored agencies for supply of security guards, Gunmen and Supervisor initially for a
period of two years w.e.f. 01-04-2015 to 31-03-2017 and later such agreement was extended w.e.f. 01-04-
2017 till 30-09-2017.
It is the case of the workman that all along he worked in the establishment of Container Cooperation
of India Limited under its different contactors from April, 2005 and lastly under M/s. Bengal Sainik
Punervas, as a Gunman.
That all on a sudden and without serving any show cause notice or termination notice, he was
terminated from the service by the Supervisor Mr. Halder w.e.f. 01-11-2017. He has alleged that before such
termination no charge sheet was issued, no domestic enquiry was held and without giving him any
opportunity of being heard, he was terminated from the service. He has alleged that his such termination is in
violation of principle of natural justice and provisions of section 2(oo), 25-F and 25-H of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
Therefore, he has prayed for declaration that his termination to be illegal, for reinstatement in
service with full back wages or to grant any other relief to which he is entitled.
Record shows that M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. has failed to appear and contest the
claim of the workman despite due service of notice upon it and as such it has been proceeded exparte.
The case of the workman has been contested by the principal employer by filing written statement,
where it has categorically alleged that it had no relationship of employer and employee in between it and the
concerned workman as concerned workman was engaged as a Gunman by its service provider/ contractor
engaged by it for supply of security guards and Supervisors at its establishment at Container Terminal,
Kolkata.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
903
That the contract which it had with M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. was for limited period
and had come to an end on expiry of the period of contract on 30-10-2017. It has also alleged that initially
there was a contract for supply of 39 men power and later as per the requirement the number has been
decreased to 34. That as per contract the contractor employer supplied required 34 nos. of securities. That it
was the prerogative right of the contractor/ employer to decide whom to retain or to retrench from the
service. That it cannot be held responsible for the decision taken by the contractor employer in respect of the
employees employed by contractor or for retrenchment of the concerned workman an employee of its
contractor. It has also alleged that employees supplied by contractors are controlled and supervised by the
contractor and not by it. Therefore, it has alleged that the present case is not maintainable against it and has
prayed for dismissal of the same.
That concerned workman to prove his case has examined himself as a witness before this Tribunal
and he has produced following documents in support of his claim and case:-
1. Copy of union‘s letter dt.30-11-2017 to Labour Commissioner(C ) as Exb.W-1.
2. Copy of certificate issued by Conciliation Officer u/s 2A of the I.D. Act as Exb.W-2.
3. Four copies of I.D. Card issued by Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd., Assembly of Elite Guards,
Nezons and Metropolis Security Service to the concerned workman as Exb.W-3 to 3/3.
4. Copy of salary statements issued by Assembly of Elite Guards in between October, 2010 to March,
2015 and Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. in between June, 2015 to November, 2017 as Exb.W-
4 collectively.
5. Copy of proceedings before ALC (C), Kolkata in connection of Case no. 5/11/2018 in four sheets
as
Exb.W-5 to Exb W-5/B and
6. Copy of union‘s letter dt. 20-04-2018 and 06-04-2018 to the Management of principal employer as
Exb.W-6 and 6/A.
On the other hand Container Corporation, principal employer has examined Sri Manoranjan Pattanayak,
Terminal in Charge of C.T.K.R. Terminal as M.W.1 and he has produced following documents :-
1. Copy of agreement dt. 30-03-2015 along with letter dt. 30-10-2017 and letter of authority which
have been marked as Exb.M-1 and M-2.
Having regards to the pleadings of the parties, oral and documentary evidence adduced by them and
submission made by Ld. Counsel for the parties, it appears that Container Cooperation of India Limited
being a Public Sector Undertaking had outsourced the job of security guards at its establishment at Container
Terminal, Kolkata to different contractors as transpired from Exb.W-3 series and Exb.W-4 collectively. That
Identity Cards of the concerned workman issued by different contractors of Container Cooperation and
salary statements show that he was engaged as a Gunman by different contractors of Container Cooperation
sometime in the year 2010 and he lastly worked as a Gunman in the establishment of Container Cooperation
of India Limited as an employee of M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. That he lastly worked till 30-
10-2017.
The workman in his evidence recorded under oath by the Tribunal has candidly admitted that he worked
in the establishment of Container Cooperation of India Limited and he was engaged to work in the
establishment of Container Cooperation of India Limited by different contractors of Container Cooperation
of India Limited as a Gunman /Armed Guard. That he was all along paid salary by the contractors and not by
the principal employer Container Cooperation of India Limited. He has also stated that his work used to be
supervised by the Supervisor engaged by contractors. That his service was terminated by his employer M/s.
Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd., the then contractor of the Container Cooperation of India Limited on
01-11-2017. That he was terminated from the service as he was prevented from joining the duty. That he was
never served with any notice of termination or before termination he was given an opportunity of being
heard.
He has categorically denied the suggestion put by Ld. Counsel for Container Cooperation Ltd. that he
was not retrenched or terminated from the service by M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd., rather he
refused to take a new assignment elsewhere offered to him by his immediate employer M/s. Bengal Sainik
Punervas Corpn. Ltd.
However, workman during his cross examination has admitted that he was never appointed or employed
directly by Container Cooperation of India Limited rather stated that he was terminated from the service by
M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. and not by Container Cooperation of India Limited.
It is true that concerned workman might have worked for Container Cooperation of India Limited as a
Security Guard since 2004 as alleged by him or from 2010 as seen from salary statements filed by him, as an
904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employee under different contractors. So, a presumption can be drawn that he was well aware of the fact that
the contractors who appointed or employed him to work in the establishment of Container Cooperation of
India Limited were/ are not the permanent contractors of Container Cooperation of India Limited or
Container Cooperation of India Limited engage contractors only for limited period i.e. for the period
prescribed in the agreement executed in between Container Cooperation of India Limited and its contractors.
Therefore, it can be presumed that his service period is also confined only to the period of contract executed
in between principal employer and contractor employer who engaged him and provided his service is not
retrenched by his immediate employer on some other ground during the subsistence of period of agreement.
The Exb.M-1 prima facie shows that there was an agreement in between Container Cooperation of India
Ltd. and Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. on 30-03-2015 for supply of 39 men power such as 25 Security
Guards, 11 Gunmen and 3 Supervisors at C.T.K.R. Container Terminal, Kolkata w.e.f. 01-04-2015 to
31-03-2017 for a period of two years on the terms and conditions as laid down therein. It further shows that
M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. was granted contract for supply of men power by Container
Cooperation of India Ltd. on the basis of tender process. It further shows that such agreement was extended
for further period from 01-10-2017 to 30-09-2019 by issuing a letter dt.30-10-2017 by Container
Cooperation of India Limited, Eastern Region Office, Kolkata.
The union‘s letter and copy of the proceeding before the ALC (C ), Kolkata prima facie show that
concerned workman raised an industrial dispute for his illegal termination w.e.f. 01-11-2017 by his
employer.
Therefore, it is seen that M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. terminated the service of the
concerned workman during the subsistence of contact in between it and Container Cooperation of India
Limited.
That the salary statements filed by the workman prima facie shows that he worked for more than 240
days in a calendar year for M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. in the establishment of Container
Cooperation of India Limited as Gunman. In fact salary statement shows that he continuously worked in the
under different contractors since 2010 and under M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. in the years 2015,
2016 and till October, 2017.
Therefore, he having worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year for M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas
Corpn. Ltd. in the establishment of Container Cooperation of India Limited and in view of provisions of
section 25-B of I.D. Act, he is presumed to be in continuous service of M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn.
Ltd. Therefore, before terminating him from the service then his immediate employer ought to have served
him with one month notice indicating the reason for retrenchment. The employer should have given an
opportunity to the workman of being heard. Nothing has come on record to show that workman was paid
wages in lieu of notice or for the period of notice or compensation as provided in section 25-F of the I.D.
Act. In fact it appears that M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd., the employer of the concerned
workman has violated the provisions of section 25-F and retrenched him without following the procedures
laid down in the Act.
In view of above, this Tribunal holds that retrenchment of workman Sri Janardan Giri, by his the then
immediate employer M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd., without complying the provisions of Section
25-F to be illegal. Since M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. has failed to appear and contest the case
and nothing has come on record that it is still running the business of service provider, then it would not be
proper on the part of this Tribunal to direct such employer to reinstate the workman in the service of a
Gunman and ultimately the workman may not get the relief in the form of reinstatement and as such question
of payment of back wages too does not arise. More so, no evidence has come on record to show that after
retrenchment, the workman was not gainfully engaged elsewhere. Further, nothing has come on record to
show that concerned workman is mentally and physically fit to discharge the duty of a Gunman or Armed
Security Guard or he has not attained the age of superannuation as per DGR rules to work as an Armed
Security Guard.
However, the service of workman was terminated in violation of the provisions of section 25-F and as
such M/s. Bengal Sainik Punervas Corpn. Ltd. is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Fifty thousand) only to the workman within two months of passing of this award or publication of the
award whichever is earlier, i.d. the workman shall be liberty to execute the award as per law. Accordingly,
an award to that effect is passed and CGIT-15 of 2018 is disposed of.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2025
का.अ. 325.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
905
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनउ ds iapkV (a53/2014) izdkf”kr
djrh gS
[सं. ,y-12012/96/2010-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 28th February, 2025
S.O. 325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 53/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Union Bank OF India and others.
[F. No.-12012/96/2010-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 53/2014
Ref. No. L-12012/96/2010-IR(B-II) dated: 19.04.2011
BETWEEN
Sh. Anand Swaroop Mani Tripathi, S/o Sh. Udai Narain Tripathi Village Prarepur Mishra, Post
Bahadurpur(Maryadpur Distt. Mau
AND
1. The Chief Manager/Dy. General Manager Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Harihar Prasad Dubey
Marg, Daupur
2. The Branch Manager Union Bank of India, Branch Office, Maryadpur, Distt. Mau
AWARD
By order No. L-12012/96/2010-IR(B-II) dated: 19.04.2011 the present industrial dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this CGIT, Kanpur subsequently transferred to this CGIT, Lucknow vide order
dated 27.08.20104 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:
"Whether Shri Anand Swaroop Mani Tripathi business facilitator appointed by the Union Bank of
India Gorakhpur is a workman under the LD. Act, 1947? If yes, whether the action of the
management of Union Bank of India, Gorakhpur in terminating the services of Shri Anand Swaroop
Mani Tripathi w.e.f. 05.5.2010 is just fair and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 53/2014 has been registered.
On 02.07.2011 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit.
Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent on
25.09.2007 as Business Facilitator; however without following the provision of retrenchment as provided
under section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were
dispensed on 05.05.2010.
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 20.01.2013 in which preliminary objection also
taken by the respondent.
Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder on 13.03.2013 and evidence in support of his cased vide affidavit dated
23.11.2015.
After filing of the evidence on affidavit, the workman did not turned for his cross- examination, in spite of
several opportunities given to workman, he did not turn for his cross-examination.
Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.
906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid
by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) 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, Ghaziabad 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.”
And by the 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;
wherein it has been 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.”
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable
to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
13th January, 2025
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 326.—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 (a08/2015) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-28]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
907
Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of State Bank of Inda their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025-IR (B-I)-28]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/08/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Abdul Wahab
Messenger, State Bank of India
GPO, Indore (M.P.)
Through its General Secretary
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opposite Engineering College
Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Dy. General Manager
State Bank of India,
Administrative Office, 5,
Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (M.P.)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 21st day of January-2025.)
The applicant workman has filed this petition u/s. 2-A(2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in
short the ‗Act‘) against the management of State Bank of India seeking his reinstatement with back wages
and benefits.
After registering the case on the basis of the petition received, Notices were sent to the management
and were duly served on them. They appeared and filed their statements of defense.
In short, the case of the workman is that he has engaged in the Branch by the then Branch Manager
N.T. Sapre on 02.05.1990 as a daily wager and worked continuously thereafter. He was called for interview
by the management Bank which initiated a process for regularization of the daily wagers who had worked in
the Bank for the period at provided in the Circular. He was interviewed by Bank on 20.02.1997, but was not
regularized. On 11.12.1998 he was paid retrenchment compensation Rs. 5040/- by way of Cheque and was
asked by the then Manager in the Branch that his services were to stand terminated from 11.12.1998.
According to the workman, the then Manager assured him to engage him from 01.01.1999 and this
retrenchment compensation was only a camouflage. One Trilok Chand Dhiman who was also a daily wager
engaged by the Bank in Mari Mata Branch Indore was also terminated from 11.12.1998 and retrenchment
compensation was given to him.
It is further the case of the workman that he was reengaged by the Bank in the said Branch from
01.01.1999 and was paid his wages through payment vouchers in the name of stitching of vouchers and
Hammali from Petty Cash though the work of Messenger and other works were taken from him by the
Branch Manager. He thus worked and was paid in this manner till 22.05.2014 and thereafter he was paid his
wages in the name of a bogus firm K.K. Book Binding. He thus worked continuously with the Bank till
26.06.2015 when his services were terminated without any notice or compensation. Also, services of Trilok
Chand Dhiman, a daily wager engaged by Bank after him, were regularized. This action of management is in
violation of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act, hence against law. He raised a dispute within three years of his
termination before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) which could not be conciliated within 45
days, hence this petition. The workman has requested that holding the action of management disengaging
him against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits and also to be
regularized in service.
908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
According to management, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 02.05.1990 his services
were terminated by Bank on 11.12.1998 after paying retrenchment compensation of Rs. 5040/-. Within this
period, he was granted opportunity for regularization and was called for interview by management in this
respect, but after overall assessment, he was found unfit for regularization. It is further the case of
management that, no assurance as claimed by the workman was ever given by any Officer of the Bank nor
has any daily wager engaged later than his engagement as daily wager has been retained by management. It
is further the case of management that after 11.12.1998 he was not engaged by management nor he was
appointed against any post following recruitment process. Also that he never worked for 240 days in any
year after 11.12.1998. Accordingly, the management has sought dismissal of the petition.
In evidence, the workman has proved photocopy documents by way of secondary evidence, which
are Ex. W/1 retrenchment notice, W/2 Cheque of retrenchment compensation, W/3 retrenchment notice and
Cheque of retrenchment compensation with respect to Trilok Chand Dhiman, W/4 is reply of management
filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner with regard to demand of bonus by the management, W/5 the
list of daily wagers prepared in 1993, W/6 letter of management dated 31.01.2005 to Post Master asking him
to deliver some documents mentioned to the workman who was sent by Bank as Messenger. Ex. W/7 to W/9
are three documents to indicate that the workman worked on 25.04.2009 as per W/7, W/8 is undated, W/9 is
the Insurance Form of the workman. Ex. W/10 to W/13 are Cheques for 24.07.1999, 24.11.2009, 02.02.2010,
30.07.2010 and three other Cheques of 2009 and 2010. Ex. W/14 is photocopies of various payment
vouchers from 1992 to 2013 which show that the workman was paid for Hammali and Stitching of Vouchers.
Ex. W/16 and W/17 are Cheques in the name of K.K. Book Binding issued in 2015. The workman filed his
affidavit as examination in chief, he has been cross examined by management.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief. He has been cross
examined by workman side.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel for applicant workman Shri Arun Patel and learned
Counsel Shri Vijay Tripathi for management.
I have gone through the record and the arguments as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination:-
1. Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement, as defined u/s.
25-B of the Act, in the year preceding the date of his termination 26.06.2015 ?
2. Whether the workman has been terminated in violation of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act ?
3. Whether the workman is entitled to relief claimed ?
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
909
(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.
LearndCounsel for workman has referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Director
Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikhu Bhai Meghaji Chawda reported in 2010 SC 1236 and Gauri Shankar
Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 754, wherein it has been held that when the workman was
hired on daily wage basis, he would have difficulty in having access to all official documets, muster roll etc.
in connectin with his service. When the workman claim and deposed that he worked for 240 days, burden of
proof shifts to employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days in requisite period to constitute
continuous service and also that when the muster roll were not produced by management inspite order of
Court adverse inference rightly drawn against management.
Following paragraph from the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Range Forest
Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 are being reproduced as follows:-
This extract is taken from Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25 : 2002 SCC
(L&S) 367 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 226 at page 26
3.
For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the
appellant is an “industry” or not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of
Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar [(2001) 9 SCC 713 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 269 : JT (2001) 3
SC 326] . In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without
first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240
days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked
but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show
that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit
is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any
court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a
year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or
engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is
liable to be set aside. However, Mr Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is
really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on
compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination,
within two months from today.”
State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati, (2021) 3 SCC 108
This extract is taken from State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati, (2021) 3 SCC 108 : (2021) 1 SCC
(L&S) 434 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 34 at page 117
“25.
On the basis of the evidence led before the Labour Court, we hold that the School has
established that the respondent had abandoned her service in 1997, and had never reported back
for work. The respondent has failed to discharge the onus to prove that she had worked for 240
days in the preceding 12 months prior to her alleged termination on 8-3-2006. The onus was
entirely upon the employee to prove that she had worked continuously for 240 days in the twelve
months preceding the date of her alleged termination on 8-3-2006, which she failed to discharge.”
Surendra Nagar District Panchayat Vs. Dayabhai Amar Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 750. The relevant
paragraphs are being reproduced as follows :-
This extract is taken from Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, (2005) 8
SCC 750 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 38 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1536 at page 759
910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“16. In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani [(2002) 3 SCC 25 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 367] (SCC at
p. 26, para 3) this Court held that:
“In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first
determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in
the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim
was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact
worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own
statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to
come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of
salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was
produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
17. More recently, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(2004) 8 SCC
161 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1055] , Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas [(2004) 8 SCC 195 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 1062] and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram [(2004) 8 SCC 246 : 2004 SCC
(L&S) 1092] this Court has reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman to
show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged
retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove
the factum of his being in employment of the employer.
18. In the light of the aforesaid, it was necessary for the workman to produce the relevant material to
prove that he had actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period of
twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. What we find is that apart from the oral
evidence the workman has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that he has worked for 240
days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that regard was produced;
no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by the employer has not been contradicted. It is
improbable that the workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for such a long period
would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of
work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the workman has
failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during the preceding 12
months of the date of termination of his service. The courts below have wrongly drawn an adverse
inference for non-production of the record of the workman for ten years. The scope of enquiry
before the Labour Court was confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination to
decide the question of continuation of service for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The workman has never contended that he was regularly employed in the Panchayat
for one year to claim the uninterrupted period of service as required under Section 25-B(1) of the
Act. In the facts and situation and in the light of the law on the subject, we find that the respondent
workman is not entitled to the protection or compliance with Section 25-F of the Act before his
service was terminated by the employer. As regards non-compliance with Sections 25-G and 25-H
suffice it to say that witness Vinod Misra examined by the appellant has stated that no seniority list
was maintained by the department of daily-wagers. In the absence of regular employment of the
workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on
daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority
list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions
of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority
list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the
court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in
existence and could have been proved.”
Now coming on evidence from the side of workman on this issue, there is on record. Affidavit of
workman as his examination in chief he has been cross examined by management. He admits that the
workman Trilok Chand Dhiman was engaged before his engagement. Also admits that he was not issued any
appointment letter or termination letter.
It comes out from the evidence of the workman that he did receive payments from Bank in the name
of M/s. K.K. Book Binding and this fact has been admitted by him. This is impersonation. The workman
cannot escape from its consequences only by saying that management paid has wages under fake names. If
he received any amount under a fake name, he is a party to an illegal activity. The Photocopy Cheques and
photocopy payment vouches do show that he was paid as Hammal and Binder by Bank, but it does not
establish his case that he worked for 8 hours in a day and for 240 days in a years.
On the basis of above discussion, the workman is held to have failed in proving his continuous
engagement I the Bank for a period of 240 days in a year.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
911
Isssue No.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2 & 3:-
In the light of findings on issue no.1, issue no.-2 & 3 are answered against the workman.
Hence, holding the case of the workman union not proved, the reference deserves to be
answered against the workman and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE: 21/01/2025
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 327.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj नमचदा झाबुअ ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a01/2019) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/14/2017-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Narmada Jhabuaa Gramin Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/14/2017 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/01/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan, F-1,
Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.) - 456010
Workman
Versus
The Chairman,
Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank,
Head Office, 56 Dukan, New Palasia,
Indore(M.P.) - 452001
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 03rd day of Fabuary-2025.)
As per letter dated 18/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
reference number L-12011/14/2017 (IR(B-I)) dt. 18/12/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-
912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
―Whether the following allegations made by the union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan against the management of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank, in the matter of Shri Mohd.
Firdous Sheikh, are amounts to unfair labour practice under I.D Act.?
a) Not giving appointment letter and not giving termination
letter.
h) Payment was not made as per pay scale/skill wage.
c.) Minimum Wages not paid.
d) Muster Roll has not been maintained as per Section 25-D of
ID Act.
e.) Applicants have worked 240 days in a year.
J.) After working for 06 days, the Wages for weekly off and
National Holidays 26th January, 15th Aug were deducted.
If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to? ‖
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly
served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment
of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim.
Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any
of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any
pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the
workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered
accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 03/02/2025
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 328.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj uknZu jsyos 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; लखनउ ds iapkV (a01/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-29]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Northern Railway and others.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-29]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
913
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 01/2021
BETWEEN
रािीव िुक्ला ृुत्र श्री एस०एस० िुक्ला, मकान नं0-548/4, कािीराम योिना, हंसखेड़ा के०एल० कालोनी,
तहसील-लखनउ जिला-लखनउ।
AND
1. िनरल मजनेिर नादचन रेलवे बड़ौदा हाईस, नइ ददल्ली 110001
2. मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक ईत्तर रेलवे हिरतगंि, लखनउ मण्डल। 226001
3. मे० िाजहद फजिान ऄहमद एण्ड ब्रदसच 654 बेगम का मकबरा फजिाबाद िनृद-फजिाबाद।
AWARD
Applicant, Rajeev Shukla, filed present industrial dispute u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947); accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 01/2021 has been registered on 18.01.2021.
Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent no 1;
however without following the provision of retrenchment as provided under section 25(F) of the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were dispensed on 25.04.2009.
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 20.07.2021 in which preliminary objection also
taken by the respondent.
After filing of the written statement by respondent, in spite of opportunities given to workman, he neither
filed rejoinder nor evidence in support of his case on affidavit.
Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid
by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) 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, Ghaziabad 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.”
And by the 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;
wherein it has been held as under:
914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“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.”
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable
to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
16th January, 2025
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 329.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj मेससच सेंरल ऑडचनेंस जडृो िबलृुर 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 (a67/2023)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-31]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 67/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s Central ordance Depot Jabalpur their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-31]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/67/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Mohammad Shamim & 4 Others,
Army Sub Dipot, cod T No 1706 V/m Ranjhi Jabalpur,
Jabalpur, M.P. - 482005
Workman
Versus
M/s Central Ordnance Deport Jabalpur,
COD Jabalpur M.P.
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 30th day of January-2025.)
Vide communication reference number J-5(28)/2022-RLC by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under
section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) The dispute under reference related to :-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
915
―Whether the demand of workmen namely (I) Mohd. Shamin (2) Shri Anil Prajapati (3) Shri
Arun Kumar (4) Shri Vijay Kumar and (5) Shri Ram Pal for posting to their Trade Area of work against
the management of the commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur (M.P.) is legal, fair and justified?
If yes, than what relief Workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly
served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment
of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim.
Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any
of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any
pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the
workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered
accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 30/01/2025
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 330.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj मेससच अयुध जनमाचणी कटनी 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 (a28/2024) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-30]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s Ordnance Factory Katni their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-30]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2024
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Ordnance Factory Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh,
Katni, Eastland, Ordnance Factory, Katni,
Madhya Pradesh - 483501
Workman
916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
M/s Ordnance Factory Katni,
Ordnance Factory, Katni (M.P.)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 30th day of January-2025.)
As per letter dated 24/01/2024 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
reference
number J-5(40)/2023-RLC dt. 24/01/2024. The dispute under reference related to :-
―Whether the charter of demand raised by the President Ordnance Factory Pratiraksha Mazdoor
Sangh, Katni to the management of Ordnance Factory Katni for clubbing/merging of trades from the
management and other demands are justified? If not what relief the members of union are entitled to?‖
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly
served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment
of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim.
Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any
of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any
pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the
workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered
accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 30/01/2025
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 331.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj छत्तीसगढ़ ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a113/2012) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/51/2012-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.113/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Chattisgarh Gramin Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/51/2012 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
917
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/113/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shir Ajay Chandrakar,
S/o Late Shri Jhamuram Chandrakar,
C/o Gajanand Sahu Colony,
Albelapara,
District – Kaner (CG)
Workman
Vs
1.
The Chairman,
Chattisgarh Gramin Bank,
Head Office, Recreation Road,
Chobey Colony,Raipur
2.
The General Manager,
Chattisgarh Gramin Bank,
Regional Office, Hatakchora,
Jagdalpur (Chattisgarh)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 30thday of January-2025)
As per letter dated 11/10/2012 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-12012/51/2012-IR(B-I) dt. 11/10/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Jagadalpur in imposing
the penalty of dismissal upon Shri Ajay Kumar Chandrakar vide their order dated 26/27-10-2009, is legal
and justified? Whether the action of the management of Chhattisgarh, Jagadalpur in not reinstating him
in service with full back wages after his acquittal by the criminal court from the charges on which he was
dismissed, is legal and justified? To what relief Smt. Chauhan is entitled?”
According to the Workman, while he was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Sukma Branch of the
Management Bank, within the period 1984 to 1997, he was alleged to commit certain serious illegalities.
Charge-sheets dated 19.08.1999 and 20.10.2000 were issued against him alleging him to have committed
misconduct by way of receiving deposits from various Account Holders/ Depositors but did not credited the
amount in their accounts nor did he deposits the amount with the Bank. A Departmental Enquiry was
conducted against him, against the principle of natural justice without affording him adequate opportunity of
hearing. He was wrongly held guilty for the charges by the Enquiry Officer. After issuing him a show-cause
notice in the light of Enquiry Report, he was awarded punishment of removal form service under Section 38
(2) ([k) (VI) of the Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2007. The
Appeal preferred by him against the dismissal order was also wrongly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
According to the Workman, the punishment imposed was disproportionate. The Other Officers/ Employees
who were involved in this misconduct were also inquired into separately and were awarded lesser
punishments. Hence, according to the Workman the action of Management is unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
The Workman has thus prayed that holding that action of Management in awarding him punishment of
dismissal from services unjust and against law, he be reinstated with back-wages and benefits.
Case of Management is mainly that, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per rules and
procedures following the Principles of Natural Justice, charges were rightly found proved by the Enquiry
Officer in his enquiry report and the punishment awarded is also proportionate to the charge which is a act of
moral turpitude, also that the other Officers/Officials awarded different punishment in this episode because
the main role was played by the Workman and their role was only lack of supervision.
Vide order dated 13.10.2016, following issues were framed by Learned Predecessor:
1. Whether the enquiry conducted against Workman is just, proper and legal?
918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Whether the charges alleged against Workman are proved from evidences adduced
during enquiry proceedings?
3. Whether punishment of removal from services imposed against workman is arbitrary and
legal?
4. Whether the demand of reinstatement of Workman after his acquittal in Criminal Case is
legal?
5. If not so, what relief the Workman is entitled to?
Issue No. 1 was taken as preliminary Issue. On 19.09.2022, the Learned Counsel for the
Workman did not pressed the Preliminary Issue. Evidences on the parties on other issues was produced by
the parties, the Workman filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He was not cross-examined by the
Management. Management did not filed any affidavit of any witness on their behalf, the Workman filed as
many as 18 photocopy documents as well documents obtain under RTI Act which are mainly related to the
charge, enquiry and punishment order, as well judgment of Criminal Court.
I have heard argument of Mr. Pranay Choubey Learned Counsel for Workman. None appeared
for Management at the stage of arguments. The Workman side has filed written arguments also. I have
perused the Written Arguments as well the record.
Issue No.1 :
Learned Counsel for Workman has not pressed this issue. I have gone through the enquiry
proceedings photocopies of which have been filed by the Workman himself. Perusal of these proceedings
refers that the Workman was given full opportunity to defend himself during the Enquiry he participated in
the enquiry, cross-examined the Witness, pre of defense was also given by the Enquiry Officer. I did not find
any illegality or material irregularity with respect to stance of procedure in the Enquiry conducted hence,
holding the Departmental Enquiry just and legal, this preliminary issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2:
As submitted by Learned Counsel for Workman, the findings of the Enquiry Officer with respect
to proof of charges have been wrongly recorded and are perverse.
The settlement preposition of law with respect to proof of charges in Departmental Proceedings is
that the charges should be proved up to the level of probability and they need not be proved beyond
reasonable doubt as it is required in Criminal Trials.
Charges against the Workman are mainly as follows:
1. The Account Holders mentioned in this charge tender different amounts before the
Workman who was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Bank. This amount was
received by him but it was not entered, not in the concern registers, though entry in the concern
Passbooks of the account holders. These amounts were not deposited with the Bank and
misappropriated by the Workman resulting into financial loss to the Bank.
2. During his posting from September 1994 to July, 1997 the Workman in order to conceal his
misconduct as mention in Charge-sheet Charge No. 1, wrongly prepared Monthly Balance-
sheet, and wrongly survive the deposit of the amounts.
3. The Workman conciliated his these illegal activities from his spheres in order to avoid
punishment.
It comes from perusal of Enquiry Proceeding that the Officer posted in the Branch during the
misconduct was committed by themselves by way of lack of supervision these four such officers deposed
against the Workman. Learned Counsel for Workman has submitted that they were interested in shifting of
the liability over the Workman and the Enquiry Officer committed error in law in relying on their evidences,
while recording his finding regarding prove of charge against the workman. It is to be kept in notice that
nature of the transactions are such that they could easily be deciphered from documents such as Passbooks
where the false entries regarding deposit was made by the workman and the relevant registers in which these
deposits were required to be entered into as well calculation of cash. In an enquiry there is evidence that
entries were made with respect to deposit of the amounts in the passbooks of different account holders but
there is no corresponding entry in the concerned ledger and cash book with respect with respect to these
deposits. The cash was also found deficient.
Since, it is not disputed that it was the Workman, who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier and
was under obligation to receive the amount as well make entry in the Passbook as well relevant registers, it
may be presumed that entries were made in Passbooks and not made in the connected registers by the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
919
Workman. The onus was on the workman during the enquiry to so by evidence that these entries were in fact
not made by him. Hence, another argument by Learned Counsel for the Workman is that the Workman has
been acquitted over full trial in the case arising out of charge-sheet submitted by police after investigation of
FIR‘s relating to these incidents, hence, the finding of enquiry officer cannot be held to be correct.
Learned Counsel for Workman has referred to Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the Case
of Ramlal V.s. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. In this case it has been laid
down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court that if the charges in the departmental enquiry and Criminal Court are
identical or similar and if the evidences, witness, and circumstances are one and same, then the matter
concludes different dimensions. Have the Court in Judicial Review concludes that the acquittal in the
Criminal Proceedings was after full consideration of prosecution evidences and that prosecution miserably
failed to prove the charge, the Court in Judicial Review could maintain readdress in certain circumstances.
The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings
in disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and abrasive. Each case will turn on its own fact.
The facts of the referred case are different from the case in hand. Hence, this decision does not hold
the workman. I am not inclined to accept this argument, because the enquiry was conducted and punishment
order was passed in 2009 where as the judgment of the Criminal Court was pronounce in 2011. The Criminal
Court held the charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Workman was acquitted of the charges
by way of giving him benefit of doubt. As stated earlier, standard of proof with respect to charges in
departmental enquiry is different from that in Criminal Trails. On the basis of above discussions, holding the
finding of Enquiry Officer with respect to prove of charges of misconduct by the Workman as alleged in the
charge-sheet recorded correctly, this issue is answered against the Workman.
Issue No. 3, 4 & 5 –
Since these issues are connected with each other, they are being taken together.
Nature of the charges proved is of severe misconduct. They affect the core integrity of the
Workman. The charges proved are acts of moral turpitude. The service rule provides punishment of dismissal
in case of grave misconduct.
Learned Counsel for Workman has submitted that Bank Officers were also involved in these
charges and were held guilty of these charges in separate enquiry. But they were awarded different
punishments and not dismissal from service. Hence, as submitted by Learned Counsel already who have
maintain in punishment, since the disciplinary authority or appellate authority over looked these fact, and did
not maintain parity in punishment, the punishment is arbitrary.
Learned Counsel for Workman has filed RTI documents with respect to charges and enquiry
conducted against the Bank Officers it comes out that Officer M. Anand Pawar, Vinod Kumar Acharya, and
Himeshlal Rathi were awarded punishment of reduction of their basic pay, to different stages. Also it comes
out that charges against these officers were that they failed to exercise effective supervision over the
Applicant Workman and wrongly verified the ledger and Passbook entries without ensuring that the money,
the amount deposited was in-fact credited in the Bank Records and was deposited with Bank by the
Applicant Workman or not. It is not disputed that the initial job of receiving the amount, as well entering the
amount received in the relevant registers also depositing with the Bank was the primary responsibility of the
Applicant workman. The role of the Officers above mentioned was supervisory. This is also true that had
they been alert and exercised effective supervision, these incidents could not have happened; hence, no doubt
they were also a part of the incidents with the Applicant Workman and deserved serious punishment. But this
fact also is required to be kept in mind that role of the Applicant Workman and these officers were different.
Hence, in the light of above discussion, no parity with respect to punishment could be given to the Workman.
In the light of above findings, the punishment awarded is held not disproportionate to the charge
and the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Issue No. 3,4 & 5 are answered accordingly.
On the basis of above findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of the management of Chhatisgarh Gramin Bank, Jagadalpur in imposing
the penalty of dismissal upon Shri Ajay Kumar Chandrakar vide their order dated 26/27-10-2009, and the
action of the management of Chhatisgarh, Jagadalpur in not reinstating him in service with full back
wages after his acquittal by the criminal court from the charges on which he was dismissed legal and
justified, the Workman is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 30/01/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 332.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a26/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/26/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.26/2014) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Pune as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/26/2014 – IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Presented on : 09.07.2014
Registered on : 09.07.2014
Decided on : 23.01.2025
Duration : 10Y 6M 14D
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT PUNE
BEFORE SHRI. K.N. GAUTAM, PRESIDING OFFICER
Reference (IT) No. 26 of 2014
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Z.O, 11626, Shivajinagar,
University Road, Pune 411 005.
…
First Party
VERSUS
Shri. Sharad Rajaram Khadtare.
Flat No. A-004, Vishalgad Housing Society,
Deshmukh Ali, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Pune.
…
Second Party
CORAM
:- SHRI. K.N. GAUTAM, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PUNE.
APPEARANCES
:- Shri. B.S. Tapasvi, Advocate for the First Party.
Shri. R.P. Shaligram, Advocate for the Second Party.
AWARD
(Dated : 23.01.2025)
This is a reference made by Government of India vide order dated 26.06.2014 under Section
10(1)(d) and 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of that whether the action of management of
Bank of India, Pune in dismissing the service of Shri. Sharad Rajaram Khadatare with effect from 18.10.2000 is
legal and justified? And What relief the workman is entitled to?
Facts of the Second Party :
2.
The Second Party filed its statement of claim and contended that he was working with the First Party since
11.01.1979. He was illegally terminated from service by the First Party vide letter dated 18.10.2000. At the time of
termination, First Party was working as Accounts Clerk. The First Party is the nationalized bank engaged in banking
industry. It is contended that the First Party issued suspension order dated 05.02.1997 to the Second Party and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
921
thereafter, issued charge-sheet dated 16.10.1999 to the Second Party. The Second Party submitted his reply to the
charge-sheet vide reply dated 26.11.1999 and denied the charges leveled against him. Thereafter departmental
inquiry was held and the Second Party participated in the inquiry with his defence representative. The Second Party
submitted his defence statement on 01.06.2000. The inquiry was concluded on 11.07.2000 and the Inquiry Officer
gave findings that the charges against the Second Party are proved. It is contended that said inquiry was not legal,
fair and proper and not held as per the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were
provided to the Second Party with show cause notice dated 03.08.2000. It is contended that the findings of the
Inquiry Officer are totally erroneous and not based on the evidence brought on record. In response to show cause
notice the Second Party issued letter dated 12.08.2000 to the First Party raising objection in respect of findings of
the Inquiry Officer. However, the First Party without considering the same issued dismissal order dated 18.10.2000
against the Second Party. The Second Party prayed that the First Party be directed to reinstate him into the service,
with continuity of service and with full back wages from the date of termination.
Facts of the First Party :-
3.
The First Party filed its written statement at Exh. C-5 and denied almost all the contentions raised by the
Second Party. It is contended that the demand of the Second Party is illegal and the dispute raised by him is not
maintainable. The First Party raised a plea that the Second Party was terminated in the year 2000 and he approached
the office of Labour Commissioner in the year 2003 hence, reference is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is
contended that the Second Party was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.10.2000 after issuing charge-sheet
dated 16.10.1999 following his suspension from service vide suspension order dated 13.02.1997. It is contended that
the Second Party committed gross misconduct involving fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of the deposits
of the customers. It is contended that the Second Party was dismissed after conducting departmental inquiry
wherein, the Second party participated along-with his defence representative and defended his case. In said inquiry,
the charges framed against the Second Party were proved. It is contended that after dismissal the Second party
preferred an appeal with the appellate authority i.e. the erstwhile Zonal Manager, Pune Zone and the appellate
authority confirmed the punishment of the Second party. It is contended that if the Court comes to the conclusion
that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, then, the First Party may be given opportunity to prove the
misconduct of the Second Party by leading evidence in Court. It is contended that the Second Party was dismissed
from service for the misconduct proved against him by following due proedure of law. Lastly, it is contended that
the reference may be rejected.
4.
In view of the rival pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by my learned
predecessor vide Exh. O-3. The said issues are reproduced herein below with my findings thereon for reasons to
follow :
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1)Whether the inquiry is legal, fair and proper?
Already decided vide order dated 9.8.202
2)Whether the findings given by the Inquiry Officer are pervers Already decided vide order dated 9.8.2024.
3)Whether the dismissal is illegal and unjustified?
Yes.
4)What relief / Award?
As per final Order.
REASONS
5.
The preliminary issue i.e. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were already decided vide order dated 09.08.2024. As
per said order, it was declared that the departmental inquiry held against the Second Party was fair, proper and legal
and held as per the principles of natural justice. It was also declared that the findings of the Inquiry officer against
the Second Party were not legal and proper, but perverse.
As to Issue No.3 :-
6.
In the instant case, the allegation against the Second Party was that he withdrew amount from accounts of
the customer of the First Party bank and thereby committed offence of misappropriation. When it was held that the
findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, then the First Party bank decided to prove the allegations against the
Second Party by leading evidence in Court. In order to prove the charge of misappropriation against the Second
Party, the First Party bank examined Mr. Mangesh Shengale (Exh. C-19), serving as Senior Manager in the First
Party bank. The said witness deposed that he came to know about the facts of the case from the file available with
his branch. However, there is nothing in his evidence to prove the allegations made against the Second Party.
According to him, the witnesses examined in the inquiry held against the Second Party were the customers and
employees of the First Party bank and now they are not traceable, hence unable to attend the Court. Thus, the First
Party bank failed to examine the material witnesses to prove the charge of misappropriation made against the
922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Second Party and closed its evidence by filing purshis at Exh. C-20. Mr. Mangesh Shengale (Exh. C-19) has
admitted in his evidence that F.I.R. was lodged against the Second Party in respect of offence committed by him,
however, the Second Party was acquitted in criminal case lodged on the basis of F.I.R. made against him. He has
also specifically admitted that he has not led any evidence in Court to prove the charges made against the Second
Party in charge-sheet issued to him. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the charges made
against the complainant.
7.
The First Party bank failed to lead any evidence to show that the Second Party was gainfully employed
since his termination on 18.10.2000. In fact, Mr. Mangesh Shengale (Exh. C-19) has admitted in his evidence that
there is no evidence on record that the Second Party was gainfully employed after his termination. Thus, there is
absolutely no evidence on record that the Second party was gainfully employed after his termination on the basis of
charges alleged against him.
8.
Therefore, from the aforesaid discussions, it is quite apparent that there is absolutely no evidence on record
to prove the allegations made against the Second Party that he has committed misconduct involving fraudulent
withdrawal and misappropriation of deposits of the customers of the First Party bank. So, certainly the termination
of the Second Party with effect from 18.10.2000 on the basis of the charges which the First Party bank failed to
prove is illegal and unjust. I, therefore, answered Issue No. 3 in the affirmative.
As to Issue No. 4 :-
9.
The Second Party claimed relief of reinstatement in service. However, now the First Party is about 75 years
of age. So, obviously he cannot be reinstated as he has already attained the age of retirement. Hence, in such
circumstances, he is entitled for full back wages from the date of his termination till he attained the age of retirement
as per the rules applicable to the First Party bank. Similarly, the Second Party is also entitled for other consequential
reliefs.
10.
In the result, I pass following order :
ORDER
1.
It is hereby declared that the action of the First Party bank of dismissing the services of the Second Party
i.e. Sharad Rajaram Khadatare with effect from 18.10.2000 is illegal and unjust.
2.
The First Party bank is hereby ordered to pay full back wages to the Second Party from the date of his
termination i.e. from 18.10.2000 till he attained the age of retirement as per the rules applicable to the First Party
bank with consequential benefits and continuity of service.
3.
No order as to the costs.
4.
The copy of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.
Place : Pune
K.N. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
Date : 23.01.2025
Industrial Tribunal, Pune
Sd/-
Secretary
Industrial Tribunal, Pune
nsp/direct dictation
Argued on
23.01.2025
Order dictated on
23.01.2025
Order transcribed on
23.01.2025
Order checked & signed on
23.01.2025
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
923
नइ ददल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 333.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सेंरल बैंक ऑफ आंजडया 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 (a39/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/20/2017-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2025
S.O. 333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of
India and their workmen.
[F. No. 12012/20/2017-IR- (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Rakesh Kumar Kanojia,
S/o Shri Matrulal Kanojia
House No. 2022/A, Kajrawara Road,
New Rajul Vatika, Bilhari, Mandla Road,
Jabalpur (MP)
Workman
Vs
The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
Civil Lines, University Road,
Sagar (MP)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 28thday of January-2025)
As per letter dated 26/04/2017 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-12012/20/2017-IR(B-II) dt. 26/04/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:
'क्मा ऺेत्रीम प्रफंधक, सेन्ट्रर फैंक ऑप इंडिमा, ऺेत्रीम कामाारम, ससविर राइन, मूननिससाटी योि, सागय
भ०प्र० के प्रफंधन द्िाया श्री याकेश कुभाय कनौजिमा आत्भि भटरूरार कनौजिमा बूतऩूिा सपाई कभाचायी कभ सफ
स्टाप की सेिाएं दिनाक 05-11-2015 से सभाप्त ककमे िाने की कामािाही न्ट्मामोचचत है? मदि नही तो संफचधत कभाचायी
ककस अनुतोष का हकिाय हैं ?’
The case of the Workman as taken by him in his statement of claim is that he completed and passed his
Class 8th examination in 1985 from government Higher Secondary School. A Marksheet was issued to him by the
Principle and the Secretary under their seal and signature. He got selected in army as a Sweeper and worked there
for 28 years. After his retirement he applied for the post of Sweeper in the Management Bank and was selected for
the post. While working in the Bank as a Sweeper, a charge sheet was issued to him with the allegation that the
Marksheet which he had produced, was fake and false. An enquiry was conducted and based on the result of the
enquiry, in which the charges were found proved, he was terminated from service which is against law, arbitrary
924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and unjust. According to the Workman, the enquiry was not conducted properly, charges were held wrongly proved
and punishment was excessive.
Management was served a notice but did not appear and did not context the case.
Workman filed his affidavit, also filed Army Certificate, Certification of Education, Last pay certificate
issued by Bank, Army certificate regarding employment, Class 8th Marksheet, Interview Letter dated 21.12.2012
issued by Bank, Appointment letter, Chargesheet dated 29.10.2014, Reply, Enquiry Proceedings and dismissal
order by photocopies. Management did not produce any evidences.
None appeared at the time of arguments. No written argument was filed. I have gone through the
record.
As regards legality of the enquiry, there appears no illegality or material irregularity on perusal of
Photocopy Enquiry Papers filed by Workman himself. The Workman has been given full opportunity to defend
himself, hence the enquiry is held legal and proper.
As regards the second point whether the charges are proved from the evidences in enquiry, the
charge against the Workman was that the marksheet of Class 8th filed by him with respect to his appointment as
subject, was found false and forged after verification. It was found that the Workman had in fact failed in three
subjects and did not appear in the supplementary examination held whereas the Marksheet filed by him showed
that he had passed Class 8th examination. This act of workman is grave misconduct as defined in Para 5(M) of the
bipartite settlement dated 10.04.202.
As it is established from enquiry papers that the case of the Workman was that his marksheet is true and
genuine. There are evidences of witness who said that they have collected report from the School, from where the
marksheet is said to have been issued and have inspected the records. They have found that the Roll No. mentioned
in the marksheet is incorrect, date of birth also not correct and does not match with School records as well the
marks also did not match with the School Records. In these circumstances, the finding of the enquiry officer that
the charges are proved cannot be held to be perverse.
As regards punishment, furnishing false information regarding education qualification is defined as
great misconduct in the bipartite punishment for which his dismissal from service. Hence punishment also cannot
be held excessive.
In the light of above findings, the reference deserves to be and is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of Management terminating the services of Workman Rakesh Kumar Kanojiya
from 05.11.2015 just legal and proper, he is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 28/01/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 334.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
]असनसोल ds iapkV
(सन्दभच सं्या
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/75/2017-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.28/2018) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025
[No. L-22012/75/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
925
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 28 OF 2018
PARTIES: Anshuman Maji
Vs.
Management of MIC Jhanjra Project Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Shabe Alam, Organizing Secretary, CMC (HMS).
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
29.01.2025.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/75/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29.10.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Main Industrial Complex, Jhanjra Project Colliery under Jhanjra Area of
Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery, Jhajra Area of M/s. E.C.Ltd. in
reduction of pay on promotion of Sri Anshuman Majhi from Face Crew to Jr. Overman is justified or not. If not, to
what relief Sri Anshuman Majhi is entitled.? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/75/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29.10.2018 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 19.11.2018 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Written statement has been filed by Anshuman Maji, the workman on 21.03.2023 through Mr. Bipul
Banerjee his advocate. This Industrial Dispute has been raised by the General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress
(HMS), alleging reduction of pay of the workman on his promotion. It is not raised by the workman in his individual
capacity however after registration union did not take any step.
The management filed their written statement on 21.03.2023, denying the claim of the workman.
3.
The Brief fact of the workman‘s case is that he is a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL) and was appointed as Underground Mazdoor in Category–I under Land Loser
Scheme. He was regularized to the post of Face Crew, Category–V in the year 2004 and was granted six increments
for performing the job of Face Crew, as per Circular dated 17.09.1997 issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel
Manager (Establishment). The Basic Pay of Anshuman Maji as Face Crew was Rs. 490.43/- (Rupees Four Hundred
ninety and ninety-three paise only) per day. On his regularization to the post of Junior Overman in the year 2011 his
Basic Pay was reduced to Rs. 427.81/- (Rupees Four Hundred twenty-seven and eighty-one paise only) per day and
he received less Basic Pay of Rs. 62.62 (Rupees sixty-two and sixty-two paise only) per day, which is illegal. It is
contended by the workman that the action of the management of Jhanjra Project 1 and 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area
of ECL is not justified as his pay has not been properly fixed on his regularization to a promotional post in Technical
and Supervisory Grade – ‗C‘. The workman has prayed for passing necessary Award, directing the management of
Jhanjra Project 1 and 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area of ECL to fix his Basic Pay at Rs. 490.43/- per day
retrospectively from the date of his regularization to the higher post.
926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The Agent, Jhanjra Project Colliery, ECL contested the case by filing written statement wherein it is
admitted that Anshuman Maji was appointed as Time Rated Trainee (Underground) under Land Loser Scheme vide
appointment letter dated 03.05.2000. He was absorbed as an Underground Mazdoor in Category–I as per order dated
03.04.2002. Anshuman Maji was thereafter regularized to the post of Face Crew, Category–V as per Office Order
CGM/JNR/PER/05/2004/1002 dated 23.11.2004. As Face Crew, Anshuman Maji was getting a special Pay with six
increments. Subsequently, by order dated 05/07.09.2011 Anshuman Maji was regularized to the post of Junior
Overman in Technical and Supervisory Grade – ‗C‘ on 14.04.2011. As he was no longer working as a Face Crew,
the six special increments which were granted to him for his work as Face Crew have been withdrawn. It is further
asserted that the job of a Junior Overman does not have any bearing with the job of Longwall Face Crew, as such he
is not entitled to get special allowance. The management has claimed that the workman is not entitled to get any
relief in this case and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
5.
The point which arise for consideration as per the Schedule is whether the management of Jhanjra Project
Colliery under Jhanjra Area of ECL has fixed the pay of Anshuman Maji in proper manner on his regularization to
the post of Junior Overman? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
Anshuman Maji has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He has reiterated his case in the written
statement and in support of his case he produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the letter dated 17.09.1997 issued by the Competent Authority granting six incremental
benefits to Anshuman Maji has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of letter dated 14.10.2010 by which Anshuman Maji was deployed as Mining Sirdar -cum-
Shot Firer (Trainee), as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Office Order dated 05/07.09.2011 by which Anshuman Maji was regularized as Junior
Overman in Technical and Supervisory Grade – ‗C‘ from the date of completion of training
period, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of Pay Slip of Anshuman Maji for the post of Face Crew, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of Pay Slip of Anshuman Maji for the post of Junior Overman, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of letter dated 27.05.2013 of union to the Agent of Jhanjra Project Colliery, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of letter dated 13.06.2013 issued by the General Manager (M), Jhanjra Project Colliery
addressed to the Secretary of the Union, as Exhibit W-7.
7.
In course of cross-examination the workman witness (WW-1) has deposed that he was regularized as Time
Rated mazdoor in Category-I on 03.04.2002. Thereafter he was regularized to the post of Face Crew in Category-V
on 23.11.2004. Subsequently, on 14.04.2011 he was regularized as Junior Overman in Technical and Supervisory
Grade – ‗C‘. The witness stated that he received six increments in his Basic Pay while working as Longwall Face
Crew and his Basic Pay was reduced by Rs. 62.62/- per day on his posting as Junior Overman. The witness denied
the suggestion that six increments were deducted as it was not applicable to any other post except Longwall Face
Crew. The witness also claimed that his pay was not fixed in proper manner.
8.
Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem, Manager (Personnel), Jhanjra Project Colliery has been examined as
Management Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief in support of management‘s case and has been cross-
examined. The management produced the following documents in support of their case :
(i)
Copy of Office Order dated 23.11.2004 by which Anshuman Maji and other employees were
regularized to the post of Face Crew in Category-V, has been produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of Office Order dated 05/07.09.2011 by which Anshuman Maji was regularized as Junior
Overman, in Technical and Supervisory Grade – ‗C‘ from the date of completion of training
period, as Exhibit M-2.
9.
In course of cross-examination the witness deposed that the post of Face Crew is a special designation and
at the time of promotion to the post of Face Crew the workman was given six increments in Pay. The witness also
deposed that the term of posting as Face Crew is for twelve (12) years, which is considered as lock-in period. The
witness denied that the management committed illegality by reducing the Basic Pay of the workman after his
promotion to the post of Junior Overman. The management witness denied that pay of the workman has been
reduced without fixation.
10.
The question involved is whether there is justification in reducing the pay of the workman on his posting as
Junior Overman from his earlier post of Longwall Face Crew. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate argued that a
workman is required to perform hazardous job during his posting as a Face Crew, which is an underground work in
the Mines. Workman who volunteered for such posting are granted the benefit of six increments to his Basic Pay. By
Office Order dated 23.11.2004 (Exhibit M-1), Anshuman Maji along with other ten employees were regularized to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
927
the post of Face Crew in Category-V. A direction was issued in Order dated 23.11.2004 (Exhibit M-1) that the
employee could not be diverted to any other job neither could they apply for their transfer to any other Areas nor
change their designation at least for a period of twelve years and during this period, if the workman diverted to any
job or transfer anywhere, the workman shall be demoted to the category from which he has been regularized as Face
Crew. Learned advocate argued that the concerned workman agreed to the terms of order dated 23.11.2004 for his
posting as Face Crew. He received his enhanced pay for the nature of job performed by him till he was regularized
to the post of Junior Overman by order dated 05/07.09.2011 (Exhibit M-2). Learned advocate argued that the
workman before completing twelve years as Face Crew obtained Overman‘s Certificate of competence and joined
the work of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer (Trainee) and thereafter he was regularized to the post of Junior
Overman in Technical and Supervisory Grade – ‗C‘ on completion of his training period of six months. As per the
Office Order his Pay was fixed by the Associated Finance. Learned advocate argued that the workman has not been
deprived of his basic payment as he is not entitled to receive higher Pay which he was receiving as a Face Crew.
11.
Mr. Shabe Alam, Organizing Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor Congress (HMS), arguing the case on behalf
of the workman submitted that after promotion to the post of Junior Overman in Technical and Supervisory Grade –
‗C‘, the Pay of the workman cannot be reduced. It is submitted that the management has not denied the fact that the
Basic Pay of the workman has been reduced by Rs. 62.62/- per day after his regularization to a higher post. The
union representative urged that the Pay of Anshuman Maji, now in the post of Senior Overman, should be fixed with
retrospective effect from the date of his completing six months‘ training as per order dated 05/07.09.2011.
12.
Considered the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the management and union representative,
pleading of parties and evidence on record. The main grievance regarding the reduction of Basic Pay of Anshuman
Maji on his regularization to the post of Junior Overman has not been denied. The workman has filed a copy of his
Pay Slip as Face Crew for the month of January, 2011 (Exhibit W-4) wherein it appears that he received a Basic Pay
of Rs. 12,751.18/- (Rupees twelve thousand seven hundred fifty-one and eighteen paise only). From a copy of Pay
Slip for the month of November, 2011 (Exhibit W-5) it is gathered that as Junior Overman Anshuman Maji received
a Basic Pay of Rs. 11,123.06/- (Rupees eleven thousand one hundred twenty-three and six paise only). It is clear that
the pay of workman was reduced on his regularization to the post of Junior Overman in Technical and Supervisory
Grade – ‗C‘. The union representative, Mr. Shabe Alam submitted an application dated 27.05.2013 (Exhibit
W-6) addressed to the Agent, Jhanjra Project Colliery, seeking proper fixation of Basic Pay of Anshuman Maji and
also payment of arrears of difference of wages. The General Manager (M), Jhanjra Project Colliery, ECL in his reply
dated 13.06.2013 (Exhibit W-7) addressed to the Secretary, UCMU, informed that difference of wages of Technical
and Supervisory Grade – ‗C‘ was paid to Anshuman Maji, Face Crew. It was further stated that the Basic pay of
Anshuman Maji on regularization to the post of Junior Overman was fixed in the nearest in the Time Rated Scale
without incremental benefit as per norms of fixation on regularization. The management further noted that
Anshuman Maji was granted six increments for working as Longwall Face Crew and it was an additional benefit of
Longwall Face Crew and such increments were not applicable to the other employee posted with other designations.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it transpires that the work of a Longwall Face Crew, operating
underground, is a hard and hazardous job and special pay in the from of six increments of the Basic is granted to the
employees opting for such difficult nature of job. A person who readily opted for the job of Overman prior to
completion of twelve years‘ lock-in period, as disclosed in the Office Order dated 23.11.2004 (Exhibit M-1), cannot
be entitled to receive the same benefit. The management has considered the case of Anshuman Maji and on his
posting as Junior Overman has fixed his pay, which incidentally is less than the Basic Pay of Longwall Face Crew.
It is to be borne in mind that the change of designation of the workman was not due to promotion. The union
representative has failed to produce any Circular or Agreement whereby an employee who was receiving any special
Pay in hazardous posting was protected on his being regularized to some other post not by way of promotion. In
such view of the matter, I hold that there is no illegality in reduction of Pay of Anshuman Maji, who discontinued
the function of Face Crew and opted for the post of Junior Overman. In the present case the workman is not entitled
to any difference of Pay. The Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The workman on his posting as Junior Overman is not
entitled to the Pay and benefits of Longwall Face Crew. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let
copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information
and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 335.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
]असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/44/2021-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 18/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/44/2021– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 18 OF 2021
PARTIES: Kalu Charan Suin
Vs
Management of Naba Kajora Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
31/01/2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/44/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 29/09/2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Naba Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Kajora Area in
imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Kalucharan Swain, Dresser of Naba Kajora Colliery under Kajora
Area (U.M. No. 125828) w.e.f. 19-05-2020 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/44/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 29/09/2021 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 18 of 2021 was registered on
01/10/2021 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses.
2.
Union of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on 21/09/2022 on behalf of Kalu Charan Suin
through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
929
ECL and filed written statement on same date i.e. 21/09/2022. Fact of the case disclosed in the written statement of
the union is that Kalu Charan Suin was posted as Underground Dresser at Naba Kajora Colliery under ECL, having
UM No. 125828. Due to his illness he was unable to attend duty from 16/09/2019 till his recovery. When he
reported to join his duty, management of the colliery did not allow him to join and issued a charge sheet bearing
No. ECL/NKC/Mgr./2020-21/572 dated 12/12/2019 for his unauthorized absence without information and also for
his habitual absence in the preceding years 2016, 2017 and 2018 which constituted gross misconduct as per
Certified Standing Orders applicable to the company. Workman replied to the charge sheet but explanation was not
found satisfactory. He also submitted papers regarding his medical treatment. Management of the colliery
appointed Enquiry Officer and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Workman participated in the enquiry and
submitted his explanation for alleged unauthorized absence and also produced treatment papers related to his
illness. Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enquiry and submitted his report, finding workman guilty of charge.
After completion of enquiry, a second show cause Notice was issued to the workman to which he replied. On
recommendation of the colliery management, General Manager of the Area being the Competent Authority
dismissed the workman from service by issuing a letter No. ECL/KA/APM/C-6/2020/10/187 dated 19/05/2020.
Dismissed workman thereafter submitted his mercy appeal before the higher authority on 13/07/2020. Mercy
appeal was not considered by the management. It is inter alia contended that the workman was absent from duty
only for two months and twenty six days i.e. from 16/09/2019 to 12/12/2019. Therefore, punishment of dismissal
from service, which is an extreme punishment is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. According
to the union, punishment imposed in departmental proceeding should be proportionate to the misconduct. It is
prayed that management of ECL should set aside order of dismissal and Kalu Charan Suin should be reinstated in
service with full back wages.
3.
Management of ECL contested the Industrial Dispute by filing written statement. It has been asserted that
Kalu Charan Suin was appointed as Dresser (UG) on 24/10/1996 and was working at Naba Kajora Colliery. He
was a habitual absentee for which he was reprimanded several times. It is inter alia contended that as per record
workman was absent from duty without any intimation to the employer from 16/09/2019 and continued to remain
absent without intimation or authorization of leave. Management ultimately issued a charge sheet against the
workman on 12/12/2019. A domestic enquiry was ordered and he participated in the enquiry proceeding held on
21/03/2020. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry by following the principles of Natural Justice, by giving full
opportunity to the charged workman to defend himself. Charge of unauthorized absence was proved beyond doubt.
On the basis of finding of the Enquiry officer, General Manager, Kajora Area dismissed the workman by letter
dated 19/05/2020. It is the case of the management that workman attended work only for forty six days in the year
2016, thirty five days in the year 2017 and one hundred forty two days in the year 2018. Workman was charged for
habitual absence. Further contention of the management is that the charged workman submitted mercy petition
before the management after his dismissal. On previous occasions workman suffered impunities by way of
warning and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect in the year 2017, demotion to lower cadre in the
year 2016, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect in the year 2015 and on several occasions, he was
warned for his unauthorized absence. According to the management workman did not improve his conduct after
several opportunities extended to him. Under such circumstances, it is urged that Industrial Dispute has no merit
and workman has been dismissed from service for proper reasons and in a proper manner.
4.
Moot point for consideration before this Tribunal is ―Whether the action of the Management of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in imposing a punishment of dismissal against Shri Kalu Charan Suin, Dresser of Naba
Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area (U.M. No. 125828) w.e.f. 19-05-2020 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?‖
5.
Union examined Kalu Charan Suin as Workman Witness-I. He filed his affidavit-in-chief reiterating the
case disclosed in written statement of the union. In course of his evidence, he produced the following documents:-
(i)
Copy of Identity Card is produced as Exhibit W-1
(ii)
Copy of charge sheet dated 12/12/2019 is produced as Exhibit W-2
(iii)
Copy of order of dismissal issued by the Agent, Naba Kajora Colliery dated 18/06/2020 is produced as
Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of mercy appeal dated 13/07/2020 addressed to the Director (Personnel), ECL is produced as
Exhibit W-4.
In cross-examination, workman admitted that he attended duty only for forty six days in the year 2016, thirty five
days in the year 2017 and one hundred forty two days in the year 2018. Workman tried to reason out his absence
by deposing in cross-examination that he had reported for duty after short absence but the management did not
allow him to join on the pretext that his medical papers were sent to the Area office and ultimately charge sheet
was issued for his unauthorized absence. Witness, however stated that he did not make formal compliant before the
Agent disclosing that he was not allowed to join duty on several occasions. In his later cross-examination, he
admitted that he attended the enquiry proceeding. He further deposed that a second show cause Notice was issued
930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to him. Witness also denied suggestion put to him that he was not suffering from illness at the time of his absence
or that the company dismissed him from service for adequate reasons but did not produce any medical papers.
6.
Mr. Ramjee Tripathi for the management of ECL filed an affidavit-in-chief and was examined as
Management Witness-I. Witness stated that workman received charge sheet and submitted his reply but the
explanation was not found satisfactory for which a domestic enquiry was held in which he was found guilty of the
charge of unauthorized absence and habitual absence. A second show cause Notice was issued to the workman.
General Manager, Kajora Area after careful consideration of the charge sheet and entire enquiry proceeding,
dismissed the workman from service on 19/05/2020. In course of his evidence, witness produced the following
documents:-
(i)
Copy of charge sheet dated 12/12/2019 is produced as Exhibit M-1
(ii)
Copy of reply submitted by the workman against charge sheet is produced as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of office order dated 04/03/2020 by which Ashis Mohan, Asstt. Manager (P) was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer and H. K. Srivastav, Safety Officer as Management Representative is produced as Exhibit
M-3.
(iv)
Copy of Notice of Enquiry dated 16/03/2020 is produced as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of Enquiry proceeding dated 21/03/2020 is produced as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of second show cause Notice dated 04/04/2020 is produced as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of reply dated 18/04/2020 against the second show cause Notice is produced as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of order of dismissal passed by the General Manager, Kajora Area dated 13/19.05.2020 is produced
as Exhibit M-8.
In course of his cross-examination, witness stated that the period of absence of the workman was two months and
twenty six days. Management witness categorically stated that workman did not submit document relating to
medical treatment along with his reply. Witness also denied suggestion that punishment imposed was
disproportionate to the charges established against him.
7.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar arguing the case on behalf of the dismissed workman submitted that workman was
absent for two months and twenty six days till charge sheet was issued on 12/12/2019 (Exhibit W-2/Exhibit M-1).
It is submitted that workman participated in the enquiry proceeding and produced papers relating to his medical
treatment issued from Khandra Health Centre. Union representative in his argument tried to focus on the fact that
work of Dresser (UG) is hazardous in nature and management should have considered the precarious conditions in
which the workman served before dismissing him at the drop of a hat only for his unauthorized absence for two
months and twenty six days, which was for his illness. It is urged that punishment awarded is disproportionate to
the misconduct and the workman should be reinstated in service. Union fairly submitted that though prayer has
been made for back wages, justice would be served if workman is reinstated in service simpliciter.
8.
Management argued that workman not only remained absent in unauthorized manner without any
intimation to the management but was also a habitual absentee and his performance in previous three years was
extremely unsatisfactory. Several attempts were made to rectify him by imposing lighter punishment like stoppage
of increments, demotion to lower post and issuing warnings but he did not serve even for a continuous period of
one hundred ninety days which is the attendance requirement for continuous service in a year in Underground
duty. Ld. Advocate argued that enquiry proceeding was held in a proper manner and opportunity was granted to
the charged employee to defend his case and demolish charges levelled against him but both the charges i.e.
habitual absence and unauthorized absence were established against the charged employee. A second show cause
Notice was issued to the workman (Exhibit M-6). Workman replied to the second show cause Notice but there was
no extenuating circumstance to take lighter view. The General Manager who is the Competent Authority ultimately
directed the workman to be removed from duty (Exhibit M-8). In furtherance of such letter of dismissal, Agent
communicated the same to the workman by office order dated 17/18.06.2020 (Exhibit W-3). Mr. Das contended
that there is no merit in the Industrial Dispute and sought for dismissal of the same.
9.
Considered the rival contentions of the union and learned advocate for the management of ECL in light of
pleading and evidence on record. In the instant case, Kalu Charan Suin was charge sheeted on 12/12/2019 wherein
he was charged for his unauthorized absence for a period from 16/09/2019 to 12/12/2019 without information and
leave and also for his habitual absence from duty. Workman was directed to submit reply within seventy two
hours. Workman submitted reply to the charge sheet which is produced as Exhibit M-2. In his reply it is submitted
that he was under medical treatment at Khandra Rural Hospital and again he fell ill from 15/12/2019 to 25/02/2020
and was unable to join duty. Nowhere in the reply workman stated that after recovery from illness and before
issuance of charge sheet on 12/12/2019, he had reported to join his duty or was disallowed to join. It is therefore
clear that the submission made in the written statement that he was disallowed to join duty is untrue and not
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
931
reliable due to lack of evidence and want of consistency. No document relating to illness or medical treatment of
the workman has been filed along with his reply. Management issued office order dated 04/03/2020 (Exhibit M-3)
appointing Shri Ashis Mohan, Asstt. Manager (P), Madhabpur colliery to conduct the domestic enquiry. Notice of
Enquiry was issued on 16/03/2020 fixing 21/03/2020 as date for holding domestic enquiry. A copy of Notice of
Enquiry is produced as Exhibit M-4. It is gathered from the enquiry proceeding (Exhibit M-5) that a domestic
enquiry was held against the charged employee in respect of charges levelled under clause 26.29 and 26.23 of
Certified Standing Orders applicable to the company. Content of the charge sheet was explained to the charged
employee who understood the charges levelled against him. Workman was given opportunity to take assistance of
co-workers or representatives of the Trade Union but he declined. Management Representatives were examined
who clearly gave out that past performance of the workman and his attendance from the year 2016 to 2019 appears
to be abysmal. It appears that he was warned on previous occasions for his unauthorized absence and three
increments with cumulative effect were stopped by letter dated 12/03/2015. He was demoted to lower post without
any pay protection by letter dated 04/08/2016 and was warned and three increments were stopped with cumulative
effect by letter dated 29/11/2017. Workman did not cross-examine witnesses and admitted his guilt. It is stated that
he suffered from viral fever, liver disorder and pain from 17/09/2019 to 06/12/2019 and subsequently from
15/12/2019 to 25/02/2020. There is clear admission that he did not inform the management nor did he avail any
leave. He stated that he submitted medical certificate regarding his illness from Khandra (Ukhra) BPHC but in fact
no document was submitted before the Enquiry officer nor before the Competent Authority of the company.
Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of charges in respect of clause 26.29 and 26.23 of certified standing
orders applicable to the company. A second show cause Notice dated 04/04/2020 was issued to the workman
(Exhibit M-6) and a copy of enquiry proceeding was enclosed therewith for his perusal. Workman replied to the
second show cause Notice once again admitting the charge (Exhibit M-7). Competent Authority on considering the
entire material and reply to the second show cause Notice, dismissed the workman from service with effect from
08/05/2020 which was intimated to him in due course of time by way of order of dismissal issued by the Agent,
Naba Kajora colliery, ECL.
10.
It emerges from the above facts and circumstances that there was no cogent reason to treat the charged
employee in lenient manner. There was no mitigating circumstance nor any reliable document related to his
medical treatment, claimed to have been undergone by the workman during the period of his absence. Management
of ECL has carried out the enquiry proceeding in a proper manner providing reasonable opportunity to the
workman to defend himself. Principle of Natural Justice has been duly complied in holding the domestic enquiry.
A mercy petition has been filed by the workman but his claim has to be balanced with past conduct which shows
that management provided several opportunities to the workman to rectify the conduct but he has not been able to
fulfil the basic requirements. Under such circumstance the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service
cannot be considered to be harsh or disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. I do not find any incongruity in
the order of dismissal to interfere with the same. Therefore, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest.
Workman is found not entitled to the relief of reinstatement.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Kalu Charan Suin, dismissed workman is not entitled to any
relief of reinstatement in service or to back wages. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my above discussion. Let
copies of Award be communicated to the Ministry for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 336.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
]असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/53/98-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 11/1999 of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 19/02/2025.
932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[No. L-22012/53/98 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 11 OF 1999
PARTIES: 1. Arjoon Mistry,
2. Baijnath Shaw,
3. Kuldip Yadav,
4. Bachha Swain, and
5. Prakash Singh
(Represented by Koyala Mazdoor Congress)
Vs.
Management of Bankola Area, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workmen:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
28.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/53/98-IR(CM-II) dated 21.01.1998 has been pleased to refer the scheduled dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Bankola Colliery of M/s. ECL in not providing employment to
the dependents of five employees namely S/Sh. Bachcha Swai, Bijnath Saw, Kuldip Yadav, Arjun Mistry and
Prakash Singh as per provision of NCWA-IV is legal justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/53/98-IR(CM-II) dated 21.01.1998 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 02.02.1999 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar as General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed a written statement on
08.01.2002 on behalf of the five terminated workmen of Bankola Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern
Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). In gist, the fact of the case disclosed in the written statement is
that P. G. Ghosh, Senior Overman of Shankarpur Colliery along with fourteen others of Bankola Colliery were
permanent employees under ECL. According to the provision of Clause 9.4.3 of National Coal Wage Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as NCWA) – IV these said fifteen employees appeared before a Medical Board of the
company on 26.02.1994 and were declared medically unfit. Accordingly they were terminated from service on the
basis of letter bearing No. PA/PD/B-II(28)/632 dated 02/03.03.1994. It is the claim of the union that as per
provision of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV one dependant of the employee is entitled to get employment. It is
provided in the NCWA that the dependant for this purpose means the wife / husband as the case may be, unmarried
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
933
daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, younger brother,
widowed daughter / widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly
dependent on the earnings of the employee would be considered. It is further provided in NCWA that the
dependant to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment, whose age shall
be not more than thirty-five years provided the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be forty-
five years as stated in Clause 9.5.0 and in case of male spouse there would be no age limit regarding provision of
employment.
3.
The concerned union further contended that in spite of such provisions in NCWA, the workmen who
were declared permanently disabled were not provided with any employment and on 21.07.1997 the union
approached the Chairman of Coal India Limited for redressal of their grievances. A Notice of Strike was served
upon the management of Bankola Area proposing a strike from 01.09.1997. On intervention of the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central) a conciliation proceeding was held. The management of ECL in their
representation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) admitted that the workmen had been declared
medically unfit but the Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters advised them to ensure that no employment is
processed till the same is approved by him. Out of fifteen persons declared unfit ten preferred writ petition before
the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta and the management did not submit further comment. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Raniganj did not recommend for any reference. The management of ECL suggested to
all the persons to reappear before the Medical Board but in the Area JCC all the representatives of the operating
unions disagreed to the proposal. On 08.11.1997 a Failure of Conciliation was issued by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) which was sent to the Ministry and the Ministry in turn referred the Industrial Dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication. According to the union the Hon‘ble High Court passed favorable order in favour of
the ten writ petitioners and directed the respondent company to take steps for providing employment to the
dependants of the respective petitioners in terms of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV and that such employment should
be given to the writ petitioners within the four corners of the aforesaid provisions and that the decision to be
taken within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The union demanded employment of the
dependants in line with the decision of the Hon‘ble High Court passed in the Writ Petition.
4.
A rejoinder was submitted by the union on 10.03.2003, stating that the Headquarters of ECL issued a
letter for stopping the process for providing employment to the dependants of the employees found medically
unfit. It is contended that once Medical Board declared an employee medically unfit and Competent Authority
approved the result of the Medical Board then no question can arise for further approval. It is also contended that
the management cannot direct the workers to appear before the Medical Board once again. It is their case that
union asked for providing employment to the dependants of the workmen found medically unfit for work.
Referring to the contents of paragraph (5) of the written statement filed by the management it is urged out that the
management admitted the fact that the persons who appeared before the Apex Medical Board were again found
medically unfit. The decision of the Medical Board was correct as such the management of ECL is not justified
in stopping the employment process. In response to the contention of the management that no employment can be
provided to the dependants of the workmen unless it is proved that they are suffering from acute financial crisis
cannot arise, the union has urged that the workmen are claiming employment not on compassionate ground but as
per the provisions of NCWA. Further case of the union is that if the management cancelled the result of the
Medical Board, then the workmen should be allowed to join their duty and the order of termination should be
withdrawn but in the instant case management neither provided employment to the dependants of the workmen as
per the provisions of NCWA nor did they allow the terminated workmen to resume their duty resulting in
financial loss. It is urged that the workmen who were declared medically unfit should be allowed to join their
duty and they should be paid wages from the date of their termination till their date of superannuation. It is
prayed that the management of Bankola Area, ECL should be directed to provide employment to the dependants
of the five terminated employees who were declared medically unfit and adequate compensation be paid to them
for the period from 1994 till the date employment is given.
5.
Management filed their written statement on 31.10.2002. It is stated by the management that the
concerned workmen were permanent employees of different collieries under Bankola Area of ECL and were
declared medically unfit by the Medical Board and their services were terminated. Some complaints were
received regarding holding of Medical Board and assessment of disability of the concerned persons. Accordingly,
the Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters in his letter dated 29.04.1994 (Exhibit M-3) intimated that no
employment to dependant of medically unfit person should be processed till such matter was approved by the
appropriate authority. It was intimated by the Chief General Manager (Personnel), ECL Headquarters by letter
dated 16.03.1995 that the employees should appear again before the Medical Board at Sanctoria for their
medical examination and the matter will be finalized thereafter. After holding meeting by the Area Joint
Consultation Committee on 22.03.1995 the management requested the union to advise the workmen to appear
before the fresh Medical Board as per the direction of the Competent Authority for consideration of their
voluntary retirement under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V but the union representative refused to comply the
direction. It is further stated that amongst the employees terminated pursuant to the letter dated 03.03.1994 when
some of them appeared before the Apex Medical Board at Sanctoria on 22.01.1996 they were once again declared
934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
medically unfit. Regarding Writ Petition preferred by Kishori Mohan Chakraborty and nine others before the
Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta vide W.P. No. 23 of 1996 it is stated that the management preferred an appeal
against order dated 24.02.1998 passed by the Hon‘ble Single Bench. The Hon‘ble Division Bench by disposing
the appeal directed ECL authority to consider the prayer for employment of the petitioners on compassionate
ground within a period of four weeks from the date and the management complied the direction by passing a
reasoned order. The concerned petitioners failed to satisfy that the family of the workmen suffered from
economic hardship and acute financial crisis. It was decided that employment could not be provided to them on
compassionate ground as a matter of legal right. The management urged that their action in not providing
employment to the dependants of the five concerned workmen is appropriate and totally justified.
6.
At the time of hearing of the case union produced one Aditya Mistry as the son of Arjoon Mistry, one of
the terminated workmen. None of the dependants of Baijnath Shaw, Kuldip Yadav, Bachha Swain, and Prakash
Singh turned up claiming employment. Union examined Aditya Mistry as Workman Witness No. 1 and filed his
affidavit-in-chief. In his affidavit-in-chief Aditya Mistry state that his father Arjoon Mistry applied for voluntary
retirement due to illness. His father appeared before the Medical Board and was declared medically unfit and
terminated from his service under the provision of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA as per letter dated 02/03.03.1994. It is
claimed that one dependant of his father is entitled to get employment and his father submitted application for
employment along with relevant documents. In the meantime, the management of ECL Headquarters issued
direction not to process employment of the dependants of the medically unfit employees. The witness stated that
nether employment was provided to him nor his father was allowed to join his duty. It is the contention of the
workman witness that if the result of the Medical Board was not approved and the management decided to cancel
the result of the Medical Board in that event management should allow the workmen to join duty by withdrawing
the termination order but in the present case the management neither provided employment to him nor reinstated
his father in the service of the company.
7.
In cross-examination the witness denied that his father was asked to appear before the Medical Board
once again for re-examination or that he did not appear deliberately. The dependant son admitted that he did not
submit any document regarding any financial hardship due to non-employment. In the year 2014 the witness
stated before the Tribunal that he was forty-two (42) years old and at the time his father was declared unfit for job
he was twenty years old. No document has been produced by the workman witness in support of his claim.
8.
Mr. Dibyendu Ghosh, Manager (Personnel), Bankola Colliery has been examined as Management
Witness No. 1. In course of his evidence witness stated that the General Manager of Bankola Area was directed
by the Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters that no employment for dependants of medically unfit persons
should be processed till it was approved by him. The following documents were produced by the management
witness :
(i)
Copy of the Office Order dated 11.03.1994 by which the workmen named in the Schedule of
the Industrial Dispute were declared medically unfit for duty and were stopped from duty w.e.f.
12.03.1994 was produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of order of termination of service on medical ground dated 02/03.03.1994, as Exhibit M-
2.
(iii)
Copy of letter dated 29.04.1994 issued by the Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters for
stopping the employment process, as Exhibit M-3.
9.
In course of cross-examination the witness deposed that no application was submitted by Bachha Swain
for providing employment to Prafulla Swain. Nor any application was submitted by Arjoon Mistry for
employment of Aditya Mistry. The witness deposed that the termination order dated 02/03.03.1994 was not
cancelled by the management. Furthermore, persons found medically unfit were not reinstated in service
thereafter witness admitted that they were not paid wages from the date of termination till superannuation. The
witness deposed that he had no knowledge if enquiry was held to find out the genuineness of the medical
examination held on 26.02.1994 nor could he state if any action was taken against the Chairman of the Debility
Medical Board. The witness lastly stated that no letter was issued to the employees informing that their medical
examination held by the Medical Board on 26.02.1994 was not proper or that they were required to report for
resuming duty. The witness however stated that claim for employment of the dependants of the five employees is
not proper in terms of provisions of NCWA.
10.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative arguing the case on behalf of the five employees terminated on
medical ground submitted that according to the provision of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV one dependant of the
workman, declared medically unfit for job and terminated from service, is entitled to get an employment and such
employment is not contingent upon the employee or his family facing financial crisis. It is argued that after five
workmen were declared medically unfit, by issuance of an Office Order dated 11.03.1994 (Exhibit M-1) they
were stopped from their work w.e.f. 12.03.1994 and they were also terminated from their service on the basis of
order dated 02/03.03.1994 (Exhibit M-2). The management has not been able to produce any document to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
935
establish that the result of the Debility Medical Board, held on 26.02.1994, was set aside or vacated by the
Competent Authority or that the workmen were asked to appear before any Medical Board on any particular date
or that the order of the Medical Board not been found acceptable by the Competent Authority, the five workmen
were reinstated in service. It is urged that the dependants of the five terminated workmen are entitled to
employment and they are also entitled to compensation for the period from their termination till the date of
superannuation.
11.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management argued that on the basis of a complaint received
regarding assessment made by the Debility Medical Board, the Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters issued a
letter dated 29.04.1994 (Exhibit M-3) requesting the General Manager, Bankola Area not to process employment
of the dependants of the employees declared unfit without approval by him. It is argued that subsequently an
Apex Medical Board was setup at Sanctoria where the employees were asked to appear for their re-assessment
but the operating union disagreed the proposal for re-examination by the Medical Board. It is argued that the
union has failed to examine the dependants, seeking employment in place of Baijnath Shaw, Kuldip Yadav,
Bachha Swain, and Prakash Singh and no applications were made by their dependants. According to the
management of ECL no evidence has been adduced by the union, providing particulars about the dependants of
the workmen seeking employment nor have they been able to substantiate that their families are facing financial
crisis and hardship.
12.
The short question before this Tribunal for adjudication is whether the dependant of five employees
named in the Schedule are entitled to get employment on termination of service of the employees on
medical ground and to what relief the families of the employees are entitled to?
13.
I have considered the pleadings of the parties in the light of scheduled Industrial Dispute referred for
adjudication and the evidence garnered on record. The concerned employees were examined by Medical Board of
ECL on 26.02.1994 and were terminated from service on and from 12.03.1994. Therefore, the provisions of
NCWA-V will apply to the employees declared unfit for work. It is gathered from the argument of the union
representative that all the five workmen terminated on medical ground have passed away except Aditya Mistry,
son of Arjoon Mistry. There is no evidence on record to establish that the dependants of Baijnath Shaw, Kuldip
Yadav, Bachha Swain, and Prakash Singh have applied for their employment according to Clause 9.4.0 (iii) of
NCWA-V, applicable to them at the time of issuing the order of termination dated 02/03.03.1994. As per Clause
9.4.0 (ii) of NCWA-V an employee is entitled to the benefit under this Clause if disablement arises out of general
physical disability so certified by the Coal Company and the employee is up to fifty-eight years of age. It may be
gathered from Exhibit M-2 that all the five employees were declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 of
NCWA-V. Therefore, it may be derived that at the relevant time the said employees were below the age of fifty-
eight years and they had at least two more years of employment left under the company. Soon after their
termination and discontinuation from service the management issued a letter dated 29.04.1994 through the
Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters (Exhibit M-3) expressing his intention not to process the employment of
the dependants of the employees declared medically unfit by the Board till the same was approved by him. The
management arranged for re-assessment of the employees by a Medical Debility Board. The union in paragraph
(3) of their rejoinder to written statement contended that ECL Headquarters issued a letter for stoppage of
employment to the dependants of the medically unfit persons and argued that no further approval for debility was
necessary once the Medical Board declared them unfit, which was approved by the Competent Authority. In
paragraph (4) it is stated that the decision of the management directing the workmen to appear again before the
Medical Board was wrong and not justified and that all unions did not accept the decision of the management. It
is evident from such averment that the unions and their workmen were fully aware about the decision of the
management to hold fresh Medical Board for re-assessment but they did not appear. I am of the view that under
such circumstances the workmen cannot reap the benefit of the provisions of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V by taking
a unilateral decision in the mode of assessment by the Medical Board. In such view of the matter, I find and hold
that the dependants of the concerned five workmen are not entitled to employment on the ground of termination
due to medical unfitness.
14.
After issuance of letter to termination (Exhibit M-2) management appeared to be doubtful about the
finding of the Medical Board due to which the Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters issued a letter to the
General Manager, Bankola Area, ECL not to process the employment of the dependants until the same was
approved by him. It is found from the materials on the record that the management of ECL did not issue any letter
cancelling the Office Order dated 11.03.1994 issued by the Dy. CME/Agent, Bankola Colliery, ECL (Exhibit M-
1) for stoppage of work of the medically unfit workmen. The management did not decide to withdraw the order
of termination of service on medical ground of the five workmen issued by the Personnel Manager (Incharge),
Bankola Area, ECL dated 02/03.03.1994 (Exhibit M-2) nor did the management of Bankola Area thought it
necessary to issue any order of reinstatement of the five employees in service who according to them could not
have been terminated on medical ground. In this backdrop the management is under the obligation to compensate
the family of the five terminated employees by paying them an amount equivalent to their pay last drawn, for the
936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
remaining period of their service, taking account of their normal date of superannuation as per their Service
Record. The management is therefore directed to pay a compensation amount and all other dues to the dependants
of the five employees within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is decided against the management of Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited on contest, in part. The management is directed to compensate the dependant family members of the five
employees namely, Bachha Swain, Baijnath Shaw, Kuldip Yadav, Arjoon Mistry and Prakash Singh, who have
suffered premature termination on the ground of medical debility. The management is directed to pay the
compensation amount equivalent to their Pay from the date of their termination up to the date of their actual
superannuation, to be computed on the basis of their last Pay drawn. The compensation amount and all other dues
be paid to the dependants of the employees within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry
of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 337.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
]असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच
सं्या
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/77/2017-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 13/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/77/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 13 OF 2018
PARTIES: Mankar Gope
Vs.
Management of Khandra Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Mankar Gope (in person).
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
937
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
07.02.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/77/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 19.03.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Khandra Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the demand of Colliery Mazdoor Union for promotion/regularization of Shri Mankar Gope,
U.G. Trammer to Clipman who is working in NKL, Unit of Khandar Colliery, Bankola Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd., as
Clipman since 01-04-2014, is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/77/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 19.03.2018 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 28.03.2018 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate appeared for the management of Khandra Colliery of Eastern
Coalfields Limited. The case is fixed up today for appearance of the Agent and for evidence of Management
Witness. Mr. Asim Kumar Mondal, Agent, Khandra Colliery was directed to produce information from the office
record regarding promotion which took place to the post of Clipman for the last time. Mr. Asim Kumar Mondal
appeared in person and enlightened that in future he would provide information to the Tribunal, as required.
Personal attendance of Mr. Asim Kumar Mondal is dispensed with.
3.
Mankar Gope, Underground Trammer, Category-III appeared in person. He had sought for regularization
to the post of Clipman in NKJ Unit of Khandra Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited w.e.f.
01.04.2014. An application has been filed today stating that he wants to withdraw the case, as he has been awarded
Service Linked Promotion on 26.02.2022 and he does not want to proceed with the case any further. Copy served
upon learned advocate for the management. Along with the petition, the aggrieved workman has filed a copy of
office order dated 26.02.2022 whereby sixty (60) workmen who have completed seven to eight years of service
were provided Service Linked Promotion @ three percent (3%) of their existing Basic. Considered the petition.
Since the workman does not want to proceed further, Industrial Dispute is dismissed on being withdrawn. Let a
copy of No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate
be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 338.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/85/2019-vkbZ- vkj- सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.37/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/02/2025.
938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[No. L-22012/85/2019 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 37 OF 2019
PARTIES: Pawan Kumar Mishra
Vs.
Management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
10.02.2025.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/85/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 29.11.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the reversal of Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, represented through Koyala Mazdoor Congress,
back to the designation of SDL Operator on 11.07.2014, which he was holding prior to his accident, by the
management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery is legal, proper and justified? If not, whether the demand of his
regularization as 'Pump Khalasi’, to which he was deployed on the basis of Medical Board's recommendation, is
justified? And if so, what relief is the workman entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/85/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 29.11.2019 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 09.12.2019 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited has appeared accompanied by Mr. Jayanta
Gorai, Manager (Personnel), Bankola Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative
appeared with Pawan Kumar Mishra, aggrieved workman. The case is fixed up today for hearing of argument.
3.
In this case parties have filed their written statements and adduced evidence. On the date fixed for hearing
of argument, Mr. Rakesh Kumar filed an application praying for withdrawing the Industrial Dispute on the ground
that Management has changed UG code of the workman to Non-UG code and assured that he will be regularized
soon as a non-underground workman. Application is accompanied by a pay slip of workman which shows that he
has been offered a Non-UG code. Mr. Jayanta Gorai, Management Representative submitted that they have no
objection if Industrial Dispute is withdrawn and the Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Limited Headquarters
will appropriately re-designate the workman in due course of time. It appears to me that Pawan Kumar Mishra is
not inclined to proceed further, as purpose for initiating the Industrial Dispute has been fulfilled. Prayer for
withdrawing the case is allowed. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate
be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
939
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 339.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/93/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.51/2022) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/02/2025
[No. L-22012/93/2022 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 51 OF 2022
PARTIES: Bhairab Nath Mukherjee
Vs.
Management of Manderboni Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, Gen. Secy., Colliery Mazdoor Union.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
13.02.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/93/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 31.10.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Manderboni Colliery under Pandaveswar Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ "Whether the action of the management of Mandarboni Colliery of Pandeveshwar Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd.
in non-payment of arrear of wages and other consequential benefits such as q.m.b. Sunday Holidays etc. for the
period of service as executive cadre reverted back to non-executive cadre to Sri B.N. Mukherjee is fair, legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"”
940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/93/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 31.10.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 01.11.2022 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Management filed their written statement on 06.02.2023 contesting the Industrial Dispute raised by the
General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union (INTUC). Mr. Chandi Banerjee, Union representative filed written
statement on 28.03.2023. Fact of the case disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Bhairab Nath
Mukherjee, Foreman In-charge posted at Manderboni Colliery under Pandaveswar Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) was promoted to the post of Subordinate Engineer (Electrical &
Mechanical) vide Order No. ECL/C-5(D)/Upgradation(E1)/E&M/EE/925 dated 21.05.2011 and joined his
promotional post on 01.06.2011. It is the contention of the workman that on his promotion he was receiving less
wages in respect of Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, wages for Sundays and Holidays, quarterly Bonus and yearly
Puja Bonus. All the workmen upgraded to the post of Subordinate Engineer were suffering from financial loss and
prayed for their reversion to the non-executive Grade for the purpose of protection of their Pay and Allowances.
The management of ECL issued an Office Order bearing Ref. No. ECL/C-5(D)/Order/Revert Back/E&M/EE/2499
dated 18.10.2013 by which Bhairab Nath Mukherjee was reverted to his earlier non-executive post of Forman In-
charge w.e.f. 01.11.2013. In the order of reversion, it was stated that upon reversion of Subordinate Engineers to
the non-executive grade they would be treated as if they have not been upgraded and pay fixation will be done as
per rule applicable for non-executive including benefits relating to National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter
referred to as NCWA – IX) considering due increments. It is inter-alia stated in the written statement that the
aggrieved workman is entitled to get difference of wages, Sunday and Holiday wages for the period while he was
posted as a Subordinate Engineer as if he was not upgraded. It is the case of the union that Apurba Kumar Roy and
Ushapati Samanta, who were also reverted to the post of Foreman In-charge, non-executive grade have been paid
the difference of wages and Sunday wages at the time of calculation of arear pay but the management did not
consider the prayer of the aggrieved workman for payment of arrear of difference of wages for the period from
01.06.2011 to 31.10.2013. It is contended that on the basis of order passed by Coal India Limited (hereinafter
referred to as CIL) bearing No. CIL/C5A(IV)/B-303 dated 06/12.09.2013 the status of workmen have been
changed and in furtherance to such Order the workmen are entitled to wages and benefit as non-executive
grade employees and they would be treated as if they had never been upgraded to the post of Subordinate
Engineers and Pay fixation would be done as applicable to non-executive grade as per rules with benefits and
increments as per NCWA–IX.
3.
Management contested the Industrial Dispute before this Tribunal. In their written statement it is admitted
that as per order of CIL, Subordinate Engineers who have been reverted to non-executive cadre are to be paid
consequential benefit as if they have not been upgraded. Regarding the claim for payment of difference of wage
between non-executive and executive post during the period of his work in the executive post, it is contended that
Bhairab Nath Mukherjee has drawn all the benefits / facilities / status as an executive of CIL and his claim is not
maintainable. Further case of the management is that the concerned workman as an executive has drawn salary for
thirty days in place of twenty-six days payable to non-executive. In this context it is further stated that Wage Board
employees are deployed on Sundays or holidays as per quota or sanction of Sundays or holidays whereas the
executives are deployed on Sundays or holidays without such quota. Therefore, the executives on reversion to non-
executives are not entitled to any further benefit for their notional engagement on Sundays and holidays and
deemed engagement on holidays or Sundays cannot earn them any benefit in Pay. It is inter-alia contended that
Bhairab Nath Mukherjee along with co-worker appealed before the General Manager (EE), ECL, Headquarters for
payment of performance related payment (PRP) in lieu of arrear / difference of wages for the period he worked in
the executive cadre, which is under consideration as per Office Memorandum bearing Ref. No. CIL/GM (P)/B-163
dated 13.03.2018. The management urged that the workman is not entitled to any payment for Sundays / holidays
on reversion and present Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
4.
Bhairab Nath Mukherjee has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He has filed affidavit-in-chief
citing order dated 21.05.2011 under which he was upgraded to the post of Subordinate Engineer and order dated
18.10.2013 by which he was reverted to the post of non-executive w.e.f. 01.11.2013. It is stated that in the order of
reversion it has been clearly mentioned that upon reversion from the post of Subordinate Engineer to non-
executive they will be treated as if they were not upgraded and pay fixation will be done as per rule applicable to
non-executive, including benefits relating to NCWA-IX considering due increments. The witness referred to the
cases of Apurba Kumar Roy and Ushapati Samanta who were paid arrear of wages on their reversion to non-
executive cadre. An Order dated 25/27.05.2016 has been produced as Exhibit W-6 in support thereof. The
workman also stated that the management of Bankola Area executed a Memorandum of Settlement with the five
workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Durgapur where difference of Basic, Sunday /
Holiday wages have been paid. Reliance has been placed on the order of CIL bearing Ref. No. CIL/C5A(IV)/B-
303 dated 06/12.09.2013 which assured that on reversion the Subordinate Engineers will be governed by the rules
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
941
and regulations applicable to non-executive cadre employees and their pay in non-executive cadre will be fixed as
per rules applicable in the earlier non-executive grade held by them prior to upgradation. The workman
accordingly claimed arrear of difference of Basic and Dearness Allowance including wages for Sunday / holiday,
quarterly bonus and puja bonus. In support of his case the workman witness has produced the following
documents:
(i)
Copy of Office Order dated 18.10.2013 by which the workman along with others were reverted
back to non-executive cadre has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Office Order dated 21/25.05.2011 by which the workman along with others were
upgraded to the post of Subordinate Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical), as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Office Order dated 02.06.2011 by which Bhairab Nath Mukherjee was posted as
Subordinate Engineer at Kendra Colliery, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of Pay Slip of Bhairab Nath Mukherjee after reversion, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of Pay Slip of Bhairab Nath Mukherjee for the post of Subordinate Engineer, as Exhibit
W-5.
(vi)
Copy of letter dated 25/27.05.2016 for payment of arrear due to Apurba Kumar Roy and
Ushapati Samanta after their reversion, as Exhibit W-6.
5.
Management examined Kishore Ram Ratan, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Manderboni Colliery, ECL
as Management Witness No. 1. He has filed his affidavit-in-chief wherein it is sated that as per order of CIL
Subordinate Engineers who were reverted back to non-executive are to be paid consequential benefits as if they
have not been upgraded and pay fixation would be done as applicable to non-executive cadre as per NCWA-IX
along with increments. In paragraph – (4) the management witness has refuted the claim for arrear of difference of
wages as non-executive while he was posted in the executive cadre and further sated that he has drawn all benefits
and facilities of an executive cadre. Only for the purpose of fixation of pay in the non-executive cadre on reversion
NCWA-IX would be considered for granting him increments, benefits, and pay protection. It is denied that the
workman is entitled to payment for Sundays / holidays as non-executive, during his posting in the executive cadre,
as such deployment of non-executives are done as per quota / sanction whereas deployment of executives on
Sundays / holidays are done without such quota and they are entitled to salary for thirty days. In support of
management‘s case the following documents have been produced :
(i)
Copy of Office Order dated 06/12.09.2013 by which the workman along with others were
reverted back to their original substantive posts in non-executive cadre has been produced as
Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of Order dated 05.09.2013 by which reverted employees were paid all consequential
benefits as per NCWA-IX, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2018 for payment of Performance Related Pay for the
period of work in executive cadre, as Exhibit M-3.
6.
In cross-examination the management witness consistent to his earlier stand, denied that the petitioner has
been paid on account of Sundays or holidays.
7.
The moot point for consideration is whether on reversion to the post of Foreman in-charge, in non-
executive cadre, the workman is entitled to any difference of wages in respect of Basic, Dearness Allowance,
wages for Sundays / holidays, and quarterly and annual bonus from 01.06.2011 to 31.10.2013.
8.
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, Union representative advancing his argument for the workman submitted that it is
quaint that on promotion to a higher grade in executive cadre an employee would receive less wages than he was
receiving in the non-executive cadre. It is submitted that eighteen employees in the post of Foreman In-charge
(Electrical & Mechanical) in Technical and Supervisory Grade A/A-1 were promoted to the post of Subordinate
Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) in E-1 Grade by order dated 21/25.05.2011 (Exhibit W-2) and by order dated
02.06.2011 Bhairab Nath Mukherjee, the aggrieved workman on his upgradation was posted at Kendra Colliery
under Pandaveswar Area w.e.f. 02.06.2011. Mr. Banerjee drew my attention to Office Order dated 18.10.2013
(Exhibit W-1) whereby Bhairab Nath Mukherjee was reverted to the non-executive cadre w.e.f. 01.11.2013. Mr.
Chandi Banerjee argued that on reversion in the non-executive cadre the workman who had suffered financial loss
is entitled to fixation of pay as per rules applicable to non-executive cadre including benefits under provisions of
NCWA-IX. It is further submitted that upon reversion to the non-executive cadre the workmen are to be treated as
if they have not been upgraded and they are also entitled to receive difference of wages, less paid to them, along
with payment for 119 Sundays and 18 holidays during the period of two years in executive cadre and further
entitled to quarterly and annual bonus. In support of his claim the union representative relied upon Exhibit W-6,
which is a copy of letter dated 25/27.05.2016 issued by the Chief Manager (Personnel), Sripur Area, ECL by
which the management paid arrear dues to Apurba Kumar Roy and Ushapati Samanta of SSI Colliery under Sripur
942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Area under similar circumstances on their reversion from Executive Grade -E to Technical and Supervisory
Grade A-1.
9.
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate for the management, in reply, argued that in the order of
reversion (Exhibit W-1) it is provided that upon reversion to non-executive cadre the workmen would be treated as
if they were not upgraded and pay fixation would be done as per rule applicable to non-executive cadre
prospectively from 01.11.2013. It is further argued that such workmen are not entitled to any difference of pay for
the period during their posting in the executive cadre from 01.06.2011 to 31.10.2013. It is asserted that during the
period the workman worked in the executive post he had drawn all his benefits and enjoyed the facilities as an
executive and he drew salary for thirty days in a month as an executive. Therefore, he is not entitled to any
payment of wages for Sundays and holidays on his reversion. Furthermore, it is argued that a non-executive
employee receives Pay for twenty-six days and on his deployment as per quota / sanction during Sundays /
holidays he receives additional Pay. In the instant case the workman has received pay for all thirty days in a month
as executive and he is not entitled to any additional pay.
10.
I have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the workman and for the management, the facts
and circumstances of the case, pleadings of parties and evidence garnered on record. The admitted position in this
case is that Bhairab Nath Mukherjee and seventeen other co-employees were promoted from the post of Foreman
In-charge to the post of Subordinate Engineer. There was a general grievance of the employees that on their
promotion to executive cadre they were incurring financial loss due to less payment made to them in comparison to
the wage they used to receive in the non-executive cadre. It transpires from Order bearing Ref. No.
CIL/C5A(IV)/B-303 dated 06/12.09.2013 (Exhibit M-1) issued by the General Manager (Personnel), CIL that two
hundred and four number of Subordinate Engineer posted in subsidiary companies of CIL have been reverted to
their original substantive post in the non-executive grade as per irrevocable option exercised by them pursuant to
order dated 31.05.2013. It is further provided that on reversion they will be governed by the rules and regulation as
applicable to the non-executive cadre employees and their Pay in non-executive grade would be fixed as per rules
applicable in the earlier non-executive grade held by them prior to their upgradation. It is further gathered form
Order bearing No. 2637 dated 05.09.2013 issued by the General Manager (Personnel), CIL (Exhibit M-2) that
upon reversion from Subordinate Engineer to the substantive post in non-executive grade it will be treated as if
they have not been upgraded and pay fixation would be done as applicable for non-executives as per rules with
benefits relating to NCWA-IX. Taking into consideration the sum and substance of the clarification order of CIL
dated 05.09.2013 (Exhibit M-2), I find that two conditions are required to be followed. Firstly, on reversion to the
substantive post of non-executive grade the employee is to be paid as if he had not been upgraded and therefore, he
is entitled to benefits and pay according to NCWA-IX. The terms and conditions of NCWA-IX is effective w.e.f.
01.07.2011 therefore, Bhairab Nath Mukherjee is entitled to receive the arrear of difference of wages towards his
Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance for the period from 01.06.2011 to 31.10.2013 (i.e., Basic Pay and Dearness
Allowance as non-executive, less the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance as an executive). He is also entitled to his
quarterly and annual bonus as financial benefits for the period he was posted as an executive. Secondly, the claim
regarding payment of wages for 119 Sundays and 18 holidays during the period of his posting in the executive
cadre, the workman having been paid for thirty days a month as an executive which includes 4 Sundays, he is not
entitled to any additional pay for his deployment on Sundays and holidays. It needs to be reckoned that a workman
in the non-executive cadre is not mandatorily employed on all Sundays and holidays but engaged / deployed only
on the basis of necessity and sanction. Such preconditions have neither been proved nor brought on record.
11.
In the instant case a general claim has been made that there was less payment of wages and bonus to the
workman. The management in turn has only denied the claim of the workman without any fair and constructive
proposal as to what are the bona fide dues of the workman on his reversion. In view of such circumstances, I find
and hold that Bhairab Nath Mukherjee, who was posted as Foreman In-charge at Manderboni Colliery under
Pandaveswar Area of ECL, is entitled to receive difference of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance from the
management of ECL for his posting in the executive cadre for the period from 01.06.2011 to 31.10.2013,
according to the benefits and pay fixation under NCWA-IX. He will also be entitled to receive quarterly and
annual bonus from the management of the company for the said period. The workman however is not entitled to
extra payment of wages for Sundays and holidays. The management of the company is directed to calculate the
dues within a period of three (3) months from the date of communication of the Award and disburse the same to
Bhairab Nath Mukherjee (U.M. No. 391523).
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed in part, on contest, against the management of Manderboni Colliery
under Pandaveswar Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Bhairab Nath Mukherjee (U.M. No. 391523), Foreman In-
charge, Manderboni Colliery is entitled to payment of arrear dues in respect of difference of Basic Pay and
Dearness Allowance between Foreman In-charge and Subordinate Engineer for the period from 01.06.2011 to
31.10.2023 and quarterly and annual bonus for the said period. The management is directed to make payment of
arrears of aforesaid dues to the workman within three (3) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
943
Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 340.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/179/99-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.141/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/179/99 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 141 OF 1999
PARTIES: Fuleshwar Khaira
(son-in-law of Late Jago Khaira)
Vs.
Management of Haripur Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
30.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/179/99/IR(CM-II) dated 30/31.08.1999 has been pleased to refer the scheduled dispute
between the employer, that is the Management of Haripur Colliery under Kenda Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Haripur Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL in not
providing employment to son-in-law of late Sh. Jago Khaira is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/179/99/IR(CM-II) dated 30/31.08.1999 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 14.09.1999 /
944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
05.10.2001 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar as the General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on
09.01.2002 on behalf of Fuleshwar Khaira, the dependant son-in-law of Jago Khaira. Management of Eastern
Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) filed their written statement on 13.10.2004. The fact of the case
as disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Jago Khaira was a permanent employee of ECL and
was posted as a Dresser at Haripur Colliery. He applied for voluntary retirement under Clause 9.4.3 of National
Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) – III. The Apex Medical Board found him unfit for job
and terminated from service w.e.f. 20.11.1989. Jago Khaira applied for providing employment to Fuleshwar
Khaira, his son-in-law. Management examined the proposal. The Screening Committee of the management at the
Area Level held necessary enquiry and police verification was also done by the management for ascertaining the
relationship of Fuleshwar Khaira with Jago Khaira. The file was then forwarded to ECL Headquarters but the
management did not consider the proposal for employment of the dependant son-in-law for which the union has
raised the Industrial Dispute praying for employment to the dependant son-in-law of the terminated employee as
per provision of NCWA.
3.
Management of ECL in their written statement stated that Jago Khaira applied for voluntary retirement on
medical ground under Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV under the debility scheme and the workman was declared
medically unfit on 25.10.1989 by a duly constituted Medical Board. The service of the workman was terminated
w.e.f. 20.11.1989. It is the case of the management that the proposal for employment of Fuleshwar Khaira was
examined by the Area Screening Committee on 09.02.1990 and after observing necessary formalities and after
Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME) of Fuleshwar Khaira, the proposal for employment
was referred to the Competent Authority at ECL Headquarters. It is contended that after verification it was found
that the relationship of Fuleshwar Khaira with Jago Khaira was not established and the proposal for employment
was not considered by the management as he failed to establish that he was a dependant son-in-law of Jago Khaira
as required under the mandatory provision of Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV. It is contended that Fuleshwar Khaira
is not entitled to get any relief in this case and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
4.
The moot point for consideration is whether Fuleshwar Khaira is the dependant son-in-law of Jago
Khaira, the ex-employee of ECL and whether he is entitled to get an employment as a dependant of Jago Khaira.
5.
Fuleshwar Khaira has filed an affidavit-in-chief wherein he stated that Jago Khaira a permanent employee
of Haripur Colliery was his father-in-law, who applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground under the
provision of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-III. He was terminated from service on 20.11.1989 and Jago Khaira
nominated Fuleshwar Khaira as his son-in-law for providing employment to him. After screening at the Colliery
level, the proposal for employment of Fuleshwar Khaira was forwarded to the Area level. Management at the area
level verified the relationship between Fuleshwar Khaira and Jago Khaira through police verification and
forwarded the File to the ECL Headquarters. Jago Khaira died on 22.09.1992 and the wife of Jago Khaira
predeceased him on 07.03.1992. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-chief that Jago Khaira left behind him three
daughters and no son. Fuleshwar Khaira lived with his father-in-law and mother-in-law until their death and was
dependent upon them. The retiral dues like Gratuity and Coal Mines Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as
CMPF) of his father-in-law have not been paid till date and the dependant son-in-law is in a state of starvation.
6.
In his cross-examination the Workman Witness stated that he had no document regarding his marriage.
Zama Devi is the name of his wife. The name of the daughters of Jago Khaira are recorded in the Service Record.
Witness further deposed that he used to live with Jago Khaira at Haripur Colliery. It further transpires from his
cross-examination that his name was not recorded in the Voters‘ List of Haripur, on the other hand his name
appeared in the Voters‘ List of Village Banjama, Jamui. He further deposed that he had no Ration Card at Haripur
Colliery. It is suggested on behalf of the management that he did not reside with Jago Khaira at Haripur as his
dependant and denied that he was the dependant son-in-law of Jago Khaira. Witness stated that he has not submit
any application for payment of Gratuity and CMPF.
7.
Management has examined Md. Zeya, Dy. Manager (Personnel), Haripur Group of Mines under Kenda
Area as Management Witness No. 1. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Fuleshwar Khaira applied for
his employment but his relationship with Jago Khaira was not established and Fuleshwar Khaira was not the son-
in-law of Jago Khaira. He further deposed that the relationship between the petitioner and Jago Khaira could not be
proved for which the application for employment was rejected. The witness produced a copy of letter of
termination of Jago Khaira dated 19/21.11.1989 under which the workman was terminated from service on the
ground of physical debility, as Exhibit M-1. No other document has been produced on behalf of the management
and the witness stated that the employment file of Jago Khaira could not be traced out.
8.
In cross-examination witness the management stated that he had no document to show that any screening
or medical examination of dependant of workman was carried out. He was also unable to produce any document in
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
945
support of his statement that relation of Fuleshwar Khaira with Jago Khaira was not established.
9.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that Fuleshwar Khaira being the dependant son-in-law of
the ex-employee is entitled to get employment as per terms of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV.
10.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management refuting the claim of the union argued that Jago
Khaira and his wife have expired in the year 1992. Fuleshwar Khaira in his evidence has not been able to
substantiate his claim that he is the dependant son-in-law of Jago Khaira which is necessary for the purpose of
providing employment as per provision of NCWA. Drawing my attention to the cross-examination of Fuleshwar
Khaira, learned advocate argued that though the witness claimed to reside with Jago Khaira and his wife at Haripur
Colliery his name was admittedly not recorded in the Voters‘ List of Haripur Colliery on the other hand he is a
voter at his native place at Village Banjama, Jamui. It is argued that a person who is residing at a place for a long
time would also have a Ration Card in the locality but Fuleshwar Khaira did not have any Ration Card issued at
Haripur Collier. Therefore, he did not fulfill the basic requirement of being son-in-law of retired employee nor did
he reside with them as dependant. It is contended that the claim of the union for providing employment to
Fuleshwar Khaira cannot succeed and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
11.
Having considered the argument advanced on behalf of the union and management and on assessing the
evidence on record, it appears to me that Fuleshwar Khaira could not provide any document which would prima
facie establish that he is the son-in-law of Jago Khaira. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness has stated his
residential address as Vill: Banjama, PO: Sahia, PS: Jhajha, Dist: Jamui, Bihar. Documents like Ration Card and
Voters‘ List of Haripur Colliery does not bear the name of Fuleshwar Khaira. The evidence on record goes to
establish that the person claiming employment as a dependant son-in-law was actually not residing with the family
of Jago Khaira. The witness stated that he married Zama Devi, the eldest daughter of Jago Khaira, whose name
appeared in the Service Record of the company. No document has been produced by the union nor by the
management from where it could be derived that Zama Devi, the wife of Fuleshwar Khaira was the daughter of
Jago Khaira. In this case Zama Devi field, an affidavit-in-chief before the Tribunal on 29.04.2015 but she did not
turn up to face cross-examination by the management. In the event the witness dose not turn up to face cross-
examination, the statements made in the affidavit-in-chief cannot be relied upon as sacrosanct. I am therefore
unable to place reliance upon the affidavit of Zama Devi that her marriage was solemnized with Fuleshwar Khaira
during the lifetime of Jago Khaira or Fuleshwar Khaira has residing as ―Gharjamai‖. In the present case the burden
of proof lies upon the union representing the interest of the workman. The union ought to have adduce evidence to
prove that Fuleshwar Khaira was married to the dependant daughter of Jago Khaira and at the time of termination
of the workman on medical ground the dependant son-in-law was residing with the employee and almost wholly
dependent on the earing of the employee. None of the family members of Jago Khaira has been examined in the
case to prove the relationship of the claimant with the ex-employee. Under such circumstances I am constrained to
hold that Fuleshwar Khaira is not entitled to get any employment as dependant son-in-law of Jago Khaira. It
appears from the pleadings as well as evidence of Workman Witness No. 1 that the legal dues of Jago Khaira has
not been disbursed to his legal heirs. The management of the company is directed to ascertain the legal heirs of
Jago Khaira and disburse the legal dues to them on verifying their identity.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above
findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi
for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 341.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/61/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.31/2022) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/61/2022 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 31 OF 2022
PARTIES: Dilip Bouri
Vs.
Management of Khas Kajora Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
27.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/61/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 28.06.2022 has been pleased to refer the scheduled dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Khas Kajora
Colliery under Kajora Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Dilip Bouri, Ex-U.G. Dresser
(U.M.553468) Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area w.e.f. 31.07.2017 is proper, justified and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/61/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 28.06.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 11.07.2022 /
01.08.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses.
2.
The aggrieved workman being represented by the President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, filed written
statement on 25.10.2022. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL filed written statement on
06.01.2023. In a nutshell, the fact of the case disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Dilip Bouri was
posted as an Underground Dresser bearing U.M. No. 553468 at Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern
Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). He was unable to attend his duty from 01.10.2016 due to his
illness and was under medical treatment at a Health Centre at Kahndra run by West Bengal Government. He was
unable to inform the management about his absence from duty. After recovery from his illness, he reported for
duty to the Manager of the Colliery but he was not allowed to join. A Charge Sheet was issued to him on
03.02.2017 on the charge of unauthorized and habitual absence. The workman replied to the Charge Sheet and
submitted documents related to his treatment at the Health Centre. The management not finding the same
satisfactory decided to conduct a Domestic Enquiry. The workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding, where
he disclosed that he had no intention to remain absent but had failed to attend his duty due to illness, thus his
absence was beyond his control. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct and on the recommendation
of the colliery management, the General Manager imposed a punishment of dismissal against him by Order bearing
Reference No. ECL/KA/APM/C-6/10/1319 dated 31.07.2017. After receiving the order of dismissal, the workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
947
submitted an application and prayed for mercy but the same was not considered by the management and he was not
allowed to join his duty.
3.
It is inter-alia stated in the written statement that the workman had remained absent from duty for a period
of three months and two days i.e., from 01.10.2016 to 03.02.2017 but he was awarded a disproportionate
punishment of dismissal for his misconduct. Further case of the workman is that while working as Underground
Dresser he was required to perform hazardous job which involves dressing of roof and side of the coal face after
blast. Due to such dangerous nature of job the workman requested the management for deploying him in other
job according to his physical condition but the management did not consider his prayer and he started suffering
from illness for which he was unable to attend his duty properly. The workman contended that he has no source of
income for sustaining his family and his case should be considered sympathetically and on humanitarian ground.
The management of ECL in their Memorandum of Settlement before the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central), Asansol dated 22.05.2007 had agreed to consider the mercy appeals of the dismissed employees who
absented from duty up to nine months and were below the age of forty-five years on the date of dismissal. It is
urged that the management should consider the mercy petition submitted by Dilip Bouri and prayed for his
reinstatement with full back wages with all consequential benefits.
4.
Management contested the case by filing a written statement. It is admitted that Dilip Bouri was a
permanent employee at Khas Kajora Colliery under ECL and was designated as Underground Dresser and his date
of birth is 28.02.1972. According to the management Dilip Bouri was a habitual absentee and he remained absent
from duty on various pretexts. The workman was reprimanded on several occasion but he did not improve his
conduct. The workman had remained absent from his duty from 01.10.2016 without any information or authorized
leave. The management accordingly issued a Charge Sheet against the workman, bearing Ref. No. KKC/P&IR/C-
6/CS/17/162 dated 03.02.2017 under Clause 26.23 of the Certified Standing Orders for his habitual absence from
duty without sufficient cause and under Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Orders for absence beyond ten days
without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave without valid reason. The
matter was referred to domestic enquiry and the workman participated in the enquiry held on 26.06.2017.
Principles of natural justice were followed and full opportunity was given to the workman for defending himself.
In course of proceeding both the charges of habitual and unauthorized absence are proved against the workman
beyond doubt. A second Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman. The charged employee has replied
against the second Show Cause Notice, which was not found satisfactory. On the basis of the findings of the
Enquiry Officer the General Manager, Kajora Area dismissed the workman by his letter dated 31.07.2017.
5.
It is further case of the management that Dilip Bouri was a habitual absentee and during the previous five
years he attended duty for 43 days in the year 2012, Nil attendance in the year 2013, 154 days in the year 2014,
167 days in the year 2015 and 129 days in the year 2016. The management asserted that absenteeism is a serious
misconduct and it hampers the work of the employer and production process. The concerned workman did not
improve his performance in respect of physical attendance before his dismissal. The management placed reliance
upon the decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of Inda and Others Vs.
Bishamber Das Dogra [C.A. No. 7087 of 2002], Burn and Company Limited Vs. Wormless [AIR 1959 SC
529] and L & T Komatsu Limited Vs. N. Udaykumar [(2008) 1 SCC 224] which found habitual absenteeism as
gross violation of discipline. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh [C.A. No. 960 of 2003] wherein it was observed that
habitual absence in fact establishes lack of interest in work. The management also relied upon a decision of the
Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Dayanand Paswan Vs. Coal India Limited and Others [W.P. No.
874 of 2014], where by order dated 19.05.2016 the Hon‘ble Court observed that
“….The conduct and attitude of the petitioner appears to have been extremely casual and cavalier. In the judgment
and order dated 20 April, 2016 delivered on WP No. 800 of 2014 (Some Majhi-vs.-Coal India Ltd.) this court
emphasised that an employee must take his duty seriously. He cannot take his employment for granted. He must
follow the rules and regulations of the employer company. He must conduct himself in a disciplined manner. He
must perform his duties with responsibility. An employee should adhere to discipline not only for personal
excellence but also for the collective good of the organization which he serves…”
Warning letters were issued to him on fourteen (14) instances. There was stoppage of two increments by order
dated 21.09.2006, demotion to next lower category in Category – III by order dated 17.07.2007, stoppage of three
increments by order dated 18.03.2008, stoppage of three increments by order dated 10.09.2012, and stoppage of
three increments by order dated 23.03.2014. In spite of past punishments imposed against him the workman did
not improve his conduct and performance. He did not care to attend his duty and was a job deserter. The
management urged that any accommodation granted to the charged employee would amounts to misplaced
sympathy and claimed that punishment awarded against the ex-workman is proportionate and the decision of the
management was not arbitrary in any way. The management prayed for dismissal of the Industrial Dispute.
948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
The short point for consideration before this Tribunal is whether dismissal of Dilip Bouri from his service
at Khas Kajora Colliery w.e.f. 31.07.2017 is proper, justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?
7.
In order to prove their case union has examined Dilip Bouri as Workman Witness No. 1. He has filed his
affidavit-in-chief reproducing the entire case in their written statement. In Paragraph-11 of the affidavit-in-chief
the workman stated that the total period of his absence from duty was only four (4) months from 01.10.2016 to
03.02.2017, which was due to his illness. The workman also stated that he requested the management to depute
him for some other job suiting his physical condition but his request was not considered. The workman produced
the following documents in support of his case :
(i)
Copy of the Identity Card of Dilip Bouri issued by the management is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Charge Sheet dated 03.02.2017, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Reply dated 03.06.2017 against the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of Medical Certificate dated 02.06.2017, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of Note Sheet dated 20/21.07.2017, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of Mercy Appeal dated 11.08.2017, as Exhibit W-6.
8.
The management examined Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel), Khas Kajora Colliery as
Management Witness No. 1 and filed his affidavit-in-chief. In the affidavit-in-chief the management witness stated
that the charged workman participated int the Enquiry Proceeding held on 26.06.2017. The Enquiry Proceeding
held following the principles of natural justice and full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself.
The charge of habitual and unauthorized absence were established against the workman and a second Show Cause
Notice dated 04.07.2017 was issued. The chargesheeted employee submitted his reply to the second Show Cause
Notice which is not found satisfactory. The General Manager, Kajora Area by letter dated 31.07.2017 dismissed
the workman on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is further stated that absenteeism is a serious
misconduct which hampers the work of the employer. The workman did not improve his performance for which
the management is unable to keep his name in the roll of the company indefinitely. It is also stated that the
dismissal of the workman from service is justified. Management produced the following documents in support of
their case :
(i)
Copy of Charge Sheet dated 03.02.2017 is produced, as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of Reply dated 03.06.2017 against the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of Letter of appointment of the Enquiry Officer dated 13.06.2017, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of Notice of enquiry dated 19.06.2017, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of Enquiry Proceeding dated 26.06.2017, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of Enquiry Report dated 26.06.2017, as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of 2nd Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2017, as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of Reply dated 13.07.2017 against the 2nd Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit M-8.
(ix)
Copy of Order of dismissal dated 31.07.2017, as Exhibit M-9 and M-9/1.
(x)
Copies of past warnings and punishments imposed upon the workman are marked as Exhibit M-
10 collectively.
(xi)
Copy of Note Sheet dated 20/21.07.20174, as Exhibit M-11.
9.
In his cross-examination the management witness deposed the chargesheeted employee submitted his
treatment papers from the Medical Officer, BPHC, Khandra (Ukhra) along with his reply against Charge Sheet.
The witness further stated that the second Show Cause Notice issued was place before the Competent Authority
before dismissal of the workman and the same is reflected in the Note Sheet dated 20/21.07.2017.
10.
In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the dismissed
employee and the management witness, the stage is now set for considering whether the dismissal of the workman
from service is justified or not. Mr. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that the workman was
suffering from illness due to which he was prevented from attending his duty, which was beyond his control. It is
further submitted that the workman had no intention to remain absent from duty and the punishment of dismissal
from service is disproportionate to the nature of wrong / misconduct alleged against him. Mr. Kumar argued that
the management has denied to consider the mercy petition filed by the workman in violation and contrary to the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
949
Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007, which was signed by the management representative,
assuring that the cases of dismissed workmen would be considered on fulfilling the terms of settlement.
11.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management took me through the evidence of past habitual
absence of the workman for which he had been warned and punished. It is argued that the workman is a chronic
absentee and his past record in service is unsatisfactory. From the cross-examination of the workman, it is pointed
out that the workman has clearly admitted that from the year 2012 to 2016 he never attended duty for 190 days in
any of the year, which is the minimum period for performing continuous service in underground job. It is also
pointed out that in the year 2013 the workman did not attend his duty even for a single day. Learned advocate
submitted that there were cogent reasons for the management to initiate a Domestic Enquiry against the workman
for his unauthorized and habitual absence and he failed to adduce any evidence disclosing plausible reasons for his
absence. In response to workman‘s claim of having undergone medical treatment from 01.10.2016 till 03.02.2017,
it is urged that the workman after issuance of Charge Sheet on 03.02.2017 managed to obtain a medical certificate
from the Medical Officer, BPHC, Khandra (Ukhra), which was issued on 02.06.2017 and he was advised medical
treatment / investigation / rest for the period and he was fit to join his duty on 03.06.2017. Learned advocate
argued that no treatment paper nor investigation report has been produced by the workman for the period from
03.10.2016 to 02.06.2017, during a long time period of eight months. Therefore, there is no reason to place
reliance upon the copy of Medical Certificate, which does not find support from any other document. Mr. P. K.
Das, learned advocate referred to the cross-examination of the workman witness where he admitted that the
Enquiry Officer provided him with reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the charge levelled against him and
the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge. The Competent Authority after considering the Enquiry
Report as well as the second Show Cause Notice and reply submitted by the workman found it appropriate to
impose a punishment of dismissal from service. It is argued that a workman should be disciplined in rendering his
service to the employer establishment. Frequent absence in habitual manner disrupted the purpose of employment
and hampered the production process. Therefore, the workman deserved no sympathy after availing several
opportunities on earlier occasion. According to the management the punishment of dismissal of Dilip Bouri from
service is proportionate to his repeated misconduct and long absence from duty.
12.
It appears to me that the workman had absented on several occasions in the past and also remained absent
for more than four months at a stretch without any intimation or authorization from the Competent Authority of the
Colliery. The Charge Sheet (Exhibit W-2) clearly states the number of days he attended duty during the period
from 2012 to 2016. The workman submitted his reply to the Charge Sheet after four months which has been
produced as Exhibit W-3. Issuance of Charge Sheet, seeking explanation within seventy-two hours from the
workman is not a matter to be taken lightly. The workman did not deny service of Charge Sheet upon him.
Therefore, it was incumbent upon the workman to come out with a prompt reply disclosing the reasons of his
unauthorized absence. It took him four months to reason out his absence and the workman approached the Medical
Officer, BPHC, Khandra (Ukhra), Burdwan for obtaining a Medical Certificate after receipt of Charge Sheet to suit
his purpose. No supportive document has been produced by him to prove that he was actually under medical
treatment at any point of time. No document relating to his prognosis or diagnosis by any doctor nor any
investigation report has been produced before the Enquiry Officer or before this Tribunal in support of his illness.
The doctor has not been examined to support the case of the workman.
13.
Under such circumstance I hold that the Enquiry Officer was justified in not placing reliance upon the
Medical Certificate. The Domestic Enquiry was held on 26.06.2017 and the Enquiry Proceeding in two pages have
been produced as Exhibit M-5 collectively and the Report of the Enquiry Officer as Exhibit M-6. The finding
reveals that the workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding and was given full opportunity to defend himself.
The Enquiry Officer has considered the materials produced before him in course of the enquiry proceeding and the
950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
past punishment records of the workman including the period of absence from duty for the period from 2012 to
2016. The Competent Authority thereafter issued a second Show Cause Notice, seeking explanation from the
charged employee about the findings of Enquiry Officer. The second Show Cause Notice is produced as Exhibit
M-7 and the reply of the workman as Exhibit M-8. The General Manager of Khas Kajora Colliery issued order of
termination of service of Dilip Bouri w.e.f. 27.07.2017 (Exhibit M-9 and M-9/1). It appears from the relevant
documents produced in the evidence that the reason is rife for termination of service of the workman due to his
habitual and unauthorized absence without any information. The conduct of the workman adversely affected the
working atmosphere and hampered the production process of the employer. The management had granted several
opportunities to the workman in the past but he failed to improve his conduct. I therefore, find no mitigating
circumstance to hold that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct committed. The
punishment imposed by the management is found proportionate to the indiscipline and irresponsible act on the part
of the workman, who deserves no sympathy. I find no incongruity in the Enquiry Proceeding which has been
conducted following the principles of natural justice. In view of my above discussion, I find no merit in the
Industrial Dispute raised by the union and the same is dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. I find no merit in the dispute raised against the order of
termination of service against Dilip Bouri. The impugned order issued by the General Manager, Kajora Area,
Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing Reference No. ECL/KA/APM/C-6/10/1319 dated 31.07.2017 calls for no
interference. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent
to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 342.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/19/2015-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 04/2015) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025
[No. L-22012/19/2015 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
951
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 04 OF 2015
PARTIES: Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee
Vs.
Management of Sodepur Area, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee (in person).
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
30.12.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/19/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 18.06.2015 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL in justified and whether Sri
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee is entitled to promotion as per the norms of the company i.e. M/S. ECL, if so what
relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/19/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 18.06.2015 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 01.07.2015 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee, the aggrieved workman was represented by Colliery Mazdoor Congress
(HMS) and a written statement was filed on 12.08.2015. The fact of the case as adumbrated in the written
statement is that, Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL) and was posted at Sodepur Area office, as Revenue Inspector, having U.M. No.
256026. He superannuated from service on 28.02.2014. The contention of the union is that Monotosh Kumar
Chatterjee was granted promotion to the post of Technical Grade ―A‖ on 12.03.1993. As per Cadre Scheme
followed by the company, Implementation Instruction (hereinafter referred to as I.I.) No. 39 and 24 provide that an
employee is entitled to promotion to the next higher post after completion of five years in Technical Grade ―A‖,
which implies that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was entitled to be promoted from Technical Grade ―A‖ to
Technical Grade ―A-1‖ in the year 1998. The aforesaid Implementation Instruction stipulated that an employee
remaining in the Technical Grade ―A‖ shall become eligible for promotion to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ after
completion of five years in Technical Grade ―A‖. Further contention of the union is that the management of the
company did not follow the aforesaid norms in the case of Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee, who has been denied his
promotion since the year 1998 till his retirement in the year 2014. It is asserted that the workman was not provided
with promotion for a period of sixteen years, simply because he was an office bearer of a union i.e., the President
of the Branch Committee of Sodepur Area Office, this amounts to clear victimization of the workman. It is inter-
alia contended that other employees of Sodepur Area Office who were far more junior to Monotosh Kumar
Chatterjee were promoted to Technical Grade ―A-1‖, several years earlier, ignoring the case of Monotosh Kumar
Chatterjee, which amounted to discrimination against the workman by a Public Sector Company. Monotosh Kumar
Chatterjee submitted several applications before the management of Sodepur Area Office for granting him
promotion as per the norms of the company but the same yield no result as such an Industrial Dispute has been
raised by the Colliery Mazdoor Congress (HMS) before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on
01.05.2013. On failure of conciliation a FOC Report dated 12.03.2015 was submitted by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol. Considering the merit of the case, the Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court,
Asansol for adjudication. The union has prayed for directing the management of Sodepur Area to grant promotion
in favour of Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee from Technical Grade ―A‖ to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ w.e.f. the year
1998, as per norms of the Company and consequential benefits which Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee is entitled to.
3.
The management of ECL contested the case by filing written statement on 19.05.2016. Primary object of
952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the management is that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee has already superannuated from his service on 28.02.2014 as
such he is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Reference case
is not maintainable. It is asserted that the claim for promotion is not an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it does not involve any issue related to employment, non-employment or terms
of employment and the Reference is bad in law and misconceived.
4.
Further case of the management is that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee, in his written statement has admitted
that he reached his highest grade of Supervisory Staff and was receiving a salary which is more than Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) per month, as such he is not a workman under the definition of Sectio 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and no Industrial Dispute can be raised on his account. The management asserted that
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was already promoted to the Cadre of Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A‖ and ―A-
1‖ and thereafter there is no grade for promotion. According to the management promotion is not a matter of right
and depends upon vacancy in the cadre and eligibility of candidate. Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was finally
promoted to Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖ w.e.f. 01.01.2002 after completion of eight years of service,
as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) for providing time bound
promotion. He was subsequently given Service Linked Promotion (hereinafter referred to as SLP) on 01.01.2010 in
addition to his normal increments. According to the provision of NCWA an employee is eligible to get four
promotions in the minimum, during his carrier. However, Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was granted six promotions
during his tenure of service and the dispute raised by him is without any merit. It is denied by the management that
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee became eligible for promotion in the year 1998 from Technical and Supervisory
Grade ―A‖ to Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖ and further denied that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was not
given promotion for being an office bearer of the union. It is urged that the claim of the union is not justified and
the dispute is liable to be dismissed.
5.
On 21.06.2016 the union submitted a rejoinder stating that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was not
discharging any managerial function and the nature of duties performed by him would indicate that he was a
workman and did not belong to Supervisory Grade. It is contended that the dispute raised by the union in relation
to the promotion of workman is a condition of service and if the workman is not considered for promotion and is
excluded from promotion without explanation, in violation of the norms of the company, the workman can raise
Industrial Dispute which is the matter of Reference for adjudication. It is urged that a conciliation proceeding was
initiated by the union which was participated by the management and workman and ultimately resulted in failure,
giving rise to the present Reference case. It is asserted that the Reference for conciliation was made by the
workman while he was in service, therefore the objection raised by management that there was no employer-
employee relation between the parties at the time of initiating the Industrial Dispute has no force.
6.
The point for consideration is whether Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was entitled to any promotion as per
the norms of the company and whether the action of management of Sodepur Area of ECL was justified for
granting promotion to his junior staff member without considering him.
7.
In the instant case Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee, workman witness no. 1 has filed an affidavit-in-chief and
was cross-examined on behalf of the management of ECL. It has been stated by the workman that he retired from
Technical Grade ―A‖ and was provided upgradation to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ by granting Service Linked
Upgradation (hereinafter referred to as SLU) on 01.01.2002. He denied the suggestion that employee junior to him
was not given promotion in Technical Grade ―A-1‖ before him and no discrimination was done. The workman also
deposed that he submitted papers related to promotion of Mr. Dilip Acharayya who was subsequently promoted to
promoted to Technical Grade ―A-1‖. The workman denied that he was not entitled to be considered for promotion
from the year 1998 onwards.
8.
In support of their case the management examined Mr. Rahul Singh, Senior Officer (Personnel), Sodepur
Area of ECL as Management Witness – 1. It transpires from his testimony that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was
granted promotion to Technical Grade ―A‖ w.e.f. 12.03.1993, copy of the Order has been produced as Exhibit M-
1. On 30.01.2002 an Office Order was issued by which Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was upgraded to Technical
Grade ―A-1‖ under SLU, copy of the same has been Marked as Exhibit M-2. Furthermore, on 03.06.2010
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was given benefit of Service Linked Increment (hereinafter referred to as SLI), copy
of the same has been produced as Exhibit M-3. It is stated by Management Witness No. 1 that in the year 2003
Grade ―A‖ was the highest grade in the Cadre of Revenue Inspector and subsequent to the year 2003 a new Cadre
―A-1‖ was introduced. The witness produced the promotion policy under I.I. No. 39 under NCWA-VI dated
28.11.2003 for promotion from Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A‖ to Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖,
copy of the document has been produced as Exhibit M-4. According to the management witness the claim of
workman for promotion is not justified and a copy of I.I. No. 24 which relates to promotion during service span of
a workman, mentioned in Clause 13.5.1 of NCWA-VIII has been admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-5.
9.
In his cross-examination the management witness deposed that if an employee does not get promotion in
ten years of service, he becomes eligible for SLU by way of upgradation allowing, an increment of three percent
(3%) of Basic pay. The witness denied that three percent (3%) increment of Basic was not granted to the workman
and that the workman continued to perform same nature of work as he was performed in his earlier grade. In case
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
953
of Service Linked Promotion the workman holding the post of Technical Grade ―A-1‖ is given SLI if he is not
been given a regular promotion within a span of seven years in underground cases and eight years in surface cases.
The witness also deposed that as there was no higher-grade after ―A-1‖ in Technical Grade, a person after seven or
eight years of service, as the case may be, was entitled to SLI and he was given increment of three percent (3%) of
Basic. The witness denied the suggestion that since there is no provision for promotion of Technical Grade ―A-1‖
in National Coal Wage Agreement no promotion was accorded to the workman for the rest of his service career
and he was only granted one increment. The witness also denied that SLP of a workman, holding the post of
Technical Grade ―A-1‖, is not equivalent to promotion. The management witness deposed that for the purpose of
promotion of workman from one grade to another grade, a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter
referred to as DPC) is constituted, which follows the Circular of the year 2012. Finally, it is denied by the
management witness that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was deprived of his promotion from Technical Grade ―A‖
to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ as per I.I. No. 39 and 24.
10.
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee appeared in person and argued his case by submitting that the Industrial
Dispute is maintainable as it relates to excluding him from being considered for promotion, which is a violation of
his service condition. It is argued that he retired from service on 28.02.2014 and the complaint was made before
the Conciliation Officer prior to his superannuation and eventually resulted in failure of conciliation and Reference
of the Industrial Dispute is made to this Tribunal. According to the workman he made several representations
before the management for granting him promotion from Technical Grade ―A‖ to Technical Grade ―A-1‖, as per
norms of the company but it yielded no result. Furthermore, workmen who were junior to him in entering
Technical Grade ―A‖ were referred for their promotion to Technical Grade ―A-1‖. It is inter alia argued that during
his service carrier he was granted promotion only on one occasion on 12.03.1993 in Technical Grade ―A‖.
According to the I.I. No. 39 (Exhibit M-4) an employee is entitled to get promotion after five years from Technical
Grade ―A‖ to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ and it is submitted that the workman was last promoted to Technical Grade
―A‖ on 12.03.1993 vide Office Order No. ECL:CMD.C-6:WBE-5/425 dated 12.03.1993. It is argued that
according to the Cadre scheme and I.I. No. 39 of Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry, Monotosh
Kumar Chatterjee after completion of five years was entitled to a promotion to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ in the year
1998, but the management has denied his promotion from 1998 till his retirement in 2014. In order to meet the
contention of the management that the workman was granted SLU on 01.01.2002 by placing him in Technical
Grade ―A-1‖ and thereafter was allowed SLI on 03.06.2010 with increment of three percent (3%) of the Basic, it is
argued that he received no monetary benefit by way of such upgradation and one Mr. Dilip Acharayya, a junior
staff member who was promoted to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ before him. Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee argued that a
notional promotion should be grated to him w.e.f. 1998 and consequential financial benefit should be granted as he
is now suffering financial loss at the time of computation of pension.
11.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for management of ECL, in reply, argued that according to the provision
of NCWA an employee is entitled to four promotional benefits in his service carrier and in the case of Monotosh
Kumar Chatterjee, he received six promotional benefits which includes a promotion to Technical Grade ―A‖ on
12.03.1993, a SLU by way of upgradation to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ on 01.01.2002 and a SLI on 03.06.2010. It is
further argued that Mr. Dilip Acharayya, who was posted in Personnel Department was granted promotion to
Technical Grade ―A‖ on 14.08.2001 and thereafter to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ on 01.11.2011 i.e., long after
promotion was granted to the aggrieved workman, who has already reached the highest grade. Learned advocate
argued that Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was granted three percent (3%) increment of his basic pay at the time of
granting him SLU and another three percent (3%) increment of his basic pay at the time of providing him with the
benefit of SLI, while he was in the post of Technical Grade ―A-1‖. It is contended that the workman is not entitled
to any benefit and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
12.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the light of their pleadings and
evidence on record. I have also considered the evidence adduced and the provision of I.I. No. 39 and 24, relied on
by the workman. At the very outset, I considered it appropriate to address the objection raised by the management
regarding maintainability of this Industrial Dispute on the ground that there is no relationship of employer-
employee between the workman and management at the time the Industrial Dispute is referred and that Monotosh
Kumar Chatterjee, holding a supervisory post is not eligible to raise any dispute as a workman. It is an accepted
position that the terms of service of the aggrieved workman are guided by the National Coal Wage Agreement,
which are applicable only to workman. Therefore, any difference between employer-employee connected with
employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person would be
considered as Industrial Dispute. In the present case the workman being aggrieved with his condition of his
service, for not being considered for his promotion within five years from his first promotion, has the right of
raising the Industrial Dispute. It appears from the record that the Conciliation Officer failed to mediate and issued a
Failure of Conciliation Certificate, prior to superannuation of the workman. Under such circumstance the
contention of the management that the Industrial Dispute is not maintainable does not hold good.
13.
The second facet of the workman‘s contention is that he was not granted a promotion to Technical Grade
954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
―A-1‖ due to which he suffered financial loss while computing of his pension. It transpires from paragraph – (3) of
the affidavit-in-chief filed by Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee that he was promoted for the last time on 12.03.1993 to
Technical Grade ―A‖ as Revenue Inspector. He was entitled to promotion from Technical Grade ―A‖ to Technical
Grade ―A-1‖ in the year 1998 as per norms of the company. From Exhibit M-4 i.e., I.I. No. 39 dated 28.11.2003, it
appears that minimum experience for eligibility for promotion from Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A‖ to
Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖ for Technical and Non-technical Personnel is five years. A prudent
interpretation of the word ―minimum experience‖ indicates that under no circumstance promotion should be
granted before completion of five years‘ term in Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A‖. By no stretch of
imagination, the converse can be assumed by holding that on completion of the minimum experience of five years
a person must be promoted from Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A‖ to Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖.
In the instant case the evidence of management witness discloses that NCWA stipulates minimum four promotions
to an employee during his service carrier, whereas Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was given six promotions during
the tenure of his service. In his examination-in-chief the management witness deposed that Monotosh Kumar
Chatterjee was promoted from Revenue Inspector in Technical Grade ―B‖ to Revenue Inspector in Technical
Grade ―A‖ w.e.f. 1993 (copy of the Office Order is produced as Exhibit M-1). On 30.01.2002 an Office Order was
issued by which the workman was upgraded from Technical Grade ―A‖ to Technical Grade ―A-1‖ under the
scheme of SLU, copy of the same has been placed as Exhibit M-2. In paragraph – (5) of the written statement
management categorically stated that Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖ was the highest grade in the cadre of
Revenue Inspector till the year 2003, therefore there was no scope for further promotion of Mr. Monotosh Kumar
Chatterjee. The workman did not suggest to the management witness that the Technical and Supervisory Grade
―A-1‖ existed prior to 30.01.2002 or he was denied promotion to the post earlier despite existence of such higher
post. In cross-examination of the management witness reveals that since there was no grade higher than Technical
and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖, a person after stagnation of seven or eight years, as the case would be, was entitled
to Service Linked Increment, which was equivalent to promotion. Accordingly, Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee
received increment of three percent (3%) of his basic pay on his upgradation to Technical and Supervisory Grade
―A-1‖ in the scheme of SLU on 30.01.2002 (Exhibit M-2) and he was also given the benefit of SLI w.e.f.
01.01.2010 by Office Order 03.06.2010 (Exhibit M-3). It is explicit from I.I. No. 24 that a person granted SLU or
SLI is bestowed with one promotional increment of three percent (3%) of the existing basic pay in the grade /
category after stagnation for seven or eight years, as the case may be and will be promoted to the next category or
grade. It is evident the Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee was granted the benefit of promotion from Technical and
Supervisory Grade ―B‖ to Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A‖ and thereafter SLU to Technical and Supervisory
Grade ―A-1‖ in the year 2002 and a further SLI in the year 2010 before he was superannuated in the year 2014. It
has been contended by the workman that Mr. Dilip Acharayya, junior to him in service was granted promotion
earlier to him in Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖ which amounted to discrimination. From of the
aggrieved workman, I found that Mr. Dilip Acharayya was promoted to Technical and Supervisory Grade ―A-1‖
w.e.f. 01.01.2010 having remained in the same grade ―A‖ for a period of ten years without any promotion. In both
the cases the promotion and SLU granted to Mr. Dilip Acharayya was long after the promotion granted to
Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee. The aggrieved workman has miserably failed to establish that any of his junior had
been granted any promotional benefit by superseding him. I find that the management of ECL did not commit any
illegality in granting promotion, SLU or SLI to Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee quo his junior staff members in the
establishment. The Industrial Dispute raised by Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee alleging discrimination against him
by the management has no foundation and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against the workman, Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee. I
find no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited in granting
promotion, SLU or SLI to Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee quo the junior employees of the establishment. An award
be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 343.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
955
[सं. ,y-22012/06/2015-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.05/2015) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/06/2015 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2015
PARTIES: Dharmendra Shaw
(son of Sukdeo Shaw)
Vs.
Management of Ningah Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
31.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/06/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 18.06.2015 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Ningha Colliery under Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the claim of the Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress to provide employment of Shri
Dharmendra Shaw, son of late Sukdev Shaw, Ex U.G. Loader of Ningha Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s ECL who
was declared medically unfit on 23.05.1991 should be given employment as per NCWA is legal and or justified? If
not to what relief the concerned dependent is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/06/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 18.06.2015 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 01.07.2015 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements and produce relevant documents along with witnesses in support of their claims.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on 15.09.2015,
representing the claim of Sukdeo Shaw, ex-employee of Ningah Colliery under Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). Management filed their written statement on 06.12.2016 through the
956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Agent, Ningah Group of Mines, ECL. Fact of the case as disclosed in the written statement of the union that Sukdeo
Shaw was a permanent employee at Ningha Colliery. Due to illness, he was unable to perform his duty and applied
for voluntary retirement under the provision of Clause – 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter
referred to as NCWA). The workman was declared medically unfit for job and was terminated from service as per
letter bearing Ref. No. GM/SA/C-6D/91/731 dated 30.05.1991. The Personnel Manager, Sripur Area informed
Sukdeo Shaw that on the basis of medical examination held by the Area Medical Board on 23.05.1991 he was found
unfit for duty and was advised to submit application for collecting his final dues and employment for dependant in
the prescribed form after receiving the letter of termination of service from the Agent of the Colliery. The workman
submitted his application praying for providing employment to Jira Devi, his wife. management of Ningah Colliery
processed the employment proposal of Jira Devi and after holding screening test at the Colliery and Area level
referred her to the Initial Medical Examination Board for her medical examination where she was found fit for job.
The proposal for her employment was sent to the Headquarters of ECL but no employment was provided to her and
Jira Devi died on 07.06.2011, pending decision of the management. Sukdeo Shaw thereafter applied for employment
of his dependant son, Dharmendra Shaw and submitted necessary documents in support of claim for employment.
The management of Ningah Colliery once again processed the proposal for employment of Dharmendra Shaw, who
was found fit for job. The management of ECL Headquarters after examining the prayer regretted the proposal for
employment on the ground the dependant was less than eighteen years of age on the date of his father was found
medically unfit to continue employment. It is the contention of the management that Initial Medical Examination
(hereinafter referred to as IME) at Area level assessed the approximate age not on the basis of medical
jurisprudence and no Ossification test was done. It is the case of the union that the age of the dependant son should
be taken into account on the date of application and it is claimed that he was more than eighteen years of age at the
relevant time. It is inter-alia contended that according to the provisions of NCWA if the age of the dependant was
twelve years and above on the date the employee was found unfit for job then his name is required to be maintained
in the Live Roster of the company and wife of the employee to be paid monetary compensation till employment is
provided to the dependant on attaining eighteen years. The name of Dharmendra Shaw was not maintained in the
Live Roster and the management deliberately did not provide employment by not processing the claim for
employment of the dependant son on the ground that application was submitted after eight years from the date of
declaring his father unfit and latter regretted the prayer for employment on the ground that he was below age. The
union prayed for providing employment to Dharmendra Shaw, the dependant son of Sukdeo Shaw as per provision
of Clause – 9.4.0 of NCWA and payment of monetary compensation to the employee concern or his dependant from
the date of declaring the ex-employee medically unfit till the dependant was provided with employment.
3.
The management of ECL in their written statement has entirely misdirect themselves to the fact of the case
and made statement in a blindfolded manner, having no rhymes and reasons. I find that the Agent of Ningah Colliery
treated the case to be one of the dismissals of the workman from service for misconduct after issuance of ―Charge
Sheet‖ and holding enquiry and thereafter dismissal of the workman by the Disciplinary Authority. It is strange to
note that the representative of the management as well as their advocate did not care to meet the contention of the
union in their written statement and was unfairly offled the issue.
4.
The moot point for consideration is whether Dharmendra Shaw, son of Sukdeo Shaw, ex-employee
who was declared medically unfit is entitled to any employment as per the provisions of NCWA and what are the
reliefs the dependant is entitled to?
5.
Sukdeo Shaw, the ex-employee has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed an affidavit-in-
chief claiming employment for his son on the ground that he was found medically unfit by the Medical Board. It is
stated that at first, he applied for employment of his wife, Jira Devi but she died on 07.06.2011. Thereafter, he
applied for providing employment to his son Dharmendra Shaw but the management delayed in processing the
proposal for employment and violated the provisions of NCWA.
6.
In cross-examination the witness stated that the name of his son Dharmendra Shaw is recorded in his
Service Record. No suggestion has been put on behalf of the management that his son Dharmendra Shaw is not
entitled to any employment as per provision of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IV.
7.
Dharmendra Shaw has been examined as Workman Witness No. 2. He filed an affidavit-in-chief. It is
stated that after the death of his mother on 07.06.2011 his father applied for providing employment to him. Medical
examination as well as screening were held at Colliery and Area level for his employment. Witness stated that he
was more than eighteen years of age on the date of application for employment.
8.
The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the management where he deposed that he was medically
examined by the Board and he had no proof regarding his age on the date of his application for employment. Union
in support of their case produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the letter dated 30.05.1991 issued by the Personnel Manager, Sripur Area, communicating
the findings of the medical examination of Sukdeo Shaw is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of details of family members of Sukdeo Shaw, as Exhibit W-2.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
957
(iii)
Copy of Medical Examination Form of Jira Devi, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of letter dated 14/16.02.2007 informing the claim for employment made for Dharmendra
Shaw dated 11.11.1998 was a belated claim, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of letter dated 27/30.07.2007 informing that no application by Jira Devi for employment was
found available, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of letter dated 06.09.2008 issued by the Agent, Ningah Group of Mines to Dharmendra
Shaw, seeking resubmission of documents, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of letter dated 19.03.2020 for pre-employment medical examination of Dharmendra Shaw
along with others, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
Copy of letter dated 14.02.2011 issued by the Senior Manager, Ningah Group of Mines to
Dharmendra Shaw for appearing before three-member committee along with supporting
documents, as Exhibit W-8.
9.
Mr. Ajit Kumar Mazumdar, Dy. Manager (Personnel), Ningah (R) Colliery, ECL has been examined as
Management Witness No. 1. In his affidavit-in-chief it is admitted that the family details of Sukdeo Shaw as per
Service Book shows that Jira Devi is the wife, Gautam and Dharmendra Shaw are the sons, and Kumari Kamli is the
daughter. It is also stated that Sukdeo Shaw appeared for voluntary retirement on 29.09.1989, on the ground of
medical disability. The witness further stated that Sukdeo Shaw was found unfit for duty on the basis of medical
examination and it was communicated through letter dated 30.05.1991 issued by the Personnel Manager, Sripur
Area. Jira Devi who applied for employment in place of her husband, expired and after seven years Dharmendra
Shaw applied for employment as the dependant son of Sukdeo Shaw. The application of Dharmendra Shaw was not
considered as he was below the age of eighteen years on the date his father was declared medically unfit for duty. In
course of his evidence the management witness produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of application submitted by Sukdeo Shaw proposing the benefit of employee for Voluntary
retirement in favour of his son Kesho Saw is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of letter dated 04/09.12.2010 issued by the Personnel Manager (I/C), Sripur Area to the
Agent of Ningah Group of Mines, regretting employment of Dharmendra Shaw, as Exhibit M-2,
M-4 and M-8.
(iii)
Copy of Form nominating Dharmendra Shaw as dependant of Sukdeo Shaw, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of application dated 11.11.1998 for providing employment to the dependant of Sukdeo
Shaw, as Exhibit M-5.
(v)
Copy of IME of Dharmendra Shaw which was held on 26.03.2010, as Exhibit M-6.
(vi)
Copy of letter dated 12/13.11.1998 issued by Supdt./Manager, Ningah Colliery, as Exhibit M-7.
10.
It is gathered from the cross-examination of the Management Witness No. 1 that he was unable to state why
Jira Devi was not given employment though she was found medically fit. The witness admitted that documents
relating to Jira Devi were not available and he was unable to answer if Dharmendra Shaw appeared before the
Medical Board on 26.03.2010. During further cross-examination the witness stated that medical examination of
Dharmendra Shaw was held in the year 2010 and his age was assessed as 32 to 37 years as on 26.03.2010. The
witness also admitted that Dharmendra Shaw was above sixteen years of age at the time his father was found
medically unfit in the year 1991. The witness stated before the Tribunal that management had no jurisdiction to deny
employment to Dharmendra Shaw, the dependant son, who was adult at the relevant time.
11.
Heard argument advanced by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative and Mr. P. K. Das, learned
advocate for the management. Mr. Kumar empathetically urged that according to Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IV the
management of the employer company is duty bound to provide employment to one dependant of a disabled
workman, arising out of injury or disease of permanent nature resulting in loss of employment which should be
certified by the Coal Company concerned and the benefit would accrue if the employee declared unfit for work was
within the age of 58 years. It is claimed that Jira Devi, the wife of the terminated workman applied for employment
but no employment was given to her. In the year 1998 Dharmendra Shaw, the son claimed for employment and he
was 17 years of age at the time of his father lost the job due to medical unfitness in the year 1991. Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, relying upon the documents produced as Exhibit W-4 submitted that Dharmendra Shaw claimed
employment on 11.11.1998 instead of Jira Devi but his prayer was rejected on the ground that the application was
submitted after seven years. It is urged that the delay was caused at the instance of the management as the prayer for
employment of Jira Devi was not finalized till her death in 2011.
12.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management in his argument submitted that Sukdeo Shaw had
initially nominated his younger brother Kesho Saw for employment and Jira Devi submitted her application. After
958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the death of Jira Devi, the union processed the claim for employment of the dependant son, Dharmendra Shaw who
was below fifteen years at the time of declaring Sukdeo Shaw as medically unfit. There is no provision for
maintaining the name of the son in the Live Roster, in case of disablement, as his age was below fifteen years.
Learned advocate submitted that in the Service Record Excerpt of the workman (Exhibit W-2) the age of
Dharmendra Shaw was recorded as (9) nine years as on 01.04.1987, as such his age was computed as thirteen years
on 30.05.1991. Learned advocate further argued that Dharmendra Shaw claimed for employment after passage of
seven years and due to such delay, he is not entitled to any employment in place of his father.
13.
Considered the rival contention, materials on record and evidence adduced by the parties. Sukdeo Shaw
was found medically unfit for his employment which was communicated by letter dated 30.05.1991 (Exhibit W-1).
The letter of termination from service has neither been produced by the workman nor by the management. Initially
Jira Devi, the wife of the ex-employee prayed for employment but she expired on 07.06.2011 before raising of the
Industrial Dispute. Dharmendra Shaw, the son claimed employment on the basis of provision of clause 9.4.3 of
NCWA-IV. The dependant son was referred for IME before the Medical Board through letter dated 19.03.2010
(Exhibit W-7). According to the admitted position the age of Dharmendra Shaw was assessed by the Medical Board
as 32 to 37 years as on 26.03.2010, therefore he was fourteen and half year of age on the dated of voluntary
retirement of his father i.e., 30.05.1991. According to Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-V in case of death either in mine
accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the
male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a Live Roster and would be
provided employment commensurating with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. In the
instant case the dependant son was below fifteen years of age therefore management committed no error by not
keeping the son in the Live Roaster for providing employment after he attains eighteen years. It is also evident that
during the lifetime of Jira Devi, Dharmendra Shaw made his application for employment in the year 1998. It cannot
be said that the son substituted himself in place of his mother Jira Devi, who died long thereafter in the year 2011.
The workman is unable to cite proper reason for changing his stance. It also appeared that the application for
employment of the son was made seven years after the workman was declared medically unfit on 30.05.1991. The
management regretted the prayer for employment by issuing letter dated 04/09.12.2010 (Exhibit M-2). Copy of
which was communicated to Dharmendra Shaw, the claimant. From the facts of the case, it clearly emerges that
Sukdeo Shaw sought for his voluntary retirement on medical ground only two years before his normal time of
superannuation in the year 1993. The situation was not rife to accommodate any of his dependant to provide
employment following the norms of the employer company. In this case I find that it would be appropriate to allow
compensation to Sukdeo Shaw, Ex-Underground Loader, Ningah Colliery, equivalent to his notional pay for a
period of two years i.e., from 30.05.1991 till his actual date of superannuation 30.06.1993 for his premature
disengagement. The management of Ningah Colliery is therefore directed to pay compensation to the workman
equivalent to his monthly salary and other allowances payable to the employee from the date he was declared
medially unfit for duty till 30.06.1993, as 01.07.1933 was his notional date of birth. The management shall make full
payment of such amount within two months from the date of communication of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in part against the management of Ningah Colliery.
Dharmendra Shaw, the dependant son of Sukdeo Shaw is not entitled to any employment according to the provision
of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV applicable to the employer company. The management of Ningha Colliery under
Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the
date of communication of the Award to Sukdeo Shaw, ex-employee, equivalent to the amount of his Pay and
Allowances which he would have earned if he was in service from 30.05.1991 to his normal date of superannuation
i.e., 30.06.1993. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 344.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/124/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
959
S.O. 344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.17/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/124/2013 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 17 OF 2013
PARTIES: Gohna Kora
Vs.
Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
None.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
07.02.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/124/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute
between the employer, that is the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management to dismissal from service w.e.f. 20.06.2011 to Sri Gohna Kora,
only ground of absenteeism, while, other punishment can be awarded as per standing order is proper, justified and
proportionate. If not, so what relief management can provide to him? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/124/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.2013 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 14.02.2014 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is
fixed up today for evidence of workman witness. This case relates to dismissal of Gohna Kora for his unauthorized
absence from duty. On repeated calls at 1.00 PM none appeared on behalf of the union. Due to death of the
dismissed workman a substitution petition was allowed on 07.06.2016 and four legal heirs of the deceased were
substituted in his place. The case was fixed for evidence of workman witness from 07.11.2016 to 05.09.2022 and
from 23.05.2023 till 07.02.2025 but no evidence has been adduced by the legal heirs of the deceased workman. In
such view Industrial Dispute, pending for eleven years, is dismissed for default. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn
up. Legal dues of the deceased employee be disbursed to his legal heirs on proper verification of their identity.
Hence,
960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate
be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 345.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/10/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.12/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/10/2023 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 12 OF 2023
PARTIES: Rabindranath Mukherjee
Vs.
Management of Patmohana Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. R. K. Tripathi, Gen. Secy., Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
21.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/10/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 03.02.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Patmohana Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the demand of General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress for payment of H.R.A. for the
period from 01/01/2009 to 06/09/2012 in respect of Shri Rabindranath Mukherjee, Ex-Overman, U.M. No. 133560
to the management of Patmohana Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is proper, legal and justified? If yes,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
961
to what relief Shri Rabindranath Mukherjee, Ex-Overman is entitled and what directions are necessary to the
management in this respect? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/10/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 03.02.2023 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 14.02.2023 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
The workman filed written statement on 03.04.2023 through Koyala Mazdoor Congress. In nutshell, the
fact of workman‘s case is that Rabindranath Mukherjee, a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL), was posted at Patmohana Colliery under Sodepur Area as Overman bearing UM
No. 133560. He came on transfer from West Kenda OCP and handed over his quarters to the management of West
Kenda OCP under Kenda Area. The said quarters was allotted to Kishore Bouri, another employee vide Office
Order No. Pers/WKOCP/09/06 dated 15.01.2009. After joining Patmohana Colliery the workman attended his duty
from his native village at Mithani, which is five kilometers from Patmohana Colliery and claimed payment of
House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as HRA) from the Manager, Patmohana Colliery by submitting his
application dated 21.01.2009. The management of Patmohana Colliery initiated a Note Sheet bearing No. PMC/C-
6/House Rent/09/448 dated 29.03.2009/13.04.2009. According to the guidelines of the employer company, an
employee who is residing within a radius of five Kilometers should be paid HRA but in the present case the
management neither allotted any quarters to Rabindranath Mukherjee, nor any HRA was paid to him for the period
from 01.01.2009 to 06.09.2012. In course of time Rabindranath Mukherjee was declared medically unfit on
07.09.2012 and his service was terminated without paying him the HRA for the period from 01.01.2009 to
06.09.2012 i.e., during the tenure of his service. It is the case of the union that the workman is entitled to HRA
from the management and in similar case the Headquarters of ECL had considered the representation submitted by
the union and had paid HRA to the concerned employees.
3.
Management contested the case by filing written statement on 03.04.2023. It is their case that
Rabindranath Mukherjee was an employee of Patmohana Colliery and was declared medically unfit
w.e.f. 06.09.2012 and he raised the Industrial Dispute after lapse of five years. Further case of the management is
that the workman came on transfer from Kenda OCP to Patmohana Colliery which is near to his house. It is
asserted that in Circular No. ECL/CMD/C-6/WBE-1/498 dated 28.06.2006 it is stated that in the event the
workman vacated the quarters after issuance of the circular, they shall not be entitled to HRA. According to the
management the workman vacated his standard quarters at Kenda, in the year 2008, few years after issuance of
circular, therefore he is not entitled to any HRA and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
4.
In support of workman‘s case union examined Rabindranath Mukherjee, as Workman Witness No. 1, who
reiterated the case in the pleading. The following documents have been produced by the witness :
(i)
Copy of the Office Order dated 15.01.2009 by which quarters at Krishna Nagar Colliery was
allotted to Kishore Bouri has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Application dated 21.01.2009, claiming HRA is produced as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Order by which the workman was declared medically unfit from 06.09.2012, as Exhibit
W-3.
The workman stated that he is entitled to get HRA for the period from 01.01.2009 to 06.09.2012, during his service
at Patmohana Colliery, as no quarters of the company was allotted to him during the period.
5.
The workman witness was not cross-examined by the management and he was discharged.
6.
Record reveals that ample opportunity was granted to the management of the ECL for adducing evidence
08.10.2024 and hearing of argument. No step was taken by the management on 08.10.2024 which was the second
consecutive date without any step by the management. The case was thereafter fixed up for hearing of argument on
17.12.2024.
7.
It is argued on behalf of the union that the workman who has retired from service was not allocated any
quarters during his service at Patmohana Colliery and is entitled to receive the amount towards HRA for the period
from 01.01.2009 to 06.09.2012. It is further submitted that the workman was earlier allotted a quarters at West
Kenda OCP. At the time of his transfer to Patmohana Colliery Rabindranath Mukherjee handed over the quarters
to the management and the same was thereafter allotted to Kishore Bouri by Office Order dated 15.01.2009
(Exhibit W-1). The workman was not allotted with any quarters at Patmohana Colliery and he attended his duty
form his own house at Mithani. The workman submitted his application dated 21.01.2009 for payment of HRA
(Exhibit W-2). The union representative argued that the workman was medically unfit and the Office Order
bearing No. PMC/C-6/unfit/MGR/197 dated 06.09.2012 (Exhibit W-3) was issued whereby he was terminated
from service on medical ground w.e.f. 07.09.2012 and he was directed to claim statutory benefit along with
gratuity. It is argued that the workman cannot be deprived of his HRA on the basis of Circular dated 28.06.2006,
which was issued in the individual capacity of the concerned officer, not based upon any collective decision and
962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
having no applicability. It is furthermore contended that in Chapter - VIII of National Coal Wage Agreement –
VII, the provision of Clause 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 lay down that HRA will be paid to those employees who have not been
provided with residential accommodation. It is argued that the Circular dated 28.06.2006 issued by the Dy. Chief
Personnel Manager (Estd./MP) is an encroachment upon the entitlement of workman in respect of their claim for
HRA. Such circular issued in individual capacity without any scope of collective bargaining is not enforceable
under the law.
8.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate argued that as per Circular dated 28.06.2006 the workman is not
entitled to any HRA and the workman was not entitled to any quarters as his own house was situated within a short
distance from the place of work.
9.
Having considered the rival contentions of the union and management, their respective pleadings and
evidence, it appears to me that the stage is now set for adjudication as to whether the demand of HRA for
Rabindranath Mukherjee from Patmohana Colliery of ECL is justified?
10.
It is undisputed that Rabindranath Mukherjee was a permanent employee of ECL and was posted as an
overman at West Kenda OCP before he was transferred to Patmohana Colliery on 15.12.2008 on the basis of his
own request. On his transfer the workman handed over his quarters at Krishna Nagar Colliery to the management
of West Kenda OCP, which was then allotted to Kishore Bouri vide Ref. No. Pers/WKOCP/‘09/06 dated
15.01.2009 (Exhibit W-1). It is obvious that on transfer to Patmohana Colliery the workman was not under any
obligation to attend his duty from his earlier quarters at Kenda Area, which was far away from his house. It is only
reasonable and prudent for the workman to attend his duty from his native place at village - Mithani which was
only five kilometers from his place of work. The workman was not provided with any quarters at his new place of
posting at Patmohana and no evidence to that effect has been adduced. It is evident from Exhibit W-2 that the
workman claimed HRA by submitting an application before the management. Management raised objection
against claim of HRA by the workman on two counts. It is firstly contended that the workman was declared
medically unfit and was terminated from his service on 07.09.2012 but the Industrial Dispute was raised after
inordinate delay of nearly ten years. On considering such argument, I find that there is no period of limitation for
raising any Industrial Dispute. A workman is always entitled to claim his dues. Therefore, I find no substance in
the argument advanced on behalf of the management that delay in raising the claim would defeat the Industrial
Dispute.
11.
The second contention of the management is that a Circular has been issued by the management bearing
Ref. No. ECL/CMD/C-6/WBE-1/498 dated 28.06.2006 which has clearly laid down that if any employee after
standard quarters is allotted to him, vacated the same then he shall not be entitled to HRA. It is an axiomatic that
the rights and liabilities of employees under ECL flows from the joint bipartite agreement between the
representatives of management and union. It is gathered from Clause - 8.1.1 of Chapter - VIII of National Coal
Wage Agreement – VIII that HRA will be paid to those employees who have not been provided with residential
accommodation. Clause – 8.1.3 lays down that HRA for Employees in Urban Areas will be governed by
Government notification/clarification on the subject as provided in the previous agreements and shall be applicable
from 1.1.2009 on the revised basic. The other related issues will be discussed/decided in the Standardization
Committee within a period of three months. It would transpire from Clause – 8.1.1 that HRA would be paid to the
employees who have not been provided with any residential accommodation. In the present case no residential
accommodation was provided to Rabindranath Mukherjee at the place of his transfer at Patmohana Colliery. This
provision of Clause – 8.1.1 cannot be stretched to include a situation where HRA would not be granted to the
employees in the event of vacating of company‘s accommodation. By the term ―provide‖ it means to make
available for occupation. Imaginative interpretation and extension of provision of National Coal Wage Agreement
by the management is not legally tenable and cannot be accepted. If for argument‘s sake the provision of circular
dated 28.06.2006 is given primacy over the provision of HRA in National Coal Wage Agreement, it would
amounts to recession and alteration of the previous agreement in the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal
Industry or a novation of the agreement, which cannot be the objective of laying down such bipartite agreement in
writing. Having considered the core of the dispute involved in this case, I have no hesitation to hold that the
workman, Rabindranath Mukherjee is entitled to his HRA for the period from 01.01.2009 to 06.09.2012, as he had
not been provided and not in occupation of any quarters of ECL. At the time of assessing the HRA, the
management shall take into consideration the terms of O.M No. 2(70)/08-DPE(WC)-GL-XVI/08 dated 26.11.2008
and OM No. 2(70)/08-DPE(WC)-GL-VII dated 02.04.2009 from Government of India, Ministry of Heavy
Industries and Public Enterprises for payment of HRA to the employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises on
population basis for cities classified as ‗Y‘ category. The city of Asansol has been declared as ‗Y‘ category city
with effect from 29.08.2008. It is undisputed that village – Mithani is situated within the limits of Ward No. 74 of
Asansol Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, the HRA of the aggrieved employee be assessed for the said period
on the basis of such Office Memorandum, applicable to the locality where the workman was posted. The Industrial
Dispute is accordingly allowed on contest in favour of the workman / union.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest, in favour of the workman Rabindranath Mukherjee. It is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
963
ordered that the Management of Patmohana Colliery, ECL shall pay the workman House Rent Allowance from the
management of Patmohana Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited for the period from
01.01.2009 to 06.09.2012. The House Rent Allowance shall be paid to the workman within three months from
communication of the Award. An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 346.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/19/2021-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 09/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/19/2021 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 09 OF 2021
PARTIES: Nirmal Majhi
Vs.
Management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
20.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/19/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 21.06.2021 has been pleased to refer the scheduled Industrial Dispute
between the employer, that is the Management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Nimcha Colliery
964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under Satgram Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Nirmal Majhi, Ex- U.G. Loader (UM
No.115433), Nimcha Colliery w.e.f. 25-11-2002 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/19/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 21.06.2021 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 08.07.2021 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
The dismissed workman, represented by Koyala Mazdoor Congress, filed written statement on 10.11.2021.
The management of Nimcha (R) Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) filed written
statement on 14.12.2022. Brief fact of the case as disclosed in the written statement filed on behalf of the
workman is that Nirmal Majhi was posted as an Underground Loader at Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of
ECL, bearing U.M. No. 115433. Due to his illness, he could not attend his duty from 13.07.2000. After he recovered
from his illness, he reported for duty at his place of work but the management did not allow him to join his duty. A
Charge Sheet bearing No. NC/CS/Persl/225 dated 26.08.2000 was issued against him on the ground of his
unauthorized absence. The workman participated in the enquiry and stated that due to his illness he could not attend
his duty and also submitted the documents relating to his medical treatment. After completion of the enquiry the
management awarded a major punishment of dismissal for his absence for a period of 1 month and 12 days only. An
order of dismissal was passed on 25.11.2002. The workman submitted mercy petition before the management for his
reinstatement in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement signed before the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central), Asansol dated 22.05.2007. It is the case of the union that Nirmal Majhi is a young man and fulfills all the
conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007. He was less than forty-five years of age at the time
of his dismissal for his absence for less than nine months but the management did not allow him to join his duty.
Further grievance of the workman is that he was not allotted any quarter at Nimcha Colliery and was compelled to
attend his duty from his native place due to which he fell ill and was unable to attend duty in proper manner.
According to the workman a disproportionate punishment was imposed against him in illegal manner. The workman
was not provided with the assistance of co-worker to defend himself during enquiry, resulting in violation of natural
justice. It is prayed that the order of dismissal passed against Nirmal Majhi should be set aside and the workman
should be reinstated in his employment with full back wages and all other consequential benefits.
3.
Management of ECL contested the case by filing written statement. The rival contention of the
management is that Nirmal Majhi was dismissed from service due to his long absence from duty in unauthorized
manner without any information to the employer company the period from 13.07.2000 to 26.08.2000. It is the case
of the management that the workman did not respond to the Charge Sheet and continued to be absent till 11.09.2002.
He did not participate in the enquiry without any reason. The charged employee participated in the enquiry, after the
Enquiry Officer issued Notice dated 29.08.2002. The Charge levelled against the workman was proved beyond
doubt and enquiry was held following principles of natural justice. A second Show Cause Notice was issued to the
workman dated 28.09.2002 / 21.10.2002. No extenuating circumstance was found to exist in favour of the charged
workman and the Competent Authority dismissed him by issuing letter dated 25.11.2002. Before awarding
punishment the management of the company had considered the gravity of the misconduct, available records and
extenuating circumstance, if any. Further case of the management is that as per office record the workman is a
resident of Vill- Layek Dhawra, PO- Chelod, PS- Raniganj but in his pleading he has stated that he was residing at
his native place village at Damra. It is inter-alia contended that the workman did not turn up for two years and
ultimately after receiving the enquiry notice dated 29.08.2002 he turned up for participating in the domestic enquiry
held on 12.09.2002. According to the management onus lies upon the employees to abide the rules and regulations
as per Certified Standing Orders applicable to them. In the instant case Nirmal Majhi could not be traced for nearly
two years. There is no extenuating circumstance in his favour and from the records it appears that the workman was
awarded punishment of stoppage of three SPRA at Kalidaspur Project of ECL, his previous place of posting. The
management further urged that the mercy petition has been filed by the workman ten years after his dismissal in the
year 2012, which reveals extreme disinterest of the workman in service. In this context management has placed
reliance upon a decision of the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta, in the case of Some Majhi Vs. Coal India Limited
and Others which inter alia observed that one must take his duties seriously, perform his function with honesty
and sincerity and must conduct himself in disciplined manner. An employee / workman who did not think it
necessary to sent even one intimation to the employer during the period of absence, deserves no sympathy.
Management of ECL further asserted that the Industrial Dispute has been raised after sixteen years, in December
2018, in this regard reliance has been placed upon a dispute of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and Others [C.A. 638 of 2000], where the hon‘ble court
observed that the Government should exercise the power of referring under the provision of the I.D. Act, 1947 in
reasonable and rational manner and it should not accept the case referred for adjudication after a laps of seven years
as no Industrial Dispute existed or even said to have been apprehended. Such dispute which is stale one, could not
be a subject of Reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The management of ECL urged that the order of
dismissal passed by the management against Nirmal Majhi is totally justified and he is not entitled to any relief.
4.
Nirmal Majhi has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief and produced
the following documents :
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
965
(i)
Copy of Charge Sheet dated 26.08.2000 has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding and Findings, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of dismissal Letter dated 25.11.2002, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of Mercy petition dated 22.12.2012, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of second Mercy petition dated 16.01.2017, as Exhibit W-5.
5.
In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he was unable to produce medical documents. The
witness denied the suggestion that he intentionally remained absent from duty or he is not entitled to any relief.
6.
Management examined Mr. Sumit Choudhury as Management Witness No. 1. He filed an affidavit-in-
chief in support of the case of the management. The witness produced the following documents:
(i)
Copy of Charge Sheet dated 26.08.2000, as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of letter dated 28.08.2002 regarding appointment of the Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of Notice of enquiry dated 29.08.2002, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of Enquiry Proceeding and Findings of the Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the second Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2002 / 21.10.2002, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of letter of dismissal dated 25.11.2002, as Exhibit M-6.
7.
In course of cross-examination the witness deposed that there was no charge of habitual absence in the
Charge Sheet. He also stated that at the time of enquiry assistance of co-worker was extended to Nirmal Majhi,
which is mentioned in the Notice of enquiry. Though the second Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2002 / 21.10.2002
has been produced as Exhibit M-5, the witness deposed that he has no knowledge that the second Show Cause
Notice was served upon the charged employee. The management witness supported the dismissal of the workman by
denying that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized absenteeism.
8.
The crux of the Industrial Dispute is whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon Nirmal Majhi for
his absence from duty is legally tenable? If not, whether the workman is entitled to any relief.
9.
It is gathered from the pleading of the parties that the workman posted as an Underground Loader at
Nimcha Colliery stopped attending his duty from 13.07.2000 to 26.08.2000 without any information to the
management of the employer company. The management issued a Charge Sheet against him for his unauthorized
absence as per Clause 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders, copy of the same has been produced as Exhibit W-1 /
M-1. The workman did not submit any reply to the Charge Sheet nor did he deny that the Charge Sheet was not
served upon him within time. The management issued a letter dated 28.08.2002 to Nirmal Majhi regarding
appointment of the Enquiry Officer (Exhibit M-2). A Notice of the enquiry dated 29.08.2002 was issued at the home
address of the employee at Layek Dhawah (Exhibit M-3). It is apparent that the Notice of enquiry was issued two
years after issuance of the Charge Sheet. The long intervening period of two years clearly indicates that the
workman did not respond to the Charge Sheet nor did he turn up for his duty for a period of two years from his
admitted date of unauthorized absence from 13.07.2000. The workman eventually participated in the Enquiry
Proceeding held on 12.09.2002. In his statement before the Enquiry Officer, he admitted his absence from duty and
stated that he was suffering from illness and went to his native village – Damra and did not send any intimation to
the management of Nimcha Colliery. It is gathered from the statement of Mr. Laxmikant Jha, Management
Representative, that the workman joined Nimcha Colliery on 26.08.2000 and within a span of five months he started
absenting from duty. In the entire year of 2000, he performed his duty only for forty-five days. The charged
employee did not produce any medical document in respect of his treatment at any point of time. The Enquiry
Officer submitted his Report and findings, holding that the charge stood proved (Exhibit M-4). Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
Union representative, on behalf of the workman argued that the workman was not given the opportunity to be
represented by any co-worker and there is no proof of issuance of any second Show Cause Notice to the workman
before his dismissal. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL, in reply, argued that the charged
employee was provided opportunity to be assisted by a co-worker during the enquiry and the same was clearly
notified in the Notice of enquiry (Exhibit M-3). The workman did not take the assistance of any co-worker on his
own accord and did not venture to cross-examine the management representatives, who deposed against him.
Regarding the second Show Cause Notice it is submitted that after the Enquiry Officer held the charged employee
guilty of the charge under Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Orders, a second Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2002
/ 21.10.2002 was issued to him under registered post, directing him to submit his reply within seventy-two hours of
receipt. It is submitted that the second Show Cause Notice was transmitted to the charged workman under registered
post with A/D and a copy of the same has been produced as Exhibit M-5. It is submitted that no objection was raised
by the union at the time of admission of second Show Cause Notice. Learned advocate for the management argued
that the Mercy petition has been submitted by the workman for the first time on 22.12.2012 (Exhibit W-4) and for
the second time on 16.01.2017 (Exhibit W-5) which are long ten years after his dismissal. It is contended that the
Industrial Dispute raised after a lapse of sixteen years from his dismissal of the workman after his participation in
966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the enquiry is a stale one and the order of dismissal passed against the workman is appropriate and consistent to the
nature of misconduct which calls for no interference.
10.
Having considered the materials on record, pleadings of the parties and the argument advanced on behalf of
the union and management, it is crystal clear that the workman not only absented for the period of one month and
twelve days but he absented beyond the date of Charge Sheet issued to him and ultimately the domestic enquiry was
held two years after the issuance of Charge Sheet. The workman failed to produce any medical document to
establish that he was suffering from any type of ailment, which prevented him from joining his duty. The workman
having joined Nimcha Colliery in February, 2000, started absenting from 13.07.2000. It appears from his affidavit-
in-chief that he joined Nimcha Colliery on 26.02.2000 and the job of an Underground Loader being hazardous, he
could not adjust himself and fell ill and could not attend his duty. Failing to perform his duty was admitted by him
but he was unable to adduce any evidence in support of his illness. The charge is well established against the
workman and the management has also submit a copy of second Show Cause Notice issued to Nirmal Majhi at the
same address at Vill- Layek Dhawra, PO- Chelod, PS- Raniganj, where the Notice of enquiry was served upon him.
The Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice at the time of holding the domestic enquiry. The
Competent Authority after issuing the second Show Cause Notice dismissed the workman for his unauthorized
absence. An employee is required to perform his duty under the employer in a sincere and dedicated manner so that
his participation contributes to the benefit of the employer establishment. For this purpose, the employee is required
to follow the rules and regulations of the company and maintain a disciplined conduct. In the instant case it is
evident that the workman, had absented from duty for a long period but he did not have any responsibility to inform
the management the reason of his absence. In my considered view, I find no illegality in the order of dismissal
passed against the workman. The punishment of dismissal is the outcome of long unauthorized absence which
demonstrates lack of accountability of the workman. The Mercy petition were filed after a decade from the time of
his dismissal and the Industrial Dispute is raised even after a longer period. The same therefore has no merit under
the emerging facts and circumstances of the case. I therefore hold that Nirmal Majhi, the dismissed workman is not
entitled to any relief of reinstatement nor any back wages.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. I find no tangible reason to interfere with the order of
dismissal. Nirmal Majhi, the dismissed workman is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement or back wages. The
management of the company is directed to disburse his dues, if not paid earlier. An award be drawn up in light of
my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 347.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/60/2021-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.26/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025
[No. L-22012/60/2021 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
967
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 26 OF 2021
PARTIES: Suresh Gope
Vs.
Management of Amrit Nagar Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, Gen. Secy., Colliery Mazdoor Union.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
08.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of
Labour, vide its Order No. L-22012/60/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2021 has been pleased to refer the
scheduled Industrial Dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Amrit Nagar Colliery under
Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Amrit
Nagar Colliery under Kunustoria Area in denying the claim for regularization of Shri Suresh Gope, Haulage
Operator (UG), UM No. 814887, as S.B. Attendant is just and legal? If not, to what relief the said workman
is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/60/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2021 from the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 26 of 2021
was registered on 01.12.2021 / 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through
registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents
in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Suresh Gope, aggrieved workman is represented by Mr. Chandi Banerjee, union representative. Mr.
P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed
up today for hearing of argument. At this stage, a petition is filed by Mr. Chandi Banerjee, General
Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union, Asansol, stating that the workman who had claimed regularization from
Haulage Operator (UG) to S.B. Attendant at Amrit Nagar Colliery under Kunustoria Area of Eastern
Coalfields Limited, does not want to proceed any further in this case and wants to withdraw the dispute.
Copy of the application is served upon Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management.
3.
Parties filed written statement and contested the case. Suresh Gope adduced evidence and was
cross-examined on behalf of the management. Mr. Joydeep Barman appeared as Management Witness No. 1
and documents were produced as Exhibits M-1 and M-2. On the date fixed for hearing of argument, the
workman through union representative, prayed for granting permission to withdraw the case. A party can
withdraw a case at any stage. Prayer of the union is therefore considered and allowed. The Industrial Dispute
stands withdrawn. In view of Reference made by the Government of India, the Industrial Dispute is disposed
of and a No Dispute Award is drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 348.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/11/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 13/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/11/2023 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 13 OF 2023
PARTIES:
1. Shahjad Ansari,
2. Prahalad Nunia (workmen)
Vs.
Management of Narsamuda Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workmen:
None.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
13.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/11/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Narsamuda Colliery under Dhemomain Group of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the demand of the Union i.e. Colliery Mazdoor Sabha of India vide letter dated 10/07/2017
(copy enclosed) against the management of Narsamuda Colliery under Dhemomain Group of M/s Eastern
Coalfields Limited over the issue of illegal recovery of HRA, against non-standard quarters under the provisions of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
969
NCWA, from the salary of Shri Sahajad Ansari, CCM Helper, UM No. 131277 and Shri Prahalad Nunia, S.F. Pump
Operator, UM No. 131392, is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned both workmen are
entitled and what directions are necessary to the management in this respect? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/11/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2023 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 14.02.2023 and
an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit
their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited appeared along with Mr. Rahul Singh,
Management Representative. The case is fixed up today for ex-parte hearing. On repeated calls at 12.40 PM,
Shahjad Ansari and Prahlad Nunia, the two aggrieved workmen are found absent. None appeared on behalf of
Colliery Mazdoor Sabha of India (CITU).
3.
Contention of the workmen is that House Rent Allowance was deducted from salary against non-standard
quarter and they have challenged the action of the management. After registration of this case on 14.02.2023 Notice
under registered post were issued to parties. Management appeared through Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate and Mr.
Asit Kumar Mukherjee, learned advocate appeared for Shahjad Ansari and Prahlad Nunia by filing Vokalatnama.
The case was fixed up on several dates i.e., on 11.04.2023, 04.08.2023, 20.12.2023, 05.02.2024 and ultimately fixed
for ex-parte hearing on 26.06.2024, 25.10.2024 and 13.01.2025 i.e., today. On compliance with order dated
25.10.2024 fresh Notice under registered post was issued to both the workmen but they did not appear. Considered.
4.
It appears to me that neither the union nor the concerned workmen are inclined to proceed any further with
this case. It is futile to examine the Management Witness without the Industrial Dispute being represented and
contested by the workmen. The Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed in the form of No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 349.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभच सं्या
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/379/2004-vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 110/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/02/2025.
[No. L-22012/379/2004 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REFERENCE CASE NO. 110 OF 2005
PARTIES:
Hadu Behara
Vs.
Management of Patmohna Colliery, B.M.P. Group of Mines, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. H.L. Soni,Union Representative, Koyala Mazdoor Congress
For the Management of ECL: Mr. P.K. Goswami, Advocate
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
03.02.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/379/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 18.08.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Patmohna Colliery, B.M.P. Group of Mines of Eastern Coalfields Limited
and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Patmohna Colliery in dismissing Sh. Hadu Behara from
services w.e.f. 26.2.97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from
which date? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/379/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 18.08.2005 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 22 of 2001 was registered on
09.09.2005 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims along with a list of
witnesses.
2.
Mr. H.L. Soni, Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on behalf of Hadu Behara on
28.11.2005. Management of ECL contested the case by filing their written statement on 03.11.2006. The fact of the
case as disclosed in the written statement of the workman is that Hadu Behara, a permanent employee of Eastern
Coalfields Limited was posted as U.G. Loader at Patmohna Colliery, Sodepur Area. Due to his continuous illness,
he remained absent from duty from 25.10.1994 to 20.10.1995, which was beyond his control. He was undergoing
medical treatment from a private medical practitioner at Raniganj. After recovery, he went to attend his duty but the
management of Patmohna Colliery issued a Charge Sheet against him bearing number PMC/C-6/58/1060 dated
20.10.1995, levelling a charge of unauthorized absence from duty without notice or authorization. According to the
version of the union, the management of ECL conducted a fake enquiry against Hadu Behara without serving any
notice of enquiry upon the workman. It is contended that the workman was not aware about the appointment of any
Enquiry Officer and Management Representative. The workman could not participate in enquiry to defend his case,
resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is inter alia contended that management conducted an ex
parte enquiry and he was dismissed from service vide letter No. ECL/STA/C-6/44/539 dated 17.02.1997. The union
further contended that the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is illegal as no Second Show Cause
notice was served upon the workman as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Furthermore, the order of
dismissal is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is prayed that the order of dismissal is liable to
be set aside and Hadu Behara should to be reinstated in service and full back wages and other consequential benefits
should be paid to him from the date of his dismissal till his reinstatement.
3.
The management in their written statement disclosed that the union has no locus standi to agitate on behalf
of the workman who was not a member of the union at the time of raising the dispute. It is further stated that the
workman was dismissed vide letter No. ECL/STA/C-6/44/539 dated 17.02.1997 and the Industrial Dispute was
raised by the union after lapse of seven years on 16.07.2004 without assigning any reason for such inordinate delay.
It is the case of the management that Hadu Behara was absent from duty from 25.10.1994 to 20.10.1995 without
informing the management or obtaining any permission or leave. A Charge Sheet was issued against him. The
workman did not submit any reply and an enquiry was held ex parte where the charge of unauthorized absence was
proved against him. There was no reason to show any leniency to the workman as he willfully remained absent
without any ground. He remained silent for seven years without submitting any representation before the
management since his dismissal. It is urged that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the Industrial Dispute
is liable to be dismissed.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
971
4.
The point for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the dismissal of Hadu Behara from service
w.e.f. 26.2.97 is legal and justified and to what relief the workman is entitled to?
5.
In order to prove the case of the workman, union filed an affidavit-in-chief of Hadu Behara where the
workman has reiterated his case disclosed in the written statement. He has categorically stated that before awarding
the maximum punishment of dismissal, a Second Show Cause notice should have been served upon him but the
management did not comply the same and he should be reinstated in service with full back wages. In his cross-
examination on 22.01.2013, the witness stated that he was medically treated for illness by a private doctor at
Raniganj but he had no paper relating his treatment. He further deposed that he was dismissed from service in 1997
and the dispute was raised in 2004. During this intermediate period, he did not file any application before the
authority against his dismissal. Management suggested to the witness that he was not suffering from any illness and
that he never received any medical treatment during the period of his absence which the workman denied. The
workman witness was re-examined on 19.06.2023 for the purpose of admitting some documents in evidence which
were not produced earlier. The witness produced the following documents in support of his case :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Enquiry Report is produced as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of Identity Card is produced as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of purported medical certificate is produced as Exhibit W-4.
On his re-cross-examination, the workman admitted that he raised the Industrial Dispute ten years after his
dismissal. The workman stated that he was suffering from jaundice and was unable to produce any medical
document relating to his medical treatment for jaundice. It transpires from his cross-examination that during the
period of his absence, he was residing at his native place in Village – Karatali, Dist. – Ganjam, Odisha. He further
stated that he was medically treated by Dr. A.K. Sarkar and also admitted that he did not know the place of practice
of the doctor. The witness stated that Kalu Swain, a co-villager had collected the medical document for him and
identified the purported medical certificate as Exhibit W-4. Witness stated that he was unable to state the place
where he met Dr. A.K. Sarkar even on a single occasion.
6.
Smt. Mayuri Kar Verma has been examined as MW-1. She filed her affidavit-in-chief where she stated that
the workman did not submit any reply to Charge Sheet for his unauthorized absence from 25.10.1994 to 20.10.1995.
The management thereafter decided to hold departmental enquiry and had sent notice of enquiry to the workman.
The charged workman did not appear to participate in the enquiry and the enquiry was held ex-parte. The workman
was found guilty and a report in this regard was submitted. The management issued a Notesheet proposing dismissal
of Hadu Behera. After getting approval from the competent authority Hadu Behara was dismissed. She further stated
that the dismissal of the workman was proper and there was no illegality.
7.
In support of their case Management produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of Charge Sheet is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copies of notices of enquiry dated 14.08.1996 and 25.12.1996 issued to Hadu Behara under
registered post are produced as Exhibit M-2 and Exhibit M-3.
(iii)
Copy of notice dated 02.05.1996 is produced as Exhibit M-4.
(iv)
Copy of Enquiry Proceeding and findings of Enquiry Officer is produced as Exhibit M-5.
(v)
Copy of Notesheet with proposal for dismissal and approval of the General Manager is produced
as Exhibit M-6.
(vi)
Copy of letter of dismissal dated 17.02.1997 issued by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager is produced
as Exhibit M-7.
(vii)
Copy of postal envelope sent under registered post with A/D through which notice of enquiry was
sent to workman is produced as Exhibit M-8
The Management witness in her cross-examination deposed that she had no document to show that Charge Sheet
was served upon Hadu Behara. It is stated that Enquiry Officer N.R. Mitra was appointed by Agent, BMP Group of
Mines. She denied that only General Manager of the Area was the appropriate authority to appoint the Enquiry
Officer. It transpires from her evidence that management was unable to produce any order of appointment of N.R.
Mitra as Enquiry Officer. Witness admitted that management neither served copy of Enquiry Proceeding nor any
Second Show Cause notice upon the workman after he was found guilty of the charge. Witness denied that
management did not give opportunity to the workman to respond the charge levelled against him.
8.
Mr. H.L. Soni advancing his argument on behalf of the dismissed workman submitted that Hadu Behara
was suffering from illness and the Charge Sheet dated 20.10.1995 was not served upon him. The workman was
972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
absolutely in dark regarding any Enquiry Proceeding held against him during the period of his illness. It is
contended that management failed to prove that notice of enquiry was served upon the workman or he was informed
about the date of enquiry. The union representative pointed out that the workman was not provided with any
opportunity to contest the charge nor any Second Show Cause notice accompanied by Enquiry Report was served
upon him to meet the ex parte finding against him. Mr. Soni vehemently argued that management has deliberately
violated the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ramzan Khan versus Union of India
which was accepted by the management of Coal India Limited in circular No. CIL C-5A(VI)/50774/28 dated
12.05.1994. It is urged that the dismissal of a workman by an order issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, who
is not the competent authority to dismiss a workman from service, is illegal. Therefore, the order of dismissal as per
letter dated 17.02.1997 (Exhibit M-7) is liable to be set aside and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service
along with back wages from the date of his dismissal.
9.
Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of ECL harped upon the fact that the Industrial
Dispute has been raised in the year 2004 after inordinate delay of seven years from the date of his dismissal and the
same cannot be entertained. Referring to the cross-examination of workman witness, learned advocate argued that
the story of the union that the workman suffering from illness during his absence is out and out false. In his cross-
examination dated 21.02.2013, the witness stated that he was treated by a private doctor at Raniganj and he had no
papers related to his treatment. At a later point of time, the workman in his re-cross-examination on 19.06.2023
stated that he could not produce documents related to his medical treatment for jaundice and further deposed that at
the relevant time he was residing at his native place Village – Karatali, District – Ganjam, Odisha and he was being
medically treated by Dr. A.K. Sarkar. The witness failed to state the place where the doctor treated him. Regarding
Exhibit W-4, a document purported to be a medical certificate, the witness stated that the document was collected by
Kalu Swain, a co-villager. On perusal of the document (Exhibit W-4) it appears that A.K. Sarkar, the doctor who is
said to have issued the medical certificate (Exhibit W-4) was having his chamber at Asansol and not at Raniganj.
Learned advocate for the management argued that the purported medical certificate produced by Hadu Behara is a
fabricated document which does not support his case of illness. Learned advocate argued that the workman actually
remained absent not only upto 20.10.1995 but he was absent till 15.01.1997. After the workman was found guilty on
the basis of domestic enquiry, a Notesheet was initiated and the General Manager who is the Competent Authority
approved the proposal for his dismissal from service. It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief
and the Industrial Dispute raised by him is a stale one.
10.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the union representative and learned advocate for the
management. Perused the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced. There is unflinching evidence regarding
unauthorized absence of the workman from his duty for a long period from 25.10.1994 to 20.10.1995. It transpires
from evidence that after issuance of notice under registered post at his native place at Village – Karatali, District –
Ganjam, Odisha, the postal envelope was returned unserved with endorsement of the post man (Exhibit M-8). The
workman witness stated in his re-cross-examination that he was staying at Village – Karatali, District – Ganjam,
Odisha. Therefore, it is presumed that by sending the notice of enquiry to his native place of residence at Odisha is a
proper service and the workman avoided receiving the notice. His plea of being unaware about the departmental
enquiry therefore cannot be accepted. In paragraph three (3) of his affidavit-in-chief, the workman stated that after
being declared fit for resuming duty, he reported for duty on 18.10.1995 but he was not allowed to resume his duty
and a Charge Sheet No. PMC/C-6/58/1060 dated 20.10.1995 was issued. Considering the proximity of time between
his claim for reporting on 18.10.1995 and the date of issuance of Charge Sheet which is 20.10.1995, it clearly
implies that the workman was aware about issuance of Charge Sheet against him. The workman however did not
participate in the Enquiry Proceeding on a plea that he did not receive any notice of enquiry. The management in
their turn produced Notice of enquiry dated 14.08.1996 (Exhibit M-2), 25.12.1996 (Exhibit M-3) and dated
02.05.1996 (Exhibit M-4). It is evident from Exhibit M-8, a xerox of the postal envelope sent under registered post
with A/D addressed to the workman, that the notice of enquiry bearing number BP/Dy. PM/C-6/21/1250 dated
14.08.1996 had been sent to him at his place of residence which was returned unserved with postal endorsement that
addressee had gone to Surat and his address was not known. This evidence is of great significance as it reveals that a
person who had deserted his place of work under the management of ECL had ventured for greener pastures at Surat
in Gujarat. If he was indisposed of due to any illness, he would not have left his place of residence. Therefore, this
double standard of the workman cannot be trusted and accommodated in any manner. The Enquiry Officer after
holding an ex parte enquiry found the charged employee guilty of the charge. The Enquiry Report (Exhibit M-5)
reveals that notice was sent to the charged employee on various dates under registered post but he did not
participate. The Charge Sheet may have been issued on 20.10.1995 but at the time of conclusion of enquiry on
15.01.1997, there was no whereabout of the workman and he is certainly not entitled to any compassion. The
workman knowing the consequence of long unauthorized absence did not suffer any prejudice due to ex parte
enquiry proceeding held against him.
11.
The subsequent course of action taken by the management reveal some lapse in procedure. Admittedly no
Second Show Cause notice was issued to the workman. It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that
the workman had not only fled his place of work but also fled his native place and local people informed that he
went to Surat. Under this special circumstance, the management of ECL cannot be a helpless spectator and wait to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
973
first find out the charged employee and then serve a Second Show Cause notice before dismissing him. A workman
who himself exhibited lack of sincerity and accountability cannot claim any equitable relief. Under such special
circumstance, I hold that the procedural deficit on the part of management in not serving any Second Show Cause
notice before dismissing him from service ipso facto does not demolish the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the
decision of the management to dismiss the workman from service for long absence of workman without information.
After the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the misconduct for long absence without any intimation, the
Agent, B.M.P. Group of Mines initiated a Notesheet proposing dismissal of Hadu Behara from service. The
competent authority i.e. General Manager after considering the proposal and finding of the enquiry officer approved
the proposal for dismissal. Generally an order of dismissal is passed by the appropriate authority. In the instant case,
decision was taken by the appropriate authority which was communicated by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,
Sitarampur Area through letter No. ECL/STA/C-6/44/539 dated 17.02.1997 requesting the Agent, B.M.P. Group to
communicate the order of dismissal to the person concerned and that the termination was to take place with
immediate effect. I do not find any illegality in the procedure of dismissing the workman as there is no extenuating
circumstance in his favour.
12.
In this matter it would be appropriate to draw guidance from a decision Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in
the case of P.N. Saji vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (2025: KER: 5997) where it was held “When
reviewing disciplinary actions against employees, Courts or Tribunals should consider whether violations of rules
or regulations are substantive or procedural. Violation of substantive provisions, such as those related to the
competency of the authority imposing punishment, typically requires strict compliance, and thus, the test of
prejudice has no role. Procedural violations, on the other hand, should be examined to determine whether they
prejudiced the employee's ability to defend himself. If prejudice is found, the order has to be set aside. Otherwise, no
interference is necessary.”
13.
The workman has raised this Industrial Dispute seven years after his dismissal only in the year 2004.
Though there is no period of limitation fixed for initiating an Industrial Dispute, the union/workman is under
obligation to assign reasons for the delay in raising the Industrial Dispute after seven years of his dismissal and ten
years from his attending duty for the last time at ECL. The workman appears wholly irresponsible in his conduct and
his statements are contradictory in nature. In my considered view, I do not find any illegality in the order of
dismissal. It appears that the workman has taken a chance after seven years, seeking reinstatement which is not to be
entertained at this belated stage. In my view any concession to workman would amount to misplaced sympathy. The
workman is not entitled to any back wages specially when there is no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal.
The Industrial Dispute is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The workman is not entitled to any relief of
reinstatement and back wages. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 350.—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; ua 2 fnYyh ds iapkV (a250/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-32]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 250/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No -II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Reserve Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-32]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D. No. 250/2022
Sh. Baljit Singh, S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh,
R/o House No-99/01, Gandhi Nagar, Ganaur,
Sonipat, Haryana-131101.
Versus
1. The Regional Director,
Reserve Bank of India,
06, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. A.P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd.,
10, DDA Commercial Complex,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046.
Appearance:-
For Claimant: Sh. Ajit Singh, Ld. AR with the claimant
For Management: Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Ld. AR for M-1.
None for M-2
AWARD
This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the claimant with the prayer that his
termination from the service by the management be declared unjust and he be reinstated in service with full back
wages.
Managements had already filed their written statement denying the claim of the workman. During the
pendency of the proceeding an amicable settlement was arrived between the workman and management. In
pursuance to the conciliation, the claimant agreed to receive the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lac Rupees) in full
and final settlement with the management-2 before the mediation centre on 04.10.2024. With this, nothing is due
upon the management.
The claimant gave a statement to the effect that he has received the cheque from the management and
thus, he has no dispute/claim against any of the management of this proceeding. Hence, settlement award is
passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of
the ID act 1947.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date: 28.10.2024
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 351.—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; dksydrk ds iapkV (a16/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-33]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 16/2024) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour
Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-33]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
975
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 16 OF 2024
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
1. M/s. Tharu & Sons Company, Rajagiri, Ernakulam, Kerala,
2. The CNW, South Eastern Railways, Santragachi, Howrah.
Versus
Sk. Mujibar Rahaman
Appearance:
On behalf of M/s. Tharu & Sons Company :
Absent
On behalf of Sk. Mujibar Rahaman
:
Absent
Dated: 20th February, 2025.
AWARD
Today has been fixed for appearance of the parties i.d. for passing no dispute award. Today too parties are
found absent when the matter is called.
In fact, record shows, despite due service of notices upon them in the month of December, 2024 as per
track reports, the parties have failed to put their appearance and peruse with the dispute.
Therefore, an inference can be drawn that the workman who has raised the present dispute is no more
interested to pursue the same.
The present case has been registered as Reference Case no. 16 of 2024 on receiving order No. Kol-
700020/17/2024-Dy. CLC (C) dated 18-06-2024 from Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, who in
exercise of power conferred under section 12 (5) read with sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 and by virtue of gazette notification dt.17-03-2023 has referred the following issue to this Tribunal for
adjudication:-
―Whether the Demands made by the applicant against the management of M/s. Tharu & Sons Company, a
contractor of South Eastern Railway, Santragachi over termination of service is fair, legal and justified? If not,
what the concerned workman is entitled?‖
The record itself proves that concerned workman after raising the above dispute before the Labour
Commissioner is no more interested to pursue the case despite having received the notice from this Tribunal.
Therefore, a No Dispute Award is passed and Ref. No.16 of 2024 is disposed of.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 352.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससच सेसा ररसोसेि जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और यूनाआटेड माआन वकचसच यूजनयन के बीर् ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबइ, ृंर्ाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 62/2013) को िजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 05.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l
[सं. ,y-36012/01/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-II)]
ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 62/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Sesa Resources Limited and United Mine Workers Union which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.03.2025.
976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[No. L-36012/01/2013 – IR (B-II)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/62 of 2013
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. SESA RESOURCES LTD.
Sesa Ghor, 20, EDC Complex, Patto,
Panaji, Goa.
Goa- 403001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
United Mine Workers Union
The General Secretary,
United Mine Workers Union,
Goa G-5, Macedo Apartment, Tisk, Ponda,
APPEARANCES:
Party No. 1
:
Mr. M.S. Bandodkar
Advocate
Party No. 2
:
Mr. P. Gaonkar
Representative
AWARD
(Delivered on 20.12.2024)
1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-36012/01/2013 (IR(B-II) dated 18.10.2013. The terms
of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
`Whether the action of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. not to pay benefits to Shri. Vivek Dabholkar, Clerk arising out of
the settlement w.e.f. 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2009 is legal and justified? What relief is entitled to the workman?`
2. According to Second Party workman Vivek Dabholkar, he was working with M/s. V.S. Dempo & Company
Private Ltd. Mormugao Port Office since 1989. The said company was taken over by M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., on
11.06.2009 and its name was changed as M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. (First Party). As per policy and practice wage
agreement used to be signed periodically and the same was on the basis of agreement entered into between All
India Port Association and All India Port Workers Federation and such wage agreement was pending at the time of
taking over M/s. V.S. Dempo & Company Pvt. Ltd., as such the employees continued to be an employee of
establishment at Mormugao Harbour were entitled to wage revision due on and from 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2009.
The Second Party workman states that, Port management and Port workmen union entered into settlement on
07.06.2011 based on wage agreement dated 19.01.2010, thereby wages were revised retrospectively from
01.01.2007 for which he was also entitled form 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2009 accordingly his colleagues were paid
wage arrears. He approached to the management of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., with request to pay wage arrears from
01.01.2007 to 31.05.2009 however the same was not paid thus, the Second Party workman prays for arrears arising
out of implementation of wage settlement dated 07.06.2011 with 18% interest by answering the Reference in the
affirmative.
3. The First Party resisted the statement of claim by reply Ex-4. The First Party contends that, there was no
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
977
relationship of employer and employee between Vivek Dabholkar and the First Party M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd.
The company never took any financial obligation to be paid to be paid to Vivek Dabholkar of Dempo & Company
Pvt. Ltd. The Second Party workman was never covered under settlement dated 07.06.2011 effective from
01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011. The Charter of Demand submitted by Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association did not
include the name of the Second Party workman. M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd., did not sign any settlement for the
period mention in the order of Reference as such the Second Party workman is not entitled to any money or
benefits which can be computed in terms of money including benefits of settlement dated 07.06.2011 signed
between Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association and M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd., which is u/s. 2 (P) R/W 18 (1) of
I.D. Act, applicable to the workmen referred in the Charter of Demand and cannot made generally. The First Party
further contends that entire liability to get benefits is of M/s. Dempo Holding Pvt. Ltd., namely M/s. Esmeralda
Investment Pvt. Ltd. Dempo House Campal Goa and the First Party is not required to pay anything in the transfer
agreement as company never took liability of Second Party workman thus, the Second Party workman is not
entitled for arrears as claimed and requested to answer the Reference in the negative.
4. My Learned Predecessor has framed the following issues at Ex-5. My findings and reasons to them are as
below-
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1.
Whether the Second Party workman
is employee of the First Party and
there exists employee-employer
Yes.
relationship between them?
2.
If yes, Whether the action of M/s. Sesa
Resources Ltd. in not paying benefits
arising out of settlement w.e.f. 01.01.2007
No.
to 31.05.2009 to Shri. Vivek Dabholkar
(workman) is legal and justified?
3.
If not, what relief the workman is
Yes.
entitled to?
4.
What order?
As per Award.
REASONS
5. Issue No. 1- In support of his claim, the Second Party has filed his own evidence affidavit at Ex-11 and he
was cross-examined by the counsel for the First Party. Whereas the First Party has filed an evidence affidavit of
Mr. Francisco Xavier Fernandes at Ex-18 and he was subjected for cross-examination.
It has come on record that, the Second Party workman was working with M/s. V.S. Dempo & Company
Pvt. Ltd., at Mormugao Port Office since 1989 and the said company was taken over by M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. / M/s.
Sesa Resources Ltd., from 11.06.2009. The Second Party workman stated on oath that, he was continued with
earlier company till 31.05.2009. This fact is corroborated with the agreement in which it is mentioned that
management of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. ( First Party Company) earlier known as V.M Dempo & Company Pvt.
Ltd. The Second Party workman deposed before the Court that, the wage revision was made on the basis of term of
wage agreement and such wage agreement was pending with retrospective effect from 01.01.2007.
6. On perusal of the copy of agreement available on record that, the said agreement was in consequence of
earlier agreement which came to an end on 31st December 2006 and in the General clause of that agreement it is
made clear that arrears arising out of implementation of this settlement for the period from 01st January 2007 to
31st May 2011 will be paid on or before 07.08.2011. This itself shows that, the benefits of settlement was given to
the employee from 01st January 2007.
7. True it is that, the name of the Second Party workman was not mentioned in that settlement alongwith the
names of employees mentioned in the settlement as at the time of settlement those employees were with the First
Party company however the Second Party workman is claiming the benefits of settlement only till 31.05.2009
therefore though there was no relationship of employer and employee between the First Party and the Second Party
workman however for the purpose of benefits as per settlement, the Second Party workman is deemed employee of
the First Party and the First Party cannot deny that, the Second Party workman is not an employee and cannot
claim benefits of settlement. In short, on the basis of settlement for the purpose of wage rise / benefits there is
relationship of the employer & employee between the First Party and the Second Party workman. Hence, I answer
978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
this issue in affirmative.
8. Issue No. 2- It is worthwhile to mention here that, I have observed earlier that for the purpose of settlement the
Second Party workman is a deemed employee and there was deemed relationship of employer and between the
First Party employer and Second Party employee. It has come on record and not much disputed that, the wage
revision of employees was based on settlement and since January 2007 the wage settlement of employee was
pending and the settlement dated 07th June 2011 was for the period from 01st January 2007 to 31st May 2011.
True it is that, the said settlement is of u/s. 2 (P) of ID Act and binding on the parties who signed it and
the said settlement was not signed by the Second Party workman however it is because the Second Party workman
was not working at the relevant time with the First Party therefore there was no question of the signature of the
Second Party workman and the employee who signed the settlement are entitled for benefits of settlement till
31st May 2011 however the Second Party workman is demanding wage rise only for the period from 01.01.2007 to
31.05.2009. There is no clause in the settlement which denied the benefits to the employees who were in the
employment from 01.01.2007 to 07.06.2011 therefore the claim of the Second Party workman is certainly as per
the settlement. It has also come on record that, the Second Party demanded the wage rise from 01.01.2007 to
31.05.2009. Not only this but, the Sr. General Manager- Human Resources of V.S. Dempo Pvt. Ltd., also by letter
to Vice President (H.R.) of the First Party company by letter Ex-23 requested to give wage rise to the Second Party
workman, still the same was not given by the First Party company therefore there is no hitch to accept that, the
action of the First Party company is not paying benefits arising out of settlement w.e.f. 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2009 to
Second Party workman is not legal and justified. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
9. Issue No. 3- As I answered the issue no. 2 in negative, the Second Party workman is entitled to the relief of
direction to the First Party company to pay wage rise for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2009 to the Second
Party workman. In short, the Second Party workman is entitled to relief as prayed. Hence, I answer this issue in the
affirmative.
10. Issue No. 4- Order as per Award.
AWARD
1.
The Reference is answered in affirmative.
2.
The First Party company is hereby directed to pay the differences of wage rise from 01.01.2007 to
31.05.2009 to the Second Party workman within a period of two months from the date of publication of
Award.
3. The First Party company is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the Second Party.
4. The copy of Award be sent to the Government for publication.
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
Date: 20-12-2024
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 353.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार अइसीअइसीअइ प्रुडेंजियल लाआफ आन्सुरेंस कम्ृनी जलजमटेड; बैंक ऑफ़ आंजडया; स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ आंजडया के
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री तनवीर हुसजन दर; ज़ुबजर ऄहमद भट; िौकत ऄहमद साद के बीर् ऄनुबंध में
जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, र्ंडीगढ़, ृंर्ाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 235/2012) को
िजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 05.03.2025 को
प्राप्त हुअ था l
[सं. ,y-17012/8/2011-vkbZ- vkj- (एम)]
ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 235/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited; Bank of India; State Bank of
India and Shri Tanveer Hussain Dar; Zubair Ahmad Bhat; Shaukat Ahmad Saad which was received along
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
979
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.03.2025.
[No. L-17012/8/2011 – IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh
(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).
ID No. 235/2012
Registered on:-30.03.2012
1. Sh. Tanveer Hussain Dar s/o Bashir Ahmad Dar, R/o 15 Pandrathan, Srinagar.
2. Zubair Ahmad Bhat S/o Bashir Ahmad Bhat, R/o Killora, Shopian, Kashmir.
3. Showkat Ahmad Saad S/o Late Sh. Ghulam Hassan Saad, R/o Khan Haran, PO Tullamulla, Tehsil and Distt.
Ganderbal, Kashmir.
-------- Applicants
Versus
1.
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089 Appansaheb Marathe Marg,
Prabhadavir Mumbai-400025 through its Senior Vice President (SVP) Human Resources.
2.
Honey Thakkar, Human Resources ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.22-23, D Block, DLF
Building, IT Park, Chandigarh – 134109.
3.
Priyanka Shrivastav, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.
4.
Malik Syed Din, Head Kashmir Circle, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.
5.
Manager Bank of India, Branch Office, Opposite Women College, Moulana Azad Road, Srinagar.
6.
Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Office Jalandhar (Punjab)
----Respondents
Present:-
None for applicants
None for respondents.
Award : 21.01.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.L-17012/8/2011 (IR(M)) Dated 02.03.2012, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ID
Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
―Whether the termination of services of 5 workmen (as per list enclosed) by the management of M/s ICICI
Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited without following the principal of natural justice is legal and
justified and if not what relief the above workmen are entitled to from the above employer and whether the
management are under legal obligation to liquidate the Educational Loan granted to the workmen for completion
of the Post Graduate Course of Management and Insurance.‖
1.
Registered notice of the petition was given to the applicants as stated in the reference on 04.06.2012 to
appear on 27.07.2012. But only 3 applicants came present, who filed their claim petition but two applicants namely
Sh. Syed Quasar s/o Sh. Syed Ghulam Mohammad and Sh. Irfan Ali Bhat S/o Sh. Manzoor Hussain Bhat did not
turned up.
2.
Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are that the respondent nos.1 to 4 launched a program in
the valley for 1st batch of Post Graduate Program with assurance and promise that the successful students will be
directly appointed as Executive Trainees with the respondents company. In this regard, a wide circulation was given
in the news paper (Annexure A). In pursuance of the said advertisement, the applicants applied before the
respondent nos. 1 to 4, who were selected for the post graduate program in the management and insurance. In this
regard, the selection letters were sent to the applicants. The applicants were sent to different colleges of the country
for the completion of the course after their selection. After completion of the said course, the respondents appointed
the applicants in services of respondent no.1 to 4 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letters
duly issued by respondent no.1 to 4. At the time of selection in the said course, education loan was given to the
980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
applicants through respondent no.5 and 6 on promise and assurance that the same will be liquidated by the
respondent no.1 to 4. The company also stands guarantors on behalf of the applicants. The salary components were
also fixed in favour of the applicants (Annexure P.2 and P.2/A). After joining the services against the post on which
the applicants were appointed, discharged their duties and functions to the best of their capacities and capabilities
with honest and sincere dedication and devotion with zeal and zest. The applicants earned appreciation from their
superiors. After some time, respondent nos.1 to 4 started harassing the applicants with an endeavor that the
applicants will voluntarily resign from the posts, which they were holding but the applicants continued with their
duties. Ultimately, the respondent no.1 to 4 terminated the services of the applicants from their company without
holding any inquiry or providing any opportunity of being heard or explain any sort of change. The order of
termination of services is n violation of standing orders of respondent no.1 to 4 and also against the principles of
natural justice. It is prayed that the applicants be reinstated with full back wages along with all attending benefits
and their education loan be liquidated by the respondent no.1 to 4 in favor of respondent no.5 and 6.
3.
Notice of the petition was also given to the respondents. However, respondent no.5 and 6 did not contest.
Respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed reply maintaining therein that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the
present dispute as the provisions of the ID Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present claim
as the matter concerning with the applicants and respondents is guided by the terms and conditions of the
appointment and not by the provisions of ID Act, because the applicants were working in managerial capacity and
also the establishment is covered under exception under the ID Act. The applicants are not workmen as defined
under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The applicants were appointed as associate financial services manager in Grade-I
vide appointment letters dated 24.07.2008, 04.08.2008 and 07.08.2008 on a probation period of 6 months, the
relevant terms of appointment letter is reproduced as under:
The company has also the right to terminate your employment without assigning any reason by giving fifteen days
notice or on payment of an amount equivalent to 15 days base salary in lieu of the notice period. The company also
has a right to terminate your employment on grounds of non-performance as per the performance improvement
programmed (PIP) Policy.
4.
In the present case, the applicant no.1 was terminated because he was unable to meet the KOT criteria,
applicant no.2 was terminated on 25.05.2009 due to non performance (PIP) and applicant no.3 was terminated on
15.10.2009 as he was found absconding from work. It is submitted that the respondents only felicitated the
educational loan availability to the applicants by assuring job post after successful completion of the course. The
applicants have signed a separate loan agreement with the bank for availing the loan facility. The role of respondents
was only to deduct the EMI from the salary of the applicants as long as the applicants were working with them and
remit the deducted amount in the loan account maintained by them with the bank. The applicants were found to be
indulged in dereliction of duty and of attending the duty in unprofessional manner, which have affected the
reputation of the respondents. The services of applicants were unsatisfactory, unprofessional. It is submitted that
ample opportunities were given to the applicants and thereafter show cause notice was issued to them, however,
applicants never replied the same as such they were terminated. The termination of applicant is legal and applicants
are not entitled for reinstatement or any compensation as the respondents have already settled the dues of the
applicants at the time of their termination. It is prayed that the petition may be dismissed with cost.
Evidence of the parties:-
5.
In order to prove their case, applicants namely Sh. Tanvir Hussain and Zubair Bhatt appeared and filed
their affidavit AX and A2 respectively and closed their evidence on 18.08.2015. The applicants tendered into
evidence following documents:
Ex.P-1 - Appointment letter of Sh. Tanveer Hussain Dar
Ex.P-1/A - Appointment letter of Sh. Zubair Bhat
Ex.P-2 – Composite salary slip of Sh. Tanveer Hussain Dar
Ex.P-2/A – Composite salary slip of Sh. Zubair Bhat
Ex.A – Circulation published in newspaper
6.
Thereafter, respondents have examined Smt. Jaspreet Kaur (Manager) MW1, who tendered her affidavit as
R1. Respondents have also tendered into evidence following documents:
Ex.R2/Ex.P-1/A - Appointment letter of Mr. Zubair Bhat
Ex.R3/Ex.P-2 - Appointment letter of Mr. Tanveer Hussain Dar
Ex. R4 - Appointment letter of Mr. Showkat Saad
Ex.R5 – Show cause notice to Tanveer Dar dated 01.06.2016
Ex.R5/A – Show cause notice to Zubair Bhat dated 01.06.2016
Ex.R5/B – Show cause notice to Showkat Saad dated 01.06.2016
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
981
Ex.R6 - Termination letter of Tanveer Dar dated 01.06.2016
Ex.R6/A- Termination letter of Zubair Bhat dated 01.06.2016
Ex.R6/B- Termination letter of Showkat Saad dated 01.06.2016
Ex.R7 – No dues/service certificate dated 01.06.2016 of Sh. Tanveer Hussain Dar
Ex.R7/A – No dues/service certificate dated 01.06.2016 of Sh. Zubair Bhat
Ex.R7/B – No dues/service certificate dated 01.06.2016 of Sh. Showkat Saad
and thereafter, respondents closed their evidence on 05.07.2016 and the matter was fixed for arguments.
7.
AR for applicants and AR for management have filed their written arguments. It is added here that in this
case, nobody has appeared on behalf of both the parties since 19.12.2023. Under these circumstances, the case is
being decided on the basis of written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.
Submissions of Applicants:
8.
In the written arguments of applicants, it is maintained that applicants were appointed as per terms and
conditions mentioned in their appointment letters and also issued composite salary slips. Reference has been made
of the appointment letter Ex.P-1 and composite salary slip Ex.P-2 of Sh. Tanveer Hussain Dar and appointment
letter Ex.P-1/A and composite salary slip Ex.P-2/A of Sh. Zubair Bhat. It is also maintained the management started
harassing the applicants. It is maintained that so far as the applicant no.1 was concerned, it is stated that he remained
absent, however, he also submitted his medical certificates in this regard. Applicants have successfully completed
their probation period and they have been removed from their service fraudulently in violation of principle of natural
justice and they be reinstated with consequential benefits. The applicants are workmen as the matter has been
referred by the appropriate authority to this Tribunal. They were also not given position of leveled job, rather they
were put in service in the sale department.
Submissions of Respondents:
9.
On the other hand, in the written arguments filed by the respondents, it is maintained that this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction as applicants were appointed in managerial capacity and the applicants does not fall under the
definition of workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. It is also maintained that services of applicants
were dispensed with during the probation period after issuing show-cause notice, to which the applicants did not
replied. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
10.
I have given due consideration to the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.
Findings:
11.
It is added here that Jubair Bhat, applicant no.2 has appeared before the Tribunal and filed his affidavit as
Ex.A2 and reiterated the stand taken into the claim petition and he has also stated that as per post graduation
program, he was appointed as executive trainee with the respondent company as per Ex.A. He and other applicants
were put in services by respondent nos. 1 to 4 on terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letters. They
were also inducted in the induction course. Appointment letter Ex.P1/A and composite salary slip Ex.P2/A of Tanvir
Hussain were also referred which are almost identical to the appointment letters and composite salary slips issued to
other applicants. It is further maintained that applicants were removed from the services without any reason and
without following principle of natural justice. Similarly, Tanveer Hussain has reiterated what has been stated by
Jubair Bhat in his affidavit filed before the Tribunal.
12.
On the other hand, Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Manager with respondent no.1 to 4 has filed her affidavit. She has
stated that the applicants are not workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. They were working in the
managerial capacity and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. She has also stated that the
applicants were removed from the services as they were unable to meet their desired goal. The applicants were given
show cause-notices, to which they did not reply and termination of applicants is legal, justified and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of employment rules. She has placed on record termination letters dated 01.06.2016
Ex.6 to 6/B of the employees and show cause notices issued to them dated 01.06.2016 Ex.R5 to R5/B.
13.
From aforesaid arguments, thus emerges first question, which required to be determined is whether the
applicants are workmen or not and fall within the definition of workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act,
which read as follow:-
2 (s) ["workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial
dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person-
982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957
(62 of 1957); or
(ii)who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or
exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature.]
14.
The question how to determine whether a person is workman or not, was examined in Civil Appeal
No.5187 of 2023 titled as M/s Bharti Airtel Limited versus A S Raghavendra, wherein it has been held that mere
absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary inquiries against other employees, was not the only
reason for the Court to conclude whether the person is workman or not. It can also be ascertained from the facility
being enjoyed by the applicant and his managerial capacity. Applying the ratio of the said judgment in the present
case, the applicants were working in the managerial capacity, as it is clear from their appointment letters and
consolidated salary, Mr. Jubair Bhat, as per Ex.P2/A was entitled for following emoluments:-
Salary Components
Annual Salary (Rs.)
Base
70000
CCA
75,000
Personal Pay
42581
HRA
42000
Conveyance Allowance
9600
Medical Reimbursement
13500
Telephone Reimbursement
7500
Employer contribution to PF
8400
Employers contribution to gratuity
3365
Bonus @8.33%
3500
Total cost to the company
275446
and his appointment letter (Ex.P1/A) shows that he was appointed in on the post of Associate Financial Services
Manager in Grade-I. Similarly, Mr. Tanveer Hussain, as per Ex.P1, was entitled for following emoluments:-
Salary Components
Annual Salary (Rs.)
Base
70000
Personal Pay
42581
HRA
42000
Conveyance Allowance
9600
Medical Reimbursement
13500
Telephone Reimbursement
7500
Employer contribution to PF
8400
Employers contribution to gratuity
3365
Bonus @8.33%
3500
Total cost to the company
200446
and his appointment letter (Ex.P2) shows that he was appointed in on the post of Associate Financial Services
Manager in Grade-I.
15.
As per the case law titled as M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra), applicant A S Raghavendra was held not to be
workman in view of the fact that he was discharging managerial duty and was getting numerous benefits as perks
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
983
such as special allowance, car hiring charges, petrol and maintenance, driver‘s salary etc. Under these
circumstances, he was held to not to be workman. In the present case also, the applicants were getting all the
allowances as reproduced above. Moreover, the applicants were posted in the managerial capacity Grade-I Posts and
cannot be stated to be workmen. Hence, their case is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
16.
Moreover, in this case, the workmen were given show-cause notices dated 01.06.2016 and they have not
filed any reply to it and after given them compensation, they were retrenched. Thus, their case is also not
maintainable on this score as they were given opportunity to defend themselves, but they have failed to defend
themselves before the competent authority.
17.
The case is not maintainable under the ID Act as the applicants were not the workmen, hence reference is
declined.
18.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the ID Act
for publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 354.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मेससच भगवान हसह के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और ईनके कमचकार के बीर् ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, ृंर्ाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 96/2003) को िजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 05.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l
[सं. ,y-29011/36/2003-vkbZ- vkj- (एम)]
ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 96/2003) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Bhagwan Singh and Their Workman which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 05.03.2025.
[No. L-29011/36/2003 – IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 96/2003
Employer in relation to the management of M/s. Bhagwan Singh, Pakur.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 13/02 /2025
AWARD.
984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
By Order No.L-29011/36/2003-(IR(M)) dated 27/08/2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of M/s Bhagwan Singh in terminating the services of
Lakhichand Sah & Mukund Sah after working continuously for 10 years without complying
Section 25-F of I.D. Act is legal and or justified? If not, what relief the above said workman are
entitled to?‖
2. This reference is received on 6/13.10.2003 by this Tribunal in which the District President, Bihar Rajya
Asangathith Mazdoor Congress, Pakur had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant
document before the Tribunal within fifteen days of receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear
before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the
union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Thereafter notice of the workman/union as well
as management returned with endorsement ―Not met‖ and ―insufficient address‖. Now Case is pending since
6/13.10.2003 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence ―No Claim‖ Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 355.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससच ियप्रकाि एसोजसएट्स जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री हंसराि िमाच के बीर् ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंर्ाट (ररफरेन्स न.- सीिीअइटी/एलटी/-
अरसी/84/2017) को िजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के
साथ 05.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l
[सं. ,y-29012/22/2016-vkbZ- vkj- (एम)]
ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. CGIT/LC/-RC/84/2017) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited and Sri Hansraj Sharma which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.03.2025.
[No. L-29012/22/2016 – IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/84/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Hansraj Sharma,
S/o Shri Lalji Sharma,
Village – Rerua, Post – Shukulgawa,
Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) - 486123
Workman
Vs
M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
(E&C) Division,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
985
Jaypee Vihar, Majhigwan,
PO – Bharatpur, Sidhi
(Madhya Pradesh) - 486776
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 22nd day of January-2025)
As per letter dated 19/05/2017 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-29012/22/2016-IR(M) dt. 19/05/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:
“1. Shri Hansraj Sharma, who worked as Supervisor who was drawing salary above Rs. 10,000/-pm,
under M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (E&C) Divn., Jaypee Vihar, Dist. Sidhi, whether an “Workman” under
Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?
2. If he is a “Workman “under ID Act, whether the termination made by the employer w.e.f.
24.06.2015, (due to his absence from duty w.e.f. 03.03.2015 to 24.06.2015) is justified, legal and proper or not?
If not justified, to what relief he is entitled to?
3. If he is not a “workman” under I.D. Act, whether any relief can be granted by the CGIT, Jabalpur to
Mr. Hansraj Sharma, Ex-supervisor or not?”
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to parties. The workman
appeared and filed his statement of claim. None appeared for Management. No written statement of defense was
filed by Management. Due to continuous absence of Management, the case was order to proceed ex-parte against
Management vide order dated 22.02.2021.
The case of the workman is mainly that, he was first appointed for Gardening in J.P. Sidhi Plant in 2007
and was promoted to the post of supervisor in Grade N-12 with initial pay at Rs. 3950/- per month. His monthly
salary including allowances was Rs. 9350/- per month. Hence, he comes within the definition of Workman as
defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act. Due to illness and being under medical treatment, he could not attend his
office on 03.03.2015. He went at his workplace on 04.03.2015 but was not allowed to punch his attendance card.
Subsequently, he was suffering from pain due to Harnia and was suggested surgery. He sent information about his
illness to the Management and also sent his medical papers through registered post and via e-mail also. The
Management wrongly took his absence as unauthorized and issued a show-cause notice on 16.04.2015. He
submitted his reply. The Management without considering his reply, and without affording him any opportunity of
hearing, also without conducting any departmental enquiry against him, terminated his services on the ground of
unauthorized absence from 03.03.2015 vide order dated 26.06.2015 which is against law, unjust and arbitrary. The
workman has thus sought the relief of his reinstatement with back-wages and benefits holding his termination vide
order dated 26.06.2015 against law.
The workman filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief which is uncross-examined. He also filed
his original promotion letter issued by management on 16.05.2012 with salary slip, termination order dated
24.06.2015, his reply to charge-sheet dated 04.05.2015, his counter application in form of reply dated 15.05.2015
and 16.05.2015, Certificate of doctor and medical prescription which are Exhibit W-1 to W-9.
I have heard ex-parte argument of Mr. Aditya Ahiwasi Learned Counsel for the workman; I have gone
through the record.
On perusal of record in the light arguments, following issues come up for determination:
1. Whether the workman is as “Workman” as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act ?
2. Whether the termination of services of the Workman by Management without holding
departmental enquiry are just and legal ?
3. Relief if any which the workman is entitled to ?
Issue No. 1:-
Section 2(s) of the Act, which defines Workman, is being reproduced as follows:
2(s) “workman” means any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.…………
It has been pleaded and stated on note in his affidavit by the Workman; that his work was to look after
the Plants, there was no worker working against him. He was there to supervise the garden. His this statement is
uncontroverted. His total emoluments are also less than 10,000/-, as it has been proved from his pay slip and
promotion order, filed and proved by him. Hence, holding that nature of his job was not the supervision of persons,
rather it was supervision of the garden and his total emolument were also less than 10,000/- he is held to be a
Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2:-
From the evidences in form of affidavit uncontroverted and documents as mentioned above, it is
established that the Management issued a charge sheet in form of show cause notice alleging him misconduct of
unauthorized absence for the period from 03.03.2015 to the date of issue of show cause notice/ charge sheet which
is dated 16.04.2015. He did file his reply for reasons of his absences which were his illness.
In the case of Anubhav Dwivedi V.s. State of Madhya Pradesh decided by W.P. No. 22119 of 2018
decided by Hon‘ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it has been held by a single bench of Hon‘ble High
Court that when the termination is based on charge of misconduct, a regular departmental enquiry is
necessary before terminating the services of the employee failing which the order of termination shall be bad
in law. Same principle has been laid down by Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. in another case Union of India V.s.
The President Rashtriya Rail Mazdoor Congress Reported in 2019 (4) LLJ 448.
Relying on the above preposition of law referred to by learned Counsel for workman, since there is
nothing on record that any departmental enquiry was conducted against the Workman before issuing order of
termination by Management for alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence of the workman for more than 10
days. Vide show cause/ charge-sheet dated 16.04.2015 is held bad in law.
Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3:-
In the light of findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to be reinstated but with 25%
wages setting aside the order of his termination by management vide order dated 24.06.2015.
Based on the findings recorded above, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
1.
The workman is held to be a ‗Workman‘ as define under Section 2 (s) of the act of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.
Holding the termination of services of the workman bad in law, he is held entitled to be
reinstated from the date of his termination with 25% back wages and is also held entitled to other in
service benefits deeming him to be in continuous service.
DATE:- 22/01/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 356.—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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
987
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a02/2022-23) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/35/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2022-23) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/35/2022 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/02/2022-23
Date: 04.02.2025.
Party No.1:
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Bhusawal,
Distt. Jalgaon – 425201.
V/s
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
National Railway Mazdoor Union,
Admn Branch, Mazdoor Bhawan,
Bhusawal, Distt. Jalgaon – 425201.
AWARD
(Dated: 04th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of National Railway Mazdoor Union and their
workman, Shri Bhagwan Chindu, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/35/2022-IR (B-I) dated 08.04.2022,
with the following schedule:-
―Whether the demand of the National Railway Mazdoor Union to calculate pensionary and terminal
benefits related to Shri Bhagwan Chindu, Ex-Trackman, in the Central Railway, Bhusawal from the
date in initial appointment i.e. 22.05.1978 is fair, legal & justified? If yes, to what relief the
Union/workman is entitled to?‖
2. Case called out. Representative on behalf of the respondent Shri Umakant Bauskar is present but no one is
present on behalf of the petitioner since very beginning. One letter dated 09/08/2022 has been sent by the secretary
of National Railway Mazdoor Union for assurance to appear before the Court. But even then no one is responding
and attending the Court. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties. No other
evidence has been filed by the petitioner to establish his say/claim.
3.
As the petitioner is not coming since long shows that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and do
not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed.
The case of the petitioner is not proved.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The demand of the National Railway Mazdoor Union to calculate pensionary and terminal benefits
related to Shri Bhagwan Chindu, Ex-Trackman, in the Central Railway, Bhusawal from the date in initial
appointment i.e. 22.05.1978 is unfair, illegal & unjustified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 357.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a59/2015-16) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41012/04/2016-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2015-16) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East
Central Railway their workmen.
[No. L-41012/04/2016 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/59/2015-16
Date: 13.02.2025.
Party No.1:
1) The Chief Works Manager,
South East Central Railway,
Workshop, Motibagh, Kadbi Chowk,
Nagpur – 440004.
2) The Divisional Railway Manager,
South East Central Railway, Kingsway,
Nagput – 440001.
3) The General Manager,
South East Central Railway, R.T.S. Colony,
Bilaspur – 495004.
4) The Chief Mechanical Engineer (Plg & WS),
Bilaspur – 495004.
V/s.
Party No.2:
Sh.Milind, S/o Mahadeo Borkar,
R/o Indora Mata Tekdi, Gond Moholla,
Post – Bezonbagh, Nagpur – 440004.
AWARD
(Dated: 13th February, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of South East Railway and their workman, Shri.
Milind S/o Mahadeo Borkar for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41012/04/2016-IR(B-I) dated 11.03.2016, with
the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of South East Railway in terminating the service of Shri
Milind S/o Mahadeo Borkar by way of compulsorily retirement on 07.11.2013 is legal, fair & justified? If
not, to what relief Shri Milind S/o Mahadeo Borkar is entitled to?‖
2.
Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since
21.04.2020 i.e. near about five years. Although, petitioner and respondent have filed their statement of claim and
written statement respectably but petitioner has not filed any evidence to establish his claim. No other evidence is
available on record to establish the claim of petitioner.
Claim of the petitioner is not proved so it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
989
The action of the management of South East Railway in terminating the service of Shri Milind
S/o Mahadeo Borkar by way of compulsorily retirement on 07.11.2013 is legal, fair & justified. The
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.आ. 358.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj मेससच ओररयन जसक्यूररटी सॉल्यूिन प्राआवेट जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds
iapkV (a41/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2025-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)-34]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Orion
Secrurity Solution Pvt. Ltd their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025 – IR (B-I)-34]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 41 OF 2023
PARTIES: Imtiyaz Ali
Vs.
Management of M/s. Orion Security Solution Pvt. Ltd.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Workman:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
For the Management:
None.
INDUSTRY:
Security Service.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
28.01.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of
the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No. 1(30)/2023/E dated 26.07.2023 has
been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of M/s. Orion Security
Solution Private Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of M/s Orion Security Solution Pvt Ltd under Axis Bank in
terminating the service of Imtiyaz Ali w.e.f. 07.11.2022 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. 1(30)/2023/E dated 26.07.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute
990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2025/PHALGUNA 17, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference case was registered on 28.07.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through
registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in
support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Imtiyaz Ali, the aggrieved workman is found present. For ends of justice the
Industrial Dispute is fixed up today for appearance and ex-parte hearing, in default, the Industrial Dispute is to be disposed
of. On repeated calls at 12.20 PM Imtiyaz Ali is found absent without any steps. Learned advocate submitted that
workman did not contact him in the meantime. M/s. Orion Security Solution Private Limited is found unrepresented.
3.
On 18.09.2023, Imtiyaz Ali appeared through Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate and submitted written
statement. Since none appeared for M/s. Orion Security Solution Private Limited engaged under Axis Bank the case
was fixed on 01.03.2024 for ex-parte hearing. Today is the fourth date the case is fixed up for ex-parte hearing but
the aggrieved workman is not found available. It appears to me that reasonable opportunities have been granted to
the workman to participate in the proceeding but he is not inclined to take part in the proceeding. Hence, Industrial
Dispute is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2025
का.अ. 359.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ,p Mh ,Q lh cSad fyfeVsM 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;
- II
ds iapkV (a320/2013)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/102/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2025
S.O. 359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 320/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.- II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of HDFC
Bank Ltd. their workmen.
[No. L-12012/102/2013 – IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.320/2013
Registered on:-7.2.2014
Sh. Rakesh Manro, S/o Sh. Kharaiti Lal Manro, R/o H.No.394, Ward No.20, Near Veternary Hospital,
Jaswant Singh Kohli Street, Peer Khana Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Samrala, through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mall Road, Ludhiana, through Its Zonal Manager.
3. HDFC Bank Ltd., Human Resources Division, HDFC Bank House, 2nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
Respondents/ Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 8, 2025/फाल् गुन 17, 1946
991
AWARD
Passed on:-20.05.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/102/2013-IR(B-I) Dated 30.12.2013, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
―Whether the action of termination the services of Sh. Rakesh Manro w.e.f. 06.11.2008 by the
management of HDFC Bank Ltd. is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?
1. The case was fixed for remaining evidence of workman. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed that the
workman has not come present on 26.09.2023, 23.11.2023, 14.03.2023 and today also i.e. 20.05.2024
continuously. Several dates for arguments have been fixed by the Tribunal, which denotes that workman is neither
serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has led any evidence to prove its case
against the mangement and has left the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, as such, this
Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, ‗No Claim Award‘ is passed in
the present reference for the non-prosecution of workman.
3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Date: 2025.03.18 15:21:04 +05'30'