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<ii)]
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, Banjara
Hills. Hydciabad 500<m
<h
No
20T i')/2oon
[NoiiRcation No 11574/205/68 '200ft TTA-1T .-nil
205/y>'20()0 1lA]Il
KAMLESH C VARSHNHY Undo Secy
3
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 <!j
KAMLESH C. VARSHNKY. Tinder ?cc\.
(Department of
Economic
Affairs)
(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
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
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.
4
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6. 2001/ PAUSA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. S(ii>]
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 number
5
5^ and the entry relating thereto the following seiul number
avd entry shall be added, namely :—
"55. Dr R.C. Arora.
Biindelidiand University"
Principal,
Medical College,
Jhcnsi.
[No. V-1101V27 OO-MFtUO]]
P G. KALADHARAN, Under S^v.
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,
HmiMiit <!i Urban Ocvclopmetit
Corpoiation, icspectively
and makes I he following nmendments ih th6 rtotification of
the Government of India, Ministry of Health No. 12-171
57-1 SC. dated 30-12-1957, namely:
(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.
3490 GI 2000—2.
6
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
[P*RT II—SEC. 3(ii)J
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
Union (INTUO,
(to be appointed after inlra union dispute
is
resolved).
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 :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Shri Parthn Sadhan Bose
Shri S Mahalingham
Sh. D. K. Gorsia
Ccpt. S. B. Mazumdar
Capt, S. Mukherjee
Consultative Committee
of Stev.-iloics
in Calcutta.
Association of Shipping
interests m CalcutUi.
Indian National
Shipowners
Association.
2. The Centra] Government hereby nominates the Chan man,
Calcutta P<JII Trust, Calcutta as the Chairman of the JiOPrd.
[File No. LB-13O14/1/96US(1>1
V. K. AGGARWAL, Under Scry.
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
New Delhi, the 17th November, 2000
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.
7
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi, the \st January, 2001
s. o. 12.— jjj c x e r c } s e 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".
[NO.L-I40I4/I1W-GP(VOI 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)l
9
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
1
4
T
H
E
G
A
Z
E
T
T
E
O
F
I
N
D
I
A
•
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
6
,
2
0
0
1
P
A
U
S
H
A
1
6
,
1
9
2
2
I
P
A
R
F
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
H
E
G
A
Z
E
T
T
E
O
F
I
N
D
I
A
:
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
6
,
2
0
0
1
P
A
U
S
H
A
1
6
,
1
9
2
2
[
P
A
R
T
I
I
—
S
E
C
.
3
(
i
i
)
l
21
2
2
T
H
E
G
A
Z
E
T
T
E
O
F
I
N
D
I
A
•
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
6
,
2
0
0
1
P
A
U
S
H
A
1
6
,
1
9
2
2
[
P
y
f
r
r
1
1
—
S
E
C
.
3
(
i
i
)
J
23
3490 GI/2000—J
24
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 II—SK\ 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 - INDIA . JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[FART II—Stc. 3 (ii)]
31
i 490 01/2000- 6
12
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 - 7
40
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
New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001
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;
44
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART [I—SbC. 3 (II)]
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.
Schedule
Police Station: Panskura
Village
1
Brindabanchak
District: Midnapur
Jurisdiction
List No.
2
41
Plot.
No.
3
1
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
Hectares
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area
> Ares Centiares
5
3
3
1
0
1
1
5
0
9
0
0
5
4
3
2
3
4
6
2
3
1
5
6
8
1
1
0
1
1
2
6
15
67
25
70
16
35
83
99
58
20
20
41
49
43
96
41
69
45
9
37
37
56
34
68
94
96
85
48
6
20
45
1
2
•
3
693
694
709
712
933
934
935
936
937
938
951
953
954
961
962
963
965
966
967
1186
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1195
1196
1199
1203
1204
1206
1207
1214
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
2
5
0
1
4
2
3
6
6
11
0
0
1
4
4
2
1
6
2
0
0
0
8
4
3
0
3
5
4
0
2
7
0
6
86
5
96
20
4
86
78
56
43
20
81
55
20
84
70
39
78
7
64
2
72
44
35
87
29
69
87
86
90
49
20
67
95
20
46
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l
1
Krishnachak
2
43
3
1238
1239
1240
1250
1251
1252
1253
1273
1281
5636
5637
5883
5884
5886
5890
5896
5901
5902
5903
5961
5991
1203/5888
1203/5889
1281/5929
1281/5930
1281/5931
1281/5932
718/6327
718/6328
718/6329
952/5839
952/5840
87
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
2
5
5
9
0
0
0
6
1
5
1
2
1
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
5
8
0
4
5
e
11
87
73
1
4
20
46
32
11
84
89
97
82
77
56
68
67
48
20
20
55
90
27
39
8
90
23
29
38
57
79
7
66
47
1
2
3
88
89
90
91
92 '
93
94
95
96
97
147
148
149
150
152
153
154
155
158
161
162
164
165
166
192
193
194
196
197
200
202
204
224
225
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
10
5
2
4
3
0
0
2
3
2
2
0
1
0
5
0
4
4
0
3
0
2
3
2
. 1
2
2
3
0
1
1
6
32
20
51
80
97
82
18
34
62
73
16
70
52
74
92
47
20
85
67
57
18
60
39
20
11
82
22
88
62
23
90
20
5
40
3490 GIOT00—8
48
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6,2001 PAUSIIA 16, 1922
[PART II—SK\ 3 (ii)]
1
Hatishal
2
51
3
226
227
230
231
235
236
237
260
261
262
267
269
270
• 294
297
380
386
403
420
421
424
425
426
428
153/427
2532
2533
2534
2538
2543
2544
2545
2546
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
3
2
4
3
4
4
0
7
2
2
9
0
4
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
3
4
6
86
36
0
42
67
25
20
73
5
17
77
98
96
51
27
59
20
37
95
37
65
63
68
71
72
42
23
20
20
13
51
66
34
49
1
2
3
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
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
3
7
4
3
6
3
2
1
0
0
. 0
4
2
7
5
3
2
5
4
3
8
8
7
2
3
5
0
7
0
0
0
5
3
6 _
4
20
98
48
59
9
66
82
89
20
70
20
62
47
94
16
80
76
5
12
20
54
45
96
32
12
25
98
71
37
92
20
80
16
50
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
Keshapat
2
50
3
2898
2902
2957
2958
460
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
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
7
0
5
0
4
0
1
0
1
4
6
4
0
3
3
3
10
0
0
11
0
4
2
2
3
4
2
0
5
3
6
70
39
89
80
83
24
32
36
35
62
20
11
29
92
18
20
57
70
40
91
51
30
69
20
79
80
78
02
3
21
20
81
21
51
1
2
3
1014
1015
1016
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1039
1040
1041
1047
1180
1192
1201
1202
1205
1206
1209
1210
1215
1217
1218
1219
1220
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1244
1245
1246
1250
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
3
0
2
3
3
3
11
0
6
1
1
0
0
9
0
0
5
4
4
0
1
1
1
0
4
1
2
0
1
2
0
4
6
84
2
99
28
92
80
56
53
51
37
59
8
11
20
20
23
80
20
26
59
32
56
44
11
07
20
84
55
23
20
76
63
45
32
52
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6. 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SFC 3 (ii)l
1
Gopalnagar
2
70
3
1251
1252
1306
1307
1308
1310
1311
1312
1322
1329
1330
1331
1335
1348
1349
1350
1482
1498
1499
1573
1575
1576
1577
934
935
936
938
943
944
945
946
952
953
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
1
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
4
1
7
0
3
1
0
0
3
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
3
0
3
5
1
5
6
44
95
20
20
28
11
70
88
60
53
95
94
20
50
17
51
20
20
54
51
53
95
60
20
20
48
59
99
65
71
70
02
70
53
1
Purbapitpur
2
69
3
955
956
958
1349
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
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
2
0
0
0
0
5
12
1
2
3
0
13
1
0
3
2
0
5
1
1
3
6
1
2
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
6
73
69
41
20
41
41
44
20
11
18
34
20
36
13
36
38
25
55
38
83
20
75
68
67
04
64
23
75
02
39
65
39
37
54
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
Dehati
2
72
3
1987
1989
1990
1998
2248
28
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
241
242
245
246
247
248
249
250
462
463
464
483
484
485
486
487
488
494
495
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
14
2
b
0
4
2
2
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
• 1
0
4
0
1
O n
1
0
5
6
21
25
94
13
20
66
82
15
60
76
36
53
59
96
17
52
27
6
21
45
64
37
66
07
54
20
77
41
11
57
11
41
89
55
1
2
3
497
498
499
500
501
509
597
598
599
606
607
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
631
632
720
721
722
723
°
724
726
727
728
778
779
780
782
783
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
0
4
9
12
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
6
4
1
2
3
0
2
1
0
0
0
6
1
1
e
25
09
56
88
54
20
03
46
81
20
59
20
20
99
88
74
18
82
20
71
79
73
02
00
90
42
13
49
37
83
37
17
54
76
3490 OI/200O—9
56
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l
1
2
3
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
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
10
3
0
2
4
1
0
4
0
0
0
2
4
4
0
5
0
1
4
6
4
0
0 .
1
3
0
0
6
20
53
39
76
25
15
00
81
52
93
18
46
56
20
22
20
20
72
32
96
76
32
35
20
55
58
45
22
21
20
07
80
20
20
57
1
2
3
963
964
965
966
967
970
971
983
984
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
995
1008
233/1248
237/1130
237/1257
237/1259
237/1262
237/1263
237/1264
237/1265
237/1267
237/1270
237/1276
631/1210
632/1211
785/1217
788/1218
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
8
1
1
4
4
7
4
12
5
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
3
0
0
2
5
4
0
1
1
6
67
66
88
81
21
02
20
20
39
30
72
64 •
27
5
82
40
77
20
37
20
11
20
00
14
90
85
20
20
53
49
71
20
40
93
58
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PARI 11—SEC. 3 (ii)l
1
Kaliswar
Gopalchak
2
73
207
3
96271230
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
37
76
89
92
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
13
5
0
3
3
2
2
1
0
3
3
1
3
0
3
0
1
1
1
5
1
2
2
5
0
2
0
3
7
6
23
23
52
32
57
79
26
62
21
32
65
34
62
00
74
34
91
11
44
11
37
25
51
58
46
97
50
45
76
20
86
80
59
1
Uttarchanchiara
2
208
3
93
94
95
96
97
190
192
42
71
72
73
74
81
82
83
84
85
90
91
92
93
94
95
115
202
203
204
213
229
230
231
232
233
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
1
0
6
1
2
3
0
2
8
4
0
0
2
5
8
0
2
1
3
7
* 6
0
8
0
10
8
0
0
8
1
8
2
6
74
30
20
41
95
04
71
79
51
49
18
20
20
78
29
61
93
88
51
34
80
68
45
17
20
40
07
14
56
04
71
35
32
60
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
3
239
244
246
247
248
249
250
320
321
323
324
325
326
327
331
342
358
383
384
385
389
390
391
392
393
395
701
704
705
706
707
712
713
714
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
0
3
0
3
3
1
4
7
3
0
0
3
0
7
2
6
6
1
6
0
6
1
6
0
3
0
11
7
7
4
3
1
0
e
54
20
90
20
90
97
49
73
61
53
20
23
95
20
26
72
74
05
71
09
29
59
02
05
20
45
83
03
43
61
04
90
62
20
61
1
Murail
2
216
3
250/1546
358/1547
393/1469
73/1453
93/1585
170
171
172
173
208
209
212
213
215
216
217
220
229
230
233
234
236
237
238
239
325
329
333
334
335
336
337
338
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
3
1
5
0
2
0
2
6
0
5
0
2
6
0
7
5
0
3
0
0
0
2
1
7
4
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
6
32
34
02
73
37
88
35
27
87
20
52
40
92
59
56
98
85
20
92
44
20
65
69
66
69
08
20
27
74
20
34
04
39
>2_ .
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
•
2
3
339
340
344
345
347
348
350
351
356
359
360
361
363
403
464
465
466
467
468
470
471
472
476
480
481
482
483
484
490
491
492
636
658
659
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
6
3
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
7
2
0
1
6
2
1
0
5
4
1
6
6
2
6
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
07
63
1
Dhuliapur
2
215
3
660
679
687
715
723
724
730
737
1206
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1244
1245
1246
1247
1251
1252
1253
1256
1257
1258
1262
1263
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
4
0 .
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
3
1
2
2
0
2
1
1
3
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
6
95
55
20
23
62
10
20
69
83
55
2
35
81
20
23
20
34
73
76
4
20
68
25
39
39
46
43
59
20
25
98
20
98
3490 OI/2000—10
64
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
3
1264
1265
1266
1277
1330
1333
1334
1335
1336
1338
1339
1342
1343
1345
1426
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2031
2032
2033
2049
2050
2051
2053
2079
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
1
5
1
3
4
7
5
5
1
0
0
0
5
1
3
0
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
7
1
1
7
5
0
12
6
87
35
20
87
99
74
99
46
47
71
71
90
20
20
83
33
0
57
20
44
78
65
99
20
32
32
81
39
30
89
82
36
20
29
65
1
Basantabar
Amdubi
2
210
211
3
2080
2115
2116'
2117
2118
2146
2147
2148
2175
2252
330
431
432
433
434
435
480
482
483
484
485
493
494
602
659 •
663
664
565
566
567
571
572
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
0
3
2
0
8
3
2
1
2
2
4
0
5
0
2
4
2
3
5
2
2
3
2
3
4
6
3
3
6
39
1
72
72
32
37
69
61
16
71
12
44
65
95
13
20
57
20
97
18
32
85
66
53
69
57
4
10
84
22
8
52
66
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
Swara-Swatta
2
212
3
574
575
577
584
585
589
590
769
770
771
772
774
775
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
1016
1149
1151
1195
1196
255
256
259
260
261
520
539
541
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
5
2
4
4
0
1
6
8
6
3
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
10
5
1
0
8
0
0
0
4
3
3
4
0
2
0
6
20
19
92
56
55
20
99
35
25
64
34
20
86
48
20
53
16
56
97
98
78
56
30
20
48
42
92
20
57
03
37
04
56
67
1
2
3
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
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
2
10
0
4
4
0
0
2
13
4
7
1
3
2
5
0
1
2
2
6
8
0
7
5
0
0
3
3
0
1
2
0
5
6
95
69
49
37
13
97
20
20
63
59
83
66
54
66
23
81
83
25
41
18
54
26
20
98
42
93
69
25
20
20
58
14
83
79
68
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (it)]
1
Sundarnagar
2
335
3
697
698
699
1778
1834
1848
1849
304
305
306
363
367
368
369
370
373
409
412
413
417
425
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
442
443
444
445
446
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
1
1
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
5
1
4
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
0
2
6
23
82
52
09
11
70
60
08
47
89
68
30
92
64
90
20
20
20
34
20
45
37
10
12
95
32
31
78
21
59
78
20
08
69
1
2
3
447
448
449
677
678
680
681
695
697-
698
699
700
704
705
706
708
710
711
712
715
716
719
763
764
765
766
772
775
776
111
778
783
784
792
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
2
0
5
10
1
0
4
1
0
9
3
0
0
1
0
4
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
10
1
1
9
6
27
36
20
44
68
26
70
40
49
20
33
41
78
53
36
86
62
30
36
75
20
27
49
20
69
26
83
75
76
53
43
97
25
02
70
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
Raghunath Bari
2
333
3
793
795
797
798
799
813
819
820
1270
1271
1272
1275
1276
1277
1292
1303
1326
1351
38
39
40
41
43
44
53
58
59
74
75
77
78
44/577
44/578
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
5
10
7
2
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
3
3
0
2
0
2
5
0
3
4
0
0
0
6
0
13
0
0
41
6
45
20
56
89
85
56
99
20
53
63
23
26
48
23
92
48
20
38
20
65
44
20
02
97
26
43
20
59
56
60
20
24
55
71
1
Fakirganj
2
332
3
52/569
223
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
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
5
0
0
3
2
1
10
3
0
3
1
9
1
1
1
1
2
4
5
0
1
2
15
0
0
0
0
1
6
63
95
45
88
32
40
20
30
35
97
02
86
16
20
53
97
10
62
79
95
25
51
23
81
24
74
38
39
20
74
44
56
72
3490GI/2000—11
72
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SF.C. 3 (ii)l
1
Chandipur
2
347
3
439
309/423
118
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
180
183
184
185
188
189
190
191
226
228
229
232
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
532
533
534
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
1
3
1
2
1
3
6
1
0
9
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
5
0
4
3
1
1
0
1
2
5
2
0
5
3
6
73
79
34
90
32
43
25
13
58
20
61
14
63
20
56
52
91
82
01
75
65
01
34
11
67
20
21
40
53
28
92
34
48
73
1
Radha Krishna Pur
Chaugere
2
348
349
3
535
537
538
539
540
549
550
551
552
557
558
559
560
564
565
566
567
568
630
631
632
633
634
635
648
248
254
255
1
5
6
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
3
2
0
0
0
8
3
0
0
2
5
0
4
1
6
2
0
0
5
2
4
3
0
3
4
1
0
3
6
5
0
e
53
57
51
83
93
20
34
04
37
28
14
82
20
99
00
14
60
20
20
29
38
35
28
20
67
04
28
20
22
05
36
72
74
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
Purushottam Pur
2
331
3
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
36
71
72
73
74
75
79
155
156
157
158
159
329
332
333
334
336
338
357
864
865
894
1159
1173
1175
1176
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
0
0
5
5
0
1
0
2
7
1
0
6
0
2
3
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
4
3
2
5
2
6
74
20
20
13
13
20
65
67
34
52
16
93
22
20
04
15
14
83
20
20
70
35
20
37
20
25
62
55
84
34
27
73
58
75
1
2
3
1177
1178
1201
1202
1207
1208
1209
1211
1212
1215
1216
1217
1218
1226
1227
1228
1229
1231
1255
1261
1310
1311
1312
1314
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1322
1336
1338
1339
1340
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
2
0
3
1
6
1
2
5
0
7
3
0
0
5
4
5
0
1
1
0
9
0
2
0
8
2
3
2
0
3
6
4
10
6
49
26
42
63
37
48
48
74
93
58
17
04
20
20
69
88
25
97
48
04
35
27
88
73
35
56
41
43
84
29
01
01
79
01
70
THE GAZET IE OF INDIA .JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSIIA 16. 1922
[PART II—SEC 3 (n)]
1
Bera Beria
2
330
3
1342
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1659
1660
1665
1696
1665
1666
1789
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1809
1B26
1827
1828
1830
1831
1833
1834
1840
1841
1842
1843
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
1
3
4
6
2
6
1
3
0
1
0
0
2
4
4
0
2
6
0
4
2
5
7
8
0
0
5
1
1
1
0
6
47
20
77
45
13
34
10
74
42
06
85
11
56
20
97
64
36
74
78
49
20
97
78
10
25
35
56
20
45
00
80
66
52
77
1
Mahammad Murad
Chak Gogras
2
352
353
3
1844
1845
1846
1847
1914
1915
1918
1919
1920
1921
1925
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1939
1940
1941
2115
1
2
10
11
12
208
209
210
12
13
126
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
5
4
2
2
2
0
3
5
2
0
1
2
5
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
0
8
4
1
9
4
3
1
3
4
1
6
04
57
57
50
25
32
60
71
12
27
20
62
82
79
48
52
97
18
16
82
19
20
27
26
84
65
32
81
53
43
60
16
78
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001 PAUSHA 16, 1922
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
3
127
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
176
181
182
183
212
213
214
215
224
225
229
230
239
240
241
275
277
278
279
286
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
6
0
4
0
2
3
1
5
5
0
0
0
4
8
1
0
8
6
12
7
4
1
0
5
15
3
6
61
20
59
20
79
88
88
15
71
85
51
51
55
54
92
06
09
20
49
17
48
19
05
14
65
06
64
95
[No,-31015/52/2001 OR I]
S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.
79
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.
S
O
T
H
F
,
G
A
7
F
T
T
F
,
O
F
T
N
D
T
A
•
F
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
fi.
2
0
0
1
/
P
A
U
S
A
1
6
.
1
9
2
2
I
T
A
R
T
T
I
-
-
S
L
C
.
3
(
i
i
)
l
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<Mi<;c d
B. M. DAVID, Huloi S.tv
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.
This dispute on coming up hefo1'-1 me for final hcni'ii? on
15-11-2000, upon perusing 'he r'fcif"
>"LI:M jif-itcra'-n.'.
Counter Statement and titrwr rr,'ferial p.-peis on iecTd, oral
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 : —
The- Fust Party Un<ou (huiciiiafler mentioned
us
the
PeliL.o/iei) is a iutut Union regiscereu u.idci tlic 1 radc
Unioi.s Act, 192b <iiid
its Roybtiauon
No. 3.W, Dill. Ic
rcpiejenti, Uic tau«: and w^liaie of iVlibe Woikeis employ_u
in vanoti!, inmes mciutiing tne s^c.ind Pnity s mmes II Lom-
nn.ids Mibsiantuil lullowing. 'kiajuiity -ol the workmen emp-
loyed under the a.'cond Kiuy -ire memb^s of the FirsL PurLy
Union.
I lie WoiKman LXIIILCI ned, Ml. M Puiasamy
WHS J
Mine Workci under the Second Pail7 Manrgcmtiu i;nd he
wrii n membei uf the Fust PLirty Union. He is an illitei.ile.
Except putting he does not know to reiid 01 write any 1 .n-
t[Liage.
At the time of joining, the Second Paity did not
oblain any documentary prJjf sach aj H i�
(.crliheatt;,
Horoscope etc, to determine his ape/dUi; of b'uli. li seeras
the Second Kirty themselves had entered the age of
Mr.
Pel insamy to their whims and iuncv merely b.i.cd on hi.-,
Hppearance. He was i^t
issiisd with any srivke cjrd '
regisfer after his entiy into service. Further, he w s ;i)--o no*
put on noHce in writing communicating about his age or date
of birth till he vvis issued with 11 notice dited (^-H-91. bv
Second Partv. By that notice, the S.cocd. Party infonn'-d tii
Pcriasamy lh.it he would be lotirM from
vivkr
v..? f.
31-12-91 on the ground that he .it^ained 58 ycirs. On recipt
of that notice, S11 M. Periasamy was put to =bcck 'incc ' r
did not attain the ape of JS yenrs as nn fi- d;itc of ii'Linnn-
of the notice dated 6-11-91. rhen-fme, hi1 se'it a 1ei*or d ited
16-11-91 through thr hirst Party Union arrt ctrmilcrfllv in-
foimed Ihe Second P.:fy tlw' he did1 not nttain .he -u^ o!
5K yi-aij .->> ahgnl in the notice dated 6-ll-')l nnd ir-foiTii-il
(hut his correct r! >!c of birth was 10 9-1937 U w s fiuihcr
pointed ovl ,11 t!iit letter that tho notice dntcd 6-11-91 \\;v
illcjal iiml he ,i1'o cneio'R.i t-he b"fb certificate ;''onp"ilh fha
tetter.
The Sfcivnd P^itv ""I'liTiqcmnt infrrtned I'IP Union
bv their lettci d'll^d 2*>-l l-'^l, tha*- the b-'isi, fci1" 3 r'^ hut 'lf
Uic ase of Mirw-p-ii'ation and ret'icflent v,"^ (h-> ik't" of
hirth/apf" ,T drci'ireri n* Ibo time nf 'ippiin*mi;nt
ii^ a"
cntcri-d in the register of nersois emrl'iypfl (Fo-m '*3') ai''
that therefore the age uf Sii Pen'asumy could not be alteied
at any later period. The Fiist Pany Union by ito kt.'ci daLcil
29-11 91 1 dtcgoricully replied thiit the contention -Jf the
bfconil p-irty in their k-tiei d.:tod 21-U-yi v is imtenrb'e
as it was contrary to the Cerlifi'd Standing Ojdors It was
further stated in that letter that Form 'b' cvuld not be taken
as a conclusive proof for the tiale of birth and ihe jefen of
the !;eco;id Paity, rctirir.n Sri P'ria^a.-n" v! cj
hi"
h."d
doci'menl. iy piocf fo1" his dale- of bhtli r>'id wh-n lie had 4
years of service, was illcpnl
Since the Second Prity d>d TOI
juven any reply 1o Ihe said letter and did not IAIII: fur.v.rd
lo continue the services of Sri Pfr'i omy, b;r \\ o.i !hc Ivrlh
certifionte produced bv him, the ^irst Party Wn'oi n'sed an
lr-.'i:stri.il Dispute b^fotv the As'ft. Lnbo-ir ^omn'- • -oner (C
(h w i i iheif ,'ipp'ic.ilion dt 2?-11-99. It was followed
b5
SI
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 aid itqjosieU 10 prov^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 iciu^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
Pui^amy ioi oiio yew i.c
LIJJ.O 31-12-92
I h t
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 zi-ii-'Jl. 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. 'in; 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 I I 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 w s 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, th; 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.
ihui, 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 biah 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;.<rly
Union filed W P. No. H714 19')5 soel.ing to qn^h the oide'i
of the Govcrnmcrl of India dated ll-4-l»5. The st id order was
oiMsh'd by frc Hor'ble High Oouil by it, judgement
Jalfi1
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>
nO|
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 F M 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> A T 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 is<rn ililc piooedliii1 bJfii ^ ti-riniiiaiiV"
the sei vices of Sti M. Peiiasamy and he has been tcrmnutcd
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 : —
111c petiiAjjcr union is bound to et>iaun,li that it has goi
niL^iuL.sinp ii0111 among l.iijje suDiiantial section of
the
Vvoikmen of iiic estiiDiisnmeni, und mat the General Body ot
tiic Woikmen luve autlioiiaed the Peuuonci 10 raise this
dispuit. i ne H^Lilioner Union is put to stnct pioot of its
lepre^entdtivc chui.n.1.1,1. I lie Respondent snlimns that ihtre
was no v.iht! Uidustnal dispute and LUeiel-oie the older of
leiuierice itselt is Dad in law. Section 48 of the Alines1 Act
PiOvidcs that
lor tvery mines, theic shall be kept in the
pi escribed loim and place a register of pel sons employed in
Hie in.ncs slewing in respect 'Ut each pel son, the name, the
name ol his father, age, sex, nature oi employment, Htness
cu-tilicate etc. Rule 11 ot the Mines Act lays down that the
Register lcuuncd to bt maintained under Section-48 shall be
in Foim B. One of the paiticulars k> be mentioned in Form
'B' is the age oi tile VVoiknmn. The Respondent's establish-
ment is covered undei the Mines Act.
The Respondent has
been ffi'jui.uining toe Rtgister m F'oim 'B' since 1968. As the
rcgiitu- started in 190S got exhausted uiid many cntiics had
to be deleted, a fresh register was opened in the year 1976.
In the yeai I9<i3, Form 'B' was revised and there a new
register had to be opened. The new register in the revised
form.it was opened in the year I'JH4. Ihe name of the con-
cerned Workman has been entered in Foim *B' Register and
he has put his signature subscribing to the correctness of the
particulars furnished by him. At the time of the appointment
in \r)f>H, the crncemed Woikman declared Ins age as 3?
yeais and it was so recoidcd in the register maintained in
the year lyfiK. The same was cniried forw.irJ in the icgisters
revised in the years 1976 and 1984. As per Form 'B' Register,
tlie aye of the concerned Woikman was 35 yeais In the year
1963 and accoidinglv he had isached the ni;e of 58 years in
the year 1991 and'he was to be letired on 31-12-1991. Ihe
Ceittfied StundmK Oiders piovide that evciy Woikman shall
relirc on attaining the age of 5S yeais and between 57 and
5yih year, Ihe C"ompiiny\ Mcd.cal Officer would conduct a
mulicnl test of ihe Workmen irA if the Workman is found
to be medically fit, he wll be retained in service for a period
of Hvo rnoie years h'-yond the ace of 5K yeai 1, i.e. upto 60
years As thf1
concerned
WorVm-in
was lo retire
on
31-12-1°<)1. by -. notice daled
6-11-1991, thj
concerned
Woikman was asked to appear foi medical exumiralion
to
enhie the Respondent to consider him for eAicnsion.
The
CnTprnv's l^feUicrtl Ofllccr gave opinion that he was fit for
»ino year, Accordingly, his employment was extended upto
31-12-1992. Ho»«vi'r, the Petitioner fTnion raised the icsue
before the Concil''m'on Officer eontepd'iig 1l1.1t the Medical
Officer could onlv consider whether the W.nkma'i wns fit for
extension ;'iid wh?n once (hi Woikrnan wLis declared medi-
cally ^it, he w,is entit'ed to extension for two years
The
Coticiiiaiion Officer a1"o advised the Minnymenl to prani
extrusion for one more year. Accoidingly, the employment
of the concerned Workman wys exiended upto 31-12-93, On
31-J2-')3. the concprnfd Workman was lc'ired from service.
The said retirement of the concerned Workman is peifectly
valid ard iu.lificd,
After the
Rc«pondcnt's
notice
dated
6-11-1941
roqu'ring (he concerned Woikman Periasamy
to
appear for medical expminalion. the Petitioner Union con-
tes'cd Ihe aue of the concerned Woikmnn in Form 'B' Repis-
ter MIH in support of its p!<*a, purpo'ted to rely on a birth
rertifj'-ite iwicd by tlv Renisler of Births and Deaths, Ariya-
lnr. The Rp«]-indf"it irifDWni'd 'he Union lhat it cannot accept
ih" said certificate und Ihe said certirkule would not be
birjina on it. The .ir;e declared bv anv Workman at the
time of his itirwintment ;s entered in roi-m 'R' RpRisttr and
,tbe jise soujntpici >s not iitbicet "to nllernalion irrespective
.of,wh.tl(1\,(>r m-a<e.inl ih*-Workman may huve to dispute the
••[imn. Ii it ri r.)"di(!o'i of service in th1* "Re,pondent's estp-
blishment lliat the age as cnteed in Form 'B' Register woulJ
82 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
|PART 11~-SEC. 3(ii)]
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?",
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 :—
"There appears to be three preliminaiy objections which
have become quite the fashion to be raised by all
employers, particularly public sector corporations,
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'.
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.
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
Hi
the ubove employee are quite m Older and Ihcic ts no ciror
in uica auioii.
lii<? copy ot inn repiy uwea tyii-iH
Is
fcx, Mt>. 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<uiy um^i nas stuiea in<u me Q'ti^ u* wmi/age
as decmieu «c the umc Qi appointment and di> 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<W«MKX ana toe look of the WorK-
man, at tne time MJ appointment.
H »s turner stated in
tnat icuer mat wnen me vvo/Kmun is> 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<j signature in Col. No
16 and in that page, he aho has put hit sfenatiire its Manager
since he was tbj> Manager then. Those enfiie? in the Register
«f fimp!0^eeLrinder
J
S
1; No> U h marked as Ex- M3- A Perusal
ot Bx. Ml. M2 and M3 shows th«f the particular in respect
if unskilled mine worker, \f. periasamy, <mch as his father's
..me, nge, nad|re of. employment, ndd-oss, dnte of commen-
cement of cmplovrrjen(, identification mmks in the
bodv,
wife's name and addre« arc all recorded nnd the ^ennmre of
employee Perasamy also has been obnined.
Tn (he Ex Mi
tfio nhoioRraph rjf th^ employee also hni been .ifflxcel AJ1
the,,, thin,, ,re rot disputed Thes^ p.rfic-r'm-s such as the
hStoff
T -ei S n a m c ' ? d d r e"- id«";i"Cfl'^n marks in Uv-
body, his wife i nnmc cnuld 1,-vr bren fumLhed ,,p>y by ti e
employe for making entries in these icgislers and no by
anybody «lus other Mton .hunselt> IB »U Uiebft exhibits MMo
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 oth<n .particulars as may be neefcssary for the purposes of
identification, the age and stx ot the employee, the nature of
employment and the date of commencement thereof. As per
that Section the relevant entry shall be authenticated by the
signature of the thumb impression of the peison concerned.
As per this provision of law, Exhibits Ml to M3 particulars
containing registers, have been maintained by the Second
Party Management to comply with their statutory requirement.
Under Rule 77x>f 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,
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, hehns 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 MaM^jj^attor the extension
S, V?nT S? fhe f ^ y e e . M. Penasamy by two vem« ifll
3|.]7-m
FyDm nfj f h e 5 e
fhin^_
ft
Cfln £e c o n c l u d f l d
t n a t
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 earlier
84 THE GAZFI IE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/ PAUSA 16, 1922
IPARI 11-SbC. 3<ji)j
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.
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
<ime the Court bus to dcr-inr^ bi" riirbf nnd tbit i-f-'w^n
ri"e<=iTlW 10Q1 "nil npcrmhT 1993 he hri« rrot advitcri thr
WovVmnn M P^riT-nmv to ct
n .declamt'on bv the Civil
C o v t Ki"^rl el b^c Viirtb f<"iL1'TTHtc Fx Wl Tn the n'vpnee
of o"" sucVi drHrirtitinn bv the Civil Co'i"t in rfsn*ct "f
tVtr- d"i^ of b'rtb of tha
Wnrl-yniri
M
Pt>r;n"imi> ih;..
T^'bim-il einnot jvo info trf auef'ion of the valMitv of tbnt
)>>'itVi rT)<firit« Tiy W ' -ifliri its hindipv niKure imd 'the tipht
thereby accrued to the Workman, "M. Periavivny.
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.
X5
Ev M4 06-11-91 : Letter from the Mines Mnnnser Sii
D. Iravathy to the employee Sri M. Peiiasumy
(Office copyj.
Hx, M5
16-11-9J : Letter (reply) from Sri M. Pen.i-
samy to the
Management
thiough
Tamiirudj
National Mine Woikers Union.
Ex. M6 25-11-91: Reply
letter
from
the
Mines
Manager
to tlie General
Secretary, Tamilrudii
National Mine Woikers Union (Office copy).
Ex. M7 29-11-91 : Reply letter from the Union to the
Management,
Ex, MS 30-12-91 : Medical report of Sri M. Periasamy,
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.
\\.
M10 25-01-92: Copy of the petition laising In-
dustrial Dispute before the ALC(C)l, Chcnnai.
Tx. Mil
02-03-92: Reply
letter
from
the
Mines
Manager to the ALC(C), Chennai.
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
the Management to the ALC(C), Chennni.
Ex. MM
11-04-95: Commimic.it i'on from the Ministry
of Lnhmr, Government of India to both t!ii_ p.ntics.
E\. M15
1QR5: Particulars regarding A. Peuasfimv in
the new Foim 'B' Register of employees, under
S. No. 52 and Token No. 408.
Fv MI6
24-12-81 : XTOX copy of the mcdicnl Exami-
nation Report of the workman, Sri A, Pi tinsamy.
Nrn T>IH. the 13th OccmbiM, 1000
S.O. 17.—l'i pm surnce of S^ct'-n 17 ~f Mr Industrial
Deputes Act, 1047 (14 of 1917), the O. ntml Government
hciehy nublishes the a\».aiil of f|ie fon'nl Govei invert 'n-
th-.frisl Tiihma!. Cal;utt i as shown in 'he Anncxme in the
Industrial Dispn'e (iLtv'-'"i the employ , ,'n n!; ( :i5 lo the
nunnremrnt uf IlaUia Dock Com'tlpi and ilx";r wor! tun i,
v/h'ch \vf>« re^civrd bV 'lie Central Govi-ipmrnt on 1 1 12 2000.
[No. L-320n/12/90-TR(Misc.)l
B. M. DAVID, Under Socy.
ANNEXUKE
t l-N'JRAl GOVI KNMENT INDUSTRIAL IRIBUNAL
AT CAfCUTTA
Rtleience No. 12 of 199i
I'ARTIIIS:
Employers in relation to the management of rialdia Dock-
Complex.
AND
I heir Woikmen.
TUESENT:
Mr. Justice B P. Shaima, Presiding OITlcer.
APPEARANCES:
On hthalf of Management • Mr I. Ghosh Dastider, Jr.
As'tt. Manager.
On behalf of Woikmen: Mr. T. B Roy, Vice-President
of the Union.
•
STATr : West Bengal.
INDUSTRY: Pott and Dock,
AWARD
Kv Order Nn. L-32011/12/90-IR(Misc.J dated 04-04-1991
the Central Government in exercise of its po.vers under Sec-
tion 10(1) fd1) and (^A1) of the Industriul Dispulcs Act, 1947
r*ffrred the following depute to this Tiibunnl for adiudica-
tion :
"H'hrlher (he action of the manaj;cm':nt of Haldia Dock
Complex in illnwing promot;on by conferring the
over-riding 'enronty to the Shoic Oews (Marine
lTind ) vsno ucre tieatcj as Calcutta based woik'nfl
'i' H.ildia tind later ;jbsoi-bed in IlRldia Dock Com-
plex again°t tcr;t]lni vacancies with effect from 25th
Seri'-mbcr, I9S9 than the following employees who
veic rrcruiled ;n H^dip arcf absorbed ppjinst rcEU-
Ipr yacaiKiCs in Haldia Doc Complex from the dates
•
h
o
w
n
a
w
a
i
n
s
t
C
T
C
I
I
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
i s
j
u
s
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
r
n
o
t
?
If not. to what relief the concerned woikmen are
entitled to ?"
SI
No
1
2,
3,
A
5.
fi
None of the employee
TaJakiddiu Khan
Madnu Siddique
Golam Nabi
Bibbuti Bhu an Maity
Drbf,1 D.1S
SI.. iMnfi!
Date when psorbed against
regirlar vacancies in HDC
19-8-78
^8-9-78
29-9-78
18-9-81
18-9-81
18-9-81
"• It nnpeais that onjzinally the dispute was laised on
h;'nU" of 7 workmen represented by Calcutta Port Shrsir"1".
u'lion it a^tpenrij tint inilially one industrial dispute was raised
c'nl" aT ivf'Tei.ce it appears tha( one had died and therefoic
!'if ;r-['ieir_e is in respect of 6 persons only.
Now it hri
ciiriip m t'v'denca that 2 of such persons have alieadv retired
f'cn sfvicp and one has died.
rl'herefort>, only 3 persons
u-nvuned
to be considered as the affected or
concerned
v orkmen.
-i Fiom the statement of claim filed on behalf of '!••=
Hiiio'i it Hnpeavs (b^t initaMy on^ indii'tiiat dispute was raised1
b>- tlvs un;on in the year lf'78 and corciiintion proceediiip
\ •!• h'''d be'oic the Assistint Laboirr Cnrnmissioner fCentral),
Calcu In ind s-vci;•! Mftines were held However, the dispute
»• .s ^"I'lrii jim'cablv Hfd a inr-mnrpnduni of settlement was
fiiierctl m'o on ">6,-p.| oys which was a tripartite one. Accord-
i'lf to thr sa'd s'-t'lemei*,
(he relevant provisions were as
to)lows • —
(1) I'nst1- iindpi •'•"' T1i'riia l^ort; Complex will not be
filled from oilier sources without first
nhrorbing
Haldia Dock Proirct Employees,
86 THfc GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
[PARr II-^JJC. 3(ii)]
(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.
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 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.
It is further stated that due to disbandment of two Moor-
ing Crews and decommissioning of two of the Neave-up Boats
and four Hawser Boats and also disbendment of One 'Rcliv-
inf Crew, a large number of Marine Crews attached1 to the
Sdid Boats in the Mooring Section of the Calcutta Port Trust
were declared excess to the requirement in the year 1975.
Accordingly, there was much discontentment
among the
surplus crew members at Calcutta and the union took up
the issue with the Port Administration. So, Assistant Labou<"
Commissioner (Central), Calcutta held discussions on 7-6-76
in the chamber of the taboui Minister, Government of West
Bengal, in presence of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust
and it was decided1 that the concerned employees would be
declared surplus to the requirement, no doufbt, but would
go on the basis of last come first go from their respective
units. It WBS also decided thnt they would be posted as fur
as po'isihle to other units and tections as per actual require-
ment where the conditions of work was commensurate with
their skill nnd exnerience
In tbii connection circulars wtre
issued on 13 7-1978 and 6-7-1978 by the Director, Marine
Depaitmtm, Calcutta Port Tnut
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.
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 o t '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.
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 the
87
aiew members, who wore transferred from Calcirttn to Haldia,
raised as indiistiiMl dispute before the A-Aihlant
Ijiboui
Commissioner li cntral), CnleiHi.i claiming thai they were
Calcutta
employees find were employed in work
beyond
Hudge Budge, they vtcie entitled to get 25 per cant extiu
consulidated payment.
This issue was raised hoth by Cal-
cutta l'oit Shihnnk. Union (Hind Ma/door Sabha) Ihe piesent
uiiigii, Calcutta Poit and Shoie Ma^door Union (C 1 T.U.j.
Ilow.v^r, on tailurc of conciliation pjocecdmg, ihc issue was
ultimately relcned to the Central Government Industrial Tn
huniil, Calcutta as Refeiencc No, 88 of 1980 and an Award
was made by the said Tiibunal by which it was diiected
that ihe concerned employees under shore crew unit working
at Haldia would be entitled to 25 per cent extra icmunetation
un ihe ground of iheir havinp lien at Calcutta.
It is also
satled
thai in the meanwhile
due to exigency
of work,
fillim: up of certain leave vacancies or tempoiary piomolional
vaciiiii.il'' it was necessury to determine iniei-se seinonty ol
ihosc employees who weie tiansferred1 from different unils
nf Calcutta having their separate seniority list.
Accoidingly,
a provisional seniority list was puhlished on 15-4-1980 and
it was finally published oti 2M-1()R3. This list finalised and
decided the inter-se seniority of all categories of employees
absoibed in u •single cadre.
It is fuithci staled that at uny
point of time during Ihe publication of the seniority list, no
obitctiou, wiiatsoevei. was raised ou behalf of the union or
the employees concerned and accoidingly after the finalisa-
tion of the seniority hit, certain temroiaiy officiating promo-
tions were also made,
[t is full her stated lhat the cicw
members transferred from Calcutta establishment Ihouph woik-
ing at Haldia on rcfiuiai basis were originally being paid
25 pci cent consolidated overtime which was on the bnsis
of the Award of the Tribunal in Reference No. US of 1980;
it was stopped1 aflei their absorption in the Haldia Dock
Complex,
It is also furlhci stated (hut in 1985 a tripartite settlement
dated 1g-8-1935 was recahed between the union
and
the
management rcgaiding promotion of marine crew members,
both ,it Calcutta establishment pnd at TIaldia Dock Complex.
When thisi settlement was arrived at, Calcutta Port and Shore
Mazdooi Union was also a party to it.
But, however, the
cetllement could not be implemented1 at Haldia as the afore-
said two unions demanded certain benefits for Haldia Shore
Ciew Members who were transfened from Calcutta and
aetoidingly Calcutta.Port and Shore Mazdoor Union raised
an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commis-
sioner (Central), Calcutta in December, 1988 stating that the
tripartite settlement regardina I : 1 iatlo promotion of the
shore crew members at Haldiu should be implemented at
the earliest. The conciliation proceeding ended in an agree-
ment that the issue would be resolved bilaterally. Thereafter,
the matter was discussed between the management and the
union as well as the union at Calcutta and a tripartite settle-
ment lor 1 ; ] ratio promotion of shore crew members wus
.itlived at.
ll is further stated that some of the crew mem-
bers, who were inducted from Calcutta establishment, exer-
cised their option to go back to their onginal post at Calcutta
and the remaining crew members of the Calcutta cstflbli-h-
ment were adjusted in fho Haldia Dock Complex.
So, the
management took action for implementation of 1 : 1 ratio
promotion of the shore crew members on the basis of the
finnl seniority list published in J9B3. It is further stated that
ns per the aforesaid final seniority list of 1983, the names
of the aforesaid six workmen concerned m the reference
come ai the bottom of the seniority list and ihercfore thev
were not eligible for promotion to the higher post and there
v .is no
question of their supersession in the
matter of
piomoliun.
5. Jn course of evidence, two wrtn«**es have been examin-
ed on behalf of the union and one has been examined for
the management.
WW-1, Md. Siddique is one of the effect-
ed workman. He has stated that he was appointed in HalSfia
Dock Project in 1968 as a Lascar and the Haldia
Dock
Project was subsequently renamed fls Haldia Dock Complex
in 1978.
According to him there was some dispute over
their appointment and there was a meeting with the manage-
ment jind un agreement was arrived at.
He further stated1
that he heard while working in Haldia Dock Complex that
in 1978 many marine crew member* were declared surplus
and a circular WHS issued by the Director, Marine Depart-
ment. Calcutta Pot Trust declarine them ax surolu*.
Ht
fias ;IIHI slated that ihe seniority list prepared by the Mana-
U'.r 11' <it l.R.) of Haldia Dock Complex was never hunged
on the board. He also stated that on J5-7-198O he had filed
;m application regarding his seniority and proved his signa-
luic on the document Fxt. VV-1. This document is an appli-
cation purported to h. VJ been tiled on 15-7-1980 and signed
hv four persons including this witness,
But, however, in his
LIoss-examination he claimed that he i^ouid prove that he
filed petition, but he did nol pioditce any evidence to this
envoi.
He has also fuither stated lhat he alongwith others
hud filed another petition on 18-7-1980, mmked Fxt VV-2
anj he claimed lhat he could prove that he filed (he Hppli-
ratio'i.
But [hcie i,s -so evidence available lo the effect.
In
his uivs-.-ex..miiiation he has stated lhat he did not know
that on 15-4-19S0 a provMoiml seniority list was published.
He also admits lhat the list is required lo he hung-up on
I he houro', but accoiding to him, it WHS not so done.
He
oKo further stated that he does not know whether the final
senionty list wns published on 24-3-1983, but he admits that
the final list was hunged up on the boaid and he also ad-
mitted that his name appealed at Serial No. 48 in the scnio-
nfy I'st and some of the persons whose names appealed
be FOIL him weic also piomotcd.
VVW-2 is Bibhuti Bhusun Maity.
He has stated that he
joined Haldia Dock Complex in 1981, but ho was in Ihc
Haldia Dock Pioject since 1-3-1966.
lie has also stated
that Iheie was another establishment at Ca'tutta and in ]975
thcic weie some surplus employees in the said estahl.'ihmeni
at Calcutta who were transfciied to Hnldia and weic also
absorbed in the Haldia Dock Complex.
However, it is im
portant lo note that this witness was examined on 10-7-1995,
but he was not cross-examined as he could not be pi oduced
latci foi c o-ss-examination and therefore his evidence is not
lit to be consideied
6. So fai as the management is concerned, MW-1, Sahya-
sachi Sengupta who happens to be the Assistant Manage!
(P&IR) dl lluldia Dock Complex of Calcutta Port Tuist has
been examined for management.
lie hus stated that in 1981
seniority list was finally published and the six workmen in-
vnlved
wore junior to the Calcutta baaed Marine
Crcwi
adjusted in the Haldia Dock
Complex.
So, their
namef'
appealed at the bottom ol Ihc jist. He has stated that the
personnel of Calcutta Pori Trust aforesaid, weic adjusted la
the Haldia Dock Complex in 1977 and in the seniority
list published in 1983 they were shown senior as their entire
set vice was taken into consideration. He has denied that the
six workmen concerned were senior lo those poisons who1
were tiansfened from Calcutta to Haldia and were absorbed
in the Haldia Dock Complex.
This witness has not even
been ooss-examined on behalf of the union as no one was
pesent to represent the union and the witness was accord-
ingly dihchaiged.
It is. therefore, clear that whatevei this
witness has slated is uncontiovcited and unchallenged
7 J he whole confusion appears to have cropped up On
the assumption that the services of these six concerned emp-
loyees should be considered from the dates of their appoint-
ment, vheieas the services of the employees, coming from
Calcutta to Haldia should be treated1 from the dates of their
ubsorplion in the Haldia Dock Complex.
But, this assump-
tion is erroneous.
In the agreement between the manage-
ment ant! the union, it was made clear that all the persoai
being absorbed in the Haldia Dock Complex shall be given
their .seniority considering their previous service.
Thrrcfoie,
ttiLie docs not appear to be any reason that the claims of.
these employees were illegally or arbitrarily ignoied by the
manj;rment while publishing ihe seniority list.
In this con-
nection it has also been contended qn behalf of the manage-
ment that ihe purpose of publishing a draft seniority list was
to g'ye opportunity to the effected persons lo represent their
cases and since no such representation wus leceived either
from the individuals oi from the union, the seniority list
was finally published m 1983 and the present dispute was
I uised mtich later atter several years.
Therefore, the plea
laken on behalf of the workmen concerned appears to be an
afterthought.
8- Considering the entire cireurn,ctances of the case, 1
arrive M the conclusion that there is no merit in the claim
of the union in the present rff^orence and fhe reference, there*
fore, has to b« decided against the union.
T}ie reference
is accordingly decided and it ip held that the action of the
3490 G[/2000—13
88 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 of
89
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.
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 :
A—that the workman Shyam Narain is en-
titled to promotion as Asstt. Wireman
from 18-4-1995;
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
C—-that the workman, is, also
entitled
to
difference of wages from 18-4-1995 as
per relevant rules.
- Lucknow
27-11-2000
RLJDRESH KUMAR. Presiding Officer
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.
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
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.
Advocates for the
Respondent.
AWARD
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 ID.
No. 22/90 and proceeded with the enquiry.
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
90
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 N o "!. 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 sow 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. Krishna
91
^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.
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.
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.
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. CG/
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.
16. As against the above
evidence, the
delinquent N.
Krishna gave his statement stating that on 11-8-87 he at-
tended his shift duty though bis wife was not well.
While
he wa; on duty his brother came to Camp Office nnd told
that his wife's health condition was serious. As his wife was
serious, he wanted to go home early and at about 1.30 P.M
ho requested Nagabhushanam u> 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
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).
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
I
U
a
n
v
.
d
d t
b
y
t
h
e
t
n
q
u
i
i
y
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
t
o
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
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.
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..
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 him^
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,
Industrial Disputes Act (1947) S. H-A—Constitution of
India, Article 13<S—Jurisdiction under Section 11-A—
Hxerciw of, by Labour Court—Appeal under Article
136—Supreme Court can examine correctness of
exercise—Dismissal of employee for use of indis-
creat
language
disclosing
threatening
posture.
upheld^Award is liable to be set aiide,
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.
92
THE GAZETTE OF JNDJA ; JANUARY 6, 2001/ PAUSA 16, 1922
[PART 11—SEC. 3(ii>]
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. MI2: Copy of the complaint dt. 12-8-87 given by
Y. Nagabhushanam.
Ex. Ml3: 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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 29th November, 2000
PRESENT :
K. Karlhikeyan, Piesiding Officer.
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.
The schedule reads as follow-1 :
"Whether the
action of the
Management of
Food
Corporation of
India,
Chennui in
terminating
the
services of the workmen
SlShri J. CnjendYan, Token No. 2326 and
K, Bliaskan.n, Token No. 2447 is justified'
Tf
not, to what rdicf
the workmen
an
enUUed?1
On receipt ot this inference, this Industrial Dispute
has bvn Liken on f� 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 :—
The First Party Claimant, Madras Port and Dock
Woikcrs Congress, represented by the General Sec-
retary
(hereinafter mentioned as the "Petitioner")
states that the
Petitioner is a Regd. Trade Union
under the piovision ol Trade Union Act, 1926. The
majority of the workers, working in the Food
Cor-
poration of India, are
members in the Pctitionci
Union.
The workers, J.
Gajendran and K. Bhas-
karan i1 re
members in the Petitioner Union
and
hence the PeUtioi-rr is espousing the cause of
said
workeis.
Shri J. Gajendran was employed in Food
Corporation of India, Chennai and has put in
20
years of continuous
service.
His
services are
thronph'iut unblemished.
Shri J. Gajendran, sudden-
ly suffered Hepiiitis from 20 o-J998 and took treat-
ment in Stanley Government Hospital.
He obtained
the medical certificate from the Doctor,
who
had
treated him and produced the same to the Manage-
ment on 16-11-98.
In spite of treatment, he v/as
not cured fully.
His relafives advised him to
take
country medicine, so that it would be cured and he
was taken to his native place for treatment
in
the
ljst week of November, 1998.
He was slowly cured
on taking country medicine.
As soon as, he
was
fully cured in the first week of December, 1998, he
reported for
duly, but he was
informed by the
Management that he was terminated from service by
the order dated 2-12-1998.
The Petitioner further
inform;d FCI Management that he had already pro-
duced the Med'cal Certificate and since he was left
for his native pl;>ce, for further treatment, he could
not send any furiher communication.
The Second
Party Management had inumned him
that
they
cannot do anything, since the order of termination
has already been
issued.
The
Worker, Bhaskaran
was employed with
Food
Corporation of India,
Cherm:n, had put in 15 years of continuous, unble-
mished ervice.
Tn August, 1995, the Worker, Bhas-
karan developed mental depression, due to
family
problems and he was forced to be inside the house
because of his mental il]nccs.
So, he could not com-
municate the management, about his absence.
His
relatives, who took him to
Stanley
Government
Hospital for treatment, being illiterates, did not in-
form the Management, about his mental illness. After
he wac fully cured from his mental illness he obtain-
ed a Medical Certificate and send it to the Manage-
ment in October, 1998.
Without considering
his
request favourably, the Mi'ingemcnt by an
order
dated 17-11-1997 removed him from service, with
retrospective effect from 6-8-1995.
Then, the Peti-
tioner Union raised Industrial Dispute for both
the
Workers,
The
orders of punishment of dismissal
floin service imposed bv the Management on
these
two V/orkcs sire illeg.il.
No chargeshect was issu-
ed, no evplarntion
was called for, no show-cause
3-IQ0 GI/2000—15.
94
THE GAZETTE OF JNDTA : JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
[PART U—SEC. 3(ii)l
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:
The Second PJny Management, (hereinafter men-
tioned as "Respondent'') states that Shii J. Gajendran,
Token No. 2326
and
Shri K. Bhjekaran, Token
No. 2447, were employed in Food Corporation of Tndia
as "Handling Mazdoors" w.e.f, 9-9-1978 and 9-1-1984
respectively. The Workmen, Gajendrau was absented
for duty for 242 days from 20-3-98 to 16-11-98.
without prior intimation to the office nf the Respon-
dent.
A Memo dt. 15-11-98, seeding e/njanation for
unauthorised absence was sr-nf to his residence addicfs,
but, it was returned unserved.
Subsequently, the said
Worker, Gajendran sent a rep'v and since if was not
convincing, he was
terminated1
from service w.e.f,
20-3-98, after conducing an enquiiy, Thu Workman,
Shri K. Bhaskaran, without anv 'Minvition to
the
office, was absented for du'v from 6-8 95.
fL-ncc the
Respondent had terminated his servic; w.e.f 6 R-05,
as per Standing Orders, hy an order dt. 17-11-97. Both
the workers were terminated from service as per Ihe
Rule 10(4) of ' I T Standing Orders, which was certi-
fied bv the Regional Labour Commissioner on 4-12-6")
The Respondent had followed the Pn'" 19(4) of the
Standing Order in force,
fcr f^niiij\i*ine the
Kio
Workmen from service, since they weiv .ibiented ihcm-
sclves from dutv for ai lon<? period, wiihout any prior
intimation to the Respondent.
The Respondent
has
not shown any d'srrimination ariin1-* the sairi Wo k-
ment,
The Food Corporation has not reinstated any
Worker, who had absented for more than 200 days
The potion taken bv the Afanru'ement, nrr'unst the said
two Workers, Shri J. Gajendran and Shri K. Bhaskaran
were in afejordance with law and r>ion»durp There h
no merit in the Claim Statement nml has to be
dis-
missed, with exemplary cosl.
3. The Po'nt for mv consider I'i'on iq :
"Whether th<* action of \W m.Mvvw\<-nt of F'-.oH
Corporation of Tndb, Ch?nnoi in trrrrvnniinr'
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?"
Point : When the matter was taken up for enquiry,
Li documents of the Respondent Management
were
marked by consent as Ex. Ml to M13. Three
docu-
ments on the side of the Petitioner, were produced as
their documentary evidence. Out of which, xerox copy
ol an undated letter wi.h a xeiox copy of Medical
Certificate dt. 16-10-98, sent by the Workman, Shir K.
ishaskaian to the Management and a xerox copy of a
Medical Certificate
dt. 16-11-98,
issued by one
Dr.
M.
S.
Chelladurai
were
marked as
I:\hibits
Wl
and
W2 respectively,
subject
to
the
objection
of
the
Respondent
Conn.el.
The
3rd
document h the xerox copy
ot a lttter sent by the General Secretary of the Feti-
tioner Union to the Jt. Manager (Operations), FCI,
Chennali dt, 23-12-98, has been marked1 by consent
rs Ex. W3. Exhibits Wl and W2 were marked
as-
documents for the Petitioner, subject to proof and relc-
\ incy. The learned counsel for the management
has
informed the Court that the Management has no oral
evidence to let in. Though the learned counsel for the
Petitioner took time to examine the Doctor, who hus
issued the Medical Cerlifkates for the Workmen, J.
G.ijendran and K. Bhafkaran, has not examined "h'jf
Pocior, tut infoimcd Ihe Court, (in the subsequent
hearing that, he is- not examinm," the Doctor. No other
v i'ncr' also has heen chosen to be examined as wit-
r>e=s for the Petitioner.
On completion of the evi-
dence on either s;d •, the learned counsel
on either
ML1? rrJ advanced their arguments.
4. It is admitted that both the Workmen. S|Shri J.
Giijendran, Token No. 2326 and K. Bhaskaran, Token
No. 244 7, were working in Food Corporation of India,
RfLpondent herein, as Handling Mazd/oor w.e.f. 9-9-78
and 9 1-84, respectively. It is also admitted that the
Woikman, Shri J. Gajendran was absented fiom duty
imm 20-3-98 to 16-11-98 for 240 days, without prior
intimation to the office of the Respondent and
the
Woikmam Shri K. Bhaskaran was absented horn duty
f>"m 6-3-95 onwards, without any intimation to the
Office of the Respondent. Ex, Ml is the returned Regd.
cover, Ex. M2 is the oHice copy of the Memo
dt,
15-9-98 sent to the Workman, J. Gajendran under
Fegd. post throuuh Ex. Ml to his residential uddiess
No. 16, K.P. Koil Street,
Rovapuram,
Cncnnai-13.
Ex, M3 is an office copy of the Memo dt. 24-11-98,
PI\C;I bv the Penuty Mnnaeer of FCJ to the Workman,
T. Gaiendraii. Token No. 2326. It bears an endorse-
ment dt. 26-11-08, bv the Workmen, J. GapntTrau
that lie received that M"mo Ex. M4 is the reply oi"°n
by the Wnrkrrnn, Gaiendrnn by his c^'n hand In that
F\. M4 h- has1 stated that he could not com.- for dutv
1- his health VIPS very ^ad, due to illness ana" he could
not in'imrte
that fact 'wnrvtV^ch.
He has al^o ad-
mitted in *hat letter, that the lcfter sent bv the Manage-
ment to his residential address, for his cont;nuoiii ab-
s^n^e for dutv, v ns not received bv him sine he has
'•irnrrd h;s r^'iil'nc.
Fx. M5 is the returned Rcgd.
I 'tier with nnitfli n^VnowierifTpment. sent bv the Rcs-
popf?i=nf tn I}T- Worirrnan J. Gniendmn t0 h's rhan«cd
T~=M ~n'i"l ncVlrf!., V- M6 is rhr conv of the terrni-
r,"tir.n orrlci-
cTt
T _ 1 ? ' ) P
isciiPfi to (bf W irVm in,
rro!"n(1»"iin unHer "R(^[id nr>i( in F K M^
F A M6
!r
lh- , ffirp ( opy of 'h" mC'lTi Ht, ?1 R.m icqu-tl b v »bf
95
Respondent, to the Workman, K. Bhuskaran, loken
Mo. 244/.
In tnat memo, tne said Workman, fihas-
Jidftiu was directed to report lor duly immediately,
mi turning hnn thac in the event oi iuiiuie to report lor
uiily, action wnl be taken as per rules oi the Standing
Uiaco, winch may UHUJI in iemuvai| termination ui
service with cliect from the "last date of attendance.
The postal acknowledgement lor the Memo dt. 23-8-9/,
stnt to the Woikman, bhaskaran is Jbx. MS. Ex. My
is ihe oiiice copy of the termination order at. 17-11-97,
issued by the Respondent to the Workman, Shri K.
Bhaskaran, Token No. 2447. Ex. MIU is the
postal
acknowledgement for the receipt of the original
of
Ex. My, the termination older issued to Woikman,
Miri K. Bhaskaran. All these documents have
been
admitted by the Petitioner.
As contended by
the
Respondent, the Workman, GajenJran remained absent
irlom duty from 20-3-98 to 16-11-98 and the Work-
man, liha&karan remained absent from
duty from
6-8-95 onwards. It is the specific conten.ion of the
Respondent that the said absence of these Workmen
tioni duty are unauthorised absence. The Ex, Wl is
an undated letters xerox copy, with an enclosuic, a
xerox copy of the Medical Certificale dt. 16-10-98
said to have been issued by one Dr. M. S. Chelhdurai.
1$, Ex. Ml Jctter, the Workman, K, Bhaskaran has
admitted that he has not turned up for duty
fiom
5-8-95,
It is not the case of the Petitioner that prior
to the reply under Ex, Ml, the Workman, Shri
K.
Bhaskaran has sent any reply for the memo dt. 23-8-97
issued to him under Rcgd. post as the original
of
V.\. M7 under E\. MS. In Ex. M7 itself, the Work-
man, K. Bhaskaran ha.-, been directed to rcpoil for
duty immediately. It is not lhe cas; ol' the Petitioner
that the said Workman, Bhaskaran, who has put his
signature in Ex. M8 postal acknowledgement has not
teceived the original of r>*. memo under Ex. M7. It is
seen from Ex. M8 that the postal cover, accompanying
that postal acknowledgement, Ex. MS was delivered
lo the Workman, K. Bhaskaran on 1-9-97 itself. The
order of termination from service against the Work-
man, Shri K, Bhaskaran, Token No. 2447 was issued
under the original of Ex. M9 on 17-11-97 itf.?lf.
So,
this Ex, Wl letter, accompanying with the Medical
Certificate dt. 16-10-98, could not have been sent by
thf- Workman, Shri K. Bhaskaran to the Management
prior to 16-10-98.
The Workman K. Bhaskaran has
not been examined as a witness on the side of the
Petitioner to speak about the date on which he sent
tht- original of Ex. Wl to the Management. Though, it
is stated in that reply by the said Workman, that he
was taking treatment in the Hospital for his mental
illness and very bad status of health, and has chosen
to enclose a Medical Certificate to that reply, as one
piven by the Doctor who treated h<m for hi', "illness,
has not chosen m examine himself as a witness in this
rase, to prove these two rlonimenK
The Doctor who
said (o have issued the Mediepl Cei-tdicrtT^ dt. 16-10 98
in fnvonr
of Workman K, Rh-^koivn and ^nothe--
Mescal Certificate dt. 1ti~P-QR. :hc orieinil
of
Pr.
W2 in f.ivoiu
of the Workman T Gaiendran,
has not chosen to ccne nivi clven cvirienci- in <nraprfrt
of those tv, o documents. Thus. Fx. V/1 and W2 re-
mained as unproxed rlorrments So. nn vd^Vnce enr
bp made on bo'h F T Wl and W2 Further, nearly
oiv year after only the termination order, (under the
nri'jinai of TJx, M91 was issued, 1w 'he Mamecnvnt,
the original of Ex. Wl reply and the oiigiual of
the
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.
5, It is the contention oi: the Petitioner that as per
me pioccdure, enough opportunity to be given to the
WuAinen iu realise the turisequt/jccs- oi their
ab-
sence iron) duly and make them to report tor duty and
lhnt the sa'.d procedure, has not been followed by the
Management before ever order for removal from scr-
\ite were passed. The documents filed on the side of
ill" Management clearly shows that the said contention
of the Petitioner is incoi.ect. In Ex. M2 memo, issued
to the Workman, J. Gajendran, it is clearly stated that
he is Jiscn! w.sin.ut uny intimation from 19-3-98 to
the date of the issue oi that memo. i.e. 15-9-98 and
he is ii Mi ioi t •imjp,.itiou from the service as per the
Standing Ordeis and therefore, he is directed to report
for duiy immediately, failing which he will be termi-
nated' w.e.i. 19-3-98 onwards, wnhout any further
notice, Lmder Ex. M3 memo, the Workman, Gajen-
dran \, -s I'riecircl to cxplu.ni for his absence without
intinution horn 20-3-98 till that elate of
memo dt.
24-1 1-93 informing him thai he (s liable for termina-
tion from service as per Standing Orders. Like that
under the oiiginal of Ex. M7 memo, the Workman K.
Bh isk-iran was dircac-d to rep Tit for duty immediately
aim further he was informed '.hat in the event of his
non-repnit for duty, action will be taken against him
,r per Hie rules ol the Standing Orders, which
may
entail in ienip\:'l I mm service. These things clearly
show I'i:if the Re.-poiulcnt Management, before passing
('••e onius of termination of service against these two
\i.orkii>i»,! tuvl-T I he (.ri;s'ipaj of Exhibits of M6, M9,
<:!utione<l 'hose Workmen, to re nor I to duty inimr-
dir.tely failing which they may '*." removed from sei1-
vice.
Tn such n way, holh the Workmen v^erc given
sufficient opportunity to mend their attitude of absen-
ting themselves from duty, without any prior intima-
tion.
Hence thp contention of the Petitioner, on this
asp'vf. (.inivii b^ c")iiMdei\-f1 ns correct.
(i. lhe learned coun^l for the Respondent Manage-
ment would further contend 'hat the orders of termi-
nation of service, under the original of exhibits M6
:ind M9 were issued, following the ptovision under
Rul: 19, Sub-cl.m-e
4 of the
Certified
Standing
Orders for the Mpnugement. The copy of the Certified
'iiJndiiiy O*dcr hi, been markcxl as Ex M i l . The
ordrr passed by the Regional I.nbnur Commissioner
and Certifying Officer dr. 4-12-69 and the letter of
Ihc same Officer dt, 4-12-69 to *he R-ei^ondcnt Manage-
w n t
Ivivc hcen m^i'kfd ns Ml? and M13.
Under
iho Certified Standing Order, Rule 19, Sub-clause 4,
it is stated as follows :
"Any Workman who ih^nts hirmtlf for more
than IS consecutive davs. without leave nr
nho remains absent for 15 consecutive days
beyond the period of Ifov- ori^inoliv trranted
or subs-nucntly extended shall "be deemed
tn Invc Uft the v^rvice without notice and
]jk iiame
will be
removed from lhe list
without fuithcr notice to him".
96 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY o, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
LPART 11—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. Wl—Letter from Sri K. Bhaskarnn to FCI,
enclosing
a
Medical
Certificate
dated
16-10-98 (xerox copies!.
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. Mil
—
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, 2000
S.O. 21.—In puisuance of Section
17 of
the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-
tral Government1 hereby publishes the award of the
Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court,
Hyderabad as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet-
ween the employers in relation to the management of
S.C.C. Lfld. and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 18-12-2000.
[No. L-22012/550/99-C-irj
N. P. KESHVAN, Desk Officer
97
ANNEXURE
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
BETWEEN
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,
AWARD
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
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.
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
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;
98
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2001/PAUSA 16, 1922
[PART It—SEC, 3(H>]
Now* therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of
section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947,
the Central Government hereby declares with
immediate effect
the said industry to be a
public utility service for the purposes of the
said Act for a period of six months.
•
[No. S-11017/12/97-IR(PL)]
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
of the First Schedule to the Industrial Dispu-
.JS 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
conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of
section 2 of ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the Central Government hereby declares with
immediate effect the said industry to be a
public utility service for the purposes of the
said Act for a period of six months.
[No. S-1l0l7/2/97-IR(PL)J
H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2000
S.O. 24.—Whereas
the Central Govern-
ment having been satisfied that ttic pub-
lic interest so required had, in pursuance of
99
the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of the clause
(n) of section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the Notifica-
tion of the Government of India in the Minis-
try of Labour S.O. No. 1671 dated 10-7-2000
the services in Iron Mining Industry to be :i
public utility service for the purpose of the
said Act, for a period of six months from th „•
10-7-2000.
And whereas, the Central Government is
of opinion that public
interest requires the
extension
of the said
period by a
further
period of six months ;
Now. therefore,
in exercsc of the powers
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 26th December, 2000
S.O. 25.—In
exercise
of
the
powers
conferred by sub-scclions (I) and (2) of See-
tion 7 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947), the Central Government here-
by appoints
Shri S. N.
Saundankar as
Presiding Officer of Central Government In-
dustrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2
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
said Act and for performing such other func-
tions as may be assigned to it under the said
Act.
[No. Z-13011/1/97-CLS-IT]
MRS. KRISHNA SHARMA. 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), the
TOO 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
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,
1997 published in Part II Section 3 Sub-sec-
tion (ii) of the Gazette of India Extraordinary
dated 10th April, 1997.
In the said notification
for entries against
SI. No. 32 the following entries shall be subs-
tituted namely :
Sh. Ram Mohan Bidawatka,
Vice-President. A1MO,
21 Jaihind Building No. 1,
Bhuleshwar. Mumbai-400002.
[F. No. V-20012/1/97-SS.II]
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, 2001