This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D.L.—33001|99

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 3] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be field as a

separata compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notification issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(other than the Ministry of Defence )

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIVANCES AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

S.O. 70—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Gujarat vide

(195)

59 GI|2001—1 196 THE GAZEf It⁷ OF (NPTA : JANUARY 20, 7001 TAUSA 30, ' 1922 [FAHF TT-~SEr. 5(ii)] Notification No, GGIU3 ARM|28;2000"GOI-34-M dated 15-11-2000, hejvby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the mtmtvis of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the vhole of the State of Gujarat for investigation of ulluicy; punishable under sec- tion 25 of Arms Act, 1959 vide Crime No. RC. SIB 2000E 0007, registers! in SilU-XI, branch o[ CBI, New Delhi relating to seizure of Arms and Ammuni- tion and attempts, abetment and conspiracy in rela- tion to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence com- mitted 1c same transaction arising out of the sam_~ iaefs,

[No. 22R/63/2000-AVD. Ill IIARf SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the yth January, 2001 New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

i 97

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001 New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

S.O. 74—Jn exercise of the powers, conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kamataka vide Notification No. HD|221|PCR|2O0O, dated 3O-10-2OU0, hereby extends the powers and jurisdic- tion of tihe members of Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to fine whole of the State of Kamataka for investigation of offences under section 7 of Preven- tion of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sri Shankara- narayana, S.D.E., Coles Road, Bangalore and others and any other public servants or persons and attempts, abetrnents and conspiracy in relation to or in con- nection with '.me or more cf fhe offence mentioned above and any other offence and offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the n m: facts.

[No. 228[7O|2OOO-AVD. II]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

S.O. 73,—la exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with secthin 6 of the Delhi Special Polibe Establishment Acr, 194fi (Act No. 25 of 1946), fhe Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kamataka vide Notification, No. HD/219/PCR/2000, dated 16-10-2000, hereby extends* fhe powers and jurisdic- tion of the members of Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to the whole of the State of Kamataka for investigation of offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sri U. K, Shawn a. Section Officer and Sri M. P. Singh, A s l a nt Director (CPWD). Horti- culture, Central Division, Kendriya Sadan, Banga- lore and any otlher public servants or persons and attempts, abetments and coASpiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offence men- tioned above and any other offence and offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/69|2000-AVD. II]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

198 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA : JANUARY 20. 2OO1/PAUSA 30. 1922 TPART 11—Sue. 3(ii(1 MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

Jaipur, State of Rajasthan to be warehousing station under the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of set- ting up 100% E.O.U.

(Office of the Commissioner & Central Excise)

[C. No. V(16)Cus.-4|200O] NOTIFICATION

DALBIR SINGH, Commissioner NO. 4-CUS (NT) 2000

Jaipur, the 19th December, 2000

S.O, 75.—In exercise of the powers conferred by notification No. 33|94-Customs (NT), dated the 1st July, 1994, by the Government of India, Minis- try of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, issued under clause (a) of section 152 of Customs Act, 1962. I, Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Cus- toms & Central Excise, Jaipur, I, hereby declare, Gopisar Road, Bikaner, falling under the Municipal limits of Bikaner City of the State of Rajasthan to be warehousing station under the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of setting up 100% E.O.U.

[F. No. V(16)Cus.-3|20OO]

DALBIR SINGH, Commissioner

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2001

S.O. 77.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) 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 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Ram Mohan, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, De- partment of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Indian Overseas Bank with immediate effect and until further orders.

No. 3-CUS (NT) 2000

Jaipur, 23rd November, 2000

[F. No. 9[8|2000-B.O.-I] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

S.O. 76.—In exercise of the powers conferred by notification No. 33|94-Customs (NT), dated the 1st July, 1994, by the 'Government of India, Minis- try of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, issued under clause (a) of section 152 of Customs Act, 1962. I, Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Cus- toms & Central Excise, Jaipur, I, hereby declare, villaee 'BAGRU RAWAN', Tehsil Sanganer, District New Delhi, the 5th January, 2001 S.O. 78.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (I) of section 25 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), the Central Government hereby nomi- nates the persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Directors of the subsidiary banks of the State Bank of India specified in column (1) (hereof of the said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders :—

Table

(2)

(1)

SCate Bank of Mysore

Shii B. D. Berwal, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Econo- mic Affairs, Banking Division, New Delhi,

iw "l

2

State Bank of Patiala

Shri Mangal Marandi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Econo- mic Affairs, Banking Division, New Delhi.

State Bank of Saurashtra

Shri L. C. Toora, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Econo- mic Affairs, Banking Division, New Delhi.

[F. No. 9/8/2000-B.O. IJ RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, 10th January, 2001 S.O.79—In the notification F. No. 11/27/BOA- 2000-(a) dated 4th December, 2000 published in Part H Section 3(ii) of the Gazette of India, following correction is made :

Reference Linc(v)

For Section 13

Read Section 15(1)

[F.No. ll/27/2000-BOA] D. CHOUDHURY Undersecretary 200 THE GAZET1E OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PARI H—SEC. 3(ii)j New Delhi, the 5th January, 2001

S.O. 8G.~~In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-sectiott (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 Natio-

nalised Bank$ (Management and Miscellaneous Pro-

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

visions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, after

(Department of Health) consultation with the Reserve Bank of Lidia, hereby

appoints Shri K. Krishna Rai, presently General

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2000 Manager, Vijaya Bank as a whole time director (de-

S.O. 81.—Whereas in pursuance of clause (b) signated as the Executive Director) of Allahabad

of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Bank for the period from the date of his taking

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. S. Chandra- charge and upto 30fh June, 2004.

shekar Shelly, No. 130, 1st Main Road, M.L.A. Lay- [F. No. 9/38/2000-B.O.II out, R. T. Nagar, Bangalore has been elected by the

Senate of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

Kamataka on 16-10-2000 to be a member of the

Medical Council of India with effect from 16th Octo-

ber, 2000.

Now, thercfoie, in pursuance of the provision of

sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, tjje Cen-

tral Government! hereby makes the following further

amendment in the Notification of the Government of

India in the then Ministry ot Healfh number S.O, 138,

dated the 9th January, I960, namely:—

In the said notification, under tine heading, (£l©cr>ed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3', the

following serial number and entries shall be added,

namely:—

"76. Dr. S. Chandrashekar Shetty, Rajiv Gandhi

No. 130, 1st Main Road, University of roi

Now, therefore, in pursuance oP the provision of M.L.A. Layout, Health Sciences"

sub-section (1) of section 3 nf the said Act, the Cen- Bangalore.

tral Government hereby makes the following further

amendment in the notification of the Government of [No. V-llO13/23/2UOO-ME(UG)] S. K. MISHRA, Under Secy. India in tlhe then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138,

dated (he 9th January, 1960, namely :—

In the said notification, under the heading, 'Nomi- nated under clause (a) of sub-secfion (1) of section 3', for serial number 7 and the entries relating there- to, the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely:—

7. Dr. Amrifli Lai,

3-4-868, Barkatpura,

Hyderabad-500027.

fNo. V-J IOKV27/2OOO-ME(UG)]

P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2000

S.O. 82.—Whereas the Central Government, ir pursuance of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of sectior 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 o! 1956) and in consultation with the Government ol Andhra Pradesh have nominated Dr. AmritSi Lai, Prof, of ENT, Kamincni Institute of Medical Sciences Narketpally, Andhra Pradesh to bo a member of th" Medical Council of India with effect from 28fh Febru arv. 2001.

°02 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : TANUARY 20 2001 'PAUSA 30, 1922 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] New DeJhi, the 29th December, 2000

India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138, dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:—

In the said notification, under the heading, 'Elected under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3', for the serial No. 14 and the entries relating thereto the following serial number and entries shall be substi- tuted, namely :—

S.O. 83.—Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause (c) of .sub-section (1) of Section • 3 of tine Indian Medical Council Act, 1056 (102 of ] 956) ha!> conducted the diction from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency of Gujarat where- from Dr. Hareshkumar PUrusottamdas Bhalodiya, 20, Professor's Quarters, New Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad has been elected on 4-11-2000 to be a member of the Medical Council of India with effect from 4th November, 2000.

"14. Dr. Hareshkumar Purusottamdas Bhalodiya, 20, Professor's Quarters, New Civil Hospi- M Campus, Asairwa, Ahmedabad-380016 (Gujarat).

[No. V-llO13/ll/99-ME(UG)] Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Acf, the Cen- tral Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notificafion of the Government of

P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

20.1

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 09th January, 2001

S.O. 84 ,-- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (tviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of Notification of the Government ol India in the Ministry of Civil Aviation S.O. No. 739 dated 15th February, 1999, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (A ) of the Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powejs conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the limits of their respective jurisdiction tn respect of the public premises specified in column (B) of the said Table.

TABLE

Categories of public premises

Designation of the officer

(A)

(B)

1. Assistant General Manager (Personnel/ Administration), Air India Limited, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi.

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited in tho States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pntdcsh, National Capital Territory pf Delhi and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

2. Assistant General Manager- Eastern India

Air Tndia Limited, Calcutta.

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited in the States of Assam, Bihar, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Sikkim, Tripura, West Bengal and the Union Territory of ilie Andaman and Nicobar.

59 Gl/2001—2 2Q4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PAKI If—SEC. 3(ii)] A

B

Asswtant General Manager (Personnel/ All premises belonging to or taken on leawj by or on W " tf of Air 3.

Administration), Air India Limited, Chennai. India Limited in the Status of Andhra PraiJi^h. Karniitaka,

Kerala, Tamilnada, and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.

AH Non-residential premises belonging to or taken on laease by Senior Manager (Personnel/Administration),

4.

or on behalf of Air Fndia Limited throughout India except those Air India Limited, Headquarters, Mumbai.

mentioned at serial numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Residential premises at Air India First Mousing Colony Kelinri , Senior Manager (Personnel/Administration),

5.

Santa Cruz, Mu.nib.ii.

India Limited, Old Aiipoit, Mumbai.

All residential premises belonging to or taki-n ir on Assistant Genuvl M-JIV^LT (Pivsonni'l,

6.

behalf of Air India Limited thioughout lndi:i . w\pt IIIOSJB Adniinisua.ion) Air India L united , Old

mentioned at serial numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Airport. Mum bid.

[F.NO.AV.IH05O/02/97-A]

K.S. PAMWAR, Undei Suy.

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001 MINISTRY OF TOURISM & CULTURE

S.O. 8ft —In pursuance of Sub-nil. (4) of the (Department of Culture.)

Rule 10 of rihe Official Language (use for official pur-

pose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Ceatral Govern- New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

ment hereby notifies the following offices/sections of

Archaeological Survey of India under the Ministry

of Tourism & Culfurc, Department of Culture, more

than 80% staff of wihich has acquired \ 'orking know-

ledge of Hindi :—•

Office erf the Dy. Superintending Archacologisr, S.O. S S . ^ In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official pur- pose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Govern- ment hereby notifies the following office under the Minisfry of Tourism & Cultur.r, Department of Cul- ture, more than 80% staff of which has acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—

Archaeological Survey of India, Mini Khudabaksh Oriental Public Library, Patna.

Circle, P-.uiji (Goa).

{No. F. 1-2/99-Hindi}

TNo. F. l-2/99-Hindi] JAI PRAKASH KARDAM, fry. D o c t or (Ol.)

JAI PRAKASH KARDAM, Dv. Dipxtor (OL) 205 ? ' ; ( M 2 0 (i 1 2 06

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • J A N U A RY 2 0. 2 ( M ) l / P A U S HA 3 0, 1 9 22

[ P A RT I I — S f i c. 3 ( i i )1 207

Ministry of Coal

New Delhi, llic lOlh J.iniiiirv. 2001

s. O. K7.~ whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Govt. hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein,

The plan bearing No.MCUSAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Kaniha-ll(Neelachal)/00/ 17 dated 26 04.2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (CP&P), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, 208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 200lfPAUSHA 30, 1922 [PART II—SEC 3 (ii)) Sambalpur - 788018 (Orissa) or at the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Angui, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the officer-in-charge/Head of the Department (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) within 90 days from the date of the publication of this notification in the official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

KANIHA-II (NEEUCHAL) BLOCK

TALCHER COALFIELD

DISTRICT ANQUL (ORISSA)

ALL RIGHTS

209 Q.-tf- l he line starts trom point A which is the tnjunction point ot villages Kapudia, Balipata and Bhana Reserve Forest. From here it proceeds towards east along the northern boundary of villages Balipata and Badahira. Then after crossing Bankhol Nala through village Masunihata and along the northern boundary of village Balarampur and Kaniha upto point B\

C-P-E-f-fi After point T.' the line proceeds towards noth-west along the northern boundary of village Kaniha upto point ' C. From here it moves towards south along the eastern boundary of village Kaniha and then after crossing the road through village Kaniha towards west and touches the common boundary of village Kaniha and Kansamunda at point 'D. Then it moves towards south through village Kansamunda and touches the common boundary of villages Kansamunda and Jaipur at point 'E'. From here it moves towards south through village Adaitprasad and Jamania upto point 'F", which is the trijunction point of villages Jamania, Gundurinali and Jarada From here the line moves towards south along the eastern boundary of village Gundurinali upto point

G-H From point 'G' the line moves towards west through village Gundurinali, Gailanda Saradhapur, Saradhapur Reserve Forest and Badagunduri to meet western boundary of this village at point H\

H-A From point 'H' the line proceeds towards north along the western boundary of villages Badagunduri and Luhamara upto Bankoi nala, This route is also the eastern boundary of Bankoi nala. Then it crosses the Bankoi nala in the north of village Luhamara and proceeds towards north along the western boundary of villages Koilanpur and Balipata and meets at the starting point' A.

|No, 43015/5/2000 PR1W|

SANJAY BAHADUR. Dy. Secy.

210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 20 2(M)l/pAUSHA30 1922 [PART II—SEC 3 (H\\

ail

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2001

s. o. H8.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan bearing No.MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Konark/00/16 dated the 26lh April 2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (CP&P), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, 212 i HE UAZCITE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 20O1JPAUSHA30. 1922 (PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) or at the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the officer-in-charge and Head of the Department (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur- 768018 (Orissa) within ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

Schedule

KONARK BLOCK

TALCHER COALFIELD

DISTRICT ANGUL (ORISSA)

AI| nants

(Plan bearing NO.MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Konark /00/16 dated the 26lh April 2000)

' , -?

Boundary Deacriodon

A~B.-C ' The line starts from point A\ on the northern boundary line of village Baghabaspur on the eastern bank of Singda river. It proceeds towards east along the northern boundary of village Baghabaspur. Soldo, Khajuria. Saranga and Kishorechandrapur upto point *B\ From here it moves towards east through village Jaragadia upto point *C.

C-D-E From point C it moves towards south through village Joragadia and touches the eastern boundary line of village Kishorechandrapur at point "D". From point "D" it moves towards south along the eastern boundary of village Kishorechandrapur upto point 'E*.

E-F-G-H-I From point E' the line moves towards west along the southern boundary of villages Kishorechandrapur and Saranga upto point ' F\ Then It proceeds towards south along the eastern boundary of village Prasananagar upto point 'G. Then it moves towards west through villagesPrasananagar, Solda and Birabarpur upto point 'H. Then it moves towards south and west along the eastern and southern boundary of village Khuringa. Then it proceeds towards north-west through Gopalprasad Reserve Forest and along the western boundary of village Gopalprasad Khamar upto the eastern bank of Singda river at point T. I-A The line proceeds towards north along the western boundary of village Gopalprasad Khamar. Banabaspur and Raghabaspur which is the eastern bank of Singda river and meets at starting point 'A*.

No. 43015/9/2000 PRIW1 SANJAY BAHADUR. Dy. Secy *'U.I 2IK) 1 2ft THB GAZETTE OF1NDIA JANUARY 20, 20OtfrAUSHA 30l, \92t \$AKr\l^$vS, i"ftlj| New Delhi, the 12lh January. 2001

s. o. K'J.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing No.MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Padma/00/14 dated 26.04.2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (CP&P), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) or at the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, .1, Council House Street, Calcutta, 216 THE GAZETTE OF INDiA : JANUARY 20. 200l/PAUSHA 30, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (11)] All persons interested In the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the officer-in-charge/Head of the Department (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) within ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the official Gazette.

Schedule

Padma Block

Talcher Coalfield

District Angul (Orissa)

All rights

(Plan bearing NO.MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Padma/00/14 dated 26.04.2000)

pyiindary Description

A-B-C- The line starts from point 'A' in Village-Nakeipasi and then proceeds towards north in the same village and meets the common boundary of village Joraggadia and Nakeipasi at point 'B' which is the trijunction point of villages Nakeipasi, Saranga and Joragadia. Then moving towards north in village Joragadia it reaches point C\

C-D-E- F The line proceeds towards east along the southern bank of Bangaru Nala via village Joragadia and Kurihan upto point 'E'. Then the line proceeds towards east along the northern boundary of village Rakas upto point ' F\

F-C-H-f The line moves towards east along the northern boundary of village Brundabanpur upto point 'G¹ Then it proceeds along the eastern boundary of village Brundabanpur upto point H' and thereafter moves along the eastern boundary of village Rakas upto point T.

21?

I-J-K-A The line proceeds towards west through village Rakas and after crossing the common boundary of villages Rakas and Padmabatipur at point T it continues to move towards west through village Padmabatipur and crossing the common boundary of villages Padmabatipur and Nakeipasi at point 'K\ meets at starting point 'A' in village Nakeipasi.

No. 43015/11/2000 PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

2** THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSHA 30, 1922 DWr U—&k 3 flitf ,-^i

New Delhi, Hie 15th January. 2001

S. O. 'JO.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal.Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Govt. hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan bearing No.MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/GOPALPRASAD(West)/00/13 dated 26th April, 2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (CP&P); Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) or at the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta.

All persons interested in the land,covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the officer-in-charge/Head of the Department (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) within 90 days from the date of the publication of this notification in the official Gazette.

220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20.200 l/PAUSHA 30. K>22 (PART II—SEC. 3 (11)]

Schedule

Gopalprasad West Block

Talcher Calfleld

District Angul (Orissa)

AH rights

(Plan bearing NO.MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP",P)/Gpd.West/00/13 dated 26.04.2000)

Boundary Description

A-B-C - The line starts from point *A' in Village-Kuniunda at the northern bank of Smgida River, then proceeds towards south after crossing the singida River and along the western boundary of the branch of the said river upto point B' where it crosses the branch river in village Bhalugadia Then it proceeds towards south along the eastern boundary of village-Bhalugadia and along the common boundary of Nuamuhin and Jarapada Reserve Forests upto point *C\

C-D-E- The line proceeds towards west through Jarapada Reserve Forest upto point "D". Then it proceeds along the southern boundary of village Balichandrapur upto point ' E\ which is the trijunction point of villages Balichandrapur Kankarei and Durgapur Reserve Forest.

E-F-G The line proceeds towards north along the western boundary of villages Kankarei and Kaunsidhipa and western and northern boundary of village Chhotberini upto point 'G" at the western bank of Singada river.

G-H-A The line proceeds towards south along the western bank of Singida river upto point H' and then proceeds towards east by crossing Singada river and through Jaypur Reserve Forest and village Kumunda and meets at starting point "A".

No. 43015/10/2000 PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR. Dy. Secy.

*J.J . • > '! i ;i _ i ] (i 4 222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 200l/PAUSHA 36. 1922 [PART II-^SEC. 3 (li)J

New Delhi, llic \G\h Jmiuiirv, 2001

S. (). 91.— Whereas it appears lo the Central Government that coal >s likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed.

Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and De\elopment) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan No MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Dulunga/00/20, dated the 28* April. 2000 of the area covered b\ this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (Coal Pro)ect & Planning), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. Jagnti Vihar, Burla. Sambalpur - 7680IS (Onssa) or al the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh, Orissa or al the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street. Calcutta-

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and oilier documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the onicer-in-charge and Head of the Department (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. Jagnti Vihar . Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Onssa) within ninety da\s from the date of the publication of this notification in the Official Ga/elte 223

Schedule Dulunga Block Ib Valley Extn. Coalfield District Sundergarh (Orlssa)

All right* (Plan bearing NO.MCL7SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Dulunga/00/20 dated the 28¹¹¹ April. 2000)

A-B-C :- The line starts from point 'A¹, which is the trijunction point of villages Dulinga, Sharabana and Kalaqmegha. It proceeds towards south along the common boundary of villages Dulinga and Kalamegha, Satpariia R.F. and Kalamegha, Satparlia R.F. and Khapurikachhara, Majhapara & Khapurikachhara, Khuntijhura and Khapurikachhara, Giripahar Reserve Forest & Khapurikachhara, and Giripahar Reserve forest & Kalamegha No 43015/6/2000 PRIW| SANJAYBAHADUR. Dy Secy.

224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 20 2(M)l/PAUSHA 10. 1922 IPuull—Sa 1 (n)| 225

New Delhi, the 16th January. 2001

s. o. in Whereas by a notification of the Government of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S O. 2247 dated 12th October,2000 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Piplines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Art), the Central Goverment declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedules annexed to that notifications for the purpose of laying pipelines for transport of Natural Gas in the State of Gujrat from Chanchvel - Vagra to GAIL - LPG Plant Roza - Tankaria - Amod, District Bharuch by the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited ;

And whereas, copies of said Gazette Notification were made available to the public from 6th November, 2000;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Art submitted his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said lands specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20. 2<)<>llPAUSHA 30, 1922 [PART II—SW. 3 (ii)l

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6, of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government vests on this date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, Dahej, District Bharuch.

SCHEDULE

DIST: BHARUCH STATE : GUJARAT

Area

lNo.F-14014/ll/yyGP(Vpl I1I)| S.K.SINGH. Under Scc>.

*m

New Delhi the 18th Jamiarv 2001

s. o. 93.— In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorises the person mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act, in respect of the area mentioned in column (2) of the said Schedule:

Schedule

Area of jurisdiction

Name and address of the authority

(2)

(1)

State of Rajasthan

Shri Sunil Sharrna, Rajasthan Administrative Service, on deputation to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division) 33, Muktanand Nagar, Near Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur, Raiasthan-382150

[NO.-31015/50/2000ORI] S CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

$0i f^^m^tx0^iK-jMi^^^mr^Aii,m,r,,^ ....... simwtV&W

New Delhi, the ISlh Jnnu;ir> 2001

s. o. <)4.— In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorises the person mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act, in respect of the area mentioned in column (2) of the said Schedule:

Schedule

Name and address of the authority

Area of jurisdiction (2)

.. . _1!L_

State of Haryana

Shri J.K. Ahuja, Tehsildar, State of Haryana, on deputation to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division) KothiNo.1439, Sector-15, Urban Estate, Snnpnat 111001

I NO - J H) 13/3 //ZUUU UK 11

S CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Sec>.

229

employment from 6-1-82 to 13-6-91 is just proper and legal ? If not, to what relief is, the workman entitled to ?"

MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2001

SO. 95.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihe Iiulustiiul D i l u te Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heicby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chtfiniui as shown in t.'ic Anncxiue in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of fj'juihoiii Railway, Madras and their -workman, which was received by the Cential Government On 2-1-2001.

[No. L-41O12/222/95-IR(BI)l

AJAY KUMAK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

HI FOR!- THI. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAI, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI

J'KLSENT:

Monday, the 27th day of November, 2000

Thinr S. R. Singhmavclu, B Sc. B.L., Industrial Tribunal.

Industiiul Dispute No. 5 of 1997

(In the niaUcr of the dispute for adjudication under Sec- lion 1fl(J)(d) of the InduUml Disputes Act, 1947 between the W(i(:man and the Management of Chi't Peisonnel Ofh- cer, Southern Railway, Chcnnai.)

BLTWEliN

Shii R. Moiian, 37, 10th Street, Avedj. Madras fi00071.

AND

The Thief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madras.

230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY TO, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PART II—SLC. 3(ii)| Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act hos not been followed. Aggrieved by the above award, the Railway Ad- ministration filed O.A. 678/89 before Madras Bench of the Centra] Administrative ltibunul- In the Judgement dated 27-11-89 from the Central Adminittiative Tribunal, Madras it was held that substitute Bungalow Lascar is vvoikman and therefore before tciminating the services the conditions men- tioned in Section 25F of l.D. Act had to be followed. In compliance with the judgement dated 16-9-92 from the Cen- tral Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 424/91 filed by him, he was later on paid back wages for the period from 12-9-83 to 9-6-91 also, His services were terminated fiom 13-6-91 as per the terms of his appointment after complying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act on payment of retrenchment compensation and notice period wages. The claim of the petitionei that his termination of services fiom 13-6-91 was against constitu- tional provisions was held as without merit as per the judge- ment dated 15-7-93 and 28-2-94 in O.A. No. 459/t>2 and R.A. No. 88/93. In the eiicumstances it is submitted that there is no merit in the Claim of the petitions for lertnung the ca.se for Arbitrations or further investigation in the mattci. The petitioner prays to dismiss the above petition.

4. On behalf of petitioner/workman, Fxs. Wl to W7 were marked by consent. On behalf of respondent, Exs, Ml to M4 were marked¹ by consent. No witnesses were examin- ed for both sides.

5. The Point for consideration is; Whether the action of the management of the Southern Railway, Madras in the services Of Sri R. Mohan an ex-peon while he was in con- tinuous employment from 6-1-82 to 13-6-91 is just proper and legal ? If not. to what relief is the workman entitled to?

protects- any workman who worked continuously foi not less than one year under any employer shall not be retrenched without following the conditions mentioned therein.

Point 1 : For these jeasons, the termination of the petitioner is not legal and not justified and this point is found in favour of the petitioner.

Point 2 ; In view of the finding in Point No. 1 the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and the respondent is directed to reinstate him without any back wages but with continuity of service and other attendant benefits."

8. Thus there was an award in favour of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service; but it was with- out any backwages. Aggrieved over the same, the management preferred O.A. No. 678/89 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the award passed therein was marked as E\, M2, wherein the following was held :

"The first respondent was appointed on 6-1-1982 by the Assistant Personnel Officer as a substitute .Bungalow Lascar to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, The said officer retired on 31-1-1982 and the R. 1 continued to work. According to the applicants, R. 1 was permitted to work till 12-9-1983, when the applicants realised that R. l's services should have been terminated and terminated the service, of the applicant with effect from 31-1-82, as per the leirns of appointment. The Respondent No, 1 on receipt of the termination order approached the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal consideicd the question and held that the order of termination would be a retrenchment since the conditions mentioned in 25(F) was not followed, and allowed the application.

This Bench had held in O.A. 32/89, that the applicant theiein, who is similarly placed as Respondent No. I in this case, namely Bungalow Lascar will be a 'workman' and therefore before terminating him, the conditions mentioned in Src. 25F of Act had to be followed. One additional fact that hod to be noticed is in the oiiler of the Industrial Tribunal it is mentioned that there was no dispute by the railways about the status of the applicant as a 'workman*.

231

Ex. W2 10-6-91 Older of re-lnstatement Issued to the plunci; with the Award in I.D. No. 117/87 us confirmed by the Central Admimsti alive Tribunal in O A. 678/89.

petitioner,

Ex. W3 13-6-91 Termination order Issued lo the

petitioner.

Ex, W4 18-4-94 Copy of the 2A petition filed by the

petitioner.

Ex W5 18-4-94 Remarks of the respondent, before the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex. W6 21-11-94 Rejoinder filed by the petitioner.

12. It was on 13-6-91 within 3 days, after hi3 reinstatement the petitionci was again terminated. This lime they have givm ihe compensation amount as determined in Seition ?5F DI the Industrial Dispute Act. The copy of tci munition order was maiked as hx. \V3 Ex. W4 was the leprescnttition nndc by [he pctilioiiei, on which a paiawise comment was mad" by the respondent through Ex, W5. There was a failme leport of Conciliation thuuigh Hx. W7 and the matter was lifened hcic.

E\ W7 14-8-95 Failure report.

Management/Respondent:

I-x Ml Award in I.D. No. 117/87.

Ex. M2 CAT Judgement in OA. No. 678/89.

hx. M3 CAT Judgement in O.A. No, 459/92.

Tx, M4 CAT Judgement in Review Petition No, 8S/93

in O.A. No. 459/92.

13. The Learned Counsel foi the Management now argued that tiue it was that the petitioner was appointed as a Lascai on 6-1-82; it was equally true that by inadveitance ol the management, his seivices was continued till teimmatcd on 12-9-83. The dispute was refcried to this Tnhimal which passed an award in I D. 117/87 mentioning that Section 251' was not complied with and so the termination dated 12-9-83 was illegal and that theiefore an Order of reinstatement with continuity oi service but without backwages was made. In Paia. 6 of the Reply statement, the management conceded that in OA No. 424/91 preferred hy the workm >n befote the Ccntiaj AdmiTiistiative Tribunal, backwages WHS oidered and accordingly the same was paid. Again O.A. No 459/92 preferred by the workman before the Central Administrative Tubunal on other respects was dismissed OTI the giouild of jurisdiction.

14 Therefore in compliance of an award passed in i D No 117/87 and above noted OA. No. 678/89, the workman was again reinstated on 10-6-91 through Ex. W2 order. This was also after payment of backwages. Subsequently, lie was tciminatcd on 13-6-91 thiough Fx. W3 older, of course afto complying with Section 25F of TD. Act

New Delhi, the 3id January, 2001

SO. 96.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Chennai as shown in thc Annexure m the Industrial Dispute between thc employers in relation to the management of Integral Coach Factory, Madias and their workman, which was teceivcd by tlie Cential Government on 2-1-2001.

[No. L-41012/5S/94-IR(B-I)i AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL

NADU, CHENNAI 15 Now the learned Counsel for the Wo'kinan aigueii by vhtue of Awaid passed in I.D. No 117/87 which W J, confirmed in O A. No 678/89 befoie the Central Admini^tia- tive Tribunal, the services of the woikman was continnoui from the dale of appointment 6-1-82 till he was reinstated on 10-6-91. Thus his services is of continuous period of 9-1/2 years During this period of 9-1/2 years, thpre would have bcon humpty number of Luscars appointed by the matryement If such person¹- ^ie b'ounht to litjht then it must be that last person should be fiist retienched Tn this connection, M.A. 202/99 was filed by the woiV.man which WTS resisted bv the management and there was a Speaking Order dated 11-4-7000 by this Tribunal wheicby the dcou- mei-t- wcic ordered to he produi-sd or 2b-*-20(i0 Hut those d icumenls havt" not been prodncrd It K idle for the itionace- ment now to contend that the documents aic not available There was no proceedings taken against the Older passed by Ihis Tribunal in M A. No. 202799. Therefore, we are constiained lo take adveisc inference that such documents arc available with the management and the non production of the same will go to show that similar other lasrars arc in service who were appointed later thun this pctitionci Natural justice rcquiies thai the last person appointed diall firsl be ictrenched. As this is not followed the lamination is ilkgnl and motivated Theiefore, th- Older of Termi- nation is held as invalid and is set aside.

Wednesday, the 29(h day of November, 2000

PRESENT:

Thnu S. R. Singhaiavelu, B Sc, B L, Industiial Tribunal, 16 Tn the result, the Older of reinstatement is ordered in favour of the petitioner with backwages continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Award passed accordingly. No costs.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 118 of 1997 Dated nl Ch*nnai, this 27th day of November, 2000

S R. SIGHARAVELU, Indtuitial Tribun il

(In thc mattci of the dispute foi adjudication under Section 10(1 )(d) of the Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 between the WivVman and the Management of Integral Coach Factory Madias-38)

I.D. No 5/1997

BETWEEN

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Foi Petitioner/Workman : None

For Respondent/Management: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Shri Rnghavel, Dr Ambedkar Slreet, MaUnallathur village and Post, Tiruvellore Taluk, Cengai M.G.R. District-602004.

Petilionci/Workman : I

AND

I.x. Wl 19-9-8^ Termination oulei issued to the

Thc Management of hitcpi.il Coach Factory, MaJr.is-600038

petitioner 2 32 • T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : J A N U A RY 2 0, 2 0 0 1 / P A U SA 3 0, 1 9 22

REFERENCE:

Older No. L-4L012|58|94-1RBI DL 3u-t> 95, Ministry of .Lauuur, uovi. ol luaiu. New Delhi.

ims umpute coining on iui iinm Hearing on Monday, tne i /m u.iy Tol ivoVemoei, Z U W, u r on i^-iusi.jg me ieie,eiii_c, V-iuUii u n ti L O m i L oi oiitifc,in,ULi u i iu mi m i n i' iiiiiL^iitii, iM|n,i'< • ) ii u L u iu e t i iu U ( J UU u u m i ig i nc j i g u u i i - mj 01 i \ ., O. j im 1- paianiujiiiuii uiia V. /ijoy tvno^t, /-uivuut-es appearing 101 uic yvoiKiiuiii uiiu -or iiiiiu V.3.K, rl..iiiniauu, jtvuKa, / \ u v o- Cuie ripjji-uuug ioi tne raunagt.ineiu unii LHI.S uispuie Having stooa ovei uu inis any JOI t,uu->iui,raiioii, IJJIS 1i10m1.il m.ido iiie lOiluwing

AWARD

ihe Govt. ol India nas r n u i ed tin. following 1 ,suc £01 aujuuicaiioii oy iMs inburui ;

"vvneiner we uuion 01 the imuidgemciit QL Integi.il c o a cn jracioiy, IULKUUS 111 uisiiii^uig uu. bcivices 01 bll 1V1. KuJjuVOl, Oil BX-KUUl

2. 1 he mam averments lomid in the I IJJIQ statement of the peuiiunei ui>; Hi toilOWs ;

Ine peiiuonei joined m the scrvn.es ot the nitegial Cvuc.i t-ULiufy on n-L-rj as iviiamsi. i-ater tie waj piunujtcd us Kiiauisi neipei, JUiie LL IUI unless ne was ITXA auie to pieseni HilcimniLi.iiy between -1-MJ-o/ to /u-li od 101" ii^i Uiiys. inc Assu. woitiS iviujiaijci muei.1 a Liiiiige iviLina Uutetl 5-/-bd ajicging mai Jie Wcib umiuihoi iwaiy no^eut ior 11/ days beLWeen 4-iU-S/ to Z6-j-en. biiice nis uiiiLbs sot aggravaitJ his (_ousin brotner at K.ani.hipuruiii took mm lo 111s house. He tooK iitaimcnL irom u o a or i\ i^ofiandtnun, Oovcrniiient Hos- pital. Karicnipui'uoi in between 2/-7-B8 to, ltt-/-by, Atier u^iinont at Kanclupuram ho joined dmy. Having pcimiitcii him 10 join duty, the management should have oldered lor another enquiry afresh setting asido the eaihei enquny, said to have Dcen conducted against him. I he Worlo Manager dismissed him lrom service by uu order duteu 2y-ll-89. Ine Works LViauager is the disciplmaiy lUithoniy. But the Asst. Works Manager issued the Cnarge Memo initialing tho disci- plinary .1C110P, who has no jun^Uiction. Betoro passing the dis- missal Older, the findings of tho enquiry officer was noi given to him. The Dcpuiy Chief Mechanical Engineer rejected his appeal by an order dated 5-4-90. Eui thtr by their original mistake the petitioner was denied opporLijiiity to file revision to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, since he was stated to have been the appellate autlvoi ity originally and llie pelitionei was not put on notice about his lighi to revision and the authority for revision. rlhe Depu.y Chief Mecbiinicul Engineer Is not art appellate authoiity. Therefore ho has no jurisdiction li> dispose of his appeal. As per the Board's letter dated 10-11-89 which wns admittedly received by the respondent on 15-11-91, much pi ior to (he date of dismissal. Lhe respondent tiusht to have issued second show cause notice end ;JSJ furnished the enqu!;-][ proceedings and findings of the enquiry officer, gi\ ing the petitioner opportunity (O explain on ihi. findings and also on tlio proposed punishment. Without adhering this ruli% dismissing the petitioner straiclit invav b" an Order dated 29-11-91 without issuing second show cause notice nnd with- imt fnrn *.!'ii)g the findings is totally depymj; opportunity to tho prtftioiier and therefore illegal. The petitioner hclang to Scheduled Caste. He hails from ruMl ogri^ultiirnl coolie fanuly fin was the fiict person who got nnplovmcnt 'hat too in Crntnl Government Service. Hi* stuJii'd only upto 9th Std. He is the only brend winner of his fimilv. Hf has his u^ed mother, wife and 2 children. Inspite of "'aritiuj icpre|!''ntDlions and 'inptaK' to provide him on opportunity to rehahihlatc himself and his familv, he was denied the same. The pctlt:-~>ner prays to pass an award holding tint iho icmo\al is not justi- fied and direct tho respondent to icinstnfe th/ petitioner with continiiitv of service, back waic's "nd o'hrr fittenibnt benfflts.

3. The main averments found in the Counter Statement of the respondent are as follows :

Tho petitioner was appointed as f¹ Mali on a Pay Scalp of Rs 196-232 w e f. 17-2-1979, Ht v" is 'r.msfci nad as Khalasi on 28-4-1979 and later he wns protnoW -is Khalasi Helper from 26-11-84 till his removal on 1-J2-R9 The ncti- iioner t, a* n chron'c absentee and h.fd absented for a cumu- lative period of 1223 dav<: in his 10 years of service. Though

I P A KT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i j]

his reply cljimed to have pioduced private medical ceitiiicate, but 110 such ceitiiicates were enclosed or produced. Thereby an inquiry was oidcred by the Oisciphn.iry authority and an Inquiry Ollicer appointed 011 5-10-88. The Inquiry Order dated 5-to-bH and advices dated 2-S-89 and 20-6-89 hxing the Inquiiy on 3Or5-89 and 11-7-89 respectively were sent by rcgisieied post to the petitioners last known addicss given in his service reccuds boln the notices wen. leturned us 'not found', thereafter the inquiiy was proceeded with 'ex- paitc' on 11-7-89. Based on the inquiry report the Discipli- nary authority imposed the Older ot lemovnl from service' w.ij.f. 1-12-89. Further the contention that the Asst. Works Manager has no jurisdiction is not tenable, as the Officer who appointed the petitioner as Mali was an Assistant Officer and his transfer as Khnlasi was by Senior Scale Officer. T he Order of removal from seivicc was under tho signature of the Works Manager (Senior scale), who is the appointing authority. Further the averment that the inquiiy report was noL made available prior to the imposition of removal, the Apex Courts decision after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India, an Inquiry report to the delinquent prior lo penalty oider is not necessary. Tho penalty order issued under the signatuie of the Works Manager (Senior scale) had inadver- tantly showed that an Appeal shall Jay to Chief Workshop Engineer/Shell whereas the Appellate Au.horjty was the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer/Shell. Even though, the petitioner had addressed his apped to C WE/Shell, the appeal was considered by the appiopriutc authoiily i.e. the Dy. C ME/ Shell and orders passed, Similarly the Revision petition addressed to the CME Shell, was considered hy the Compe- tent authorty i.o. the CWK Shell an.l rightly disposed oil. The lespondent pravs thnt the termination of the petitioner who was engaged as a Mali in terms and conditions to his appoint- ment order is lcpol and the petitioner seeking for a direction for reinstatement with backwagos and continuity of service and all other consequent in] benefits anJ costs is not entitled foi the same.

-1. On behalf of petitioner, Ex. Wl t3 W19 were marked liy Loarent. On behalf of respondent, Ex. Ml to M22 series were maikcd by consent, No witnesses were examined for both sides.

5, Tho Point for consideration is : Whether the action of the miipapement of Integral Coach "Factory, Madias is dis- missing the seivices of Sri M. Ragavcl, an cx-Khalasi w.e f. 29-11-89 is just and legal? If not, to what relief, ia the work- man entitled to ?

b. The Point: The petitioner-Woikmun Mr M Ra^jvel was appointed as a Khalasi in the Integral Conch Fctory, Madras on 17-2-79, Later he was promoted an Khalasi helper, fiom 26-1 1T84 till his lemoval on. 1-12-89 for his unauthorised absence for 112 days between 4-10-87 to 26-5-88. A Charge memo was issued and the sum© with acknowledgement was marked as Ex. M2 (equivalent to I.x. Wl). His explanation for the Chaige memo was marked as Ex. Ml. On 5-10-8R theie was an Order to conduct enquiry and that order was marked as Ex, M4. The covering letter for departmental enquiry und the 1 etui red cover wcro respectively marked ps Px. M5 and M6. Another covering letter for Departmental enquiry with returned cover with A.D. forms were respectively marked as 1-k M7 and M8. Therefore, an expaitc enquiry was made and the report of which was marked as Ex. \T9 dated 24-7 89. There was a consequential order oi. teminaiion on 29-11 -84 and the same was marked as Ex. M10 (cquavalent to Ex. W2), It was served upon the petitioner through Ex. Ml] acknowledgement card. The same was affixed on Notice Board through Ex. M12. The nppi-al pieferred by the peti- tioner w?v also dismissed on 5-4-90 through Ex. M16 (equi- valent to Ex. W6).

7. At this stage, it is to be mentioned that according to the 1 epresentation of the petitioner through E^. M15 dated 8-2-90, he fell i'l at Knnchipuram in his biother's, house and he was takinff treatmentfor 'Polyneutitis and F.nterocolitis' from 27-7-88 to 18-7-89. Altough it was said that Medical certifi- cates were enclosed nothing was found actually enclosed. Thus the appeal was dismissed. Subsequent reprscntftlioiv, of peti- tioners through Ex. W8 to Chief Mechanical Rnpineer and to the Memhpr of Parliament through Ex. M* went futile Therefoie industrial dispute was raised through Ex Wl] anil "i the cniirili;i1ioin foiled, the refcicnfc was made to the Tiiluinal.

8. l i uc ii .a tlui ihe Domestic enqiiny was lieiJ 'expand. The mibconduct mitred was the pcotionu s unauthorised absence fur 112 days between 4-10-8/ ai.d zfi-5-Sf, lnc t-xpU- nutiou or tne petitioner v,as that Be was uUying ucatment at KiQclTijAHuni IOI JJIS illness Uuung thai pemd, ho lai no evidence showing his illness was producea. The fact tcmains tnat twice announcement of Ucpaitnieaul enquuy was s.rii to the petitumcr which wcie ictunxd uiidelivued' by postal authority, One sucii covering letter i>.~ llic m injgoinait win dated 2-:> n'j through h\. Mi and momer was dated 2lM)-ti* through Lt. JVI7, iioth were returned by postal amhoniy 'undciiveied'. ihcrLloie. theie Was evciy jusLhcation to proceed wnh the eaquny 'expat te'. it is unpoitaut to mention that under Ex, Mil Acknouledgcnujit card, lliu petitioner had received the Older of termination dMe ,19-11-89 maike as Ex. M10 ("W2). Evt:n flaw the netitionei has not pioucod any evidence to ihow thtt he vvas ill dm ing the period of absence.

9. At this juncture, an attt^npt was made un the pa it of the management, to describe the petitioner as a habitual and chronic absentee. In this connection, additional document through Ex. M22 was marked by consent whic'i would vividly bhow his leave for 1200 days between 17-2-79 to 1-12-89. During a decade, he was absent for 4 yt\us intermittently. He was thus shown an absentee for almost 40 per c-Tit of (he s'lid working days.

10. The Learned Counsel for the workman contended that past record of servjeve which w.is not produced during the domestic enquhy cannot be considered in this tn;iuiial. Tute it is that this allegation of chronic air enter was nor mt.de in the domestic eMiiiry, Had it been mentioned theie, an op- poitimity would have been given to the petitioner to diftvd himself which he is now fuck'ng. Wh itevrr it JS as pjo- vided in 1990 I I.LJ 29S we have to consider the negation of opportunity for petitionci for defendu¹;' liinr.Mf against the alleR^tioiii the allegation of chionic u* cnteKr". In similai circumstances, it w,u held in the above cited case as follows :

• !l in the Index to the Typed iet of Papeis of the petitioiiei. This makti the position cleai that the CircuKu- will not cover the Order of Terminal,^ as the Cneulai is. later in time than til. i of the Order ol tcimination.

15. The Learned Counsel for the VVoiknun tignui relied upon 1994 I LLJ p. lhi and aiyued that the non-supply of lupy ol biniuny Rcpoic befojc ovei ILe Discipiinary Autho- rity imposed puiinlimeni will make the pioceduie iiiegulai. Now VJJ nave to see what aUvuilly was obscivcd in 1994 I LLJ ibl. H was held as follows :

"lloth admmisliathc reality and public inieicsis do nut, therefore, require that the cidcis uf punishment passed prior to tlie decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case without furnishing the repeoertc of the liquny tJiucei should be drturlied and the diiCi- plitiiiiy pioceedings which gave rise lo the said ord- ers should be leopencd on that uicount.

. . The proposition of law thai flie tvvo richts were inacpendent of each othtr and in laot belonged to tv.o dilleient stages in the inquuy came into sharp fqcus only after the 42 Amendment of the Consti- tution which abolished the second stage oj (he inquiiy, viz., th© inquiry into thu nature of punish- ment. It was for the flist time Li Mohd, Ramzan Khan's case that the questiorj sqtiaiely fell for drci- sion before this- Court, Hen:? till November 20, 1090 i.e. the day on which Mohd. Ram/an khan's case was decided, the positron of 1 iu un (he subject was not stitled by this C'Juit. Jt i& for t!tc fiist time m Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case that this Court Jaid down the law. That decision made the law laid down there prospective in operation, I e., applicable to the ordei/of punishment passed after November 20, 1s>90. 'I he law laid dowo. was nnt applicable to the oiders of punishment passed before (hat dote not- withstanding the fact that the proceedings arising out of the same were pending in courts a Per that date. The said pioceedings had to he decided accord- ina to the law prevalent piioi to the- said date which did not lequiie the authority *.> supply a copy of the Inquiry Officci's report to the cnrploy:c. The only exception to this wis whete iK- sc-vJcc rules with repaid to thr disciplinaiv piocepilin^^ them- selves made it obligatory to 'iipp'y cipy of the leport ec by management.

2.34 THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : JANUARY 20, 2(M>1,PAUSA 30, 1922 [PAW JI—SLC. 3(ii)] concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. Jt amounts to an 'unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to jusitce ".

17 .Even in that case law, it was obwi ved that it should also be established as to what was the piejudice caused to the workman by the f"ihiie to supply the enquiiy lcport. In this case, is no prejudice was alleged to hti\e been caused to the woikman. In fact he remained cxpaitc throuhg the domestic cnquiiy. When he want only evaded the service of the enquiry date, thcie could be no grievance t

In the Jesuit, award passtd holding (hat the action of the management of Integial COLICII Facfoiy, Madras in dismiss- ing the services of Shri M. Ragavel, an cx-Khalasi wi<4i efFect from 29-11-89 is justified. No costs.

Cated at Chcnnai, this 29fh d-iy of November, 2000 S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal

T.D. No. 118/97

WITNFSSFS EXAMINED

For Petitions/Woikman : None.

Foi Rcspondent[M.inagcmont ; None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitionci|Woikmtm :

Fx, WW1 5-7-88 ' Memorandum sent to the pt'litionci by respondent.

Ex. W2 29-11-89 :Dismissal order issued to the petition- er by hanagetnent.

Ex. W3 14-12-89 : Circtilat issued by the management.

Ex. W4 ., : Mercy petition submitted before the GM/ICF by the petitions .

Ex. W5 8-2-90 : Representation --cm by the petitionci W the Chief Woikshop Engineer, l.C.F. Chennai Ex. W6 5-4-90 : Order passed in the Appeal, E\. W7 9-7-90 : Representation sent to Chief Woikshop Engineer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai.

Ex. W8 30-7-90 : Representation sent to Chief Mechani- cal Engineer by the petitioner.

Ex. W9 23-10-91 : T etter addressed by Sri Era. Anbaiasu, M.P. to the G.M. Integral Ci.ach Factory.

Ex. W10 Feb'92 Petitioner's leprcscnlation to Nilmal Kanle.

Ex. Wll 14-10-92: I.D. laiscd before Ihe Asst, Labour Commissioner by the petitioner.

Ex. W12 : 18-12-02 : Remarks filed by the respondent.

Fs. W13 31-3-93 ; Minutes of Conciliation proceedings.

Ex. W14 8-11-93 : Petitioner's letter to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour to refer the dispute foi adjudication.

Ex. W15 27-3.95 : Advocate notice srm to the Sccic- tary, Ministiy of T abour, Delhi.

Ex. W16 7-7-95 : Advocate notice sent to the Secretary, Ministiy of Labour. Delhi refiarding tr.Tinsfer of the case from BmiRaloic to Madias.

Ex. W17 24-6-94 : Advocate notice sent to Central Govt. Ministry of Labour.

Tt W18 27-8-S7 • Atlvocal? nnlice scnl to the Cc'ulnl Govt. TndusiriMl Ttibunal, Rann^lorc.

EK. Wl!> 8-9-97 ; Reference tran\fenrig the dispute iiom Bangaioie to Madras lor adjudication.

Documents for Management ;

Ex, Ml . . : Statement of Article^. Ex. M2 5-7-88 : Charge cheet ana Annexure with Acknowledgement,

Ex. |V|3 6-7-88 ; Explanation for Charge-memo.

E\. M t 5-10-89 : Order to conduct enquiry.

Ex. M5 2-5-89 : Coveiing leter for Depaitmental en- quiry.

E\. M6 .. : Returned cover.

Ex. M7 20-6-89 : Covering letter for Depaitmental en- quiry,

T"x. M8 .. : Returned cover wi'h A.D. Foims.

Ex. M9 .. : Enquiry report with Covering letter dated 24-7-89.

Ex, MI0 29-11-H9 : Dismissal order.

Ex. M il . . : Acknowledgement card.

E\. M12 29-11-89 ; Order affixed on Notice Boaid.

Ex. M13 .. : Certificate of Fitness.

Ex. M14 27-7-88 : Medical certificate for leave.

Ex, MI5 8-2-90 : Representation by petitioner.

F.\. M16 5-4-90 : Disposal of Appeal order.

Ex, M17 .. : Acknowledgement Card.

Ex. M1S .. : Mercy appeal by petitioner.

Ex, M19 2-7-90 : Disposal of appeal|order.

Ex. M20 27-7-90 : Order of tcmovavl from service with acknowledgement.

Ex, M2l 30-7 90 : RepresenLntioi-i fiom petitioner.

Ex. 1V122 senes. 21-6-79 : Petitioner of scrvicve upto 27-7-90,

New Delhi, the 3id lanutuy, 2001 IJ.O. 97.—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, Chennm as shown in the Annexiuc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Standard¹ Charteied Bank, Chcnnai and their workman, which was icceived by tho Central Government on 2-1-2001.

[No. L-120ll/l8/99-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURH

BFFOR1"' THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHBNNAM04

Monday, the 27th day of November, 2000 PRF.SFNT:

Tliim R. R. Sinvhai.ivclu, I! sk:.B L., fndnstii.il Tnbuniil.

Iniiustri'il Dispute No. 191 of 1999 ^

in i elation to the management of State Bank of Indoie and their woikman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 3-1 20DI.

[Iii the nialter o[ the dispute for adjudication under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the InduMnal Disputes Act, 1947 between the Wuikmen and Ihe Management of Standard ChmU'ed Bank, Madias,]

[No, L-12012/737/B7-D-II-A] B1TWEEN

AJAV KUMAR, Desk Officei The woikmen represented bv :

ANNbXTJRE

Bl FORE THE CENTRAL GOVFRNMCNT INDUSTRIAL IRUHINAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (MP)

Case No. CGITA C/R/69/SK The Gencial Secretary, AM India Standard Chnrleied Bai'k Fmployees Federation, 58, Agmenian Street, Chcnnai-600001.

AND

Piesiding Officer : Shri k. M. Rai. Sliri Anil Ku. Jain and Shii Surendra Sinyh Rathore. ..Applicants.

Veisua

The Managing Director, St.ind.ard Chained Bank. 58, Armenian Street, Cheiuiai-600001

Slate Bank of Indoie, Ehopal.

. .Non-applicant.

REFERL NCE :

AWARD

Dehvcied on tliis 1st day of December, 2000 Older No. L-J20JI /18/99/IR(B-I) dated 16-8-1999, Ministry of Labour. Government of India, New Delhi.

1. The Government of Tndia. Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-I2012/737/87-D.lt(A) dated 13-7-88 has lefer- red the following dispute for adjudication by this Uibunal—

This dispute coming on this day foi final disposal in the picsence of Tvl. S. Uamasubramanirm and Aslo.utes, advo- cates appearing for the Management, upon perusing the re- ff"ience and oliier connected papers on recoid and the Wotk- men beinij absent, this Tiibunal passed¹ the following:

AWARD

This Goveinment of TndM has referred the following issue

for adjudication by this Tribunal:

:2(> rJITL GX/J i r r. OF INDIA : JANUARY JO, ;!001/TAUSA 30, 19.72 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] HIM I'jWRegior'al Reciuitment Bo nils which ndvcitise the PUMS in all leading newspapers. The cmdidates are lcquiru] U> fiicc v.iitien test and intcivl;:v\. Those candidate¹, who are dc-lared succes iul on (.lie basis ot their standing in the meiit ZT\' oll'eied permanent employment in the bank. The woik mm uevci availed iif tlie oppoiiunity ior appeal m^ in the tiet etc.

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001 5. rlhe Rank tin MILT alleges that the workmen wcic ncvfi relii'nch'.'it. 1 hen temporary appointment automatically u mt to un end alter the expiry of the period The vmik m-n h.t-.e been kept oiit'u'e the .,copc of benefits of th" awards in terra> of para \h-Q ot lJesai Award whLh reads as mid-'I :

S.O. 99.^ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industiia! JJispute Act, 1947 U4 of JlJ47), thto Centrnl Government hereby publishes the award of the Central G6vernmeni Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in ths Atinexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer; in relation to the management of Central Railway, Ajni. Nagpur and their workman, which was received by the Ccntial Goveinment on 3-1-2001.

[No. L-41O12/43/92-lRDU(B-l)] 4. The applicant further alleges that he sent his willingness on 31-1-90 which was acknowledged by the management on 8-2-90. Inspite of several reminders he was not considered f"r employment by the management. Shii Bhagirath, Shri Rahul, Shri Naiesh, Shri Gangadhar, Shri Gvncjhwar Shii Madhav Natlm and Shri Harprasad, who wi:rc inniois to applicant, weic given regular employment bv the manaee- mcut and the applicant was never considered lor the same. He had continuously woiked for moie than 240 days. Without giving any prior notice he was retrenched by the management in violation of Section 25-F of the l.D. Act. 1947. Hence he is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

5. The case for the management is that the applicant was appointed as casual labour on daily wages on 19-3-85 and worked¹ upto 25-9-85. Thereafter he left the services at his own sweet will. The applicant w;i- again re-employed on 20-11-85 and worked upto 5-11-86. Thereafter again he left his services on his own will. Initially the workman was employed as casual labour on 1-5-73 under P\V'I(M) Dhanungaon and worked in broken period upto 18-12-77 and he was never in seivice w.e.f. 18-12-77 to 2-12-84. The applicant left (he service on his own will is he was not regularly engaged in the employment of the Railway. He has not continuously worked for more than 240 days, He is therefore, nol entitled to any claim as alleged in the statement of claim.

6. The following points are arising for determination hi the present dispute—

1. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential monetary benefits'?

2. Relief and costs 7

7. Point No. 1 : The workman has contend'd that his services were terminated by the Central Railway wilhout complying with the provisions of Section 25-F cf (he Indusrtinl Dispute Act 1947. According to him he had continuously woiked for more than 240 days in the preceding year prior lo termination of his services by the Railway. He has filed the reco.d of his service Exhibit Wl in suoport of his contention. This record shows that he was employed as casual labour by the Central Railway on 3-5-73. He worked in this capacity till 18-12-77. Thereafter he left this lob on his own will. Again after the lapse of about 7 years, he was employed as casual labour on 3-11-84 and worked till 26-9-85. Again ho left the iob on his own sweet will. Thereartcr again he woiked as casual labour w.e.f. 20-11-85 to 6-2-86, This service card clearly shows that the workman never continued tci woik w.e.f. 7-2-86 According to tvm no orclc of termi- nation from service was issued to him by the Central Railway In the abijnrc of termination order it is Tiot possible to hold that the mnnnucnr'nt had terminated the services of the woikmnn w r.f. 7-2-86. On the contrary the service record Ex. W-T indicates that the workman had himself left fhe job on his own sweet will. In view of this fact the contention of (he workman that the management had terminated his seivVcs does not pet any snnnort from i^r rrol o>- do^'iTien- t.iry evidence adduced bv him. He himself hfiil voluntarily left the iob accordinR to his own convenience. If ths manaec- nvnt hud not terminated the services of the wo^mnn then the ai'c.t;on of complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I D. Act does not arise at Ml.

37 9. In view of the foregoing discussions it becomes absolutely clear that the workman was never terminated by the Railway. On the contrary, it is proved beyond doubt that the workman had himself left the job on his own .sweet will. He ;s llit'icf'Mc, not entitled to leinsuitement with an monetary bwiehts, Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

10. Point No. 2 : In view of my finding Riven on point No 1 the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

11. On the reasons stated above, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement with monetary benefits. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management a?id against the workman.

12. Copy of award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2001

SO. 100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 fl4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, New Delhi, as shown in the /uinexuie in the Industrial Depute between the em- ployns in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government CM 2-1-2001.

[No. L-42012/92/97-IRfDU)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer 50 Gl/i001--7 238 T HE G A / . L T IT (>V I N I ^A . J A N U A RY :(•„ '.'OQI/PAUSA 30, 1

the tmployci J in relation to the nrmagemont cr Regional SeiiculturM Resenrdi Station and their woikniuii, ulrch VMS I "-CLIM-J. by ihi' rential (.I(,vinment on 2-1-2001.

[No. L-42011/43/99-IR(DUJ] N. l\ KCSAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNFXURE

IN mi tNDTlsTRIAL TRIBT1NM-, GUWAHATT, ASSAM Rere,en~e No. 14(C) of 1949

PVESINT;

Shi; K. Surma, T.T..B.. Ti eliding Offii-fr, Industrial Tiibunal, Guwahati.

In the m itter of an Industrial Dispute between :

T'ne Joint Diiector, Repional Sniciii'imil Research Station, C'cntial Silk Board, Jorhat.

Vt,,

Thcii workman Shri Biswanatli Miira and S'ni Plinnidhar

SaikiJ

"Whether the demand of the CTWD Mazdoor Union as contained in the charier ot Dermnds (Anueune 'A') is tergal and jmtiRod' if not to wlnt lehct iho concerned workman i-, entitled?"

Dak' of Awaid: 4-11-2000.

AWARD

Tlit; Government o£ India, Ministry of Labour, vide Order No T -i;fll/43/99/IK(!Dli) dated 26-1'0-S9 has made this left, nee to this Irihuml to tidiuflioate the dispn'e arising bpti"c*cn \hc M.innficment of Refnoiml Sciicultural Research St iiion, C'cnlral .Silk Hoard Joihat and their woikmen. Shi'i B i w i ^ th Miirn find Shii Phanidhar Saiki-i out of alleccd termination of their 'eivicc as Muster Roll workers on the ground of irret>ul-ir ,'itiendance. The referring authority has fi mid the followiiiR i<"ive for Hdjndicition of the m;;tlci oi conrroversy between the parties:

"Wbcthci the ac'fon of the manaccment o£ Regional S

Dispute " c r f t ^ o TS "947?^" '/ <* the ' ^ t n al

hereby publishes the " J aS o f , hc . £ u s^ T' ^ ^ " " " e nt as shown in the Annexurc ,.„ tH £ S^'be^l

239

In the yt.u I9B5, he was picsent for a total period Of j / hi d.ys in 198b, 1/4-1/2 days, in 1987 loi 138-1/2 tliys, and l^bd toi HB-1/2 da>s, m iys9 tot 72-1/2 days, in lUill) foi 131 days, in 19'Ji, Ibl d.iya and 1992 upca Match, he wus pic^ciU lor ]'i days

Simiiarl>, Mm JB Mura was present in the yeat 1985 foi at 1.1 a ff¹ ot iO months On afoicsaid date, tiie woikniv.ii have strummed a nn.rnoiandi.iin suuiig nut tn._y could not Jiiend tlji. duty du; to itiiu ilmes^ but Uvir (.viuv-niiuns WLIL nut oUppuiiLv.' by ,ny medic tl ecitifieale I\]a l a m e n t, UitiUore vvv-zrUid ilu.ii lepiescntacioii lo tin-n Jujjhci uuihouly it Bangjioie who has disposed ilia same WHO a HI i iiiimn Lo the management th.n ^dt MILI No L liS (j-l (I ')/ V2 JbSv,lli) da ed /-a ;"„ im yagement or eaaii.u iiboui vwi^ banned I he woikm-n, thercattei appioavtied men union who has uilimattiy appioaehecl the concern laboui tiiiiiouy by misim, an Industum L) spme As labour audio nt> could not jeule the matter amicably miouhh concilia tion, the matter wii leierred to .vpropnaie uo/tinmcnt WHO lias ultimately made this icleieiiee to this tnbuiial tin adjuclieal on Lhiough. utoies.ud issue

Ihe woikincn by hhni; d wnHen itatv.nn.ru contended mter- ali.i Ilia they were illegally itmovid tiom the i£iviLe b> the niinigeme.it by obtaining then signaiuie un I lank p^n-i out oi some uitcuoi motive witiiout comply ing v lth piov,- s i n ot law [iiLsuib d m that [eh ill dnd fi< nee Ihcv ,ue L KitJ.d loi leinstateiuent

240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PART II—SCC. 3(ii)J the Industrial Dispute between the empio>crs in iclutiun to the management of F.CI. and their workman, which was received by (he Central Goveinment on 2-1-2001.

[No. L-22012/286/99-lR(C-Il>]

N, P. KESAVAN, Desk Officei

ANNF.XURH

BEFORE SHR[ B. L. JATAV, PRhSIDING OFHCER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CIJM-LABOUR COURT. CHANDIGARH Case No. ID 255/2000

Union through the State Secietaiv, FCl Class-IV Employees Union, 48, Industrial Area, Phase-1. Chandigarh

. .Woikmen.

Vs.

Senior Regional Manager, FCl, Punjab Region, Section 34-A, Chandigarh.

- • • • Manascment.

REPRESEN l'ATTVES :

For the workman : Shri Tapan Moitra.

Pui the manaetment : None.

AWARD

Dated, 15th of November, 2000

The Central Goveinment vide gazette notification No, L- 22012 /286/99/lR(CM-II) dated 7th of June, 2000 has refei- red the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager, FCl (Punjab) Chandigarh and District Manager, FCl Chandigarh in denying the demand¹ of FCl Clnss-IV Employees Union, Chandigarh for absorption of 81 Security Guards engaged by FCl in their Re- gional Office, Chandigarh (Punjab) and vunous others depot godown under Distnet Manager, FCl, Chandigarh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief these HI secuiity guaids arc entitled V" 2. Today (he case was fixed for filling of claim statement on behalf of the workmen. The General Secretary ot the Union appeared and made the following statement;

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2001

S.O. 103.-—Tn puisuancc of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, iy47 (14 ot 1947), tho Cential Government hereby publishes the Award of (he Labour Court, Pune, as shown in the Auncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Artificial Limb Centre, Pune and their workman, which was leceived by the Central Government on 2-1-2001.

fNo. L-14012|4l|99-IR(DU)] N. P. KhSAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SMT. S. V. SUVARNA, PRESIDING OFFICER, II LABOUR COURT, PUNE

REK l.D. No. 169 of 1999

The Commandant, AUificial Limb Centre, Warrowari, Pune-411040.

I Party

AND

The President, Artificial Limb Centic Employees Union, 73, Wanowri Bazar, Pune-411040. .. U Party CORAM : Smt. S. V. Suvarna.

APPEARANCE :

S'.nt. Iyer Advocate foi I party.

Mr, A, N. Kulkarni Advocate for II party.

AWARD

This icference is moved to this Court by the Government •ot India, New Delhi under Clause (d) of Sub. Sec. (1) and Sub Sec. 2(A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 19^7) for adjudication in icspect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto mentioned £>s undei: —

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Artificial Limb Centre, Pune in engaging Smt. Tresa Swamy, as a Composer for 18 years on a consolidated wag- es of Rs. 750 per month without regularising in service and thereafter terminating her services is legal and justified ? If not, to what lclief the said workman is entitled to '?"

241

(REASONS

5. The advocate for the second paity union 1K:S filed a purshis at Ex. 20 stating that the union does not willi to lead any oiul evidence in the above refeience,

Issue No. 1.—The Central Government by its oidei No. 14012/41/98/JR/DU dated Ui-2-9'J has lcfciicd the Indust- rial Dispute to this Hoifble Couit for adjudication. To decide whcthei the action of the management of Aitificial Limb Centie, Pune m engaging 6mt. Tiessa Swamy for 18 years as a Composei without regulating her in seivice and¹ thereafter terminating her .service is legal and justified. To consider Ihis dispute, it is fir't ncccssaiy to ic^ei to the letter of teiniination, which is being given to the second parly Smt, Tiesta Swamy due to which the cause of action has aiisen. II is aslo settled position that once -the termination letter is given the Court will have to sec whether the reasons men- tioned in the termination letler aie proper and legal and that the action of termination is piopei or not? Theieioie, I am quoting below (he contents of the teimination letter:—

'Termination of services :—

il) You aie hereby informed that join- seivRe "s a Composer for Printing Press in this Centie is no longer required.

2. Your service will therefore be terminated vv.ef.

20-1-1998,

3. One month pay in advance is being p.'id to you in

lieu of notice.

4. Please acknowledge leceipt of the letter.

Di : 2(1-1-98. Sd/- S. K.. Jain 142 THE GAZE FIB OF Il^DfA : JANUARY 20, 2(H)L/TAUSA 30, 1922 |PAKI II—Src. 3(iiJ]

jiiiciii. If the ktici of ti;rmin.ition and tlie W.S. aie lead icjjtinL., 1 ti.id i.iJt tne leaions aie muring. LetLCi oi lekiniiiaiion says iiiuL tne second punys aervi^gs nre termi- iimcd aa iiei StiVices as> a L-Oinposei ior I'nntmg Press is no IOL^CI lcquueti. ilie k-iLe! m ic.initiation does nol sel out ine vauous itasous pleaded m the Vv.S. at puia-Jia, b, v., d and e set out above,

Commandant Artificial l.imb Cenlic for rnoic itun US yc.i¹.. 61ie lias also pleaded ihai on t>-l-v'U sue made repiesenuiLiuii to the ( ommaiuiaiH loi rcgu>aiis,;uon or seiVico .aid loi grant of appropriate pay scale svnd wiUi a request to consi- uer hei msc lavuuiuoiy. novvevet, me munauemeiK auei leading hei representation got wild and leimitmed hci ••er- viccs. Sht has also pleaded that one Mr. SLinkam hulp.ijjJi was wurkmjj m the Aiuhual Limb Lemie, jfuutmjj riwb and he has been initialised accoidnj£ to me vcidici ol tne Central (joveinmem, industrial Jnounal and Die piesent woiknun also apptais lo same calcgoiy and winking Mr.uv l9iiO. Sht has alao pleaded thjL nun"^ hci scivice penod she has not received any memo or waimni; and her woik. was uppieciated and she win, issued a certificate dt. 25-JO-lVMi. She has studied upro lUih Standaid. She lias also ple^ued I lint tne Sasoun ueneral Huspuai uas declined hei lit to d<> Ulephone Operator Job and assembly line job. Jjhc li.is also lehect upon the judgement of the rion Die Hign Loun HI W.K No. 402 ot yo and iinlhei pleaded (hat tiic Aititicial Limb Ccnuc has 19o bcileil hospital loi amputee pattern and vvears and her name is also iegis- lercd with the employment exchange in (lie year ly80 and she is also medically (if [oi woik and accoidmgly sue v, j, appointed and theretoie Die complainant's ci.se is tnat hei te.inni.ilion is illegal and she hns continuously worked foi 18 >ears and theiewns no reason lui teiminahng her seivices.

:43

"The Act docs not oblige any employer tu employ those persons only w)io have been sponsored by the hmployment iAchange locally 01 outside."

'Ihe next judgement ot the Hon. S.C. reponcd in I9i>7-1 L U. page 5b 1, l-ull Bencn, where u has hd-ii held that—

fin>t paj-ty their only contention in the willten statement it, that the applicant was given employment on humuniUuan giounds and the management witness in the cio'is examination has stated that the Commandant Artificial Limb Lcitlie appomled hcic. He has also filmed thul aithon/h tlide w, s no post but she was working. Quoted below is ilu ".i.atemi:pt oi the management witness Mi. Bujawa:—

"The Commandant Artificial Limb Centre feppoiuied hei.

It i', 11 nc that there was no post, but she was working."

It can also be seen from the pleadings in the application at pura-8 that the second party has specifically pleaded that she has been issued a ceilificato by the Commandant dt, 25-10-1982 appieciating her work. Tn the writlen statement the first party denied the issuance of this cerLlfieitc at para-9 and they have merely answered the said pleading a-, under:—

"The ceitilicate mentioned in pata-R was given in favour of the applicant/party No. 2 in oidei to help her secure employment elsewhere and at Iici request it may b.; noted I hut il ha> been i .sued in j<-)82."

Therefore from this leply, it can be seen th.it tlf,eic is no denial about the issuance of the suid certificate. Therefore the contents of the said certificate are required to be con- sidered by this Court for drawing the conclusion that the second party though physically handicapped she ioinecl the Prilling Press in the Composing Section in 1980 and het work was good therefore, 171 view of the rcjwons mentioned in the teifnination lettei and the co'Tienls of the certificate cle;.ily go to show that there was work of composer in ihe_ first piiitv and (hat the second party was woikinc in the' Printing Press about which theie is no dispute. The first party have failed to bung any cogent evidence before the Court to move that the second party was helping in the Printing Picss and not domp any composing work They have not examined any LO-woiker to piove that the work of the second pai-iy was only to help in the Printing Press. On the other hiwid th,• termination letter and the certificate jiiven bv the first party support the case of the second party that she was worHini; as a compost-i in the Printing Press. Hence The fir-t conlenlinn of the first party that the application should be dismissed as there is no post authorised for Composer requires to be rejected. It is pertinent to virite that offer the ••"•renments have been over the fiist party has pro- duced bcfoio the court the list of various cale^ories and the post in the li.st party to show that there was nu post of Owwovi'i, It is r^'f!nrnt to note that the tnanapernent w'tnrss him-Hf h'<<- rtalod that the sec-ond nartv was workini' in the Panting Press and he has also stated that although there was no post, vet the second party was doirir" the work ThnufoTC considering the statement, on record Mii-e theie is n Printing Pir^s theie is bound to he comnosition, woik aid 0 C o m w cr is ieqii!ird to work in Print in q Press. Thcrrfur^ in ihe fncts and cimimrtances of the case as Ihe leimmatiTi letter and the certificate given by th* '"nmrnavi- dnnt Artificial Limb Centre clearly mentioned that the second P¹ rtv v :r- vork'nc as ,1 '"Ym-r.'-ev, Hii-cg c'nei TT'nts wriHi air produced on record do not help the case of the fiist pmtv that (Vie was TIO post authorised for comooser.

8. Cominc to the 'ecand contention of the first pa>lv that ihe s e c id n"rtv Mi pot r-een sp("-nso-"d bv lh" Eni'ilovm-nf r\ch 'lie: and hence her appointment is not local and ihcrcfoii' ilie first partv y, not required to foi'ow Ihe pro'^t'O'iv "f Imv Tn th it respect, T d. Adv. Kulkarni has Mitimitlcd t'nt fhp worVnvin h,is produced on iecord of the Point the rmplovment Fvchange Recitation letter at Sr. No ^ with V- R issued in t'v- veir 1 "5ST rind the ^eron17 in Mmooit oT his argument that even othoiwisc

r T n i J o v m P ' it l ' \ e | i r n t ip A e| 1 Q ^4 \ n ot w n l i V " Hj n t he ntesent rasr b e n u sp what is rontcmolafed in the soul Act i<- t h- minr'fpmfi¹ has t0 notify the vjicnrC'Cs 'ind rail for the li't of cand'datf" and it >'s nisn TIO( necewai" tl'rit the ' - r ip lneiupni I? b n n nd tn <;.-V-.-f []T- r , i r ' ' i . H i^ f r nm ihr 11st hni ih'¹ i m m i i c m e nt c,"n select i.nv "ul'-idi'i. To '•linoorl t h is Mihmi iior\ lb" iiid"Pinftit ,-.f MP H C jfnnvt.Tl in 1400-1 TTN-P-inifi is relied vhete it has bfcn held tlut.

?44 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 7001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] be dismissed on account oi the contention of iJic lust paity in Clause 12(c) of the VV.S. that the second patty was over aged."

defeat the claim of the second party. Therefore, I have conic ttj the conclusion that the termination of services of the second pJi ty-workman is illegal and malafide and therefoie the second paity-Smt. Tresa Swamy is entitled to all the iihcCs claimed in the application because as the employee has put in 18 years continuous service and thereafter her NCI\ices aie terminated illegally and today it will be very difficult lor her to get employment with her handicape and she has gained sufficient expeiience while working with the uVst party therefore the service of (he second party requires to be protected against the wrongful dismissal and so the normal rule is of reinstatement on her Original post with immediate effect nnd with full backwages on the basis of her last diawn salaiy. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow tlic icfere'iice and pass the following award.

AWARD

(J) The lcference is allowed.

(2) The first party is dilected to reinstate the second paity-workman Smt. Tresa Swamy on her original post and giy< her full backwages on the basis of her last drawn wages wiih continuity of service.

SlvfT. S V. SUVARNA, Presiding Officer

Date: 14-11-2000

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001

S.C\ 104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent- ral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal'Labour Court, Calcutta, as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation ta the management of Coal India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 3-1-2001.

[No. L-22012|452|96-TR(C-II)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURC

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA Reference No. 36 of 1997

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management nf

Dankuni Coal Complex

AND

Then Wcfrkmen.

245 PRESENT :

Mr. Justice B. P. Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management.—Mr. K. Bandopa- dhya, Advocate with Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen.—Mr. A. Bhadury, rep-

rsentative of the Union.

STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Coal.

AWARD

By Order No. L-22012|452|96-IR(C.II) dated 29-8-1997 the Cemral Government in exercise of its powers under section 10(1 ) ( d) and (2A) of (he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

his pay was fixed at Rs. 1135 in 1991. On the other liand, the said Partha Das joined on 21-3-1988 as Opera.or-lV (Bottom manj in the scale of Rs. 1050- 2/-1428. However, the nature of job of both the concerned workman and' Partha Das were same, ihough nomenclature were different. However, the pay of Shri Das was fixed at Rs. 1050 on the date of his appointment and he got one increment in 1989 and hJS basic pay became Rs. 1077. Accordingly, in the next year i.e. in the year 1990 his basic pay come lo be Rs. 1104 and it become Rs. 1131 in 1991. Then, he was promoted to Grade-F with effect from 9-4-1991 and his basic pay was fixed accordingly at Rs. 1155. The grievance of the concerned workman is ihi't though he was getting Rs. 1135 in the year 91, a pjL'3cn junior to him, namely, Partha Das was getting Rs, 11'65. h has been contended on behalf of the workman that since the nature of job of both the persons was the same, they were en'itled to the same pay and similar treatment and there has been discri- mination in fixation of pay of the concerned workman by keeping him at a lever stape in the mat'er or fixation of pay than the person junior to him. The matter was accordingly raised and the dispire arose.

"'Whether the action of the management of Dankurti Coal Complex of Coal India Limited in fixing the pay of Shri Ram Chandra Makal in Tech. Grade 'F' less than his junior Shri Partha Dasj is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is Shii Makal entitled and from which date?"

2. The matter under reference is very simple. The effected workman Shri Ram CTiandre Makal raised a grievance that his pay was fixed at a lower stage than another workman, Shri Partha Das. though the said Fartha Das was junior to him. When the master could not be settled by representation to the mana- gement by the union arid also during conciliation proceeding before the Labour Commissioner, it has been referred to this Tribunal. The question to be decided is whether the action of the Dankuni Coal Complex in fixing the pay of the effective workman Ram Chandra Makal, at a lower stage than that of Partha Das is legal and justified.

4. Facts arc no" being den'ed and challenged¹ by the management, but, it has been contended on behalf of the management that at the time when the concerned workman Ram Chandra Makal op'cd for Grade-F, the said workman Partha Das did not opt and he re- mained in the same grade. So, according to the prin- c'fle of fixation on his promotion, his pay was fixed. But, subsequently the ^aid Partha Das was also con- sidered for promotion in regular course to Grade-F and at that time since his pay was higher, his pay was fixed at a rrcher level and it is only because of the wstem of fixation of pay that the anomaly has tnl;cn place. Therefore. *hi* management denies that there }<: PO Tnnift^r of discrimination or nnvthW unfair has Vn Hnip bv *W mfltwMnrnt so far ?s thf* concerned worl-mnn !•-, conrernM.

246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 36, 1922 [PART U—SEC. 3(ii)] appointment letter of Partha Das. Ext. M-2 is the appointment lel.ci of the concerned workman. Ram Chandra Mdkal. ExL, M-3 is the chart showing the d eol ppontnrn , basic pay and date of increment ot -+.e concerned workman and others. Ext. M-4 is ihj. order ot promotion of Shri Partha Das to Grade- F. Ex . M 5 ,s the chart giving details of .h- fi\utijn of pay and date ot next increment. Ext. M 6 s letter ssued by D.C.C. under C.I.L. regard- , g o'ec ion nd pfecment through interview on li gh p s n Wh ch detailed chart of the promoted perils ;< < ftac'icd which finds the name of the concerned workman also and it appears that his pro- mot'on was effected on 14-2-1990.

meanwhile he opted fpr appointment tq .Qpsrator-IH Bottomman in Technical Grade-F in the scale ,qf Rs. 1075-30-1495 and he was found fit and was appointed in Technical Grade-F with effect from 14-24990 and on the basis of his basic pay of Rs. 1077, h'i pay was fixed at Rs. 1105. The next date ot his increment now became l-2rl991 and on that date his pay was fixed at Rs. 1135* On the other hand, Partha Das was appointed and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1050 and his next date of incre- ment was 1-44989 when his basic pay became Rs. 1077. His next increment date was 1-4-1990 on which date his basic pay became Rs. 1104. There- after, the next datt of increment being 1-4-195*h his bisic pay became Rs. 1131, Then he was prompt- ed to the post of Bottornman, Operator-IH in Tecb- nic 1 Grad:-F on 9-4-1991 and oa the basis o£ tus baic pay of Rs. H31 his pay was fixed at Rs, 1165 in the .scale of Rs. 1075-30-1495. It i$, therefore, contended on behalf of the management that actually neither anything unfair has been done to the concern- ed workman Ram Chandra Makal,, nor any favour has been shown to Partha Das; Rather,Jt is a kind of peculiar situation in which both the persons were piomoted to the higher grade that there has been difference in the matter of pay. It has been pointed out on behalf of the management that though the management was sympathetic to the, concerned work- man and recommended for consideration to the Htad Quarters of CI.L., his case was turned d0Wn and therefore the concerned workman has no rigfet _to claim parity in the pay with Partha Das and it can- not be treated as an industrial dispute.

6. The union examined the concerned workman as \VW-1 and Anup Ghosh, General Secretary of the union as WW-2. On the other hand, the manage- ment examined Sukhendu Bikash Das Mahapafra, Personnel Manager of D.C.C, as its sole witness. So far as the witnesses for the union are concerned, they hove simply stated facts as stated above and have taised a grievance that the concerned workman had joined earlier in the same grade in which Partha Das joined later. Th" concerned workman was senior tQ Partha Das and the Grade-F to which both of them were subsequently promoted is also the same grade having same nature of work, the pay fixed in favour of fhc concerned workman should not have been less than Partha Das. The witness for the management has also admitted all these facts and has Stated that thj pay of the concerned workman was fixed as per rules governing selection, while the ense of Paitha Das> was considered by fixing his pay in terms of the promotional policy. Therefore, ac coiding to him there was no discrimination, nor any- thing illegal was done. However, this witness ad- mitted in his cross-examination that the nature of work of both the workmen happen to be the same pnd ii has al*o been stated that subsequently both the posts of Topmnn and Bottomman have been merged 'n the same cadre.

8. On behalf of the workman it has been contend- ed that this principle has been ,laid dow-n fcw the various High Courts and also by the Hon^>le Supreme Court that there should be equal pay for equal work., Two cases have been cited in this con- nection. The first case is of Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.R, reported in 1986-T-LLJ-134. In this cast their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have hrld that the employees engaged as casual workers on daily wage basis who were not getting similar pay as Class-IV employees of the manage- ment were entitled to the same pay as they were doing the same kind of work. Another ca&$ is P. S^vita & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.. reported in 1986-M-.LJ-79. In this casjt their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bifercatfon of a particular cadre in two cadrqs and fixing the pay of one cadre at a hieher scale than another was ille- gal and improper. In this view of the matter, it has bden submitted on behalf of the union that since both the workmen arc in the same grade and were dis- claiming ''ame kind duties, fixation of pay of the concerned workman, Ram Chandra Makal at a lower sta"e than that of Partha Das, a junior to him, was improper and illegal and therefore the reference should be decided in favour of the workman.

9 On the other hand., it has been submitted on behalf of the management that the principle of equal pay for equnl work as laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble; Supreme Court do not applv pn the present case, brcause sea): of pay of bath the work- men is the same and considering the simjfar rjature of work of both the cadres they h sv been rne'rged into one, but the fixation of pay of tfie ' \Jons appointed in Grade-C as Operator-IV ToDmans while Partha Das was appointed in Tech- nical Grade-G as Operator-IV Bottomman. It has b=-cn ro;n!ed out that originally both the persons were in the same scale i.e. Rs. 1050-27-1428 and the bTic mv of the concerned workman. Ram „Chandra Makal .on 2-3-1988 was Rs. 1050. His next date of increment was 1-3-1989 and on that date his pay *vas fixed at Rs. 1077. His second date of increment happened to be on 1-3-1990, but, in the 247

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001

S.O. 105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of *2. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ol 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award o' the Central Government Industrial TribunaI|Laboui Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Indus'rial Dispute betwten the employers m relatior to ttu man igement of F.C.I. . and their workmai. which was received by the Centtal Government oi 3-1-2001.

[No. L-22012|112|2|91-IR(C-II) N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Office

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. R|137|9l

Ku. Gauri Iyer, C|O Shri P. V. Mahahngam Rohinipuram Colony, Post R.S.U., Raipur.

•—Appl'can

Versus workman is not arbitrary of discriminatory. Katner, It is on the basis ot lhe policy or fixation of pay on prombuon. it has been submitted that since the concerned workman Ram Chandra Makal opted for nis promotion by applying in an internal advertise- mem, his pay on ths higher post was fixed on the basis of stage of pay on which be was on that date and his next daie ot increment had not then arrived. On thp other hand, Shri Das was promoted in due course subiequentiy and his pay was fixed in the higher scale on the basis of the pay he was getting fn the lower scale on that date. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no question of any illegality or impropriety in fixation of pay of tne concerned workman by the management. Further, It has been submitted that the matter could relate to the princi- ple of equity and equality and a Tribenal beiflg not a court oi equity, the mattef cannot b² decided on this principle before this Tribunal. In this regard a decision cf Full Bench oi Central Adffljaistiative Tribunal at Hyderabad has been produced in which a similar matter arose and the reference was made to the Full Bench. The Full Bench decided the matter after "considering several decisions in this regard that the Tribunal having no power to adjudi- cate on the basis of equity, the matter cannot be decided on this basis. It has been pointed out that the I full Bench of the Administrative Tribunal has very clearly decided in the case under reference, namely, ,B. L. Somayajulu & Ors. v. Telecom Com- mission & Ors., reported in (1997) 35 Administra- tive Tribunals Cases 26 (FB) that there may be variety ol cases where disparity arise due to special circumstances or even due to error. So, these have to be viewed with reference to the facts of the case and it has been held by the Full Bench that disparity in fixation of pay can be challenged only in the cir- cumstance where there is provision of law in that bthalf and" on the basis of legal right and not on pervassive notion of equity and equality.

The District Manager, Food Coiporation of India, Engg. Wing, Raipur. —Non-applicar

AWARD

Passed on this 1 lth day of December, 2000

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Laboi

vide order No. L-22012|112|2|91-IR C.II dt. 29-7-f has referred the following dispute for adjudicatic by this tribunal,—

"Whether the action of the management 10, It is, therefore, clear that though the concern- ed workman might have a case on the basis of prin- ciple of equity, within scope of this reference, thero is no question of his grievance being redfessed by this Tribunal. The claim of the workman, there- fore, has to be rejected and accordingly the reference is decided in terms that the action of the manage- ment of Dankuni Coal Complex of Coal India Ltd. in fixing the pay of Ram Chandra Makal in Techni- cal Gradc-F is neither illegal, nor unjustified.

J l. The reference accordingly stands disposed of.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Food Corporation of India District Offic Kapa Raipur (MP) in terminating the s vices of Ku. Gouri Iyer Job typist w.e 2-7-89 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to" Dated, Calcutta,

The 7th December, 2000.

248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PART H—SEC. 3GD1 Industrial Dispute Act, 3947. In view of this fact, the terit'ination of workman from service is illegal which deserves to be set-aside. The workman is en- titled to the regularisation in service with all conse- quential benefits.

3. The case for ihe management is that the work- man was nevsr employed as job typist by the mana- gement, The relationship of master and servant never existed between tb; patties. The workman was running typing institute of her own and there- fore typing work was given to her by the manage- ment at the rate mentioned hereinafter—

8. The workman has filed the bills submitted by her to the management regarding typing work done by hir en the basis of prescribed rate. She had been "paid the typing charges by the management as well. These bills will not go to prove that the workman was appointed as job typist by the FCI. It can only be presumed that she had done the typing job pri- vately for which the prescribed remuneration was paid to "her. f Such'payment will not create any right to the wc.kman foi getting employment in the ofBce of FC1. This is nothing but an attempt to get the employment through back door entry which is high- ly improper.

(a) For typing statements, 0.85 paise per copy

schedules and stencils.

(b) For letters, telegram 0.60 paise pir copy

etc.

9. Jn view of the foregoing reasons, it becomes abaadontly clear that the workman was never ap- pointed by the FCI as job typist to carry on the typ- ing wj^rk in the office as an employee hence she is not entitled to gef any employment in the FCI as claimed by her. Point No.rl is answered according- ly-

10. Point No. 2.—In view of my finding given on point No. 1, the workman is not entitled to any re- lit--f as claimed in the present case as no employer- employee relationship exists between the parties.

4. The entire typing work given to her, was done by the workman in her own typing institute far which she was submitting bills and the payment was made to her by the FC1 as per this bill. She never work- ed in the office of FCI nor any fixed hours of duty were allotted to her. She was neither given the benefu of any leave nor she ever applied for any leave. In this way the workman cannot be said to be an employee of FCI.

11 On the reasons stated above, it is held that ihe workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by her. The reference is accordingly answered in tho favour of the management and against the work- man. Parties shall bear their own cost.

12. Copy of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAJ, Presiding Officer.

5. The manag:ment further alleges that for the appointment of cltos-M employee, the recruitment rules had to be followed. The vacancies are notifi- ed and the applications arc invited for the same. The names arc also sponsored by the employment exchange. In the present case, no such formality for the workman's appointment as job typist was followed. At the same time, the District Manager has no authority to appoint any class HI employee. Such appointment is done only by the Regional Manager at Bhopal In view of all these facts, the workman is not entitled to get any employment as claimed by her.

6. The paints for determination in the case arc as,

under.

1. Whether the workman is entitled to emp-

loyment as claimed by her ?

2. Relief and costs ?

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001

S.O. 106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centrj{ Government hereby publishes the Award of iuC Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court. Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bstween the employers in relation fo the management of Rajnagar Open Cast Project of SECL snd their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2001.

7. Point No. 1.—The workman contents that she was employed by the FCI on the basis of verbal orders. She has not deposed any where in her state- ment that sh - was getting a fixed amount of salary or on the basis of daily wages prescribed by the management. Her name was never sponsored through the Employment Exchange. She has not been able to establish that her appointment was done by the competent Authority of FCI after complying with the mandatory provisions of recruitment rules According to her, she was employed as job typist. For the appointment to this job, the recruitment rules must be followed. In no office on the basis of ver- bal order, any appointment of Class III employee is done as alleged by the workman. The employment can be effected only by way of written order which should be issued by the competent authority. In this case, no such formality has been observed. The workman has tried to get the employment through back door entry which cannot be allowed under law.

rNo. L-22012|231f96-IR(C-H)J N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer 249 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUK COURT, JABALPUR Case Nc CGIT|LC|R|34[96

him personally he disagreed with the hndrng ol en- quiry officer and passed the impugned dismissal order on 1-10-94 which is absolutely illegal. He preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal but to no effect. The dismissal order was passed without assigning any cogent reasons. In view of all these facts, the dismissal order deserves to be set aside. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential monetary benefits.

Presiding Officer : Shn K. M. Rai.

Shri N. R. Malik, CIO B. M. Siugh, Vice President. N.C.W.F. Post Rajnagar Colliery, Distt. Shahdol. —Applicant

Versus

The Sub-Area Manager, Rajnagar Open Cast Project, Post Dola, Distt. Shahdol.

-^-Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of December, 2000

1 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012|23l|96-IR(C-II), dated 30-1-96 has referred the following dispute for adju- dication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the Agent| Sub-Area Manager, Rajnagar Opencast Project of SECL Hasdeo Area in dismissing Shri N. R. Malik electrical supervisor, Grade-A Raj- nagar Opencast Project w.e.f. 1-10-94 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the worksnan is entitled?"

4. The case for the management is that during the Disciplinary Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had given the ample opportunity to the workmen for engaging the co-worker to defend him and sufficient opportu- nity was made available to him to defend him pro- perly during the enquiry proceedings. The work- man requested for adjournment on 15-7-94 for which no sufficient cause was explained by him. He did it with intend to delay the enquiry proceedings. Taking this fact into consideration, the Enquiry Offi- cer proceeded exparte against the workman. The management had rully proved the charges against the workman and the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is perfectly valid and legal which does not require any interference. The workman had failed to produce the defence witness though he was given ample opportunity by the En- quiry Officer in iesp.-ct thereof. TVe workman deli- berately kept himself away from participating in the Enquiry proceedings. The management therefore cannot be blamed for the said conduct of the work- man. The enquiry was properly conducted against the workman and the principle of natural justice was followed. The management had no malafides to punish the workman by serving him with a false chargesheet. The allegation of workman in this res- pect is baseless and far from truth. The punishment awarded by the management is proportionate to the misconduct and therefore the workman is not entitl- ed to be reinstated with all back wages as claimed by him.

5. The points for determination in the case arc as

under :

1. Whether the Disciplinary Enquiry conduct- ed ngainst the workman was just and pro- per?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of workman 7

2. The case for the workman is that he was work- ing as electrical supervisor in the employment of SECL. His duty was of supervisory nature. He was drawing salary at the rate of more than Rs. 1600 per month. He was served with a chargesheet dated 3-6-94 for committing alleged misconduct. He re- plied to the chargesheet on 12-6-94. The Depart- mental Enquiry was conducted against him and Shri B. N. Tripathi was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 25-2616 [93. The charges levelled against him were false and concerned. The DE for the alleged misconduct was initiated by the manage- ment against the workman with an ulterior motive to punish him by throwing out of the employment. The action of the management was malafide.

3. Whether the punishment awarded by the

management is just and proper?

4. Relief and costs ?

3. The workman further alleges that he had en- gaged Shri Sndevati, President of MP Shramik Koyla Sabha|Sangb to defend him during the en- quiry proceedings. Shri Sudevan was to" attend the meeting at Bhopal c>n 15-7-94 and therefore the workman had sought an adjournment in the Depart- mental Enquiry requesting to fix the next date of hearing after 20-7-94. The Enquiry Officer never looked into the request and proceeded expartc against him. The sufficient opportunity was not given to him to defend himielf during the enquiry proceed- ings. Ultimately the order of dismissal dt. 1-10-94 was passed against hint The Enquiry Officer had exonerated him from all charges but th" Disciplinary Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing

6. Point Nos. 1 & 2.—Admittedly the workman was served with a chargesheet for alleged misconduct and the DE was conducted against him, during the course of enquiry, the workman had applied for ad- journment as his defence Assistant was not available on the date of hearing. The Enquiry Officer did not think it proper to adjourn the proceedings any further and accordingly he proceeded with the en- quiry. After carefully assessing the evidence adduc- ed by the management during the Enquiry Proceed- ing, the Enquiry Officer held the charges not prov- ed e^alnst the workman. He submitted his enquiry report to the Dfsdplioary Authority who disagreed 250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 30, 1922 [PART It—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2001

S.O. 107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herey publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexur.e in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relaion to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2001.

[No. L-22012|398|91-}R(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Efcsk Officer with the findings of Enquiry Officer and passed the dismissal order against the workman without giving him the opportunity of hearing before recording his conclusions. The Disciplinary Authority was found to hear the delinquent before arriving at the different conclusions. It is surprising to note that he did not thinly it proper to afford the opportunity to the work- man to put up his CJSC prior to tlje passing of dis- missal order. In

ANNEXUR^E

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT|LC|R|38|92

presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Raj.

7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the order of dismissal passed by the management against the workman is held illegal. The Departmental Enquiry conducted against the work- man is improper. Point No. 1 is answered accord- ingly.

General Manager, Jamuna and Kotma Areas of SECL, PO Jamuna Colliery,

Dis,tt. Shahdol —Applicant,

Versus

8. As far as the question of adducing evidence by the management to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman is concerned, it shall be improper if the management is allowed to open the enquiry against the workman on the same charges which have been held to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer. It shall hardij be justified in allowing the management to lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman before this tribunal in the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Hence the management is not en- titled to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman,

Mohd. Ajamaluddha, S.o Mohd, Alias, R|o Village Lahusai, PO Kotma, Djst. Shahdol (MF) —Non-applicant AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of J3ecenjb£r-200O 9. Point No. 3.^In view of my finding given on point No. l, the punishment of dismissal awarded b^ the management against the workman is illegal which deserves to be set aside as laid down in AIR-1998- SC-2713. This point is answered accordingly.

1. The Government of India, Ministry pf Labour vide order pb, I^22pi2|358[9l-THCTlt dated 12^2-92 has referred the |tpjlowing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:—

10 Point No. 4.—Jn the light of foregoing reasons, the dismissal order passed by the management against the workman is hereby set aside. It is order- ed that the workman shall be reinstated with all back wages and other monetar> benefits. In the circum- stances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost.

11. Copy of award be sent to Government of

"Whether the action of the jQeneral Manager, Jamuna and K^otrrui areas of "SECL, J*. O. Jamuna Colliery, District Shahdol in ter- minating the services of Mohd. Ajamatystdin Badli-workman of Govinda colliery w.e.f. 25-2-99 is legal and justified ?" Jf'not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?" India, Ministry of Labour as per rules

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer.

2. The case for the workman is tfyat he applied for appointment to the post of worked as category' I maz- door and after the interview and comitation he was selected for the same by the management, Thereafter the malnagement sent him for vocational training of badli worker as category-! mazdoor vide order dated 8-7-89. Thereafter his appointment was further ex- tended for a perjod of 90 days vide order dated 1-9-89. In the meantime the management wanted to acquire the applicant's father's land in respect of a plot no. 938 area-4.4 acres and an agreement in this respect was signed! by the parties. After this agreement, the appli- cants order for appointment was approved by the Dv. Manager Jamuna and Kotma Area vide order da*ed 15-1-90. His Appointment- wa$ approved for a further period of 30 days and was allowed to perform his duties. Thereafter ftcwas flowed to, wrjrk for a week vide ^rder dated 17-2-50. Thereafter the now of 251

5. The points for the termination in the case are

as under:

1. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment with all consequential monetary benefits?

2. Relief and costs?

6. Point No. 1—

the workman was struck off and he was slopped irom attending his duty. The workman fufthe'r alleged that no enquiry Was conducted prior to the order of dls- continueing his services by the management. He was disallowed from the work because of a case with regard to acquisition of land which was pending before the commissioned, ReWa and he did not persuade to with- draw the case and entered into an agreement with the management. His termination is against the pro- visions of standing Orders. After completing 155 days tjis services could not be terminated as he became a pefrh'anent workman. The junior persons, who were appointed along wjfh the applicant were regained in the ^rvices by the management. The titanination of workman amounts; to ah unfair labour practice. His termination also amounts to retrenchment and it could not be done without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of I.D. Act. i947" In view of all thijse facts, he is entitled to reinstatement with all conse- quential monetary benefits.

It is an admitted fact that the workman was ap- pointed by the management of SECL, Jamuna and Kotma after his name was sponsored through the employment exchange Shahdol and he was properly interviewed as per rules. He was employed as badli workman on temporary basis for a period of 90 days vide order dated 18-7-89. This appointment was done under the National Coal Wage Agreement No. 3 with a condi ion that his absorption in the company's ser- vice shall be considered after the satisfactory perlor- mance report. He was directed to report for duties to Sub Area Manager, Govinda colliery. In persuance of this appointment order, the workman reported for duly to Sub Area Manager, Govinda on 25-7-89. On that very day he was relieved for training at Mjnes Voca- tional Training Centre, Jamuna and Kotma. The appli- cant undertone training, w.e.f. 26-7-89 to 16-8-89 for performing duty in the underground coal mines. The certificafc in this respect Ex. P-2 was also issued to him by the training centre. He received! salary | watrcs for a period of 22 days when he was undergoing trainina: at the Vocational Training Centre. After successfully completing the vocational training he re- ported for his regular posting and the General Mana- ger gave him the regular posting order on 1-9-89 Exhi- bit P-3. This appointment was for a period of 90 days. He was allotcd Token No. B|5367 and his name was entered in form-B register also. This rcgis er is nothing but the service record of the workman.

252 THE GAZETTE OF INJ3IA : JANUARY 20, 2001/PAUSA 3p, 1922 PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2001

S.O. 108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispu.es Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the In- dustrial Tribunal Godavarikhani, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of S.CC.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2001.

[No. L-22025|25|200O(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT :

Sri. P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman-

cum-Presiding Officer.

253

He further deposes that if it is emergency case, he would attend to the shaving work for a patient before operation. If it is not emergency case, he would not do it.

the year, 1981. A chaige-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 10-11-'->3 stating that he refused to do lJre-opa'u1 A'c preparation for the case which was posted on 10-11-93. He was suspended for 10 days w.c.f. 10-1J-93 to 20 11-93. Domestic enquiry \> is conducted and the petitioner was dismisses iw th-¹ fjrvict; without issuing show-cause notice.

9. The evidence of the petitioner shows that he refused to attend to shaving work for a patient prior to operation because it was not emergency.

2. Respondents filed counter stating that the peti- tioner was dismissed from tlio service on proved charges pursuant to domestic enquiry w.e.f. 4-8-95.

The evidence of WW-1 shows that she gave evi- dence in favour of the management in the depart- mental enquiry against the pe:itioner, that means, the ward boys were attending to pre-epcrative work of patients.

The evidence of WW-2 shows that Ward Boys were It is further stated that on 9-11-93, 'he petitioner while on duly refused to follow the lawful and reason- able instructions of his superior. The petitioner was cha'rge-sheeted for such dis-obe6"icncc. La'er on, dis- ciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner.

attending to pre operative work of patients.

3. WW-1 to WW-3 arc examined and Ex. W-l to

Ex. W-6 are marked.

MW-1 and MW-2 arc examined and Ev. M-I to

Fx. M-9 u're marked,

10. MW-1 is Doctor K. Satya Vara Prasad, Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Godavarikhani. He deposes that the petitioner was wcrkinj; as Geneial Mazdoor. He was promoted as Ward Boy, He was given six months training.

4. Heard both sides.

He further cfe-poses that the duties of word boys in

the hospital are:—

1. Transportation of patients.

The rv*t>|ion<*r refund to fTo Mint ioh. i.e . nrc-nnpra- ?54 TJll. G A / r T Tr OF TNDTA : TANUARV M :nni,PAUSA 30, 19"22 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] The evidence on record clearly shows that it is the duty of the ward boys to attend to pre-operative work like shaving of particular part of the body.

WW-1 herself supported the management in the domestic enquiry.

It shov, s thai it is the duty of the ward boys to attend to shaving work for patients before operation.

WW-2 who is a barber himself deposes that the ward boys were attending to the shaving and cleaning work of the patienls before operation.

MW-1 who is no other than the Medical Superinten- dent of (he Area Hospi'al. Godavarikhani, deposes that it is the duty of the ward boys to attend to cleaning and shaving work for patients before operation.

I, therefore, consider that it is the duty of the waid boys to attend to prc-operative work for patients parti- cularaly shaving of particular part of the body rc- quiied to be operated,

The petitioner a Fused to at'end to do the woik en- trusted to him.

The petitioner wilfully refused to do the work con- tending that it is not the duty of the ward boys to attend to pre-operatiive work like shaving of particular part of the body.

It is wilful disobedience of lawful duty.

The petitioner has no defence.

1, therefore, consider that the termination of Ihe services of the petitioner is legal and justified, 14. Counsel for the petitioner requested for exer- cising power U|s. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. For exercising power u/s. l l -A of the Indusfrial Disputes Act, there is limit, i.e., maintenance of Indus- trial peace between workers and manageme.it. Tf the exercise of power u[s. l l -A results in breach of peace between workers and management, certainly it is limit and power should not be exercised.

In the present case, the petitioner is betit upon asser- ting that it is not the duty of ward boys to attend to pre-operativc work particularly shaving of parti- cular part of the body of patient.

If the petitioner is reinstated into service, he will not attend¹ to that work.

The other ward boys may also follow him. Then, there is breath of Industrial peace between workers and management

I, therefore, consider that the petitioner cannot be reinstated into service, because Industrial peace shall lie maintained between workmen and manage- ment. Hence, T answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the reference is answered against the claimant as "the termination of the services of the claimant is leeal and iustified". Each party do bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and prounounced by me in fh" open court on this, 23rd day of Oif,V"T 7000,

P GURUNADHA RAO, rhairmnn-cum- Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence Witnesses-examined

For workman:—

WW-1 — V. Ja

WW-2 — V. Kanakaiab, Barber, Area Hos- pital, Godavarikhani.

WW-3 — K. Chandramouli, petitioner.

For Management:—

MW-1 — Dr. K. Saltyavara Prasad, Superin- dent, Area Hospital, S. S. Co, Ltd. MW-2 — M. Kumaraswamy, Sr Personnel Officer, SCCL. RG-III.

Exhibits

For workman:—

Ex. W-l 6K 20-3-92 : Proceedings of the en- quiry.

Ex. W-2 dt. 24-9-93 : Copy of report of duty doctor.

Ex, W-3 dt. 11-9 93 : Letter addressed to Mr. Kanakaiah (Barber) by the D.M.O., Area Hospital,

Ex. W-4 dt. 23-3-93 : Report of over-time list in Area Hospital.

Ex. W-5 dt. 24-2-95 : Minutes of conciliation proceedings of the management and the Joint Action Committee.

Ex. W-6 dt. 25-7-97 : Report of Asst. Labour Commissioner, ("Central), Manchcrifil.

For Management:—

Ex. M-l dt. 13-12-93 : Writ petition No. 14283 of 1993 Judgement ctfpy (xerox).

Ex, M-2 dt. 10-11-93 : Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-3 dt. 13-3-94 : Enquiry call letter.

Ex. M-4 dt ,— : Enquiry report of tfie Enquiry Officer.

Ex. M-5 dt, 15-3-94 : Enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M-6 dt, 3-8-94 : Dismissal order,

Ex. M-7 dt. ?6-6-94 : Show-catase notice.

Ex. M-R dt. 20-7-94 : Reply to show-cnuse notice.

Ex. M-9 dl. 1 S-Q-81 : Copy of promotion orJcr as Ward-Bov.

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2001 S.O 109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the In- dustrial Tribunal Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2001.

[No. L-22025|25|2000-C.IJ N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CUM-LABAUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT ;

Sri. P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B.L. Chairman,.

cum-Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 25th Day of October, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 113 of 1997

BETWEEN

Byri Rajesh, S|o. B. Kumaraiah, Aged 30yrs. R|o Bellampally, Adilabad Dist. Presently residing at Arenda (village), Mandal : Manthani, Dist. Karimnagar. —Petitioner,

AND

The Chairman & Managing Director, The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudam, Khammani Dist. —Respondei i This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri, K. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri, C. SatyanaTayana Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood for con- sideration till this date, the court passed the following:

AWARD

1. This is a petition filed U|s. 2-A(2) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A.F., Amend- ment Act, 1987.

Facts of the case briefly are ais follows ;—

The petitioner was appointed as badli-filler on 20-12-1988 on compassionate grounds. He worked upto 29-12-89. He was not permitted to work w.e.f. 30-12-89. The petitioner got issued a notice to the respondents. The respondents issued proceedings dt, 11-1-97 denying reinstatement. He was terminated from the service on the ground¹ that he was not the son of Bairi Komuraiah.

2. Respondent filed counter stating that the pe i- tioner was appointed on compassionate grounds due to death of his father Bairi Komuraiah. The petitioner falsely claimed himself as sou of the deceased Bairi Komuraiah.

255 the deceased Komuraiah by accepting illegal gratifi- cation from the petitioner submitted application for employment to the petitioner. The management con- ducted enquiry and recorded statements of co-workers of Bairi Komuraiah. It was revealed that the peti- tioner was not the son of the deceased Bairi Komuraiah.

The petitioner did not participate in the enquny intentionally. I hc petitioner did not file any docu- ment to show that he was the son of Baivi Komu- raiah. Hence, the petitioner was terminated from the service on 3-4-1989.

3. Ex. W-l is marked on behalf of the petitioner.

Ex. M-l to Ex. M-3 arc marked on behalf of the respondent,

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is whether the termination of the petitioner from the service is illegal, if so, whether the petitioner can be reinstated into service.

6. POINT : Ex. W-l is reply notice dt. 2-1-97 re- jecting ihc request of the petitioner for reinstatement.

Ex. M-l is letter dt. 3-4-89 removing the petitioner from the service.

The reason for removing the petitioner from the ser- vice was not given in this letter.

But the petitioner knew that he was removed from the service because, he was not the son of Bairi Komuraiah.

The respondent made enquiry with regard to the peti- tioner whether he was the son of Bairi Komuraiah or not. The respondent came to know that the peti- tioner was an imposter. The wife of Bairi Komuraiah accepted illegal gratification a'nd recommended employ- ment to the petitioner as if he was the son of Bairi Komuraiah.

The pelitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to show that he was the son of Bairi Komu- raiah and he was not an impostor.

7. The petitioner ought to have examined himself as a witness in this case and ought to have proved that he was the son of Bairi Komuraiah and he was not impostor.

The petitioner did not examine himself as a wit- ness to prove that he was the son of Bairi Komuraiah.

The petitioner cannot claim reinstatement unless he is the son of Bairi Komuraiah. If he is not the son of Bairi Komuraiah, he is an impostor. He cannot be reinstated into service.

8, There is no need to frame charge against the petitioner and there is no need to conduct regular de- partmental enquiry against the petitioner because it was not a misconduct during the course of employment, The very basis of appointment of the petitioner was that he was the son of Bairi Komuraiah. If that was false, the petitioner would not have been appointed at all.

9" TUP. GAZETTE OF TNOIA : JANUARY 20, 200LPAUSA 30, 1922 [PART IT—SF.C. 3(ii)J The petitioner has not made any effort to prove that he is the son of Late Komuruiah atleasc by exa- mining himself as a v* itness in tliis court.

I, therefore, consider that the petitioner is an im- postor and he is not the son of Bairi Komuraiah. His termination from the service is legal. He cannot be rcmsta.ed into service. Hence, I answer the pmnt accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. The order of removal of the petitioner from service is confirmed. Each party to bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 25th day of October, 2U00.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence Witnesses-examined¹

For workman:— For Management:—

—Nil— —Nil—

Exhibits

For workman:—•

Ex. W-l dt. 2\ 11-1-97 : Reply to notice clt. 12-12-96 letter addressed to Sri. K, Vasu- deva Reddy, Adv., Remkote, Hyderabad by the General Manager, Bellampalh (P)3.

For Management:—

Ex. M-l dt. 3-4-89 : Termination letter issued to the petitioner.

Ex. M-2 dt. 6| 10-3-90 : Letter addressed to the General Manager ( P ), Beliampally by Superintendent of Mines, Shantikhani.

Ex. M-3 dt. 10-3-90 : Enquuy report.

New Delhi, the Mh January, 2001 S.O. 110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of tlhe Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Indian Air- lines Ltid. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2001.

[No. L- 11O12|31 (99 IR(C-T)] S. S. GUPTA, Uinln- Secy.

ANNEXURH BEFORE 1HE INDUSTRIAL IR1BUNAL-1 AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT ;

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.ScB.L., Industiiai Tri- bunal-1.

Dated: 5th day of December, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 54 of J 999 BETWEEN Sri Mirza Rchaman Baig S/o M S. Eaig, 7-2-49,5/59, DNM Coluny, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-50O 018.

. -. Petitioner

AND

The Chief Engineering Manager, Indian Airlines Limned, Southern Region, Begumpet, Hyderabad. . . .Respondent APPEARANCES :

Sri K. V. Rao, Advocate—for the Petitioner M/s. K. Siinivasa Murlhy and A. Vijay Sekhar Reddy, Advocates—for the Respondent.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry ot Labour, New Delhi by its order No. L-l 1012/3 l/99-JR(C-I) dated 18-8-1999 referred the following Industrial Dispute under Section 10(lJ(cI) and sub-section (2A) of t'ne Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 for adjudication to tlhis Tribunal:

"Whether the punishment of djsmiss.il from ser- vice awarded to Shri Mirza Rjehaman Baig, by the Management of Indian Airlines is just, proper as per Rules and in proposi- tion to his guilt / If not, to what relief is the workman entiiled 7"

Both parties appeared and filed their respective plead- ings.

¹,/

5. The petitioner filed a memo stating tiiat he i" not disputmg the validity of domestic enquiry and that the matter may be decided on merits considu- mg the facts on record and as to the proportionality ot punishment that was imposed by the Management. b. On me date ot hearing, on the side ol the manage- ment, the enquiry recoid was marked as hxs. Ml te" 1VI10 and proceeded with,

propon'ionate to Lhc charge levelled against him. The petitioner is a lay man and not acquainted with the legal pioceedings and so he CL.U1J iiot make proper representation in the National Jndust'rial Tribunal while it was pending there. All the whiL Hie petitio- ner could not secure any eniplo)..i..nt' in ipitc ol his best eftnrts. The petitioner i> a poor man having the responsibility and is depended by a laige family. He is now aged about 35 years and he i.i not* in a posi- tjon to secure any other employment anywhere. Hence prayed to set aside the dismissal order dt. 24-12~iy93 and tc order reinstatement wiih continuity of ser- vice, increments and other attendant beneiits.

ro " " (1

i v Mt v i n i i r i i p T ^ i i¹

1 M' r rd • f i i i

f ,H

l i iq T i n n i l i o i i' ""d iihrL'ivn(' ( h n i ne tlie y e : ir 1()SO aTid 1990, Z5ii I HE GAZETIL Ul' INDIA : JANUARY 20, 2UU1,1'AUbA 30, 1922 LIAKI H - ^ L C. 3(ii/| 8. On the basis oi tlio lecoid, the management has swongiy puiiouii its cuac that die woikman is noj. en- tnl^a lor ieiiisia.cniL.nt as tlie services oi the woikman are uonimeuiai to tiic interests ot he esaibhshmcnt,

Inuustriui Disputes Act, Section 11-A—in- icipiuituioii ui. povvcis oi .Lauoui Couil|in- uusiuui liiuuii^i uiiuci SCCLIOH l l - A — K c- niovdi oi woiKinan ^COHUUCLOIJ uy A i ' S R lC toi lrusconuiict aiiei noiomg Disciplinary en- quiij' o i uu uiuiicngea Dy woiKinan in La- oour L-ourt—r'ower oi Laoour Uouri is akin to tnat ot appellate couit—Laoour Court has power ana jurisdiction to icappreuate the evidence- auuuceri in the domestic enquny ana suusaiuie us own nndings even in cases wnere workman conceuea tne validity of domestic enquiry. It can reverse the hndings or Disciplinary Authority Even if findings oa misconduct are justified, Labour Court has poMcr to hold dismissal as unjustified and award' appropriate and lesser pumshmtnt in the cucumstances of a particular case.

iu. it it, auc thai, ihe empioyci nad applied to the 9. un Uie oUicr nand tne snong hold contention ot the workman is uiat uie enquiry was couuuctcu! as a ionnaiiiy tinu he uemg au niiieia<.o was given an nn- pujsiiua likii ii JK "umus Ihe charges, tne punismnent wiu ix leinicnt. m us he was nidu^ a scape goat to utimit the cnarges without examining the concerned witnesses and marking the uocuments, l-uriher it is argued ai at even ji the J i iDunai holds that the charges arc proved s^iii oy virtue oi Section 11A of I.D. Act, he may seek projection pointing out lhaL the punish- ment is shocking and disproportionate to the charges. Ihe petitioner nas cited ihe lollowing decisions in support oi the principle laid und'er Section 11-A of the I.D. Act emphasizing that the Iribunal is required to interfere with the impugned order when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.

(1) 199b (2) ALD 595 (High. Court oJ A . P . j -- A. Vankaat Karnana Vs. Chairman, indus- trial Tribunal-Labour Court, industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947-SecUon 1 I-A Labour Court approving the order oi dismissal of driver tor entering into the room ol Irailic Superin- tendent and attempting to assult him-Labour Court failed to consider whether the punish- ment imposed is commensurate with the gra- vity of the misconduci-High Court found' the punishment to beharsh and ordered reinstate- ment without backwages.

(2) 1996 (4) ALD 1009 (High Court of A.P.)— T, B. Singh vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section ] 1A— Quantum of punishment Conductor of bus removed from service lor failing to issue tickets to passengers—Not a case of collec- ting fairs but not issuing tickofs—Punish- ment of removal from service quite dis- propi-rtionate to the gravity of the offence— Denial of back-wages while reinstating him would be a deterrent punishment.

(3) 1996 (4) ALD 618 (High Court of A . P . )- Samiullakhan Vs. Labour Court, Godavari- khani.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 11-A-—Labour Court confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner has driven the bus in a drunken state and detained the vehicle causing inconvenience to the passengers and also the punishment removal of service inflicted on the petitioner—-Writ Petition filed questioning Ihc punishment im- posed—Act of petitioner being a solitary and inflicting the extreme punishment is not of proportion to the Rravity of offences—Pes- v indent directed to reinstate the petitioner without back-wages and defer tw o increments with cumulative effect.

J^1)

seal of thr, Tiib^i .1 on this the 5th day of Decem- ber, 2000,

SYJ3D ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal-l

Appendix of Evideice

No oral evidence is adduced by both parties. Documents marked tor trj'j Petitioner:

NIL.

Document's marked for the Respondent by con-

sent :

Ex. Ml—Charge Sheet dated 14-7-1992. Ex. M2—Letter dated 22-1-1993 communicat- ed to the petitioner about the appointment of Enquiry Officer and conducting tihe en- quiry.

Ex. M3—Lxtter dated 13-5-1993 'of ihc En- quiry Officer fixing the enquiry as 28-5-93. Ex. M4—Letter dated 22-tVQ.i of the Enquiry

Officer fixing the enquiry as 8-7-1993.

Ex. M5—Proceedings of the Enquiry Officer. Ex. M6--Enquiry report dated 13-7-1993. Ex. M7—Show cause nolica dated 23-8-93. Ex. M8—Reply dated 1-9-93 submitted by the

petitioner to Ex. M7.

fix. M9—Letter dated 24-12-93 imposing the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. tX M10—Application filed by the management before the National Industrial Tribunal for seeking approval of tho action taken by tihe Management in dismissing the workman from service.

Ex. Mil—Order of the National Industrial Tri-

bunal dated 12-4-1994.

E.\. Ml2—Caution letter given To petitioner for

his absence.

"(iO 11IL OAZl".l"lJ-_ <_>! 1KD1A . JAUUAK'i ZU iriUl/I'AU.jA 30, 1922 UWru 11—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the Mh January, 2001 S.O. 111.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of flie Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween Che employers in relation to the management of M/s. H.P.C. Ltd., ana their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-12-2000.

[No. L-30012|135I0 7-IR(C-1) S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL AT CALCUTTA Reference No. 30 of 1993

PARTIES :

Employers tn relation to the management of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limit- ed

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice B. P. Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management—-Mr. P. B. Chowdhury, Advocate. On behalf of Workmen—None.

STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Petroleum. AWARD

By Order No. L-3OOI2/135/97-IR(C-T) dated 9-11-1998 the Central Government in exercise of its [lowers under section I0C1 )(d) and 2(A) of the In- dustrial Disputes Acf, 19*17 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether tihe action of the management of H.P.C.L. in denying regularisdiion and equality wifh their regular employees to Bnburam YadaV Babul Ch. Das, Balai Jana, Ansti Kr. Das, Rajkuinar Routh is justified ? Tf not, to what relief they are entitled ?"

4. A "No Dispute" Award is accordingly passed and the reference is disposed of.

Dated, Calcutta, The 5llh December, 2000.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the I Ith January, 2U01 S.O. II2.—Tn exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government' hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 32(E), dated the 4tin January, 2000 pub- lished in the Gnzette of India, Extraordinary Part Tl, Section 3(ii) dated the 11 th January, 2000 ;

In the said notification under the heading "Ap- pointed by the Central Government under clause (g) of Section (4) in consultation with the organizations of employees recognized by the Central Government for the purposes" against Serial No, 40, tihe following entries shall be substituted, namely:—

"Sh. Ram Kifhore Trjpathy,

1'iintcJ by the M a n a g e r, G o v t. 01 India Piosh, R u n; K o m i. N ew IDellii-l KllKi-l

•m.l I'lJblMuM bv ihc C n.jTiolK-i uf I'ubheittiniis, r v l h i -l 1005 I, 2001