REGISTERED No.DL—33001/2000
The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
NO. 1] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation
PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(other than the Ministry of Defence)
8490 GI/2000--1
(1)2 THE GAZETTE_OF TNDTA : JANUARY h, 2M], PAUSA 16, 1922 [PAR, 11—SEC. -3
Hills. Hydciabad 500
[NoiiRcation No 11574/205/68 '200ft TTA-1T .-nil 205/y>'20()0 1lA]Il KAMLESH C VARSHNHY Undo Secy MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ot Revenue) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRFCT TAXES New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2000 S> O 1 — 11 is notified foi general inhumation thjl enteipnses/industnal unde.tukmgs, listed at paiu <1) lulo hjvc been approved by the Central Government for tlf purpose of section 10t23G) of the Income-tax Act, I'Vot, read with mle 2E of the Income t,u Rules 1962, foi tV assessment yea,is 2001-2002, 2002-200,1 and 2003-2004 2 The appioval is subjeclv to the condition thai — (i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform n and company with the piovisions ot section IO(23G ) of the Income tax Act, 1961, read with ntle 21 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, (ii) the Central Government shall withdiiw this uppiiival if the enterprise/industrial imdeitaking — (a) ceases to carry on infiasttuUuie facility or (b) faik to maintain books of account and sui such accounts audited by an accountant as lequired by gub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Incom=-ta\ Rules 1962, or (c) fails to furnish the audit report as requned by sub-rule (7) of mic 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 3 The entcrpnses/industrial undcrtakmgi approved are— (i) 9 MW Harangi Mini Hydel hlectnc Pi oject at D sit Kodagu, Karnataka by MA Energy Development Company Ltd 21-D, 1st Cross, 1st Flow, Juva- lakshmipmam, Mysore-570012 (F No 205/68-2000- 1TA-TT). (n) 37.8 MW Power Plant at Gurrampalem Village Pendurty Mangal, Vishakhapatnam Distt, Andhra Pradesh by M/s. LVS Power Limited, 8-2 293/ 174/13, B. N. Reddy Colony, Road No 14, Banjara3
New Delhi, the 22ml December, 2000 S.O. 2.—It is notified for gentkil information th.it enterprise/industrial undertaking, listed at para (3; below has been approved by the Central Government lor the purpose of section 10{23G) of the Income-tax Act, ]961. read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for Itie assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 2. The approval is subject to the condition fhat- (i) the enteipnsc/industrial undertaking will cunf<~inn to and comply with the piovisions o£ section 1O'23G) of the Income-tax Act. 1961, rend with rule ZE. of the Income-tax Rules 1962; lii) the Central Government shall withdraw this .ipori i<;] if the enterpiise/industnal undertaking :— (a) ce.i^es to carry on mfrstucture facility, oi (b) fail; to maintain books of account nnd per such accounts audited hy an accountant ai icquiird bv siib-ri|lc (7) of uile 21- pf the Income-tax Hu'ti, 1962; or (c) fmls to furnish the audit report as lcifiiiicJ bv sub-rule (7) of iulc 2K of the Income fax fluki. 1962 3. The cntcrpiise/industiial undei taking jpprovjd is - Flectnc Transmission Project comprising of fa) Installation of Tamper Proof M-;tei, (b) New distribution not work project in Cyclone affected aiea, ic) Scheme for demand ';de Management to reduce losses in distribution network Jind (d) Eneregy audit to reduce theft rf powc, in distribution network bv M/s Central hkvlncity Supply Company of Orissa" Ltd., IDCO Towrrs 2nd Flcur. J-npatb, Bhubune-hwar-751022 (F. No. 20S'12'20O0-1TA-11). [Notification No. 1157-5/205/12/2000-ITA
(Department of Economic Affairs) section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acqui- sition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970- the Central Government, hereby nominates Dr. T. C. Nair, Chief General Manager, Inter- nal D;bt Management Cell, Reserve Bank of India- Mumbai as a Director of Central Bank of India with immediate effect ond until further orders vice Sliri O, P. Shurma. \F. No. 9H8I2000-B.O.I.I RAMESH (HAND, Under Secy. New Delhi, the 21st December, 2000 (Banking Division) New Delhi- the 15th December, 2000 S.O. 3.—In exercise of the powers onferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of S.O. 4.—In exercise ofj the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act- 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Mis- cellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970. the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India^ hereby appoints Shri A. K. S. Rao, presently General Mana- ger, Canara Bank as a whole time director (designated as the Executive Director) of Bank of Maharashtra for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 28th February, 2003. W. No. 9|39|2000-B.O.I.j RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy. New Delhi, the 2Ut December, 200O SO 5.-—ifti exercise of the powers conf cried by clause la) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings; Act, 1970 lead with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-clause (I) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous hovisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, after consultation with the Rcseive Bank of India, hereby appoints Shu S. C Vohra, pjescntly General Managei, Pimjab & Sind Bank as a whale time directoi (designated as the Executive Director) of Dena Bank for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 30th April. 2003. [F No 9|4112000-B.O l.J RAMESH CHAND. Under Secy. New Delhi, the 21st Decembei, 2000 S.O. 6.—-In pursuance of the powers, confened by sub-qectjon (I) of section 5 r"ad with sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provi- sions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), tlie Central Government hereby ie-iippoints. Di J K Bugchi us a Membei, Appellate Auihonty foi Industrial and Financial Reconstiuction (\A1FR), for a furthei period of six month* with effect from 9th Dcccmhcj, 2000, subject to the final decision icgjiding the abolition oi otherwise of AAIFR, whichever event occuis earlier. [F. No 7 5 98-B O.J ] RAMI'SH CHAND, Undei Secy MINISTRY Ot- HEALTH AND hAMILY WhLFARb (Department of Health) New Delhi, the J 3th December, 2u00 S.D 7.—Whereas in pursuance of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. R. C. Arora, Deno, Faculty of Medicine, Bundclkhund University and Principal, Medical Collefie, Jhansi has been elected by the Court of Bundelkhand University to be member of the Medical Counsel of India with effect from 27th August, 2000. Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision jf sub section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, the Central Govern- ment hereby makti tb" following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in- the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138, dated the 9th Tanuary, l;/60, namely :— In the said Notification, under the heading, 'Elected undeJ clause (b> of sub-n"ctk>n (") of section 3\ for serial number5
5^ and the entry relating thereto the following seiul number avd entry shall be added, namely :— "55. Dr R.C. Arora. Biindelidiand University" HmiMiit
Principal, Medical College, Jhcnsi. [No. V-1101V27 OO-MFtUO]] P G. KALADHARAN, Under S^v. (i) In item No. 9, for the entry "SmL Nivedita P Haran, Joint Secretary (Delhi & Lands), Ministry of Uiban Development & Poverty AllLvitUion", the following entry shall be substituted, namely, "Shri Madhukm Gupta, Joint Secretniy (Delhi &. Lunik), Ministry oi Urban Development & Poveity Alleviation". (in In item 10, for the entiy "Shri V. Suiesli, Chairman & MA ringing Directoi, Housing and Urban Deve- lopment Corporation'', the following entry shall be substituted, namely, "Smt. Sarita J, Das, Member Secretary, National Capital Region Planning Bonid". fNo K-11O11|2O|97-DDIA1 V. K. MISRA, Undei Secy. MINISTRY OF. URBAN bEVELOPMENl AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION (Delhi Division) New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2000 S.O. 8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1 ) read wilh clause (g) of Sub-section (3) of Se"tcion 3 of the. Delhi Development Act, 19*7 (61 Of 1957), the Central Gdvernrrlent hereby nenilnates Shri Madhukar Gupta, Joint Secfttary (tJ&Lj, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation and Smt. Sarita J. Das. Member Secre- tary; N.C.R. Plftflnint Board as Members df Delhi Develop- ment Authority vice Smt. Niveaita P. Haran, Joint Secretary and Shri V. Surest), Crrninrfan & Managing Director, 3490 GI 2000—2. MINISTRY OF SHIPPING New Delhi, the 26th December, 2-01)0 S.O. 9.—in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (3) and (4) of Section 5A of Dock Work.*is (Regula- tion of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948) HYKI in super- session of the notification of the Government o; India in ihf Ministry of Surface Transport, No, S.O. 2993 dated 17th October, 1996, the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons to be members of the Calcutta D^ck Labour Bpard established tinder Sub-section i \) of the said Section 5A. namely : — I. Members Representing the Central Governments 1. Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta 2. Deputy Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour Hoard, Calcutta. 3. Joint Secretary (Industrial Relations), Liibour Department, Government of West Bengal, Calcutta. 4. Traffic Manager, Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta. 5. Sh. N. Barik, Under Secretary (Lihiur-l), Minis! :y of Shipping. II. Members Representing the Dock Worfars : L Md. Kausar—-Calcutta Dock Workers' Union (HMSl 2 Sh. Janaki Mukherjee—National Union of Water- front Workers (INTUt). 3. Members representing West Bengal Dock Mh7(l>ior MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING Union (INTUO, (to be appointed after inlra union dispute is resolved). New Delhi, the 17th November, 2000 4. Sh Amitabha Banerjec, Calcutta Port & Dock Industrial Workmen Union (FITU/All1 & DWF). 5. Sh. Rabin Mazumdar, Dock Shiam'k Association (C1TU). III. Members Representing the Employers of Dock VWiKr'- and Shipping Companies : Shri Parthn Sadhan Bose Consultative Committee of Stev.-iloics Shri S Mahalingham 1. 2. in Calcutta. Sh. D. K. Gorsia 3. Ccpt. S. B. Mazumdar 4. Association of Shipping interests m CalcutUi. Capt, S. Mukherjee 5. Indian National Shipowners Association. S.O. II..—In exercise of the powers conferred b,y Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints- Shri S. M. Bajaj, Deputy Director (Adminis- tration), Dircctoiate General, Doordarshan, New Dclni, equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer o1 the Govern- ment, to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the suid Act. Shri S. M. Bajaj shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers, by or imiH the said Ac: in respect of the public premises within the local limits of Mandi House, New Delhi bounded by Punjab Bhawan, Copenicus Marg, Mandi House Circle, Bhngwnn. Dass Road, White House and Mahatma Jyotl Rao Phulc Marg, belonging to the Directorate Gcnernl, Doordarshnn. {No, 904/13/2000-SCOR/TV (A)l R. K. AGARWAL, Under Secy. 2. The Centra] Government hereby nominates the Chan man, Calcutta P1 V. K. AGGARWAL, Under Scry. s. o. 12.— jjj c x e r c}se of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, ( 50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby amends the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 3399 dated 11th November, 1999, published in the Gazette of India Part II, Section-3 sub section (ii) at page 7444 and published on 27th November, 1999 in the following manner, namely :- In Schedule, in column (4), in line 19, for the figure "02" read figure "07". [ N O . L - I 4 0 I 4 / I 1 W - G P ( V OI V)] S.K.SINGH, Under Secy 3490 GI/2000—3 s TW CAZF.TTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l9
10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PARI II- -SLL . 3 (n)J
11
12 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
13
14
T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • J A N U A RY 6, 2 0 01 P A U S HA 1 6, 1 9 22
I P A RF I I — S i r. 3 ( i i )]
15
3490 GI/2000—*16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
17
18 H IE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY d, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SLC. 3 (ii)]
19
• >0 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : J A N U A RY 6, 2 0 01 P A U S HA 1 6, 1 9 22 [ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )l21
22
T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • J A N U A RY 6 , 2 0 01 P A U S HA 1 6, 1 9 22
[ P y f rr 1 1 —S E C. 3 ( i i )J
23
3490 GI/2000—J24 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA-: JANUARY 6. 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l
25
26
I HE GAZETTE Or INDIA . JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART I I —S K\ 3 (ii)]
27
28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (H)]
29
M) I I I E G A Z E T 1 L O I- I N D IA . J A N U A RY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [FART II—Stc. 3 (ii)]31
i 490 01/2000- 612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PAKI II—Sic. 3 (ii)J
33
34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II - S F C. 3 (ii)l
35
>6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PARI II—She 3 (ii)l
37
38 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—St-c. 3 (ii)]
39
3490 GI/2000 -740 THE GAZETTE OF [NDIA ; JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
41
42 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEL. 3 (ii)J
43
s. o. 14.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural das number S.O. 159 dated 1 lth January, 2000, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in I .and) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to thai notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of crude oil from Hatdia in the State of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited; And whereas, the copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 25-01-2000; And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to f_he Central Government; And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Sechedule appended to this notification should be acquired: Now. therefore, in i" cruse of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. the Central Go\ eminent hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule to this notification are hereby acquired; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of the said section, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances. Police Station: Panskura Plot. Village Jurisdiction List No. No. 1 3 2 Brindabanchak 1 41 148 475 565 566 567 568 569 571 572 573 574 575 577 579 580 594 595 596 597 606 614 615 616 683 684 687 689 691 692 State; West Bengal Area Hectares > Ares Centiares 4 5 6 0 3 15 0 3 67 0 1 25 0 0 70 1 0 16 1 35 0 83 0 5 0 0 99 0 9 58 20 0 0 20 0 0 5 41 0 49 0 4 43 0 3 2 96 0 41 0 3 69 0 4 45 0 6 0 2 9 37 0 3 37 0 1 0 5 56 34 0 6 0 8 68 1 94 0 96 0 1 0 0 85 1 48 0 6 0 1 20 0 245
1 2
3
4
6
693 86 694 5 709 96 0 0 0 712 0 933 0 0 20 4 86 78 0 5 2 2 5 0 1 4 2 56 0 3 934 935 936 937 0 6 • 938 0 6 951 11 953 954 0 0 0 961 0 962 0 963 965 966 0 0 1 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 43 20 81 55 20 84 70 39 78 7 967 0 64 6 1186 0 2 2 1188 0 0 1189 0 0 1190 0 0 1191 0 1192 8 4 1193 72 44 35 87 29 69 1195 87 1196 86 3 0 3 1199 5 1203 90 49 4 1204 0 20 1206 1207 1214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 95 20 2 7 046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l
1
4
5
3
2
1238
1
e 11
0
0 1239 0 1240 0 1250 0 1251 0 1252 0 1253 0 1273 0 1281 5636 0 0 5637 0 5883 5884 0 0 5886 0 5890 0 5896 0 5901 0 5902 0 5903 0 5961 0 5991 1203/5888 0 0 1203/5889 0 1281/5929 0 1281/5930 1281/5931 0 1281/5932 0 718/6327 0 0 718/6328 0 718/6329 0 952/5839 0 952/5840 0 87 43 87 2 5 73 1 5 9 4 20 0 46 0 0 32 6 1 11 84 89 5 1 97 82 2 1 77 56 0 68 2 67 4 48 0 20 0 20 0 55 0 90 3 27 2 1 39 1 8 1 90 23 3 1 29 38 5 57 8 79 0 7 4 5 66 Krishnachak47
4
6
1 2 3
5
88 32 0 0 89 0 90 0 91 0 92 ' 20 51 80 97 82 0 0 93 0 0 10 5 2 94 0 4 95 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 96 97 147 148 0 3 149 0 2 150 0 2 152 0 0 153 0 1 154 18 34 62 73 16 70 52 74 92 47 20 155 158 0 0 0 161 0 162 85 67 57 18 0 0 5 0 4 4 164 60 0 0 0 39 165 3 166 20 0 0 192 0 11 2 193 82 0 3 194 22 0 2 196 . 1 88 0 197 62 0 2 200 23 0 2 202 90 0 3 204 20 0 0 224 0 5 225 40 0 1 1 3490 GIOT00—848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6,2001 PAUSIIA 16, 1922 [PART I I —S K\ 3 (ii)]
1
4
2
6
0 0 3 226 227 230 0 0 231 235 0 236 0 237 0 260 0 0 261 262 0 0 267 269 0 270 0 0 • 294 297 0 380 386 403 0 0 0 420 0 0 421 424 0 425 0 0 426 0 428 0 153/427 0 51 2532 86 36 0 42 67 25 20 73 5 17 77 98 96 51 27 59 20 37 95 5 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 0 7 2 2 9 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 37 0 0 65 63 0 68 2 71 4 0 72 42 0 0 2533 2534 0 2538 0 0 2543 2544 0 2545 0 0 2546 23 0 20 0 20 0 13 6 51 2 66 3 34 449
1 2 3
4
5
6_
2547 2586 2587 2588 2591 2592 2595 2596 2597 2699 2703 2704 2717 2719 2722 2723 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2792 2793 2800 2801 2804 2805 2820 2863 2864 2865 2873 2875 2876 0 4 4 0 3 20 0 7 98 0 4 48 0 3 59 0 6 9 0 3 66 0 2 82 0 1 89 0 0 20 0 0 70 0 . 0 20 0 4 0 2 62 47 0 7 94 0 5 16 0 3 80 0 2 76 0 5 5 0 4 12 0 3 20 0 8 54 0 8 45 0 7 96 0 2 0 3 32 12 0 5 25 0 0 98 0 7 71 0 0 37 0 0 92 0 20 0 80 0 0 5 3 1650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
4
3
2898 2902 2957 2958 460 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 7 6 70 39 89 80 0 50 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 484 485 486 488 489 511 512 543 544 562 571 572 573 1006 1007 1013 0 0 83 24 32 0 36 35 0 0 62 0 20 11 0 29 0 0 92 0 18 0 20 57 0 70 40 91 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 1 0 1 4 6 4 0 3 3 3 10 51 0 0 0 30 0 11 69 0 20 0 79 0 80 0 0 78 0 4 2 2 0 02 3 0 0 21 0 20 3 4 2 0 81 5 21 3 0 0 1015 0 1016 1023 1024 28 0 0 0 1025 1026 0 0 1027 1039 1040 1041 0 11 37 0 0 6 59 0 1047 8 0 1180 1192 1201 1202 1205 1206 1209 1210 1215 1217 11 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 23 0 9 80 0 0 20 0 0 26 0 5 0 4 59 32 0 4 56 0 0 44 1218 0 1219 11 0 07 1220 20 1222 1223 1224 0 84 0 4 55 0 0 23 1225 1226 20 0 0 0 1244 1245 1246 1250 76 0 63 2 0 45 0 0 4 3252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6. 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SFC 3 (ii)l
1
4
5
6
3
2
1251 0 0 1252 0 1306 1307 0 1308 0 0 1310 0 1311 0 1312 0 1322 0 1329 0 1330 0 1331 0 1335 0 1348 0 1349 0 1350 0 1482 0 1498 1499 0 0 1573 0 1575 0 1576 0 1577 934 4 44 1 95 0 20 20 0 0 28 3 11 70 0 2 88 60 53 95 94 0 4 1 7 0 20 3 50 1 17 0 51 0 3 2 20 20 54 51 0 1 53 1 95 2 60 0 20 Gopalnagar 0 70 0 935 936 0 0 938 0 943 0 944 0 945 0 946 0 952 953 0 0 20 1 48 59 2 3 99 0 65 71 3 5 70 02 70 1 553
1
2
3
4
6
955 956 958 Purbapitpur 1349 69 1362 1363 1365 1366 1376 1377 1389 1390 1391 1392 1420 1421 1422 1426 1434 1437 1438 1440 1441 1442 1443 1802 1830 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 0 5 4 73 2 0 69 0 0 41 0 0 0 20 41 41 0 5 44 0 0 0 12 20 0 0 11 0 1 2 3 18 34 0 0 0 20 0 13 36 1 0 13 0 36 0 3 0 38 0 2 25 0 0 55 0 38 0 5 1 83 1 0 20 3 0 75 6 0 68 0 67 0 04 0 1 2 2 64 0 0 23 0 1 75 0 1 0 02 39 1 0 0 65 0 39 1 0 0 3754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
3 1987
4 0
6 21
5 1 1 0 25 1989 0 94 1990 0 13 1998 14 2 0 20 2248 b 28 72 230 0 0 0 231 0 0 232 233 0 234 0 66 82 15 60 76 36 53 235 59 0 236 0 237 0 241 0 0 0 242 245 246 0 4 2 2 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 247 0 96 17 52 27 6 21 45 248 0 1 249 64 37 0 0 0 250 0 0 462 1 0 • 1 0 0 0 66 07 54 20 77 4 0 0 41 0 463 464 483 484 485 1 0 11 57 0 On 1 11 0 41 0 89 0 5 0 486 487 488 494 49555
1 2 3
4
5
e 25 497 498 499 09 56 500 0 2 2 0 88 54 20 501 509 597 03 598 0 0 4 9 599 12 606 3 607 46 81 20 59 2 609 0 20 0 20 99 0 0 0 88 74 18 82 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 20 631 0 3 71 0 0 79 73 0 6 4 1 02 00 0 2 0 3 0 2 90 42 13 0 0 0 1 49 37 0 0 83 0 0 37 0 0 0 6 17 54 0 632 720 721 722 723 ° 724 726 727 728 778 779 780 782 783 76 0 1 1 3490 OI/200O—956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l
6
1 2 3
4
5
784 785 786 787 788 791 845 856 857 867 869 870 871 885 886 887 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 940 941 942 943 944 946 947 948 949 961 962 20 0 53 0 39 0 76 0 3 1 2 2 25 0 3 15 0 2 00 81 3 10 0 0 52 0 3 93 0 0 18 0 2 46 0 4 56 0 1 20 0 22 0 0 4 20 0 0 20 0 0 72 0 0 32 0 2 96 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 76 32 35 20 55 0 1 58 0 4 45 0 22 0 6 4 21 0 0 20 0 0 . 07 0 1 80 0 3 0 0 20 20 0 057
1
2 3
4
5
0
0
6 67 66 0 0 963 964 965 0 2 88 966 0 1 81 0 21 967 0 02 970 0 3 20 971 0 0 983 0 0 20 0 39 984 986 0 987 0 988 0 989 0 0 990 991 0 8 1 1 4 4 7 4 992 0 12 993 0 5 995 0 0 30 72 64 • 27 5 82 40 77 20 1008 0 0 37 0 0 20 233/1248 237/1130 1 237/1257 0 237/1259 0 0 0 2 237/1262 0 1 237/1263 0 1 11 20 00 14 90 237/1264 0 3 85 20 237/1265 0 0 237/1267 0 0 20 237/1270 0 2 53 5 237/1276 0 631/1210 4 632/1211 785/1217 0 0 0 788/1218 0 0 1 1 49 71 20 40 9358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PARI 11—SEC. 3 (ii)l
1
2
3 96271230
5 2
4 0
6 23
Kaliswar 73 134 440 452 462 467 468 472 473 586 587 590 591 592 593 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 607 608 134/1026 462/1113 462/1115 608/1157 Gopalchak 207 37 76 89 92 0 0 23 0 0 52 0 13 32 5 0 57 0 79 0 0 3 26 3 0 62 0 2 21 0 2 32 0 1 65 0 0 34 0 3 62 0 3 00 0 1 74 0 3 34 0 0 91 0 3 11 0 0 44 0 1 0 1 11 37 0 1 25 0 5 51 1 0 58 0 2 0 0 46 97 50 0 2 5 0 45 0 2 76 0 0 20 0 3 86 0 7 8059
1
2
4 0 0 0 0 6 74 30 20 41 0 95 0 0 04 71 3 93 94 95 96 97 190 192 5 2 1 0 6 1 2 3 Uttarchanchiara 208 0 0 0 42 71 72 73 74 81 0 0 0 82 0 79 51 49 18 20 20 78 29 0 83 84 0 61 85 0 93 90 0 88 51 91 0 92 0 34 93 0 80 0 2 8 4 0 0 2 5 8 0 2 1 3 7 94 0 * 6 95 0 0 115 0 68 45 17 202 0 20 203 0 40 07 204 0 213 0 14 229 0 8 0 10 8 0 0 230 0 8 231 0 232 0 233 0 56 04 71 35 32 1 8 260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
4
5
1 2 3
6
0 e 54 20 90 239 244 246 0 0 0 3 20 247 0 0 0 3 248 249 0 3 0 1 250 320 0 0 321 0 4 7 3 323 90 97 49 73 61 53 20 0 0 324 0 23 325 0 0 3 326 0 327 95 20 26 331 0 0 0 7 2 342 0 0 0 6 6 1 358 383 384 0 6 385 0 0 389 72 74 05 71 09 29 59 0 6 390 02 0 1 391 05 0 6 392 20 0 0 393 45 0 3 83 0 0 03 0 395 701 704 705 0 43 61 0 04 0 90 0 11 7 7 4 3 1 0 62 20 706 707 712 713 714 0 061
1
3
2
4
5
6
250/1546 0 358/1547 393/1469 73/1453 0 0 0 93/1585 0 2 32 3 34 1 02 5 73 0 37 Murail 170 0 216 171 0 0 172 173 0 208 209 212 0 0 0 0 213 215 0 216 0 217 0 220 0 229 0 230 0 233 0 234 0 236 0 237 0 238 0 0 0 0 239 325 329 333 0 334 0 335 0 336 0 337 0 338 0 88 2 0 35 27 2 6 87 0 5 0 2 20 52 40 92 6 59 56 98 0 7 5 0 3 85 20 92 0 44 0 20 0 65 2 69 66 69 08 1 7 4 0 20 0 27 0 74 20 0 1 34 2 04 1 39>2_ . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
4
5
6
2 3
339 0 2 0 0 340 1 0 344 1 0 345 347 0 0 0 0 348 1 0 350 351 0 6 3 356 1 359 0 0 0 5 360 361 0 0 • 0 0 363 0 0 403 0 0 464 0 0 465 0 0 466 0 0 467 0 0 2 4 468 470 471 0 0 0 0 472 476 480 0 481 482 7 2 0 1 6 2 1 0 , 0 483 484 0 0 490 491 0 0 492 0 636 0 0 658 659 0 5 4 1 6 6 2 88 55 25 58 83 20 49 31 34 11 10 22 20 65 20 80 65 56 78 08 89 32 20 62 08 00 95 20 29 18 48 13 21 0763
1
2
3
4
5
6
660 679 687 715 723 724 730 737 0 95 0 1 4 55 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 20 23 62 10 20 69 Dhuliapur 1206 215 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1244 1245 1246 1247 1251 1252 1253 1256 1257 1258 1262 1263 3490 OI/2000—10 0 0 83 0 55 0 2 35 81 0 0 0 20 0 23 0 20 0 34 0 73 0 0 0 76 4 20 0 68 0 25 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 39 0 39 0 46 0 3 2 0 43 1 0 59 0 0 20 0 2 25 0 0 98 0 0 20 0 2 9864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1 2 3
4
5
6
1264 0 1265 0 0 1266 1277 0 0 1330 1333 0 1334 0 1335 0 1336 0 1338 1339 1342 0 0 0 1343 1345 1426 0 0 0 1995 0 1996 0 0 1997 1998 1999 2012 0 0 0 2013 0 2014 0 0 2015 2016 0 2017 0 2031 0 0 2032 0 2033 2049 0 0 2050 2051 0 2053 0 2079 0 87 35 20 87 99 74 99 46 47 71 71 1 1 0 1 5 1 3 4 7 5 5 90 1 20 0 20 0 83 0 33 5 1 3 0 2 0 57 20 44 78 1 65 2 99 1 20 0 32 32 81 39 30 89 82 36 20 29 0 0 0 7 1 1 7 5 0 1265
1
2
3
5 0
2080
6 39
4 0
0 2115 2116' 0 2117 0 0 2118 0 2146 2147 0 2148 0 2175 0 0 2252 Basantabar 0 210 0 0 330 431 432 433 0 434 0 435 0 0 480 0 482 483 484 485 493 0 d 0 0 494 0 602 0 659 • 0 0 663 664 0 Amdubi 565 211 0 566 567 0 0 0 571 572 0 4 1 0 72 0 72 0 32 37 3 69 2 61 0 8 16 71 3 12 44 65 95 13 20 57 20 97 18 32 85 2 1 2 2 4 0 5 0 2 4 2 3 5 66 53 2 2 3 2 69 57 4 10 84 3 4 6 3 3 22 8 5266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
3
4
5
2
6
574
0
3
20
575 577 584 585 589 590 769 770 771 772 774 775 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 1016 1149 1151 1195 1196 Swara-Swatta 212 255 256 259 260 261 520 539 541 0 5 0 0 19 92 56 0 55 0 2 4 4 0 20 1 0 99 0 6 35 8 0 0 25 64 6 0 3 34 0 0 20 0 0 86 48 0 0 0 0 20 53 0 0 16 1 4 4 56 0 10 97 0 5 98 0 0 1 78 0 0 56 30 0 8 0 0 20 0 48 0 0 42 0 92 0 4 3 20 0 0 57 0 03 0 3 4 0 37 04 0 2 0 56 067
4
1 2 3
5
6
0
1
95
542 543 551 552 553 554 558 567 568 569 584 586 587 588 589 591 592 593 594 595 677 679 682 683 684 685 687 688 689 690 691 692 694 695 0 2 69 0 10 49 0 37 0 13 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 97 20 20 0 2 63 0 59 0 83 0 66 54 66 0 0 0 23 0 81 0 0 0 13 4 7 1 3 2 5 0 1 2 2 0 0 6 0 8 83 25 41 18 54 26 20 0 0 98 0 0 7 5 42 0 0 93 0 0 0 3 0 3 69 25 20 0 0 20 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 58 14 83 7968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (it)]
1
2
6 23
5 2
3 697
4 0
698 0 0 699 1778 0 0 1834 1848 0 0 1849 304 0 335 Sundarnagar 0 305 0 306 0 363 367 0 0 368 369 0 370 0 0 373 409 0 412 0 0 413 417 0 425 0 428 0 0 429 430 0 431 0 0 432 0 433 434 0 442 0 0 443 444 0 0 445 446 0 1 82 1 52 09 2 11 3 0 70 60 0 1 08 0 47 0 89 5 68 1 30 4 92 7 64 1 90 0 20 0 20 20 34 0 0 0 20 0 45 0 37 10 7 2 12 1 95 0 32 31 1 2 78 1 21 1 59 2 78 0 20 2 0869
1 2 3 4 0 0 5 4 2 6 27 36 447 448 449 0 0 20 44 677 0 5 0 68 678 10 1 26 680 0 70 0 0 40 0 49 0 20 0 4 1 0 9 33 681 695 697- 698 699 0 41 700 0 3 78 0 0 0 0 53 1 36 704 705 706 0 86 0 0 0 62 30 0 36 0 75 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 20 27 49 20 708 710 711 712 715 716 719 763 764 0 765 0 69 0 2 1 0 26 0 83 0 75 0 76 0 53 766 772 775 776 111 778 0 43 0 1 1 1 10 1 783 0 97 1 784 0 25 9 0 02 79270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
3
2
4
5
6
793 795 797 798 799 813 819 820 1270 1271 1272 1275 1276 1277 1292 1303 1326 1351 0 3 45 0 0 20 0 0 56 0 5 89 0 85 0 56 10 7 2 99 0 20 0 0 0 3 53 0 2 63 1 0 23 0 26 0 48 0 23 0 1 0 3 92 3 48 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 38 Raghunath Bari 38 333 39 40 41 43 44 53 58 59 74 75 77 78 44/577 44/578 0 0 20 0 2 65 0 5 44 0 0 20 0 02 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 97 26 43 20 0 6 59 0 0 56 0 13 60 0 0 20 0 0 24 5571
1
2
4 0
5 0
3 52/569
6 63
332 223 1 95 0 224 225 226 229 230 233 234 269 272 273 274 282 287 297 298 311 312 315 316 317 318 321 322 323 324 325 333 334 419 420 438 3490GI/2000—11 0 1 45 0 88 0 0 0 32 40 0 5 20 0 0 30 0 0 35 0 3 97 2 0 02 1 0 86 0 10 16 0 3 0 20 0 53 0 3 1 97 0 9 10 0 0 1 1 0 1 62 79 95 0 1 25 0 0 2 51 23 0 4 0 5 81 24 0 0 74 1 0 0 2 38 39 0 15 0 20 0 74 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 56 0 1 7272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SF.C. 3 (ii)l
1
2
6
3 439 4 0 309/423 0 347 118 0 5 4 73 1 79 3 171 172 173 0 0 0 174 0 175 0 0 176 0 177 0 180 183 0 184 0 185 0 188 0 189 0 190 0 191 0 226 0 228 0 229 0 0 232 0 233 234 0 235 0 0 236 237 0 242 0 243 0 244 0 532 0 533 0 534 0 34 1 90 2 1 3 32 43 25 6 13 1 58 20 0 9 61 3 14 63 0 0 20 0 56 0 1 52 91 3 82 4 01 5 75 65 0 4 01 3 34 1 11 1 67 0 20 1 21 2 40 5 53 2 28 0 92 5 34 3 4873
1
2
3
5
535
4 0
5
537 0 0 538 539 0 540 0 549 0 550 0 551 0 552 0 557 0 558 0 559 0 560 0 0 564 565 0 566 0 567 0 0 568 0 630 631 0 0 632 0 633 634 0 0 635 648 0 Radha Krishna Pur 348 0 248 254 0 255 0 Chaugere 349 1 0 5 0 0 6 7 0 e 53 57 3 51 2 83 0 93 20 34 0 0 8 04 3 0 37 28 0 14 2 82 5 20 99 0 4 1 6 2 00 14 60 20 0 20 0 5 29 38 35 2 4 3 0 3 28 20 67 04 4 1 28 20 0 22 3 6 05 5 36 72 074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
4 0 0 6 74 20 3 25 27 28 0 20 29 13 30 13 31 0 0 0 20 32 0 65 0 67 0 0 5 6 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 2 7 0 34 52 16 1 0 0 93 0 6 22 0 0 0 20 04 2 0 3 0 11 0 15 14 83 0 36 71 72 73 74 75 79 155 156 157 158 159 0 0 20 329 0 20 0 0 1 332 333 0 0 70 35 334 0 336 2 338 0 0 0 0 357 0 0 20 37 20 25 Purushottam Pur 331 864 0 1 865 0 2 62 55 894 4 84 1159 34 3 1173 0 0 0 2 1175 0 5 1176 0 2 27 73 5875
4
1 2 3
5
6
0 1177 0 1178 1201 0 49 0 1202 0 1207 3 1208 0 1209 48 6 48 6 1211 0 1212 1215 74 93 1216 1217 0 0 1218 0 3 20 0 20 0 0 0 1228 1229 0 0 1231 1255 69 5 88 4 5 0 0 1261 0 1310 0 1311 0 1312 0 0 1314 0 1316 04 35 0 27 9 0 2 0 1317 1318 0 1319 0 1320 0 1322 0 0 1336 0 56 8 41 2 3 0 1338 1339 0 0 1340 79 0170 THE GAZET IE OF INDIA .JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSIIA 16. 1922 [PART II—SEC 3 (n)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
1342 0 1616 0 1617 0 1618 0 0 1619 1620 0 1659 0 1660 0 1665 0 1696 0 2 47 0 1 20 77 3 45 13 34 10 74 42 06 4 6 2 6 1 3 330 1665 0 1666 0 1789 0 1800 0 1801 0 1802 0 1803 0 1804 0 1805 0 1806 0 1807 0 1809 0 1B26 0 1827 0 1828 0 0 1830 1831 0 1833 0 1834 0 1840 0 1841 0 1842 0 1843 0 0 1 85 11 56 0 20 0 2 97 4 64 4 36 74 78 0 2 6 49 20 97 78 0 4 2 5 10 7 25 8 35 0 0 5 1 56 20 45 00 1 80 1 66 0 5277
1
4
5
3
2
6
0 1844 1845 0 1846 0 1847 0 0 1914 1915 0 1918 0 1919 0 1920 0 0 1921 0 1925 0 1932 1933 1934 0 0 1935 0 1936 0 1937 0 0 1939 0 1940 1941 0 0 2115 Mahammad Murad 352 1 0 2 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 0 208 209 0 210 0 Chak Gogras 353 12 0 13 0 126 0 2 04 5 57 4 57 2 50 2 25 2 32 0 60 3 71 5 12 2 27 0 20 1 62 2 5 1 82 79 48 52 97 18 3 2 2 3 16 1 82 2 19 0 20 27 8 4 26 1 84 65 9 4 32 81 53 3 1 43 60 3 4 1 1678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1 2 3 5 3 0 6 61 20 59 4 0 0 0 6 0 20 79 88 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 88 127 129 130 131 132 133 134 0 135 3 176 0 1 15 71 85 0 5 181 5 182 0 183 0 0 212 0 0 213 0 0 51 51 55 54 0 4 92 06 0 8 1 09 0 20 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 6 12 7 4 1 0 49 17 48 19 05 14 0 0 65 0 5 15 0 0 3 06 64 95 214 215 224 225 229 230 239 240 241 275 277 278 279 286 [No,-31015/52/2001 OR I] S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy. MINISTRY OF I AROUR New Delhi, the 13th December, 2000 S.O. 15.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the InustriaJ Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govcinmeut Industrial Tribunal, Kota as shown in the Anneuire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rtlttton to the n anagement Sri Ram Cement, Kota and their worknuu, which was received by the Central Government on 12-12-2000. [No. L.29O12/53/90-IRfMiV >) B, M. DAVID, Under StJy. 3 W0 GI/2000—12. SO T H F, G A 7 F T T F, OF T N D TA • F A N I T A RY fi. 2 0 0 1 / P A U SA 1 6. 1 9 22 New Delhi, the 13th December, 201*0 S.O. 16.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govi 'im:nt hereby publishes the award of the Cer.lial ("in. eminent Industjkil Tribunal, Chcnnai as shown in LI12 Ann MUL" in the Industrial Dispute between tlie employes 111 id A!''-n to Ihe management of Fixit Fv.. Ltd., Ariyelur and their w"ik- meii, which was received by the Ceutial Govunmrnt on 12-12-2000. [No, L-29012/111 p!-JR
ANNEXljRE BEFORE THE CF.NFRNL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL C UAI-LABOUR COfJRT CHENNAI Wednesday (he 2[Jth November. 2000 PRESENT : K, Karthikeyan, Prcsidinij Oflicer. Industrial Disnulc No. 2S/2000 fin the matter of Hit- dispute fir adjudication under Section 10(l)(d) and Sub-section 2(A) of the- Industual Disputes Act. 1947 between the Workman ("id the Management of Fixit Pvt. Lid., Aiivalur) BETWEEN The General Secrctaiy, Cl.iimant/I Partv. Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Un;on, Arivalur- AND The General Manager, Management/U Party, Hxit Pvt. Ltd., Ariyalur, APPEARANCE ; For the Claimant : S/Shri ID Hanpniantharun, V. Aj.iv Khose, P. Vijendran, Advocates, For the Management : M/ i. V. S. Gnpilan & Co.. Ad- vocates. REFERENCE ; Order No. 1,-29012|111|'J HR(Misc) d-ited 21^.2000. Govcinm.nt of India, Minist'-y nl Labour, New Delhi. IT A RT T I - - S L C. 3 ( i i )l t.nd document: ly ev'dcnce let ,;i on uthtr sicls and upon heaiini? (he argumen s of Sri D. Unrip iranlh.iman, Lounscl tor the Claimant and Sa T. 3. Cop Am, Counsel for the Management and this dispute having stood ovtr I ill lhi_ date for coiiMderat.un this Tilbunal pas>.id the following : — AWARD This reference by Centiul Guvornmen' in cerclse of tho puwci;, confened by Clause (d) of Suh-Sei t;on (1J and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Indu"Li/al Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) in respect ol ili'.pute between Sii rl. Pi-id- snniy, V/orKmaR and the GCP.LITJ MunngiT, M/s. FiMt P-'t. L'd , Aiivalur, Minarcmfnt mentio^td ns ^clied'i'r i-ppsndcd to the older of inference. The scliLdL^c 1 Mds, ^s follows : "Whether the action of tnie managemciic of M/v Fixit Pvl, Ltd. in retiring Sri M. Peruiitimy on suiici nr.ud- tion wc.f. 31-12-1991 is justified? It nui, ID wh.it relief the concern,'d workman is tillitlod? On receipt of this re/e ence, this Induslrhl Dispute has been taken OQ file of this nibuivil on 27-7-2000 as Industrial Dnptite No. 28/2000. On receipt ol the noLi.v 'no.n this 1 rlbunnl, troth the parties app'';:ied wilh their rt^pective couiiicl and lilcd t'irir respective Claim S'alemcnt and Counter Statement. 1. The aveiments in the Cl.iim Statement of the Chlirant/ I i'aify dfe brielly Js follows : — SI in the manner not known to law. Therefore ii is aibitraiy find vioktivc of Article 21 of the Coni*ifulion. When tho Management had continued another Workman whose name was at o Penabamy toi 10 yeais afttr he was declared to be 6U veais in the Medical Certificate, the action ot rrianagement iri leimaidLiTiK the sci\ices of M. Heiiasuiny i-. disciiminatory und aibiliaiy, H-u.e h is piayed that tins lion ble Court may be phased to pass an award holdinn that action of the Second Party Management in terminating the .ervices of M. Pejiasamy w L f. 3J-12-''I as unjustified and consequoully direct the Second Par y Management to leinstate Sii M, Periasamy into service, with ctnlinuity of scivice, bacliwiyes with all other attendant and consequential benefits with costs. ". idt- iivtsiiiieiiia. 111 tiiu colltiior jiuueiuent ot the Second Party Management aie oiieuy us ioilows : — iitioijiu. application d:. 2 > i - ! ° 2. in ihe m^aiit me, (he 1'irt> i-any Uu on wiote a lUlui da.ed 3(J 12-yl lo the f.j.iuage- me.u a id itqjosieU 10 p r o v ^c the tij;_ rv.iliaii.iis of. tiicn nivJii^ui Workmen including Sy M, iJLit.isainy us lound ir il'c i tu iii b .Lt'ii'-ti so as CL> ;nl;_n recessaiy action. Jim.. iiie htUAid i-ui.y Jvjun^Bcniciii i c i u ^d m lurjiuh the dci.-iis as rttiUiiid Ly ilie Lni-ii. iiu,vev:r, tiui \,g die pt.iJ,..ey v)l conciliation, ihe Sccurd P.uly M.iiir;,(.n.n.ni ^vended tiic he-v ,.es> of Sii M P u i ^ a my ioi oiio yew i.c LIJJ.O 31-12-92 I ht S'.cond I'aity IMiT1.1genn.111 liled thcii n.niaik" dated 2-3-9.1 and iv'Uu.ih'd Hie sumc stand that was taken M ilien" Idler Uiiitd z i - i i - ' J l. i n; * iiai I'aity Union ih.d a ilaajLd rejouid. r du cu. 6-1-SC LO liic ahove n - t n . i^ ^ILU by tin; Second P^r.y. ' i n; Second PA: ty Mu'uiftLr.ier.t by a noiiw: (luted !ft-12-°3 informed thai Sii I1], ' en.--amy would be jellied w.c.f jl-12-^j as it he completed 00 yeais. The 1-ii'al Paiiy L nioii wiou u Ictler dut('il Jlt-li-W to the Second Partj lViti.i-.g. iiitii. and mioijiim them ttmi me aye <->t J II M. jperid- tmny "i Liiai L.nic or inn juiuiut V"JS oni, J± }U.io tnu nut _o ytais us aii-.t^d by .hvni ai.u in^t lie ws o."y i4 at me iii.ic tjL i\LCiid!iit( hit, wivii..1 a id inai nit ;'' q u' nun ut e\- iiui.1i.4j nit -...ivii-.s IIJ uh 1.1 i'^iiiuiny v,uuio ..eiualiy uust only in l ^ yj and liui lm.ieroie, t h; ae.Li.U need uu exici'SiOii O£ jt'i i ict oy *, ytar-, a., psi Clau-iv. i4 Oi the (_ei mieil aiutid- my ijioeis \\Uuid aiijt on.y in iyl/j. i h u i, me - not HaiL> Union ieque"ii.d iwc iViaivigciiik.nL LO continue the s^ivices oi fctri M. Pcii.isainy. Liiher b.i^ed on the b i ah certitieate pro- duced by him, ci bt fcetting opinion iioin tile comptfleiu i\icdii.A| Board. Ii w,is luntiei p^nutid mil di.it lt'soiting to pitmaiuio lei'ininaiun v.'nhwJt {uliovving tliv. tibov't; toili'-e woii.J Ainoinii 10 iilegii lelten^limciit. Tiic First Patty Union laired an Indiiolna! Depute by their application dated 13-iJ-JJ a£,Ainat the illegal and pjemf.ture tci.wnaLion ol S11 H. penasamy. The Second Party Management hied then lemaiks dt.ted 2-4-y4 to WIIILII the Hi at Pally binon nlec1 llieir Rejoinder dated 17-6-94. Since, the Conciliation Officer could not buns abi 1 any mcdi.itrjn, he submitted hik Failin.' Repou duttd /7-7-yJ to the Ouvsnimem of India. On leeeju of Ihe failure repoit, instead of refenmg the dispute fnr adiudicalun, the Oovcrnmeut of India, by an order dated 11-4-9j dec! ned to refer the dispute for ajudicaiion, on Die giound, thut the dispute was niised by Union belatedly and that the Woikman did not dispute the date of birth entered in Fo'm 'B' register till he w ^s v^ved with the Notice of n-tnemen'. Ag^nevcd by (he abewe oidci, the Fiist P;.1 I'i-fi-lW, Onlv ilirrer.flcr the Gov-'tnaient of Imli.i hns icferrcd the dispute fnr adjidicn ion by this llonVe Ti'burf.l. Thr ;iclion of the Second Vs\ty M uripemer't in letiririfj Sri M. Perinsnrny in Mireranmnimn n e.f. 31-12-91 is whui'v aihifrir", i'leual ond unju-t The aer said to have h^cn e it^r- fd ii Form 'B' ri'y'strr vo* lhr corrrrt nnd nctual ng" of S'i M. Pcriaaamy, His biith ccr1in~al'- --hovvirtr hi" corrTt i!1''1 of be h and age, ought to h...ve b.- -i takci by '.lie S^cf -d Party as the coned d;t'e if r>'i h. Tin' c-nti ;i's sa;d 1o have b:en made at ihe tmi- o[ joining m the I'om 'K' ier',t^i, wn not base-d on any lewal, delinice and .ici'i'piable i-l i.iimen- tary rr*^of. Only the iig; h,is ho n fnteird 111 Ihe Form "B re^'sf^r rind no! 1 lie drilj; ot b'irh. T'ler-toi ', the Form 'B' register canno* h" t ik.-n as a va'i 1, i-cci-p^bk' and e-oncl'jMve proof m- ba^ic foi d^li-imining ill"1 "\fe or d.ite cf h"r'h Th^ pllfiifd entr < in Foim 'B' w?s not rrnde based on tli_- i". jeeo'-dod in Four 'O'. Thcrc-foic the entry cannot be trikfn ai a busi-, or pi0.1; lor determining the date of birth, a^e. Befoie the notice of rel.icmeni dated 6-11-91, the cunccmed WoiUn.tn was never put on notice in writing about Ivs age or date of bir.ii. '1 he genuineness of the buth ccrtjlicafe issued by the competent depmlmcpt, produced by the Woikman 'o the Mo rage men 1 wa> n O| qncstwned by the ManiK^menl. There is no piohibit^ia o' lime limit in the Ccrtifi.-d SMtnl ng Oiders for seeking alt^ialion of date of borih. There will be no piejudice to the IVf.111 nierncn! in cor- reeling the date of birih as pr.r the r r'h certifir tie pitilucul by S I FM Periasinjy. Tho nrtion of the Kc-iwndeiit in super- annural'iig him b"loie he n'tjincd 60 v"11' woi'kl -iniour 1 (i terminat'on and jt is a letrcnchmeni " :lh'n thi. lti'.ninn of Section 2(a,->) of the 11> AT Sinci. Si"i''j1i'-25Ji'i.l*ad IHII been, followed befn-c pff^c'iny termin fi'in, t1^ actiori vf the Rrspondent is vo'd ah inilio. The Mana'^iTifjit has. nv>t followed the f ,'r r^nd 10 is1 bJfii ^ ti-riniiiaiiV" the sei vices of Sti M. Peiiasamy and he has been tcrmnutcd82 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
|PART 11~-SEC. 3(ii)]
whenever an industrial dispute is referred lo a tribu- nal tor adjudfcaiion. One objection is that there is no mdustry, a second that then; i;, no industrial dis- pute and the third that the Workman is not work- man. It is a pity that when the Central Govern- ment, in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public jeclor Corporation which is an instrumentality of the State, instead of wel- coming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad emp- loyer or of victimization etc. should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objection^ and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter often time;> to the High Court and to th£.Supreme Court wasting public time arid money. It is expected that public sector corporations to be modle employers find model litigants. They are not expected to attempt to avoid arjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and dmg workmen from Court to Court merely to vindi- cate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken by them. It is hoped that public sector Corporation will henceforth refrain from rujsing needless objec- tions fighting needless litigation and adopting need- less postures'. long be the criteria for determining the age of supeiannuu- io)i and tnut being so, it is noi permissible lor the Petitioner o seek anerHLiun of the date or birth in Foim H' Register. ;ven assuming withouc adnmting that the concerned Work- lan Wrfi cnuued io seeK. anciauon ot me dtue oi binh as ntered iu Farm B' Register, lie ougnt to have feone to the ivil court and obtained a declaution and based on huch a eclurauon he should have sought alteration of age. In s much as the concerned Woikman had submitted himself for ledical examination in November 1991 and availed the bene- t of extension, iL JS not permissible for the Petstioner to ispute the said age, Moreover, since the dale entered m le boim B Register was known lo the concerned Work- an and ihe Petitioner even as early as November 1991, they jght to have taken steps to establish the proof of his age the appropiiatc courts and 'obtained an order. By not iving tione \o, they cannot seek alternation of the date birth merely to secure monetary benefit of employment r foui years. As the cessation of employment of the mcerned Workman was due to superannuation which was 1 efflux of time, there was no termination of employment. It therefore submitted that the claim of ihe Petitioner should )t be countenanced and the concerned Workman should not granted any relief. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble •ibunal may be pleased to make an award rejecting the lim of the Petitioner. 3. When the matter was taken for enquiry, one witness for ; Management as MW1 has been examined. The exhibits 1 to M16 were marked. On the ride of the Workman, two tnesses were examined as WW1 and WW2 and 6 documents :re marked a$ Ex. Wl to Ex, W6. After the evidence on either side is closed, the counsel on either side advanced :ir respective arguments. 1. The Point far my consideration is : "Whether the action of the management of M/s. Fixit Pvt. Ltd. in retiring Sri M. Periasamy on superannua- tion w.e.f. 31-12-1991 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned Workman is entitled?", 5. It is held by lhe Madias High Court in the above cited case that "After the introductios of Sec,ti"ji-2A of the Act, the reference of the dispute with regard to the non-employ- ment of the Workman, to the Labour Court is competent and valid, even if the Petitioner fail to show that the Union, who projected their case, represented the substantial number of Workmen and that the Union was authorised to raise an In- dustrial Dispute"^ In that judgement, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has followed the judgement of the division bench of that Court wherein it is held that "Even it is not sponsored by a Trade Union or a substantial number of Workmen, still such a dispute will be deemed to be an Indust- rial Dispute. There is no dispute that the demand was only that ot the Workman dismissed. The reference cannot be held to be incompetent because it could be sustained as relating to' individual Workman". The above decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras, enable us to comr to the conclusion that, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, Second Party Management as the reference is bad in law tmd that there is no valid Industiial Dispute and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Second Party Management, to that effect, cannot be accepted as correct. oint : It h the first and the foremost contention of the inagement, Second Party in the Ccunter Statement lhat bust Party Union is bound to establish that the General iy of Lhe Union have authorised its General Secretary to e the dispute, on behalf of the Workman, M. Periasamy. he further contention of the Second Party Management there was no valid Industrial Dispute and, therefore, the er of reference is itself bad in law. Accordingly, the learned n-el for the Second PaiLy Management also advanced his iments that no credential has been produced by the First ty Union's authority to raise this dispute on behalf of the neved Workman, Sri M. Periasamy and he would further tend that unless the Workman concerned authorises the on. the dispute cannot be raised by the Union, on his alf and further, either the General Body or the Executive nmittee of the First Party Union must have passed a reso- jn authorising the Union General Secretary, (he Petitioner ;in, to raise this dispute. For this foremost objection by counsel for the Management, the leajned counsel for the tioner, First Party Workman has replied that the Petition- failure to show that the Union hag authorised him by a 5er resolution passed by the General Body or the Executive imittee, to raise this Industrial Dispute on behalf of the kman, Sri M. Perisamy ennnot be the btisis for this Tribunal old that the reference is not valid, bad in law as there was alid Industrial Dispute, He would further contended that preliminary objection raised by the Management is trivial ature and in view of the decision of the Su/'reme Court as as Madras High Court, the preliminary objection laiscfl he Second Party, need not be considered as there is no 1 Industrial Dispute and the reference itself is had in He has quoted the judgement of the Supreme Court in a reported at 19R3-II-LLJ. Page 429 between S. K. Verma Mahesh Chandra and Another and another case decided he Mndrss Hijm Court in Writ Petition No. 5846 of 1989t een B. Pimishottaman and two others and the Managc- t of Tunfore Textile Ltd. and the Prcsidino Officer, First itiona] Labour Court, Madrns. Tn the cited Supreme Court the Hon'b'e Supreme Court has held as follows :— 6. THc basis for this Industrial Dispute is the notice dated 6-11-91, issued by the Second Party Management informing the employee, Sri M. periasamy that ho would be retired from service w.e.f. 31-12-91, on the around that he attained 58 years. The oilice copy of that communication by the Management to the worker, Sri M. Periasamy is Ex. M4. In the Claim Statement, filed by the First Parly Claimant, now before this Tribunal and in the earlier representation made by the General Secretary of the First Party Union, before tho Asstt, Commissioner of Labour (C), Madras by a petition dated 22-12-91, the First Party Union has stated that the action of the Second Party Management, sought to be termi- nating the services of/in terminating the services of, M, Pcriasamy w.e.f, 31-12-91, is unjustified. The office copy of the said petition dated 22-12-91, raising as an Industrial Dispute by the General Secretary of the First Party Union, before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (C), Chennai h Ex. W4, In Ex. M4 itself, the Managment has informed the Workman, Sri M, Periasamy, to attend for a medical check- up by Dr. T. Elilniiavan by 30-11-91. Before the date fixed for medical check-up i.e. 30-11-91, the Onerrtl Secretary of the First Party Union has sent a letter dated 16-11-91 to lhe Manngcment, enclo^inf; a xerox copy of a birth certificate for a male child born on 10-9-37 to the couple Maruthan and Chennai of Kattupiringivam-Perivanajialur Village of Udavnr- palayam, Taluk, Tiruchi Distt. That is marked as Ex. M5. For that letter of First Party Union, the Secortd Party Management has sent a reoly dated 25-11-91. informing the Oenerai Secretary of the Union that rhe date of birth/age aa declared at the d.ite of appointment iwd as entered in the register of pcrwns emp^ved (Form 'B'), shall be the bnsis for arriving nt the aae of superannuation and retirement It is further informed in lhat letter, that tlif ape of an emp- loyee, as documented above, cannot be altered at any later period and that accordingly thp rptiirmem ord>rs Issued for "There appears to be three preliminaiy objections which have become quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, Hi employe for making entries in these icgislers and no by anybody "lus other Mton .hunselt> IB "U Uiebft exhibits M Mo MJ tna dava-of ctmuoancemitnt. ^f employment nag been shown as 13-12-I9t)8. It is not deputed as a mistaken date. The emnloyeo as WW1 ha*.stated in the cross-examma'ion that he dot* not know anybody tn- the management prior to nib joining service. Untiet such circumstances, all the particu- lars mentioned in these registers inclusive of his nge at the time of his joining service could have been lurmsnet) by him only and not by anybody else. Further, in view of the mate- rials available in these Exhibits Ml to MJ, n cannot be said that th* Management luamsetvs have mentioned ali< Uiuse particular;,, pertaining to thia Workman without he furnishing the same to,the Management and the.Management themselves have fixed the age-of the Workman approximately^ fromi tne facial appeamcc of the Workman, as contended by the First Party Union. 7. Under Section 48 of Minos Art, 1952, Registers of Persons employed must be kept in the prescribed torm with the particular*,like the name o£ the employee with the name of his father or, of her husband, as th" ^urn may be and such othf that Act the Register of Employees have to be maintained in Form, '*"'•. Complying with' this statutory requirement, the Second Party. Management has maintained these Register of Employees. Since tha Workman, Periasamy has not dispute his signatures in the Ex. Ml to M3, which is rrothinR but in acceptance of the entries made therein, it cannot be said, that those particulars were entered by the Management themselves, without his knowledge. On the other hand, it can easily be concluded that those entries in the Exhibits Ml to M3, including the age of the employee at the time of his joining service, were mad? only on the basis of his own declaration. Further, the General Secretary of the Union at WW# has deposed, no other dispute except this, Taised before, about (he retirement of the Workman in this establishment and approximately about 40 Workmen micht have been retired from service on attaininfi the ,ige of super- annuation, and all of them were retired an the basis of the entries made in "B'' Register. From this admission of the General Secretary of the Union for the Mine Workers, it can 6e easily said that the 'B' Register, maintained by the Second Party Management as •per the statutory requirement, as per Mines Act, 1952 is valid, reliable and can be acted upon, the ubove employee are quite m Older and Ihcic ts no ciror in uica auioii. lii. for tnis repiy, me Owiorai sksomary ot the i-irst, i-aiiy union nu>> sent a ictiei atuep ZV'li-S'l to tne ivianage- IUCIU. ii n, t,x. ivi/. in mat jcuer, me utjicr.u ^ecieiary ol itie j-'nat h cineied m me jeijiMw ot persons/employee^ Oroitfi "" ), &haJl not bo the basis u>r arriving at me t>"e or suneidGUUJUQn ana r*Hire- niciu and mat me age or tne Workman mijjlit have been en- tered on tne more app ubtc K> prove his corral age by documentary evidence, the Management has no locus- fittindi to si^ui it out. h\. Mti is the report of Medical Exa- mination in Pong O', given by the Medial Qmccar, who examined me Workman, M, Pcwossmy, Physically. It is dt. 30-12-yi. In thut Medicfli ExaminaOQji Rejport, the Mcdicul Officer has madp a, suggest/on, statin* thftt. uje employee^ M, Periaeamy may bo permitted to work, ;n tije mines tor one more year. It i* admitted that the Worjuman, Jvl. Penasamy was appointed by the Management in the year 1968, as an unskilled mine worker and he was working as- such in Periya- nagalur Limestone Mine of the Management under Token' Mo. 292. Ex, Ml is the entwes available in the Register of Employee^ at Penyanagalur Limestone? Mines for the. year ending 196&, with regard* to & No. 292, M- Feriasamy. His Father'* name is mentioned as Marathan, Age is mentioned) as 35 and the, date ot commencement of employment as 13-ii'bS for which the employee has subscribed JiU signature In Tamil in Col. No. 9., Tlie signature as Pcnasftmy in Tamil, has not been demed by the employee himself who has been examined himself as WW1, He has admitted in his evidence that he joined the service of Fixit Pvt. Lid .in their mines, as a worker, In (he year 1£6S. He would say in hi" Chief Exa- mination that whea he joined th© service in 1968j the Management has not asked hin; about his age. In the cross- examination, he would say that before he joined the service m 1968, he had no connection with this- Management and sthat piioi to Jus jonunu seiv.ee in 1968, he did not have any known person from the Management and that prior to 1968, nobody in the management knew his father's name or his father. It is his further evidence that only after he joined service in 1968, the Management asked his father's name and noted in their rceordfr and his wife's name as VallKimmtti and that his village is Kuttupenngiyam, Mr. D. Iravathy, GeneraJ Manager of MA. Fixit Pvt. Ltdi lias been examined as MWI. It is his evidence that they fire maintain- ing Register of Employees, called as Form 'B' Register and the particulars of an employee, such HS his. name, hJR father's name, age, sex, nature of employment, fitness certificate, date of commencement of employment, date of termination, mark ot identification, address and token number will be available in that Register, it is his further evidence that for !he entries made in that Register, every Workman used to sign in that Register for the correctness of the particulars. Like thai, the Workman, Sri M, Perjasamy also has put his -jignature in that Register at lhE time oi his appointment in the year 1968 and has declared hi* age as 35 years at that time and that the entries in the original rcgisier is Ex. Ml. It is also his evidence that in 197(5, a fre"h register of. employees was opened and in that register also the Workman, M. Peria- •samy has subscribed his sijrnatnre. fqr llje correctness of his particulars, mentioned thurein and it is Ex. M2. He wouid further say that again fn 1985, as per the amended Act, a new register was opened for affixing the photograph for the Workman in Form 'B' register of the employee. The entrf" in that register of employees, under S. No. 26 and Token No. 292 refers to the employee, Sri M. Pfriasnmy for which the emplovee Penasamy also ha* put ui Manager then. Those enfiie? in the Register S "f fim p!0^e eLrin d e r J 1; No> U h m a r k ed as Ex- M3- A Perusal 8. It is admitted that though the Second Party Management "has originally intimated the employee, M. Periaaanry that he has to retire from service on 31-12-91, on the basis of F,t. M8, MedicaJ Officer report that he maj/ be permitted to work in tha Mines for one more year, ihe Workman. Periasamy was informed under,the original of Ex, M&~that he has becm given extension of service for one yc"r i.e. iipto 31-12-92, Fromi this It is seen that in view of the decision taken by-the Management, subsequent, to the Medical Report, Ex. Kli}, the • earlier, decision of tfir Management under the original- of Ex. M4-to retire the employee, M. Periasamy from service on 31-12-91 was not enforced, Jht •General Secretary of the Union as WW2 has admitted in hh evidence that based on the medical opinion, the Manase ment pave one year period extension of service to the Work' man, Sri.M., Perissamy and that, till 31-12-92, h e h ns not pursued the dispute and-then asnin he raised the dispufo that in view,of the medical opinion that the Workman is physically fit, the extension,of service for the "Workman mav be two years and not, one -year and the Conciliation Officer advised the Management • to give two years exrentfm. and that both the eartip* nqcePfed the ndvi"?,and two ^enrs rwfod extension, ended ton 31-12-93- and the Socond Patty retained the Workman, Periasamy till 31-12-93, From (his admission of WW2. tlie General Secretary of the Union that the First Party Unipn who rahtfd the dispute itor satisfied with the action of the Second Partv M a M ^ j j ^ a t t or the extension ot Bx. Ml. M2 and M3 shows th"f the particular in respect if unskilled mine worker, \f. periasamy, y by ti e S, V?nT S? f he f ^ y e e. M. Penasamy by two vem" ifll 3| . ] 7 -m FyDm nfj f h e 5e f h i n^_ ft Cfln £e c o n c l u d f ld t n at on "he ba"" of the declaration of fhe ap.a of the Woitmw ar the time-of bti appointment w tbe year 1968 a" 35 y"4\rs of "j?e, has-been accepted as correct and hence the earlier84 THE GAZFI IE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/ PAUSA 16, 1922 IPARI 11-SbC. 3
communication, under the original of hx. JVI t to the work- man, M. Pcriasamy that he attained the ugs of 58 years and hus to retire from ^eivicc on 31-12 91, tin-, b^-n uci.ei ULU and subsequently, he has been given two year*, ol extension of service, subsequent to 31-12-^1 to 31-12-VJ a-i aii t-ccepuJ term between both the parties, iq pursuance of Ihe ^dvic-; of the conciliating authoiity. 10. MW1 the General Manager vi the Second P:u'y MunaEjmc.nl has clearjy deposed in his ev'denc." that, I-x. M15 is tlie enliJc m the Foim 'B' Regislei of Emp'oy.-es, peitaiiiint; io the workman, A. Permsumy undei Token No. 4(JK and t.iat, lie was allowed to work in tnc C umpii'/iy tipti.' 31-12-92, on the baais ol jus dcclaicd ag<; oL 3H vcurs tn the date o^ his appointmc.it, 1-12-1972. It" is his further e\i- d(.nce tb^( mihe yeui 19K1, the said A. Periatamy w.n rcfcned to the Medical Officer foi general medical check-up, wdo on examination submitted a repoit stating that the said workman, A. Periasamy appears to be more tru-i 60 ycais of ajjc and that even then, they allowed him lo continu • in scvice on the basis of his declared age, mentioned in E\, Ml5, as per the policy of the Management, This evidence of MW1 'ius not oeen disputed. From all these things, it jj clearly seen that the action taken by the Second Pariy Manaseinent against the V/orkman, M. Periasamy on the bjsis of his own declaration of his age at tim; oi his . ppoiilmrnt to retire him from service on 31-12-1911, on hi, a'laimng the age of 58 years and subsequently rciiied th- woilman from seivice on 31-12-1993 in putsua/ice of fnsi on the basis of the medical report, Ex, MS and sub-eqnently, n"i the basis of the advise of the Conciliating Autboiity, i jr. lificd. Fuim the materials avmlabls in this cijC as otul and documentary evidence, it is seen that the artion o* the S'-i.'onJ Parfv \fanagement is not a malafido action, cpr'cious, lacking in bonafide and an unjustified acl'on wi'hout any basis-. Under such circumstances, I nro of the opi yen that the action taVcn hy the Second Partv Manacemrnt in letiring th1 employees at their ace of superannuation, on the basis of their declared awo mentioned in Form 'B' Rcsji'tcr is c.'rr.'cl and the said action cannot be interfered with, I further find that there is no scope at I'll to interfere with ire riclion of the Second Party Management, taken against li'ir \wikman, IVf Pcnasamv in retiring him from service. T'IT" I answer the point accordingly. 11. In the result, I pnss an award holding that the fiction (if the Manattemvnt, M/s. Fixit Pvt. Ltd. ~to retire Sri M. P'-riasamy, workman from service, on siirjcranniiation w.cf. ^1-12-91 is justified and the concerned workrmn U, not entitled to any relief whatsoever. No cost. D'ctaled to the Stenographer and typed by him direct find CT reefed and pronounced bv me in the opei court on this dav, the 29th November, ?000. K. KARTHIKFYAN, Prrsfdinj' Officer W1INRSSFS EXAMINED: For C1aimanf/I Party: Sri M. Pcriasamy, WVVl. Sri V. Lakshmipnthv, WW2. For Management/II Party : Sri D, Iravathy. DOCUMENTS MARKFD : For Claimantf\ Party: E\. Wl 29-12-84: Standing Orders. Fx. W2 10-09-8ft : Appeal. Ex. Wl 14-11-91 : Original of the Birth Certificate of the Petitioner. 1 x. W4 22-12-91 : Offic conv of the application sent by the I Party to ALC(C>. E\ WS 0*1-04 ^2 : Cffioi copy of thr rejoinder filed hy the I Party Union. Ex. Wf, 30-11-93 : Office coov of the letter sent by the 1 Party Un:on to the II Party, For Manai.r"m:nt/n Party: Fv Ml J^/iR : Parfieii1ars reending M. Periasamv I'TI the original register of employees, under S. No. 292. l-x M2 1976: Particulars regardinp" Sii M. Prriasamy ;n th^ '[^^eqncpt recistcr of emnlovees, under S No. 292. Ex Ml 14S5 ' Particulars Tecardinc Sii M. f'eriasamv ii the ni"w r^cister of ernployces', under S No. 2fi and Token No- 292. 9. K is the evidence of WW2 that he again laiscd ihs disputo on 13-12-93, even before 31-12-93, the date on which, tno two years extension of service given to Workamn, M. Pcriasamy comes to an end. Exhibit W6 is a letter d(. 30-11-93, sent by WWI, the Oeneial Secivta.y of the f-iist Party Union to the Second Party Management. In that letter the First Party Union has purposely omitted to mention the extension of service for two more years till 31-12-93 for the Workman, M. Pcrinsarny on tlte Jjccgi^jd advice ot the Conciliating Authority. But, the first Putty Union has again contended in that letter that the date of birth of M. Pcnasamv was only 10-9-1937 and at the time of joining service, his age was about 31 ycais. For this contention, tho First Party Union is relying upon the birth certificate' issued by the Registration Department under Form No. 9, Lx. W3, It in ths evidence of WWI arid WW2 that Ex. W3 is the With certificate of Workman, M. Periasamy. WWt further depose that his date of birth is 10-9-1937 and he came lo know about the same on seeing the palm leaf written horoscope, kept in their house and on that basil, he presented a petition in the Registrar's office, requesting him to issue a certificate foi his date of birth and that they conducted an enquiry and issued him a certificate of birth, F.x. Wl. It is also his contention, that his father has already registered his date of birth with the village T.I^uiyaLjra]. On'y for the fust time, heie in evidence, the Workman, M. Periasamy as WWI has stated that on seeing the palm leaf written horo icope, kept in their house, he came to know his date of b-rth .is 10-9-1937. It is his admission that he is an illiterate and he doe- not know even to read pnd wife Tamil. Excepting his oral evidence, no evidence worth the credit is available to %ay that he has got a palm Jeaf horoscope- in his house, denoting his date of birth. From this, it is seen that it is only his afterthought, to mention it as his evidence for his belated representation about the date ^ birth. Further, no material is available in this case as to how he understood the alleged palm leaf horoscope and concluded that it refers to his date of birth. If really, it is true, he would have definitely produced the same as a material evidence in support of his claim. The non-production] of one such aliened docu- ment and the non-mention of thr availability of that document earlier, creates t\ douht about the version of the Workman, Periasamy on this aspect. Further a perusal of the Fx. W3 goes to sno*v that the Jrfojrmtkin mentioned therein, has been taken from the original record of biith register of PeriayarrpaliT, 1917 From this Fix W3. if cinnot be conclusively concluded that it refers to the Workman. M. Periasamy only and no other iwie of the couple Maruthan and Cliinni. in the absence of particulars a* to when their other children were born. WWI hai admitted in his evidence that he has got a younner brother. Further. From F \. W3 il cannot be said that It has bocn prenflted bv the depart- ment, subsequent to the enculirv cnn*ductl*cl bv them, as deposed by WWI, WW2 the General Secretary of the Union, admittediv. a practising advocate, hai admitted in his cvidepr-r, that "Wh*n a party claimi a rieht. fin trie hpsU of a docu- ment, ixninst another parfv and (tie other rarty does no' ncept his richt, the rem"dv nv^riaT>)'e To thf nnrtv whn ^in'mi the rifht, under the civil law, to to apnroach the CWi! Court for declaration r-f bis richt" Admittfdiv thn First Pru-tv TTnion has rui'-cd this TndTi=trTn1 T">isrraf'' on b"haK of tli- Worlrmin M Pevinspmv wit*i feanrd to his nuc of Fnrr*i'.!nnvnti^n on thr basis of th- birth cert'lVite of th*>' Wnri-mHTi WW? arlmito in cTw-CTimiintinn that v'T>n the Workman wants the Mtu1ni?em''nt tn drdare Tits rinht m the hi'is of a document nnd if the M^n/iqernent deoi"s thr r;n"imi> ih;.. T^'bim-il einnot jvo info t rf auef'ion of the valMitv of tbnt )>>'itVi rT)
X5 ANNEXUKE Ev M4 06-11-91 : Letter from the Mines Mnnnser Sii D. Iravathy to the employee Sri M. Peiiasumy (Office copyj. t l-N'JRAl GOVI KNMENT INDUSTRIAL IRIBUNAL AT CAfCUTTA Rtleience No. 12 of 199i Hx, M5 16-11-9J : Letter (reply) from Sri M. Pen.i- samy to the Management thiough Tamiirudj National Mine Woikers Union. I'ARTIIIS: Employers in relation to the management of rialdia Dock- Complex. Ex. M6 25-11-91: Reply letter from the Mines Manager to tlie General Secretary, Tamilrudii National Mine Woikers Union (Office copy). AND Ex. M7 29-11-91 : Reply letter from the Union to the I heir Woikmen. Management, TUESENT: Ex, MS 30-12-91 : Medical report of Sri M. Periasamy, Mr. Justice B P. Shaima, Presiding OITlcer. APPEARANCES: I \. My 30-12-91 : Office copy of the letter from the Mines Manager to Sri M. Periasamy regarding ex- tension of service for one year. On hthalf of Management • Mr I. Ghosh Dastider, Jr. As'tt. Manager. \\. M10 25-01-92: Copy of the petition laising In- dustrial Dispute before the ALC(C)l, Chcnnai. On behalf of Woikmen: Mr. T. B Roy, Vice-President of the Union. • Tx. Mil 02-03-92: Reply letter from the Mines STATr : West Bengal. INDUSTRY: Pott and Dock, Manager to the ALC(C), Chennai. AWARD Ex. MI2 13-12-93 : Xerox of the office copy of the Industriul Dispute raised before the ATXfO, Chennai. E\. M13 02-04-94 : Office copy of the reply kttcr from • h o wn a w a i n st C T C II e m p l o y ee is j u s t i f i ed or n o t? 1 3, A 5. fi Nrn T > I H. the 13th OccmbiM, 1000 (2) For similar posti in the Complex, the project emp- loyees would be absorbed horizontally by issuing offers of absorption to them for such posts. (3) In case .of posts in the Project which are not iden- tical to the posts, in the Complex but considered more or less similar, letters offering absorption would also be issued to the concerned project emp- loyees for their absorption in the Complex. (4) In respect of those project employees who can be considered for absorption in the Complex against suitable posts having regard to their aptitude and skill for working agHinst those posts shall also be absorbed in the Complex after completing success- fully short in seivice training. f?) The inter-se seniority of employe^ absorbed hori- zontally will be the samo as under the Project. The cases of those who are absorbed on different dates will be decided upon in consultation with the union, failing which the union is free to raise the dispute afresh, (6) This settlement shall be implemented in full within one year to be recknoed from the date of this settle- ment and the parties shall send their implementa- tion report to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta within 30 days thereafter. It is further stated that the above mentioned surplus marine personnel at Calcutta wert transferred to Haldia Dock Com- Plcx and they were absorbed in regular "vacancies of Marine Hands in the Marine Division of Haldia Dock Complex and their seniority was counted from the date of their ab- torptiun in regular vacancies of Marine Hands in the Haldia Dxick Complex. The special remuneration bering paid to, them was stopped and they were treated as regular employees of the Haldia Dock Complex with effect frOm 25-9-1989. Jt is further stated that the -six concerned employees were oiigmally piojcct employees and were adjusted against regu- lar vacancies of Marine Hands on different dates shown against their names and thus they were senior to those emp- loyees who were adjusted in the regular vacancies on 25-9-89. It is further stated that the Manager (P&IR). Haldia Dock Complex published a seniority list showing the Calcutta-based Marine Crews adjusted in Haldia Dock Complex on 25-9-89 ;is senior to the emplpyees who were adjusted earlier i.e. in 1978 and 1981 and subsequently they were also promoted to* the next higher scale superseedinjj these six persons. Accord- ingly, the union h.is challenged the action of the management in this regard as highly illegal and arbitrary and the matter was referred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcultu and conciliation proceeding was also started, but ended in failure and ultimately the matter was referred to the Central Government which sent the matter to this Tri- bunal for adjudication. In this connection it is stated that the *ix concerned workmen wepe absorbed 'in regular vacan- cies in Haldia Dock Complex with effect from the dates as mentioned against their names and thus they had become the regular employees of the Haldia Dock Complex on those dates. In view of the said terms pf settlement, the-posts under Haldia Dock Complex were not to be filled up from other, sources without first absorbing Haldia Dofk Project emp- loyee* and for similar posts in the Complex, the project employees were to be absorbed horizontally by issuing offer of nibsorption to them and the inter-so seniority of emp- loyees absorbed horizontally was to be the same as under the project and it was further decided that this settlement shall be implemented in full within one year. It is further stated that as per tripartite settlement made on 26-12-1978 the seniority of the project employees who were absorbed in regular vacancies was to be counted from the date of their original appointment in the Haldia Dock Project and so the seniority of these six persons should have been counted from the date of their original appointment at Haldiii Dock Project and n ot 'from the date of their ab- sorption in regular cadre. It is also stated that the persons belonging to Calcutta Port Trust were absorbed In Haldia Dock Complex on 25-9-1989 and since after their absorption, their special remuneration was stopped. So. they became the regular employees of 'Haldia DoiSk Complex as Marine Hands from 25-9-1S8S. Accordingly, the -union has claimed that these six concerned workmen have their seniority over the employees originally belonging to Calcutta Port Trust and subsequently absorbed in the Haldia Dock Complex. It is further submitted that the seniority of these six concerned workman has been adversely affected due to illegal and arbi- trary nction of the Manager (P&IR) of the Haldia Dock Complex. Prayer has been, accordingly, made to strike down the said seniority list and to declare the aforesaid six work- men as seniors to others. It is further stated that the commissioning of the Haldia Dock Complex took place in the year 1977. Quite a num- ber of marine crews ware deployed to work at Haldia from Calcutta Port Trust treating them as Calcutta based marine crews and ?uch Calcutta based marine crews were being paid extra remuneration while working in Haldia .Dock Complex. Howavex, another set of marine crews were already working at Haldia since prior to commis- sioning of the Complex as Haldia Project employees and they weic also regularly absorbed against regular vacancies as Marine Hands (Shore Crews). They were employed in the Marine Division of Haldia Dock Complex and were treat- ed as iHaldia based Marine Crew and ware not paid any oxira remuneration like Calcutta based Marine Crews. Those Marine Crews, who were origljially the employees of the Project and were subsequently absorbed against regular vacan- cies in Haldia Dock Complex since 1978, were given desig- nation rn Marine Hands. It Is alio stated that in terms of the tripartite settlement inter-se seniority of project emp- loyees those who were absorbed in the Complex against re- gular vacancies was to be counted from the date of their original appointment in the Project. 4. In their written statement, the management, apart from dertying the allegations of the utiion in the statement of claim, excepting for the matters df record1, have stated' that in February, t977 Haldia Dock Complex was commissioned and at that time to -facilitate marine operations under the Maiine Operations Division, Haldia Dock Complex, a good number of crew members from different units or Marine Department of Calcutta Port Trust were transferred to Haldia from Calujtta for their posting and work at Haldia. During that peiiod, large number of crew members were in excess fo the requirement under the Calcutta Establishment of Calcutta Port Trust and since option was available at Haldia, instead of declaring all of them as officially surplus, a group of crew members were transferred to Haldia. Tt was done after prolonRed discussions with the union. In doing so, the intention of the Calcutta Port Trust was to accommodate those employees who weie likely to be declared surplus by flivinp them opportunity of being absorbed in the Haldia •Project, Accordingly, many employees were transferred to Huldia and they were subsequently absorbed in the Haldia Dock Complex on its commissioning. Tt ig also stated that cotne more shore crew members were Inducted under the Maiine Division. Haldia Dock Complex. While one ret of crews were horizontally adjusted from the erstwhile pro- ject establishment in a nesolution of lune, 1979, th* other set of crews who were recruited from the lower categories of departmental candidates of various divisions of Haldia Dock Complex, tl is further stated thnt in 1980-1981 the87
fias ;IIHI slated that ihe seniority list prepared by the Mana- U'.r 11'
3490 G[/2000—1388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 6, 21)01/PAUSA 16, 1922 __ [PARTJI—SEC. 3(ip|
management of Haldia Dock Complex in allowing piomo- tlon by conferring the overriding seniority to the Shore Crews (Maunc HandM who were Heated us, Calcutta bused woikimj at IT.ildia and later absoibed in Haldia Dock Complex, against jegular vacancies with effect from 25-9-1989 than the emp- lojees mentioned in the schedule of lefcrcnce, who were jecruited in Haldia and absorbed against regular vacancies in Hnldio Dock Complex from the dates shown against each employee is justified. The conceined workmen, accordingly, shall not be entitled lo any relief. Dated, Calcutta, The 29th November, 2000. .B. P. SHARMA, Piesiding Ollicer New Delhi, the 18th December, 2000 S.O. 18.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal] Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18th December, 2000. I No. L 42011 |3|2000-DU| N. P. KESHVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar ADJUDICATION BETWEEN Shyam Narain S|o Sri Badloo Kharetha Aishbagh, Lucknow AND Executive Engineer (Elect,, Coord.) Central Electrical Division Central Public Works Deptt. G.S.I. Campus, Aliganj, Lucknow By reference No. L-4201 l|3|2000-IR(DU) dated ] 5-3-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 made over this industrial dispute bet- ween Shyam Narain S|o Sri Badloo and Executive Enginner (Elect Coord.), Central Electric Division, Central Public Works Deptt., Lucknow for adjudi- cation. The reference is reproduced as under : "Whether the action of Central Public Work Deptt., in not promoting Shyam Narain, Khalasi to the post of Wireman is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled ?" 1. Shyam Narain, a Khalasi, was appointed on 4-8-86. Hi,s work and behaviour had always been good. He was senior to Gulab Chand Misra, also a Khalasi, working with the management who was promoted as Asstt. Wireman,, ignoring his claim. Grievance of the workman is that denial of pro- motion to him in preference to his junior is arbi- trary and against rules. Tt is also averred in the claim statement that post of Asstt Wireman has since been redesignated as 'Wireman' from 18-4-1995 and he is entitled to the said post with ba'ck wages and interest on the arrears. 2. Management has not denied facts of the case Mr. M. L. Rora, Executive Engineer, who ap- peared in person, admitted that two employees Gopal Bahadur and Gulab Chandra Misra were promoted on the post of AssLt. Wireman. Gulab Chand Misra was junior to the workman. This fact came to notice and the promotions were reviewed. Both the promotees were reverted. Aggrieved by reversion, they approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. The said Tribunal by order dated 27-2-1997 stayed their reversion and ordered to maintain status quo. According to the manage- ment the revertees are still working as Wireman on the basis of interim order of the Central Adminis- trative Tribunal. 3. Thus, the facts : that the workman was senior to Gulab Chand Misra, and his non-consideration on promotional post of Asstt. Wireman, are not denied. Management has not pleaded that the workman was otherwise disqualified on the ground cf unsuitability. It is informed by Mr. Rora that the mistake occurred inadvertantly, and it wa,s not with a view to ca^lse loss to anyone. When these irregu- larities came to notice, redressal measure were taken by reverting the promotees. He also pointed out that the revertees are holding the post of Wire- maji, consequent upon the interim order of the Cenral Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and also on redesignation of the post of 'Asstt. Wireman to Wireman, 4. Thus, on the basis of admitted facts, the workman was eligible and entitled to the post of89
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2(M)() S.O. iy.—In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C, Ltd. and tljeir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-2(100, [No, L-22O12/334/89-JR(C-U)l N. P. KESHVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURn BEFORE THI-. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-l AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial I nbunal-I. Asbtt. Wiremam on the date, his junior Gulab Chand Misra Was promoted and in all fairness in preference to him. His non-consideration, was, definitely a serious lapse on the part of the manage- ment. The management recognised this mistake and reverted the promotees, but no evidence is given that the workman was considered for pro- motion at the time of reversion. Posts of Asstt. Wireman were also available. Action of the management, thus, can not be justified because reversion orders were passed, without considering promotion of the workman. The contention of the management, that the revertees are holding pro- motion post on account of interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in- their favour is also not correct. The Tribunal ordered to main- tain status tjuo but not to treat them wireman, a higher post in higher ,scalc. The management should have treated them Asstt. Wireman. notion- ally, and should have paid the last salary of the said post. By treating them 'Wireman' in higher scale, the management acted arbitrarily without realising the consequential loss to the workman and those similarly situated. Management filed copies of orders dated 7-11-2000, showing recti^ fication of this mistake. Rectification of mistake by the management, however, docs not give relief to the workman whose due promotion was denied unjustly since 8-4-95, causing lass of benefits arising on. rcdesignation of the post of Asstt, Wireman to Wireman. Dated : 24th day of Octobei, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 22 of 1990 BETWEEN The Workman of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudcm, Khammam District (A.P.) .. Petitioner AND 5. In the circumstances, the action of the management in non-considering promotion of the workman from the date his junior was promoted, was unjustified and illegal. The workman, being senior to Gulab Chand Misra is entited to promo- tion on the post of Asstt. Wireman from 18-4-1995 and further, on the post of wireman, consequent upon redesignation of the posts. Thus, in the facts and circumstances tf the case, the award is as follow : The Management or. Sinparcni Collieries Company Limited. Kothagudem, Khammam District (A.P.l . . Respondent APPEARANCES : M/s. G. Vidya Sagar and P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates for the Petitioner. M/s. K. Srinivasa Munhy and Vijaya Sekhar Rcddy. A—that the workman Shyam Narain is en- titled to promotion as Asstt. Wireman from 18-4-1995; Advocates for the Respondent. AWARD B—that consequent upon merger of the semi skilled and skilled posts, he is entitled to the post of Wireman in Group ' C; from the date of the order became effec- tive ; and On a reference from the Government of India. Ministry of Labour in its Order No. L-22012(334)/89-IR(C. II), dt. 30-3-1990 foi adjudication of the dispute by this Tribunal as to the justification of the Management of M/s. Singareni Col'iori-s Company Limited, Kjjthagudem tn dismissing Sri Nalla Krishna General Mazdoor from service with effect from 22-2-1989, this Tribunal registered the case as I D. No. 22/90 and proceeded with the enquiry. C—-that the workman, is, also entitled to difference of wages from 18-4-1995 as per relevant rules. - Lucknow 27-11-2000 2. By an order dt. 19-8-1991, the then chairman of this Tribunal upheld th" validity of the domestic enquiry con- ducted by the Management and further - ordered to proceed with the enquiry to consider the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the workman keeping in view of the Section 11-A of I.p. Act, 1947. Puntuant thereto, the successor chairman of this Tribunal passed an award dt. 17-7-1993 and set aside {he impugned ordar of removal paiied RLJDRESH KUMAR. Presiding Officer90 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANLARY 6, 2001, PAUSA 16, 1922 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)l
by the Management removing the workman from scivice nnd Thereby otdered his reinstatement. 3- Aggrieved by the award dt. 17-7-1993 pasted in 1.13. No, 22/90 setting aside the punishment of revomal imposed by the management and ordering reinstatement, the manage- ment filed a Writ Petition vide W.P. No. 19565/93 for considering the validity of the Award passed. 4. ITie Hon'ble High Court after considering the tactual aspects .>nd evidence on ucoid, ubscrvi-d fhat there is li;m1K any analysis, appreciation of the evidence or iciisons *vuuh the entile lecord to justify the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal that the order of dismissal imposed in the discipli- nary pi<-cei:din<^ is v/hol'y .irbitun 'nd m.ilafjdc, consequent- ly the ens'-was reminded tt this Tribunal rtiuciing to con ,idti the reference dt. 30-3-1990 atrcsh. Further it was directed to consider the correctness of the departmental proceedings on the premises that the same are valid which was upheld by the Tribunal in its order dt. 19-8-1991 and theicbv to consider whether the conclusions and findings of the disci- plinary proceedings are coirect or not and whether the puni^hmenl >if 'lismiss-il *mr>oscd on (he w oilman is piopci as to the gravity of the allegation .illeged and found proved. 5 The points for adjudication aie (1) Whether the findings and conclusions made in disciplinary proceedings are correct or not ? (2) Whether the quantum of punishment Is proportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled and proved against the workman ? 6 In ordor (o prove and establish the chnrne levelled against the workman, the Management has riled Ex. Ml to M15. The charge levelled against the workman was that on 12-8-1987 the workman Shn N. Krishna has abused Sri Y. NagBbhushanam to vulgar language and manhandled him and his act of omission amounts indiscipline as per company's standing order 16(5). The workman was directed to iubmit his explanation within 3 days from the date of receipt of the chargr sheet by him for which he submitted his explanation' vide his letter dt. 29-8-87 in which he denied the charses levelled against him. So nn enquiry was held Rgainftt him. In the course of domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the evidence of Y. Nagabhushanam. Jayarami Rcddy, J. V. S. Shankarmohan permitting the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses. Further the evidence of delinquent N. Krishna was also recorded. 7. Briefly stated in the cist of 'he evidence is as under : Sri Y. Nneablwshanjim, Acting ^'tjmsm stated before the inquiry Officer ih.it on 12-8-19R7 ht; was workine in the first shift Ht drill No 22 Hn No "!. The firsi shift com- mences from 7.30 AM. to 1 W P M. and on that day i e. on 12 8-87 except N. Krishna (delinquent), all other miz- doors P. V, Suhhn Kaju. B. Jayamm Reddy and K. Raju attended, the duty in time. Rampn^i, Acting Rigman had directlv pone to the O.M.'s Office from the Camp Office. He honker) th^ misters of those vortmen came on duty exceot Krishna delinquent. Subsenuentlv at nboiit K.0O A.M. N. Ktiphna (delinquent) attended the d,ptv Bnd to whom he (the witness) questioned him (Krishna) why he was late for dutv. for which he replied in vuljrar lancuage Hnd for that he (witness) told him. beuiB an educated person it is not nroner to use vulgar ]anw"ap. Tliereafter while he was 'oofcinc into the r'norls sitlinp; inside the shed. N. Krishna Ml the while standing outside came inside and bent him on his chest. Tri the meanwhile the qther workers B. Javaram Redrfv. K. Rain F) Narnsimha Rao nnd s ow casual lnhnur came inside and separated both of therp,, So on the *.nme day he geve n oomnlaint aeainst N. }tri"hna to the Area Camo Tncharun (Genloeist). The Area r?amn Tncharjw t(id not allow Krishna to attend for duty and Marked him absent at 9 30 A.M. This witness was cross examined by suggest- ing that he (witnwil had demanded the delinquent Rs. 50 on 11-8-1987 and the witness stated that N. Krishna wan makinp this fftlw charge as he gave a complaint against N. Krishnfl and further he oit-H in'ercted mazdoOTs to whom he has been niafkinn their musters eventtaoujth they attend to duty Ipte now gpttf thefl. 8. Similartv B. Javajaro Bteridy, General Mazdoor in n<" "ta""m"Bt before the Fnmiiry Officer stated that on 12-8-1*87 in his duty hours at about 8.Q0 A.M. N- Krishna qttenqed liic duty for which Nugabhushannm, Acting Rigman asked him why he attended Jate and on that N. Krishna (delinquent) used vulgar language against him. Further when he asked him nol to talk vulgarly, N. Krishna went upon Sn Najja- bhuslmnam and beat him on the chest. Then he (witness) along wiih k. Rd|U, U. Naiasimha. Rao, 2 ciirtment and who weie present, separated both of them. In the cross examinn- li'iu Una witness wus sujigested llut he boie UUKIKC ajjainsl mm and with h;s luppon, ii false case is foisted, which siiynestion wus denied. y. J\$ Jp.unst flie Jbovc tvid-ru..; on the side o[ the maii- ugement, N. Krishna (delinquent I also gave blalcmem slat- ing thai on 12 8-H7 lie attended quty ,ii Uic J>i-ill site at ibout 7.30 A.M. itself and at that turn; only 3 Cwtmen nhmi:!y Dcen Dayal, M.'inoj and Juwadish weic piesent. After parking nis cycle jn the shed, IVJ went outside to answer the crtll uf nutuie and returned at S.00 A.M k> the Drill Site and in the meanwhile Y Nafiabhushon.im c'me and he was r-ooking musteis to whnm he asked him lo book his mus- ter in the attendance register and for that he W.JS told that he will not book his muster since he was lute. He did not hem him cventhough he told him that attended the duly at 7.JO A.iVl. fai earliei tu the arrival of him and others nnd that he vvent to attend culls of nature. He further stated that Ntiyabhushanam stated thai he will not hook his nntstei and exJioited him to icj-ort to whomsoever he likes. He waited there only upto 10.15 A.M. till the arri\al of Krish- niah, Geologist and Camp Inchdrge to whom/Sn Nanabhu- th.ifiani f'Ji'.dy compl-iined that he beat him and on that he murie enquiries with Subba Raju, Miwdooi who was there icpii^d that he i- not ;,vvare of the incideiH. Aftci making enquiry ind on the advice of Nagabhushannm he was marked .ibsent in the registei and initialled by Sri ICrishnaiah, N. iCri'-hna (delinquent) was alloved (o be cios- examined by Niif.'ibhushanam and he was suggested that whether he is examining Jie above named 3 cmtmen as witnesses to prove that he attended foi dirty at 7.30 A.M. for which he expiest.- cd Ins inability to pioducc his witnesses Further he was suggested that he did not produce those witnesses as those three cortmen refuse to support of false stand of his attend- ing diit> at 7.30 A.M During cross-examination the delin- quent tuither asserted that on 12-8-87 except himself, all othcis came late 8,30 A-M. 10. Busing on the evidence of 2 witnesses and the delin- quent the Enquiry Officer gave his findings accepting the version of Y. Nagabhushanam as to the fact that N. Krishna (delinquent) had abused him and also beat him and the "~UBr aestion of the delinquent as to the alleged demand of Rs. 50 by Nagabhushanam on 11-8-87 WHS rejected as an ;ifter thouuhl and apart from it in the statement given by N. Krishna, ilieie are Lontrndictions such as that he gave sug- gestion lo Y Nagabhuhanam that only two cartmen were present whereas in the suggestion g'ven to Jayarami Reddv as three cartmen were present and so also about au.val of other workers at 8.00 A.M- and 8.30 A.M. The Enquiry Oliver's findings are that the evidence of Nagabhushanam wns c(;rrobor,ited by the witness Jayarami Rcddy and so he is satisfied that N. Krishna delinquent had abused victim in vulgar language and also man-handled him and thereby he is guilty of the act of misconduct under Company's Standing Order 16(5). 11. Ihe Hon'ble High Court while remanding the matter on 2J-2-2GM has directed this Tribunal to considei whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer Hie correct oi not. 12. The allegation made against the delinquent either in dcpji(mental enqtn'iy or in other enquiries are to he piovij liy the piosecution. The delinquent is deemod to be inno- jent until the chaic? is proved. The prosecution has to '.[and or fail on its own legs but not on the lapses or innocence of u delinquent person. But, while appreciating the (.\idcnce. the Enquity Office or Presiding Officer has t" se;i ale the grain fiom tho chaff to arrive at the truth. The i-'Wiii^ucnt was given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and an well the witness who supported the case. They were put to cross examination by the delinquent him- self by giving suggestions to them. The suggestions givert to the witnesses in the Cross-examination will play a vital role in deciding the case. The motive attributed to the complainant is that he demanded Rs. 50 and since he has not obliged it, he foisted a fals* complaipt against N. Krishna91
the suggestion given to him that he did nol infoim Naga, bhushanum about his wife's sickness. 17. Busing on the above evidence, the bnquiry Officer gave his finding. The Hnquiiy Officer found the delinquent nol guilty of the second charge of habitual indiscipline falling iindei Standing Ordci 16(7). As icgards the first charge of s'-eouil charge sheet of leaving work without permission anwirtiling to disobedience, the Enquiiy Officer has accepted tho evidence of two witnesses coupled with admission oi delinquent. As the delinquent had left the work place at 1.30 P.M. without taking permission of the supciioi. he found him Euilty of (he chaige falling under Standing Order 16(18). ^Delinquent). The person tnaking "uch itllejiatiun in required to establish for what purpose such an illegal demand was nif.de by his superior and the circumstance under which it was dtmandetl. Unless these aspects are established the suggestion would become insignificant, which the delinquent faiied to establish it and his suggestions paled into insigni- ficant. The suggestion is that on 12-8-87 except himself, otheis attended to duty at 8.00 A.M. at 7.30 A.M. three cuilmen were piesent when the delinquent has asserted that 3 cHrtmen were present who saw attending him tit 7.30 A.M., he cnuid have produced them either before Y Nagabhu- "haniim oi Krishnaiah Camp Incharge the next superior offi- cer to clarify about the misunderstanding but he failed to do so. Similar suggestion was given to Juyaram Reddy that he has enemity towards him (delinquent). So he supported NugabhuMianam in the case. There must be some reason foi a person to have enemity and he muM explain the pie- viuus stand under which enemity exists so as to give taNe evidenLC against him. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Enquiry for ailiving at the conclusions that he is si.ti-.fied with the evidence of Y. Nagabhushanam and Jaya rnmi Reddy which clearly astablishes the charge against the delinquent. As per standing older Id.5 in case the emp- loyee* indulges in drunkenness fighting riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour, amounts to misconduct. The evidence a,s spoken to by two witnesses would show that the delin- quent has indulged in indecent behaviour and manhandled Y. Nagabhushnnam, Acting Rigman for not hooking his mui- tei. Hence the findings of the enquiry offlcei that the charge is held proved is valid. 18. The delinquent also admits that he left the work place at 1.30 P.M. but say that he infoimed Y. Nagabhushanam to book his mustci 'upto 1.30 P.M. If there is emergency, any workman can take eithei permission or leave the work by pioperly convincing his superior. If the immediate superior has not obliged him he could have approached next iupciioi officer and informed him of the urgency to leave work place. Any prudent person would act in that wny but one cannot act in a negligent manner and leavo the workspot. The delinquent could have given a permission letter before he lefl the workspot in case there was emergency to leave the pl&ce so as to attend to his wife's lllnest but he did not do so. May be that his wife was ill on thai day and on K-ceivinp the information about the serious condition he lefl the work but as an employee he should act as per the proce- dure and tules which he failed to do. Therefore the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer cannot be found to be incorrect. 14. Foi the afoiesaid discussion, the findings and conclu- • J I U IU an v .d dt by t he t n q u i iy O f f i c er w i th r e g a rd to c h a r g es relating to two separate incidents of 11-8-1987 and 12-K-I987 are held to be correct, and there are no good reasons to interfere with it. 1J The next ihaige alleged .gainst N. Krishna LS that he left his duty on 11-8-87 at about 1.30 A.M. without taking permission. So it amounts to wilful in subordination and indiscipline as laid down undei Standing Order Nos. 16(1). 16(18) and 16(7). To piove this charge again three wi'ntsscs were examined by the Enquiry Offlcei which is as undci : Sri Y. Nagabhushanam, Acting Rigman stated that on ll-K-87 while he was on first shifl and incharge of the Drill, N. Krishna, Boring Mazdooi was on duty in his first .shift which started at 7.30 AM. and closes at 3.30 P.M. At dhout 1.15 P.M. one Rigman and one Boring Mazdoor namely Rarr.pas-J and Shu Anthony lespcctively belonging to the second shift came at Diill Site and seeking their arrival N. Krishna (Delinquent) started washing hands and wore his dress and to whom he questioned where he was going and he lcplicd that since second shift workmen have come he was going away. He informed that the Drill work is in progress, so he cannot go and even then without hearing him. N. Krishna left for duty at 1.30 A.M. informing him to boot his muster upto 1.30 P.M. 20 POINT NO. 2 :—The delinquent was rcmov.il from service since the charges levelled against him have been proved. Earlier this Tribunal in its Award dt. 17-7-199^ h.m set aside the impugned order of removal from service and ordered reinstatement with backwages. Aggrieved by ihc award passed by this Tribunal, the respondent filed a Writ 19565/93 questioning the award passed and while allowing Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court has directed this Tribunal to consider whether the conclusions and findings are correct and also about the penalty of the dismissal imposed on the workman and whether it is proportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and found proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions namely AIR 1984 SC Page 914—Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M's. Delton Cable India (?) Ltd.. 14. The second witness Mr. B. Jayaiami Reddy, Genual Mazdoor stated that on 11-8-87 at about 1.30 P.M. while first shift work was going on, Rampassi, Rigman and1 Anthony Boring Mazdoor of second shift crew came to the Drill Site iind seeing them N. Krishna left the work place saying thai the second shift workmen have arrived for the work. Though Nagnbhushanam asked him to wait, N, Kii"hna did not wait. Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) Sen. U Items 3, 6—Dismissal of employee on charge of abuse of some worker and orrjeer of management by h i m^ held, unjustified, particularly in absence of any previous adverse remarks against him. AIR 1982 SC page 1552~Rama Kant Misra vs. State of U.P. and others, 15. The third witness J. V. S. Shankar Mohan, Sr. POA stated that the delinquent was issued with charge sheet No. CG/P/136/1440 dated J-9-87 undei Company's Standing Orders and he was charged for committing habitual indis- cipline. He was charge-sheeted vide Proceedings No. C G/ D/I36/371 dated 6-3-87 under Company's Standing Order" J6(2) for committing fraud and dishonesty towards com- pany's business. He further stated that the delinquent was suspended for 10 days from 13-6-87 to 22-6-87 vide letter No. CG/D/136/964 dated 11-6-87. Industrial Disputes Act (1947) S. H-A—Constitution of India, Article 13 permit him to leave the woilcspot, for wheh Nagabhushanam asked him to go after drill rod" are recovered from boring holes which takes about 15 minutes. N. Krishna told Nagabhushanam that even the 2nd shift workmen came and if he wants he can book his muster as 1.30 P.M. and he lefl the work rjince Hi- dcnir-H 21. In respect erf the two charges, amounting to misconduct, which were held proved, the management has imposed punish- ment by ordering his dismissal from service and it is to be considered whether the punishment of dismissal is justified or not. The first count of misconduct is that on 11-8-87 the delinquent left the duty at 1.30 P.M. without taking per- mission. The plea taken by the delinquent is that since he received information that his wife is serious, he sought for permission find left the duty informing to record Ins duty upto 1.30 P.M. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is a reasonable cause on the part of the delinquent in leaving the duty, It h natural that one would be in a state of worry and arUrtcty When he receivM mformation about J49O Gl/2000—14. the serious condition of his wife. Thereby for this friviat charge imposing of extreme punishment is unwarranted. The other charge is that he used vulgur language and manhandled the incharge Rigman for not marking his muster though he attended duty in time. No doubt, when the misconduct " proved against the delinquent he is to be imposed with the punishment but the extreme penalty of dismissal fiom service would ruin his entire career and future, Tt is not at all the case of the management that there is a loss or" confi- dence and continuing him in future service would be A problem in the administration. There will be several factors for an employee to revolt against his co-worker which depends upon several factors such as lack of co-ordination, piovocation and ill-treatmpnt. In this ease the delinquent could not establish his defence, so he was found guilty of the chaige levelled against him. Basing on the evidence, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty and oven when the evidence is re-apprnised there was no possibility to give benefit of doubt to the delinquent. By the time of passing of extreme penalty of dismissal from service the workman had already put in a good length of service of 12 years in the company. The net or omission on account of the personal bickerinfis or differences between the Rigraan and the delinquent has nothing to do with harmonial relations of the workers cr with the industrial peace, If the conduct of the worker it beyoml control it would result in industrial disharmony or disturb Ihe peace, then only the extreme penalty of dismissal is to be ordered. 22 Either the Industrial Tubunal oi Labour Court while considering Section U-A of the I.D. Act it was inherent poweis to consider whether or not the punishment is pro- portionate to the gravity of the charges. The Apex Court in the Judgement cited supra has taken the view [hat awarding, cxtrfme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abusing of some workers or officers of the Management by the delinquent at the work place would amount to victimisa- tion and unfair labour practice. The facts of this case arc identical to the facts of the case referred to above. The nlletted vulgiir longuaqe used bv the delinquent rbnt he manhandled may be on account of some emotion and pro- vocation. Some times on account of some emotional outburst a person looses "his balance and use abusive language which may bo duo to lack, of culture but unintentional, as such imposing the extreme punishment to an extent of dismissal is unwarranted. The proper punishment that would be imposed for such a misconduct is to withhold two increments in future which h sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The workman has nlreadv hren reinstated into service bv virtue of the Award passed on 17-7-1993. 23. In the result an award is passed setting aside the fmpugned dismissal order of removal dt. 22-2-1989 covered by Ex. Ml5 by ordering reinstatement into service and since he was already been reinstated into service, there is no necessity to give any further direction. As regards the claim for backwages, the sume is denied on the principle of 'no work no pay'. Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by him, corrected by me and given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this the 24th day of October, 2000. SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Trihnnal-T APPENDIX OF EVIDFNCE BEFORE REMAND: Witness bxamined for Witness Examined for Petitioner: Respondent: WW1 : N. Krishna MW1 : Y. Vcnkateswarlu Documents marked for the Petitioner • NIL Documents marked for the Respondent: Ex. Ml : Xfiiox copy of the notice dt, 10-10-87 fasued by the management to N. Krfshna informing him to-attend the'enquiry on 17-10-87, fix. M2: Xerox copy of the General authorisation dt. 22-7-87 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer to Y, Venkatcswarlu P.O. Ex. M3 : Copy of the show cause notice at. f ,'22-8-87 to N. Krishna. hx. M4 : Copy of the explanation dt. 29-8-87 submitted by N. Krishna, Fv M5 : Complaint dt. 12-8-87 given by V. N;IKJ- bhushnam against N, Krishna. hx. M6; Enquiry Proceedings dt. 17/22-8-87. Ex. M7 : Knquiry Report dt. 4-1-19R8. Ex. MS : Copy of the notice dt. 10-10-87 to N. Krishna with regard to enquiries conducted by the Enquiry Officer on 17-10-87. hx. M9 : Copy of the notice dt. 23-1(^87 to N. Krishna with regard to enquiries conducted on 29-10-87. Hx. M10 : Copy of the show cause notice dt. 1-9-87 issued to N. Krishna, Ex. Mil : Copy of the explanation dt. 19-9-87 submitted by N. Krishna Ex. M I 2: Copy of the complaint dt. 12-8-87 given by Y. Nagabhushanam. Ex. M l 3: Fnquiry Proceedings dt. 29-10-87. J't. M14: Knquiry Report dt. 4-1-1988. F\. M15: Copy of the dismissal order dt. 22-2-1989 issued to N. Krishna. AFTFR RFMAND : NIL New Delhi. Ihe 18th December, 2000 SO. 20.—In itutiuunce of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial TribunalJLabour C'ouiL Chennai as .shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of F.C.I, and their workman, which was received by (he Central Government on 18-12-2000. [No. L-22012|512j99-CMI] N. P. KESHVAN, Desk Officer, 93' ANNEXURE K, Bliaskan.n, Token No. 2447 is justified' Tf not, to what rdicf the workmen an enUUed?1 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 29th November, 2000 PRESENT : K. Karlhikeyan, Piesiding Officer. On receipt ot this inference, this Industrial Dispute has b vn Liken on f\U of this Tribunal, on 27-7-2000 as Industrial D'pute No. 29 2000. On receipi of notice Irom ihl. Tribunal, both the parties appear- ed wiih their respective counsel and filed their res- pedive Clj;m Stj'A'vnent and Counter Statement. 1. Til- a^.fiiicnK in Hit; Claim Statement of the Claimant!I Party arc briefly as follows :— Industrial Dispute No. 29|2000 (In Hie muller of the dispute foi adjudication under Section 10(1) (d) Sub-section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman and the Management of Food Corporation of India, Chennai). BETWEEN The General Secretary, Madras Pori and Dock Workers Congress, Chennai. Claimant|I Party AND Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of Tndin, Regional Office, Chennai. Management)II Party APPEARANCE : Foi the Claimant.—S|Shri R. Arumugam and N. Krishna Kumar, Advocates. For the Management.—Sliri M, Imthias, Advo- cate REFERENCE : Order No. L-22012|5J2I99|IR(CM-II) dated 6-7-2000, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 9-11-2000, upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other mate- rial papers on record, documentary evidence only let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of Shri R. Arumugam, Counsel for the Claimant and Shri M. Imthias, Counsel for the Management and (his dispute having stood over till this date for con- sideration, this Tribunal passed the following :— AWARD The reference by Central Government in the exer- cise of the powers conferred by Clause fd) of Sub- section (!) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1047 (14 of 1947) in res- pect of the dispute between SI Shri J. Cajcndran and K. Bhaskaran, Workmen and Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chennai, Management mentioned us schedule appended to the order of reference. 3-IQ0 GI/2000—15. the services of the Woikmeii SjShri J. Gajendran, Token No. 2326 anJK. Bhcis- karan, Token No. 2447 is justified? If not, to what lelief the workmen are entitled?" notice wai issued, no eiujuny was conducted ajid the Management did not give "any opportunity to the Workcis to explain I hen pou'lion lhe ptovisions of Sectjon-25(F) ot Lnduslr.al Disputes Act, which is a mandatory cue, has not been followed. ilence, the ord^r ol termination, issued by the Management is illegal. Further, iLe said ouler of termination h illegal sine; it b issued in rcliospective ettect. One Worker viz. V. Mumi^imy, f\ No. 2132 was allow- ed to join duty ,n June, 19°y, [hough he was absent lor more ihan 123 days fioni ftbuiaiy, J 9f9. Hence, the Li^uon ol the Man.,y incni, is purely a discrimi- nation shown to these \V< rkeiv lheir long ycais of service are not con<->daed. Due to sudden ter- mination, these two Woikers and their family came to ihe streets and are starving. The punishment of dismissal, againsi ihese two Vvoikers are extreme and disproportionate to lhe hh>ged charge of long ab- sence. Since they weje under treatment, they could not attend work and for that they should not be sent O'IL p'jrmanenth. Under such circumstances, this Hon'ble Tribunal ma> be pleased to pass an awaid holding that the nun-employment of the Woikeis, J. Crjendrau and K Bhaskaran is not justified and dnect the MtuMcement lo reinstate them, with continuity of scivicc and vith biickwages along- with other attendant btneu'fs. 2. The aveiments in the Countei Statement Jled by lhe Second Party Management a're briefly as follows: lh- , ffirp ( opy of 'h" mC'lTi Ht, ?1 R .m icqu-tl bv "bf95
iv'iedical Certificate dt. 16-10-98, as an enclosure to tiie leply, have been sent by the Workman K. Bhnas- km an. Fium tliis, it is seen that only to come oul ol the si.uation, the Workman, K. Bhaskaran had1 made a belated attempt by sending the original of h,L. i-ll, enclosed with the Medical Certificate, as an • Lficr ihcughl. From the records and the materials available in this case, it is seen that the Management, the Respondent herein, have taken action, against these two Work- men for their unauthorised long absence, without prior intimafion to the Management, first by issuing memo by way of giving ihem opportunity and having fnund that the said Workmen have not responded for their memo, issued orders for termination of service, follow- ing the provision under the Certified Standing Order. From the particulars in the Certified Standing Order, it is seen that for actions to be taken by tfie Man- agement, for such cases of unauthorised absence for duty continuously, beyond the pcrod of 15 days by the Workmen, no chargesheet need to be issued, no show-cause notice need to be issued and no enquiry to be conducted, ulT^ring ;:nd opportunity to face a charge on this regard by the Workmen. Hence, the argument advanced by rhe learned counsel for the Respondent Management that the Management has not acted vindictively or in a perverted manner for passing the orders of termination againsC these two Workmen, can be accepted as correct and acceptable. In view of these materials available in this case, all the judgements referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as supporting decisions by the Courts, to show that the action of the Management, against the Workmen are improper and incorrect, is not acceptable since 1'hose cited judgements, are not applicable to the facts and c ircumstances of this case. 7. In view of my findings above, T come to the conclusion that the action of the Management1, taken against the Workmen concerned is justified and the Workmen concerned are not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer ttie point accordingly. 8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India, Chennai in terminating the services of the Workmen, S/Shri J. Gajendran, Token No. 2316 and K. Bhaskaran, Token No. 2447 is justified, and, hence the Workmen concerned are not entitled to any re- lief, whatsoever. No cost. Dictated to the Stenographer and typed by him direct and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 29th November, 2000. K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : For the Claimant/I Party : None. For the Management/TT Parly : None. Documents Marked : For the Claimant/J Party : Ex. W2 16-11-98—Medical Certificate. Ex. W3 23-12-98—Union letter to FCI. For the Management/II Party : Ex. Mi—Returned registered cover. Ex. M2 15-9-9 8™Memo issued to worker Shri Gajendran, Token No. 2326. Ex. M3 24-11-98—Memo issued to worker Shri Gajendran. Ex. M4 26-11-98—Reply given by Shri J. Gajendran. Ex. M5 -— —Returned cover. Ex. M6 2-12-98—Termination order issued by the Respondent to the worker (office copy). Ex. M7 23-8-97—Memo issued to Shri Bhas- karan, Token No. 2447 (xerox copy of the office copy). Ex. M8 1-9-97—Acknowledgement card. Ex. M9 17-11-97—Termination order issued by the Respondent to the worker (office copy). Ex. M10 142-97—Acknowledgement Ex. M il — Standing order (xerox copy) Ex. M12 4-12-69—Order of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) (xerox copy), Ex. M13 4-12-69—Communication from the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) (xerox copy). New Delhi, the 18th December, 200097
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc., B.L., Industrial Tri- bunal-I. Dated: 6th Day of November, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 98 of 2000 6-11-2000 and even qn that date the petitioner called absent. Sufficient opportunity was given ftj the peti- tioner from 9-10-2000 to 6-11-2000 to file the claim statement. On 6-11-2000 no representation was made to the petitioner much less any claim statement was filed. General Secretary, The S. C. Company Limited, Employees Council, B.C.H. 30, Vittal Nagar, Godavari Khani. , Petitioner. AND The General Manager, M/s. S.C. Co. Ltd., Ramagiindam-I, Godavarikhani . , .Respondent. APPEARANCES : None—for the petitioner. S/Shri J. Pardha Sarathy V. Hari Haran & S. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates—for the respondent, 3. Sri Pardha Saradhi filed Vakalal for respondent. As the petitioner called absent in the call work on 6-11-2000 it was kept aside upto 2.00 P.M. No re- presentation was made for the petitioner even at 3.15 P.M. In view of the continuous non-representa- tion, it is evident that the petitioner has no interest to prosecute the case. Hence reference is dismissed by passing 'NIL' Award. Given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this the 16th day of November, 2000. . SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal-I The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi made a reference to this Tribunal by order No. L-22012/550/99/IR(CM-ll), dated 28-7-2000 referred the following dispute under Section 10Cl)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, for adjudication with schedule as follows: "Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Rama- gundam-I/Godavari Khani in transferring Sh. Kummari Pdelu, General Mazdoor CSP-RG-I (Surface) to GDK-3 Incline (underground) w.e.f. 18-11-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled ?" 2. After receipt! of the said reference this Tribunal issued notice to both Oie parties. The respondent put up his appearance through his advocate on 9-10-2000. Vakalat filed for respondent. Neither tfie petitioner nor his representative present. Awaiting re (mi of the notice of th& petitioner rile matter WJS posted to 20-10-2000. Again on 20-10-2000 the petitioner call- ed absent, though notice was served. To give one more chance to appear and present it was posted to New Delhi the 26th December, 2000 S.O. 22.—Whereas the Central Govern- ment is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services ^n the Cement Indus- try which is covered by item 30 of th£ First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act; Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers Now* therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, section 2 of ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares with the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months. said Act for a period of six months. • [No. S-11017/12/97-IR(PL)] [No. S-1l0l7/2/97-IR(PL)J H. C. GUPTA. Under Secy. H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy. New Delhi, the 29th December, 2000 S.O. 23.—Whereas the Central Govern- ment is satisfied that the public interest requi- res that the services in the Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Limited at Mysore and Salbonib which is covered by item 11 New Delhi, the 29th December, 2000 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Dispu- S.O. 24.—Whereas the Central Govern- .JS Act, 1947 (14 of ,1947), should be declared to be a public utility service for the ment having been satisfied that ttic pub- purposes of the said Act; lic interest so required had, in pursuance of99
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2000 the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act. S.O. 25.—In exercise of the powers 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the Notifica- conferred by sub-scclions ( I) and (2) of See- tion of the Government of India in the Minis- tion 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 try of Labour S.O. No. 1671 dated 10-7-2000 (14 of 1947), the Central Government here- the services in Iron Mining Industry to be :i by appoints Shri S. N. Saundankar as public utility service for the purpose of the Presiding Officer of Central Government In- said Act, for a period of six months from th „• dustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2 10-7-2000. at Mumbai w.e.f. 01-12-2000, for the adjudi- cation of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the second Schedule to the And whereas, the Central Government is said Act and for performing such other func- of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further tions as may be assigned to it under the said period of six months ; Act. [No. Z-13011/1/97-CLS-IT] Now. therefore, in exercsc of the powers MRS. KRISHNA SHARMA. Under Secy. conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a pub- lic utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 10-1-2001. fNo. S-l 1017/13/97-IR(PD] H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy. New Delhi, the 27th December, 2000 S.O. 26.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1)- of section 5A, of the Employees Provided Funck and Miscella- neous Provisions AH 1952 (19 of 1952), theTOO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/ PAUSA 16, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ram Mohan Bidawatka as a member of the In the said notification for entries against SI. No. 32 the following entries shall be subs- tituted namely : Central Board of Trustees and makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. 321 (E) dated the 9th April, Sh. Ram Mohan Bidawatka, Vice-President. A1MO, 21 Jaihind Building No. 1, Bhuleshwar. Mumbai-400002. 1997 published in Part II Section 3 Sub-sec- [F. No. V-20012/1/97-SS.II] tion (ii) of the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 10th April, 1997. J. P. SHUKLA, Dy. Secy. Printed by ilie Munafier, Govt. of Tndia Pi ess, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi 110054, 2001Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi, the \st January, 2001
New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001
Schedule
District: Midnapur
Hatishal
Keshapat
Dehati
Fakirganj
Chandipur
Bera Beria
ANNEXURE
BETWEEN
AWARD