This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED No.D.L—33001/99

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 5] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2 0 0 1 / M A G HA 14, 1922

Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a

separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications issued by the Ministries of theGovernmentof India

(other than THE Ministries of Defence )

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION

(Department of personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2001

S O. 164.—In supersession of this Department's notification of even number dated 17th July, 2000 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (1) of Section 5 read with Section. 6 of the

(411)

176 GI/2001—1

• 4 12 . - T . T HE G A Z F / I T E - OF I N D IA : F E B R U A RY 3 ,- 7 0 0 1 / M A G HA 1 4, 1 9 22

[ P A XT J I —S E C. Z ( n )Y Dclbi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

(Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government

with the consent of the State Government of

Assam,. Political (A), Department (Vigilance Cell)

vide Notification No. PLA(V)84j99|25-A dated

19-9-2000, hereby extends the powers and juris-

diction of the members of Delhi Spccuil Police

Establishment to the whole State of Assam for in-

vestigatinn of Crime Case No. 10] [99 registered

at Latasil Police Station(Guwahati) under Sections

420, 468 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(A,:t No. 45 of 1860) and offences under Pre-

vention of Corruptioni Act, 1988 and attempt,

abetment and conspiracy in relation -to or in con-

nection with one or more of the offences men-

tioned above and any other offence committed in

MINISTRY OF FINANCE the course of the same transaction arising out of

the same facts.

(Department of Revenue) [ No. 228|70|99-AVD. II]

ORDER

HARI SINGH. Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S,O. 165.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the

Government of India, specially empowered under

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation,

of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling

Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order,

F. No. 673|72[2000-Cus. Vill, dated 1 6 - 1 1 - 2 ^"

under the said Sub-section directing that Sur-

Chandra Dev Narain. Singh R|o "PRIYA", Plot

No. ? ], JVPD Scheme, 10th Road, Juhu, Mumbai

be detained and kept in custody in the Central;

Prison, Mumbai, wiith a< view to preventing him"

from smuggling goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons

to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded

or is concealing himself so that the order cannot

be executed.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec-

tion 7 of the said Act, the Central Govcmmr*"

hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before

the Commissi'onr eof Police, Mumbai within 7 days 413.

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation Of the publication, of this order in¹ the Oificial

of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Gazette.

Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order FF. No. 673|72|2000-Cus. VI1I1

F. No. 673|73|2OOO-Cus. Vill, dated 16-11-2000

under the said Sub-sqction directing that Shri PARKASH CHANDRA, Dy. Secy.

Aditya Singh, R|o "PRIYA", Plot No. 31,

JVPD Scheme, 10th, Road, Juhu Mumbai

_ l il THE OAZFTTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART U- SEC. 3(ii)l

ORDER

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001 """"

S.O. 167.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the

Government of India, specially empowered under

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation

(Department of Economic Affair?) of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling

(Banking Division)

Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order

F. No. 673|74|2000-Cus. Vill, dated 16-11-2000

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001 under the said Sub-section directing that Shri

SO.. 168.—In exercise of the powers conferred Randhir Singh, R|o "PRIYA", Plot No. 31,

by Sec. 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 JVPD Scheme, 10th, Road, Juhu, Mumbai

(10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the re- be detained and kept in custody in the Central

commendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hercby Prison, Mumbai, with a view to preventing him

declares that the provisions of sub-section (2) of from smuggling goods in future.

Section 19 of the said Act, shall not apply to Pun-

jab and Sind Bank, New Delhi for a period upto 2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons

2Ist January, 2001 is so far as they relate to its to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded

holding of the shares of M|s. Dynaanatic Forgings or is concealing himself so that the order cannot

India Ltd. as a pledgee.

be executed.

IF. No. 15|1|98-BOA] 3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

;onferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec-

D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

ion 7 of the said Act, the Central Government

lereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before

the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai within 7 days

)f the publication of this order in the Official

jazette.

[F. No. 673|74J2000-Cus. Vill]

PARKASH CHANDRA, Dy. Secy.

415 New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2001

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY S.O. 169.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) ") of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies

Requisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read

New Delhi, the 16th lanuary, 2001 vitti sub-clause (I) of clause 3 and sub-duuse (I) of clause 8

if the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

jrovisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, after con-

S.O 170.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of ultalion with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints

rule (10) of the Official Language (Use for official pri V. N. Saxena, presently General Manager, Punjab National

Unk as a whole time director (designated as the Executive purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central iiector) of Central Bank of India for the period from the

Government hereby notices the following offics te of his taking charge and upto 30th June, 2005.

of the Salt Commissioner, Jaipur, under the Deptt.

of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of [F. No. 9/42/2000-B.O.l]

Commerce and Industry, whose 80 percent staff D. K. TYAGI, Director

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :—•

1. Office of the Asstt. Sadt Commissioner,

Gandhidbam.

2. Office of the Asstt. Salt Commissioner,

Calcutta.

[ NoE.-12012|l|97-Hindi]

S. JAGADEESAN, Jt. Secy.

416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAOHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

. 417 MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S.O. 171.—Tn exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 9, Clause (b) of sub- rule (2) of rule 12 and sub-rule (1) or rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby directs that the following amendments shall be made in the Noti- fication of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health) Number S-O. 3914, dated the 13th October, 1972, namely:—

(i) In the said Notification, for the portion begining with the brackets, figure and words, "(1) in respect of the post" and ending with • the words and figures "specified in column 4 .shall be the Disciplinary Authority in regard to the penalties specified in column 5", the following shall be substituted namely :—

lL(!) in respect of the posts in the General Central Service, Group B, specified in column 2 of Part I of the Schedule to this Order, the authority specified in column 3 shall be the Appointing Authority and authority specified in Column 4 and 6 shall be the Disciplinary Authority and Appe- late Authority respectively in regard to the penalites specified in Column 5 in respect of hospita.s institutions mentioned below :

1. SaFdarjung Hospital, New Delhi ;

2. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi;

3. Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi;

4. Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated - Hospitals, New Delhi;

5. AH India Institute of Hygiene & Public Health, Calcutta.

6. National Institute of Communicable Diseases, Delhi."418 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)] (ii) In the Schedule to the said Notification, for Part f, the following Part shall be subs- tituted namely:

"PART-I—GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICE GROUP 'B'

S. No. Description of Service Appointing Authoirty

competent to lmpose- impose (with reference 11) and the Appellate

Disciplinary Authority penalities which it may be to the items in Rule (1 Authority thereof.

Penalties Appellate

Authority '.

Authority

5 6 2

Medical Superintendent, All Secretary, Cadre 1.

Safdarjung Hospital

Authority Medical Superintendent Safdarjung Hospital.

Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi.

All Posts.

AU Secretary, Cadre Medical Superintendent

2. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia

Authority Hospital, New Delhi.

Medical Superintendent Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.

All Secretary, Cadre 3.

Authority

Director, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi.

Director Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi

All Secretary, Cadre 4.

Principal and Medical Superintendent, Lady

Authority Principal and Medical Supcritendent, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals.

Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals.

All Posts. Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi AH Post. Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi. All Posts.

All Secretary Cadre

Authority

Director, All India Insti- tute of Hygiene and Public Health Calcutta.

Director AH India Insti- tute of Hygiene and Public Health.

All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta. AH Posts.

Director, National

All Secretary Cadre

Director, National Insti- tute of Communicable

Authority." National Institute of Communicable Diseases,

Disease , Delhi

Institute of Communi- cable Diseases, Delhi

Delhi. All Post.

[File No, Z. 28015/46/95-H] K.C. MISHRA Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

S.O. 172,—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of thi Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right o: User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Govern- ment hereby authorises Shri K. Vadivcl, District Manager MADCO), Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu to perform the functions of the competent authority, Cochin-Coimbatore- Karur Pipeline Project of Petronet CCK Ltd., under the said Act within the territory of the State of Tamil Nadu in place of Shri T.D. Senguttuvan authorised vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number S.O. 985 dated 10-5-2000.

fFile No. R-31015I1812000-O.R.-II] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

419 176 CM/2001 2420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 |PART II—SEC. 3 (>i)]

Now Delhi, the l^lh January. 2001

s. o. 173.—\Vhereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Bihar, a parallel product pipeline from Barauni to Patna along the existing Barauni - Kanpur Product Pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said.pipeline is proposed to be laid which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ham Chandra Bhagat, Competent Authority. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Barauni - Kanpur Pipeline, Post Office - Dhelwan, via - Lohia Nagar, Sipara, Patna - 800020 (Bihar).

J22 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Schedule

Anchal - FATUHA

District-PATNA

Stat*-BIHAR

Name of Village

Khasra HoJ

Area

Plot. No

Hectare

Centlare

Are

GARHOCHAK

232

233

234

231

229

228

227

222

221

220

223

219

218

137

136

135

132

131

85 30

117

118

0 o

119

116

115

262

GOBINDPUR KURTHA

260

FILE NO. R-31015/91/2000-OR-l

S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, UNDER SECY

423124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] [MFTII— m3 (ii)] VTO ^t Tram : WTCT 3, 2001/^m 14, 1922 425

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2001

s. o. 174.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Bihar, a parallel product pipeline from Barauni to Patna along the existing Barauni - Kanpur Product Pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Chandra Bhagat, Competent Authority. Indian Oil Corporation Limited., Baraunt - Kanpur Pipeline, Post Office - Dhelwan, via - Lohia Nagar, Sipara, Patna - 800020 (Bihar).

• 26

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : F E B R U A RY 3, 2 0 01 M A G HA 1 4, 1 9 22

[ P A RT I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )]

Schedule

Anchal - TEGHARA

District - BEGUSARAI

State-BIHAR

Nam* of Village

Khasra No./ Plot. No

Area

Hectare

Are

Centlare

JAMALPUR

2 210 199 202 201

4 0 9 5 0

3 0 0 0 0 n u 0 0 0 0 0

ft V 9 9 5 5 1 •k 0 6 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n

0 1 1

BHABHAUR

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o

S 65 30 75 90 fli O 1 85 4 34 9 68 74 40 13 40 77 41 40 39 95 92 50 72 25 56 6 83 87 85 6 38 61 17 18 78 73

2 11 3 3 0 3 3 4 6 8 4 15 58 2 2 8 10 5 0 0 9 2 1 7 6 6 2 2

98 76 90 85 8 11 65 40 84 8 31 SABORA

51 42 74

3 7 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

192 136 157 136 135 134 110 111 106 132 133 112 113 114 • i "t 519 520 521 522 523 534 533 532 531 530 555 370 366 561 562 365 364 362 361 360 359 358 302 301 300 299 298 297 15 14 18

5U 62

6 1

0 0

13 12

FILE NO. R-31015/54/2000-OR-l

S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, UNDER SECY.

421 176 01/2001-^42B "THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3,2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC 3 (ii —^f¥3 (ii)] 3, 14, 1922 429 1362 1361 1360 1359 1358 1357 1356 7698 1355 7695 1351 1350 1349 1346 1345

21 63 97 27 -27 0 36 84 14 73 90 45 0 14 38 43 65 80 85 2 69 80 57

1 1 3 3 3 6 1 2 9 2 4 5 6 4 3 5 3 1 5 6 1 1 6

1343 1342 1344 1341 1340 1339 1338 1337 1335 1334

60 99 85 27 63 94 95 14 57

1331 1325 1324 1323 1322 3468 3467 3466 3465 3464 3470 3471 3472 3460 34610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 55 61 40 91 92 10 46 85 35 74 3 18 63 27 65 15 22 28 3 1 11 0 3 3 3 4 15 0 0 1 3 9 4 7 0 9 5 4 6 6 3459 3458 3457 3454 3453 3452 3449 3447 0 430 - THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3 2001 MAGHA 14 1922 FPABT IT—Sue T Ciill 4313 2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAOHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)] 433434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC 3 (ii)j 435

New Delhi, the 24th January. 2001

S. o. 175.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Bihar, a parallel product pipeline from Barauni to Patna along the existing Barauni - Kanpur Product Pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

Now, thereiore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Chandra Bhagat, Competent Authority. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Barauni - Kanpur Pipeline, Post Office - Dhelwan, via - Lohia Nagar, Sipara, Patna - 800020 fRiharY

176 01/2001—4

436 THE'GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Schedule

Anchal - PUNDARAKH District - PATNA State-BIHAR

Name of Village Khasra No./ Area

Plot. No

H"ctara Are - Centlare

2 3 4 5

LACHHMIPUR

53 1 40

35 9 65 74

16 27

0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0

55 5 0 13 4 27 10 3 3 3

559 556 555 552 551 550 549 548 547 544

PUNARAKH

1418 1415 1414 1412 1409 1407

63 10 5 61 67 73 98 69 58 21 14 21 18 56 89 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01406 1405 1404 1403 1398 1396 1393 1390 1388 1386 1383 1382 1381 1380 1379 1374 1375 1373 1372 1370 1368 1364 91 10 54 0 9 2 48 94 1 36 91 2 16 4 3 3 5 2 2 3 0 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 8 1 3 3 6 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1363 437 1 " -. ——o\ —

1362 0 1 ²¹ 1361 0 1 ⁶³ 1360 0 3 9⁷ 1359 ° ³ ²I

1358 0 3 27 1357 0 6 0 1356 0 1 ³⁶ 7698 0 2 84 1355 0 9 ¹⁴ 7695 0 2 73 1351 0 4 90

r>AA7 0 6 ⁶⁵438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PART U—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2 3437 3436 3180

5 41 58 63 81

4 17 4 1 12 7

48 22 11 79 77 43 27

83 22 91 22 0 40 56 27 27

3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3197 3201 3203 3211 3212 3225 3224 3223 3230

3231 3232 3222 3234 3235 3315 3316 3317

52 2 41 14 82 44 88 57 67 20 77 91 20 28 76

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 1 2 2 3 3 5 7 1 11 7 0 3 3 3 4 5 7 3 24 2 11 10 10 1 12 5 14 9 8

7610 7611 7612 7613 7606 7605

RAILI

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 68 78 28 27 54 40 10 66 5 74 0 6 7 3 2 5 6 3 0 3 7 3 7 877 878 879 880 881 882 899 900 898 902 906 907

439 1 2 3 4 5

gig 0 5 40 910 0 0 40

911 0 2 51

917 0 2 43

912 0 1 76

913 0 3 33

939 0 15 87

935 0 0 40

938 0 0 40

937 0 7 37

936 0 3 24

953 0 1 50

954 0 4 82

955 0 8 50

960 0 0 66

959 0 3 0

958 0 3 53

995 0 2 21

994 0 1 1

993 0 0 46

966 0 1 66

967 0 11 44

988 0 0 40.

969 0 6 81

970 0 0 40

979 0 3 0

978 0 2 83

981 0 '2 73 DHIBAR 1725 0 0 40

1724 0 8 22 1721 0 5 76 1720 0 7 20 1719 0 5 89 1718 0 2 92 1670 0 2 73 1671 0 7 8 1752 0 4 62 1715 0 0 40 1678 0 7 41 1679 0 4 6 1683 0 3 81 1685 0 3 79 1686 0 44 19 SAHNAURA 928 0 5 87 929 0 2 78 930 0 8 27440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 7 0 0 3 2 5 3 1 2 2 3 0 1 8 4 10 3 6 5 3 12

2 931 932 933 921 922 923 924 917 915 916 913 914 912 911 910 909 905 904 937 938 939 940 941

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 94 40 74 40 40 0 73 18 38 85 3 73 10 65 22 86 3 16 0 81 20 29 43 MAMRAKHABAD

9 10 11

8 5 6 6 7 6 1 3 3 7 7 6 0 7 3 2 12 1

12 14 19 20 25 26 30 31 37 38 39 47 48 49 57 58 59 60 61 64

28 7 84 37 93 2 74 81 37 66 83 46 60 77 93 96 50 48 8 61 78 33 68 83

3 1 1 1 3 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

65 .

441442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SBC, 3 (ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 302 0 4 52 303 0 3 0 304

305

306

312

313

314

315

316

334

335

.336

337

104 MOJAHIDPUR

195 BARIARPUR

196

197

365 NEAMATPUR

362

361

377 0

74 0

18 0

84 0

31 0

92 0

40 0

20 0

93 0

3 0

72 0

85 0

40 0

27 0

96 0

17 0

59 0

42 0

17 0

39 0

26 0

20 0

56 0

57 0

22 0

12 0

FILE NO. R-31015/55/2000-OR-l

S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, UNDER SECY.

•443 176*31/2001— 5444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 445 446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAQHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2 3 4 9 0 10 1893 95 0 1892 69 0

94 0 4

1891

0 4

1890

40 0

40 .1911

0 0 1912

65 0

1889

40 0

1913

47 12

11 1749

0 0

1747

40 0

1088

1089

0 0 0 4

1090

1091

40 40 0 51 26 5

1095

1096

84 2

1097

44 3

1098

1099

40 52 1100

21 1101 1 2

76 1119

1 1120

40 1121 1118

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 58 1 1 0 7 0

1105

85 1

1114

92 0

1117

33 1

1116

0 1

1115

0 800

0 799

0 750

0 752

0 753

0 757

0 758 759

0 0 749

0 760 0

16 40 57 5 3

60 30 40 0

84 1

17 5

9. 0 761 0 2 0 744 40 30 40 66 80 1 0 743 447 448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (jl)l 1 2 3 5 4 0 40 2431 4 2430

0 2437 2438

0 0

0 2439 2440

0 2417

0 2418

0 2441

0 2456

0 2457

0 2455 2458

0 2459 2460

0 2415

0 2416 2484

0 2334

0 2361

0 2321

0 2322

0 2333 2342

0 2335

0 2341

0 2336

0 2338

0 2337

0 2279

0 2299 2298

0 2295

0 2296

0 2293

0 2290

0 2289

41 3

26 5

18 5

10 5

55 2

40 0

37 1

54 6 4 0 4 14

57 0

66 1

40 0

66 0 4

55 77

86 3

61 1

54 40 52 0

28 5

28 9

98 2

87 8

40 0

66 7

27 3

40 0

2 73 70 00 0 2288 16 3 4 0 2284 8 5 0 2285 83 6 0 2000 38 6 0 2001 3 2 0 2002 449 450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001

s. 0.176.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Bihar, a parallel product pipeline from Barauni to Patna along the existing Barauni - Kanpur Product Pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Chandra Bhagat, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Barauni - Kanpur Pipeline, Post Office - Dhelwan, via - Lohia Nagar, Sipara, Patna - 800020 (Bihar).

451

scneduia

Anchal - BARH District - PATNA State-BIHAR

Nam* of Village Khasra No/. Area

Plot No

Hectare Are Centlare

2671

40 SAHRI

2672

2674

2675

2682

2686

2687

2692

2693

2694

2696

2489

2488

2487

2486

2485

2484

3565

2481

3564

2467

2466

2465

2464

i 2459

2458

2456

2455

2454

2463

2446

2447

24486 2 0 . 3550 7 26 0 2413 0 40 0 2877 4 90 2878 0 176 01/2001—6452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3 (iifl 1 23 0 5 28 2883 2882 0 82 2881 0 4 3 5 3 33

2880

0 0

2885

2886

2888

2589

0 1

66 0

87 8

2890

0 9

2891

0 3

2338

2337

0 0

2326

2327

2328

2325

2324

2316

2318

2319

2323

2313

2304

2299

2302

2303

2305

2306

2307

2308

2309

2068

2069

2067

2070

2085

2071

2072

2073

2074 1

54 37 57 25 64 52 0

40 0

34 8

80 0 4

75 3

83 62 74 0 4 0 4

25 45 5

65 0

32 6 4

45 3

41 0

•17 5

50 6

40 0

76 0

59 5

42 5

93 3

1 5

59 540 0 0 2075 94 7 0 2076 4 0 2077 36 40 0 0 2078 453454 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SHC. 3 (ii)| 1 2 3 4 S 0 0 0

742 727 726 725

724

728

0 0

729

716

525

526

528

0 0 0

520

529

505

510

506

507

508.

0 0

488

487

486

471

472

476

475

474

473

447

446

445

444

427

0 0 0

426

3199 0 6

40 10 40 3

40 6

30 40

15 5 0 3 7

4 5

4 7

11 6

5 0

12 7

74 0

56 2

63 3

37 3

33 58 0

BIRHANA

3201

3203

3204

3205 5 1

11 14 93 0

74 0

400 0 3206 40 0 0 3207 17 9 0 3054 5 59 0 7126 455 456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 fpART II—SEC. 3 fittl 1 2 3 . 4 5 1976 0 40 1998 0 1996 1995 1997 1999 2015 2016 2017 2024 2025 2023 2031 2030 2029 2032 2033 2063 2062 2061 .2060 2059 2052 2056 2057 2055 2054 2053 2045 1564 1576 1577 1580 1578 1579 T589

0 2

42 0

69 0

0 0

82 0

40 0

38 0

8 2

21 0

82 0

40 0

8 0

39 0

56 0

42 0

40 0

69 0

74 0

40 0

93 0

31 0

40 0

FILE NO. R-31015/56/2000-OR-l

S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, UNDER SECY.

457 458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)1 45"

176CH/20U1 -1⁴^° _ _ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FBMtJAkY 31 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] -i.61462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAOHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)1 " 4 6 3 1 2 1481 1479 1477 1476 1474 1478 1473 1472 1461 1460 1459 1458 1457 1456 43 44 45 1610 907 792 791 789 788 787 786 785 784 783 762 761 760 759 758 757 756 754 755 764 753 752 751 723 722 721 720 719 7in

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 4 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 3 2 3 0 3 0 10 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 1 2 11 7 3 3 0 7 19

40 40 36 40 83 80 10 40 73 91 73 21 20 40 40 54 46 73 40 50 22 86 27 83 33 40 40 87 44 40 40 56 40 72 72 81 73 77 48 70 22 36 0 54 40 8 49

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 463^ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SHC. 3 (il)] 465 466^_^^_^^^_^JTHE GAZETTE qF^D^PIA: FEBRUARY 3, 2001MAGHA14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 467 468 THEJ3AZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)| AM470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA tt.-mi llWr II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 4T]472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 |PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 2234 16 0 0 2242 15 4 36 2243

0 2245 2247

0 2248

0 2254

0 2255 2494

0 2493

0 2497

0 2498

0 2500

0 2503 2504

0 2485

0 2484 2482

0 2481

0 2480

0 2479

0 2476

0 2475

0 2474

0 2940 2941

0 0 2942

0 2945

0 2970

0 2948

0 2949

0 2969

0 2968

0 2958

0 2959 2961 2962 2967 2966 2965

0 0 0 0 0 0 2903 10

67 72 22 10 2 7

21 8

27 47 6 4

36 27 3

19 4

51 5 2 2

54 5 3 3 1 0

42 40 82 4

36 1 4 4 1

• 41 96 67

8 2 2 4

40 0

40 81 83 40 0

83 0 1 1 2 1

74 1

3636 4 4 2904 17 8 2906 90 4 0 0 0 2907 473474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY }. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 475 176OI/2001— 9476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PAKT II—SEC. 3 (ii)J i\ew Delhi, the 30th Januarv. 2001

S. o. 177.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government thai it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Bihar, a parallel product pipeline from Barauni to Patna along the existing Barauni - Kanpur Product Pipeline,should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary toacquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Any person interested in the land,described in the said Schedule may,,within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India,-are made available to general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Chandra Bhagat, Competent Authority. Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Barauni - Kanpur Pipeline, Post Office - Dhelwan, via - Lohia Nagar, Sipara, Patna - 800020 (Bihar).¹477

Schedqle

Anchal • MOKAMA

District - PATN

State-BIHAR

Name of Village

Khasra No./

Area

Plot.No

Hectare

Are

Centlare

PACHMAHLA

201

205

210

220

219

218

213

214

215

0 0

455

0 MEKRA

454

452

451

423

422

421

414

2273

2274

486

462

461

458

453

199

198

197

196

195

0 4

5 7

48 27

55 2

19 2

42 3

30 3

12 2

8 1

40 0

38 3

92 0

69 1

17 9

21 2

52 9

47 6

85 7

90 7

60 0

47 3

92 3

8 2

46 0

39 1

40 0

59 1

40 5

34 5

54 3

40 042 3 0 182 4 83 0 183 88 2 184 0 47X THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 '[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 4 5 1 2 3 185 181 186

2337

2336

3502

2348

1 0 5 0 3 8 3 0

2350

2331

55 74 23 40 99 82 60 56 57 75

2330

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2329

2328

2327

58 85 58 0

2326

2325

6 5 1 3 2 3 2 1

2324

63 85 44

2496

2497

2502

2503

2504

2505

2506

2507

19 8 1 2 3 0 2 1 1 1

2508 2509 2510

2511

2512

2513

2514

58 29 63 9 41 77 86 88 73 26 10 40 56 69 81

2515

2516

2517

2519

2533

2534

2535

2536

2537

2538

2539

2540

25412542 2543 0 3 0 3 4 2 2 0 4 7 6 3 0 0 5 0 8 0 1 36 77 73 40 62 25 81 49 40 40 0 40 90 40 69 2544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 479 2 3 5 1 4 2545 2547 2548 2549

2550

2551

2552

2553

3505

2554

2560

2559

2556

2555

3316

0 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 7 3 2 4

3315

3314

3319

3320

3321

3322

3323

3324

0 1 2 8 0 2 0 3

3325

3326

3327

3328

3329

3330

3331

3332

3334

3335

3356

3357

3358

3359

3348

3349

3350

92 16 4 40 40 49 21 51 51 4 57 40 63 35 79 5 40 94 26 17 98 61 40 5 46 66 70 40 85 21 39 39 58 45 27 11 40 40 8 26 40

0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 4 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3354

1209

KANHAIPUR

3 1

69 94

12100 0 0 0 1211 40 84 6 0 1595 29 2 0 1596 • 480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2 3 5 4 56 40 46 52 40 40 94

1597 1599 1223 1225 1226 1594 1593 1592

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 2 1

1591 1590 1228 1229 1230 1231 1589 1588 1587

61 52 43 80 1 97 40 91 39 40 8 40 77 63 26 14

0 7 0 2 4 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 50 7 75 40 87 58 40 51 4 97

0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 40 83 40 40 74 87 97 11

1586 1585 1579 1507 1508 1506 1505 1504 1503 1509 1577 1502 1512 1513 1501 1500 1499 1498 1497 1496 1495 1494 1493 1492 1487 1486

48 97 46 3

0 2 1 1 0 3

1485 1484 1483 1482

0 0 0 0 0 0 4814X2 ___ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 3 4 2 5 1617

1618

0 4

0 0

40 39

1905

SEONAR

1906

1907

1908

1909

0 0 0 0 0

1910

1911

1912

1903

1899

1898

1895

1894

1893

3 2 7 8 0 7 8 0 0 13 1 3 3 3 4

1892

1891

1887

1886

1885

1827

1829

1830

1831

1832

1833

1837

1836

1835

1834

1821

1822

1820

1818

1819

1817

1815

1814

1813

1812

18111810 1797 54 56 8 16 40 63 48 40 74 95 29 27 45 90 32 40 48 30 72 89 81 51 40 0 79 40 40 40 31 40 40 38 74 29 45 90 30 74 75 40 22 63 0 8 9 2 8 3 3 0 3 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 3 5 4 9 0 2 0 11 4 2 1

28 33

1796 1795

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 483 176GI/2001 -104X4 . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 _ | PAR i 11—SEC, 3 Wl S 4 3 2 1 0

3130

3120

3113

3821

3112

0 0

3111

3110

3107

3103

3104

3105

3345

3346

3347

3348

3328

3329

3344

3330

3327

1 BARAHPUR

127

126

124

123

130

43 3

41 13

45 5

45 2

29 2

17 5

40 0

28 3

12 7

72 2

40 0

90 1

18 2

43 3

11 10

3 3

3 8

18 10

40 0

63 24 7

71 5

45 2

19 4

20 4

81 3

27 3

72 2

72 5

27 3

74 4

90 4

3 9

35 3

13 1

42 2

88 3

76 069 3 0 131 12 10 0 132 77 2 0 122 69 0 0 135 485 3 5 1 4 2 11 136 138 0 1

12 62 66

108

0 0 0

107

103

106

140

144 145 143 177 174 175

173

35 44

172

3 2 8 1 8 2

184

183

0 tit1

186

187

188

189

90 20 32

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 3 2 12 0 3 5 1

32 51 39

190 191 195 196 859 860 856 854 853 803 805

806

9 0 7

817

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

818 807 808 809

2327

MOR

0 0

23370 2737 0 0 40 97 87 0 1 2338 2339 0 486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY .1. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 I PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 4 5 3 1 2 86 2340 0 2 2343

0 2344

0 2345

0 2346

0 2348

0 2288

0 2357

0 2358

0 2360

0 2734

0 2733

0 2730

0 2729

0 2790

0 2792

0 2793

0 2797

0 2771

0 2859

0 2860

0 3935

0 3934

0 3936

0 3937

0 3967 3966

0 0 3968

0 3977

0 3974

0 3973

0 3989

0 3991

0 3988 3986

0 3992

0 3984

59 12

64 0

17 5

90 1

40 0

95 56

67 33

22 11

59 5

74 9

90 21

3 12

26 2

40 0

46 15 2 6 1

80 1

99 2

19 4

67 22

91 7

64 0

40 0

41 7

54 3

54 2

65 4

40 10 0

41 13997 0 52 0 3998 0 29 3999 0 2 27 3 4005 0 63 2 4006 0 72 4021 0 5 45 23 0 4023 487 2 3 5 1 4 4022 2 0 28 4014 0 81 10 0 7 4032 2

4033

4045

4046

4047

4 2 7

4048

4049

4053

4054

18 45 40

4056

925

SULTANPUR

933

934

935

909

908

910

911

912

94 77

703

695 671

3 3 4

670

669

668

667

664

657

1148

658

2 0 1 1 9 1

91 40 50 72 59 24

659

655

0 4

654

660

661

652

81 74

651

65445 2 650 0 40 2 409 0 96 2 408 0 48S __ __ THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 [PART n—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 413 0 7 66 412 0 8 418 0 4 - 454

453

459

458

460

461

462

464

479

480

478

481

482

485

3349

0 AUTA

3350

3351

3352

3353

3354

3348

3324

3321

3320

3317

3316

3315

3306

3307

3303

3302

3296

3297

3298

3299

3300

22 41 97 11 0 4 4

90 9

70 2

42 0

66 5

86 6

40 14 2 0

53 1

19 1

94 11

77 4

25 45

55 5 5

16 8

54 1

29 4

46 3

18 1 2 1

29 81 6

32 0

40 3

97 3

68 12

30 0

40 0

40 1

13301 0 61 0 3481 91 3486 0 1 2 3 0 49 3487 489 2 1 3 4 5 3489 61 57 3490 3491

0 0 0

4 1 2

3216

46 72 1

3224

3225

3 1

3226

3229

3231

3232

3233

3234

3236

3 38 12 58

6 2 2 2 5 4 1

3238

3239

3240

3241

0 0 0

3242

3243

3244

3245

3246

3247

3165

2884

40 40 44

2886

2887

6 7 0

2883

2889

CHINTAMANCHAK

40 62 72 11

0 0 0

1 2 5 7 8 23 24

270 28 0 29 0 30 8 1 4 0 2 0 99 99 72 40 0 70 ⁴W.___ _... = THEGAZETTE OFjNDIAj FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 |PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 34 0 6 30 33 0 0 40 41

0 42

0 642

0 643

0 641 612 5

81 0

55 25

18 7

84 2

21 611

610

0 608

0 644

0 607

0 670

0 671 1

84 2

94 1

94 16

13 2

70 0 672

0 678

0 604

0 603

90 1

63 3

4 0 679

0 690

25 3

6 691

0 692

0 693 695

0 711

0 721

0 720

0 780

71 2

33 6

67 18

72 10

93 3

65 3

54 3

59 1

82 0 777

0 776

0 775

0 774

0 773

0 772

0 765

0 770 2

65 7

66 6

81 7

90 2

45 3

27 3

0 3

81 12

0 0 0 2 1 6 7 781 778 31 47 0 0 ↩

0 7696 18 768 16 15 2237 21 8 0 2236 8 55 0 2235 441

176(11/2001 II

492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001 MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)| 3 4 5 1 2

2908

2884

2810

2811

2812

2813

2814

2861

2860

2859

2858

2857

2856

2846

2845

2818

2819

2824

2827

2828

2817

2800

2799

2798

2797

2791

2787

909 MOKAMA KHAS

916

917

918

919

921 3

21 0

40 2

27 3

45 3

40 0

41 4

64 2

15 1

13 2

78 1

5 1

89 0

67 0

55 0

81 3

78 1

29 2

36 4

70 .16

19 5

80 3

81 3

14 3

40 0

58 440 0 0 923 40 0 0 928 40 5 0 929 97 0 0 930 85 7 0 927 *93 , 5 4 1 2 3 86 7 0 931 40

936

933

932

934

1006

1007

1012

1013

8 |4

1014

1025

1024

1023

1031

1032

1033

6013

1091

1090

1087

1081

. 0

1080

1079

1082

1083

1073

1072

1070

1043

1044

1069

1068

1067

1065

1066

1208

GOSHAINGAON

120921 42 0 1215 4''4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3. 2001 MAGHA 14. 1922 IPAKT II—SEC. 3 fii)l 1 3 2 4 5 7 36 0 1216 1217

0 '

1218

1219

1224

1246

1257

1258

1259

1262

1283

1287

1288

1289

Q 2

1292

1293

1299

1748

1298

1320

1319

1304

1305

1306

1318

1313

1309

1310

586

DARIAPUR

FILE NO. R-31015/53/2000-OFM

S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, UNDER SECY.

495

5. The Executive Director,

Syndicate Bank, Manipal.

6. The Managing Director,

Syndicate Bank, Manipal.

.. Respondents.

This Industrial Dispute coming on before me for final hearing on 13-7-2000 upon perusing the peti- tion, counter and domestic enquiry report and all other material papers on rccuid and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Pashnpathy Eshwaranath, Advo- cate for the petitioner and respondents I to 6 being set ex-parte, "the matter having stood over for con- sideration fill this day the court passed the follow- ing :—

AWARD

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2001

The petitioner file this petition under Section 2- A(2) of I.D. Act to set aside the removal order dt. 29-1-199A against the petitioner and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.

S.O. 178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of &e In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial TtibunalfLabour Court, Warangal as shown in the annppcure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-12-2000.

[No. L-12025/l/200O-IR(B-II>]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, AT WARANGAL

PRESENTS:

Sri V. Appalanarasimtiam, B.Sc., B.L., Judge.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of August, 2000.

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57 of 1996

BETWEEN

2. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows :—The petitioner was ap- pointed as a clerk . in the Syndicate Bank on 15-6-1968. He was promoted" as Special Assistant. While tSie petitioner was working in the branch of 1st respondent, he was issued charge sheet dated 13-11-1992 with six charges. Petitioner has given ex- planation to flie charge sheet. Domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Fair and reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner in domes- tic enquiry. Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate fihe evidence on behalf of the petitioner in domestic enquiry. The enquiry report is based as full of irre- gularities. The enquiry officer failed to appreciate the evidence in correct lines. Enquiry Officer failed to consider the evidence of D.W.-2 and D.W.-3, who supported the case of the petitioner. Basing on the enquiry report, petitioner was dismissed from service on 29-7-1994. The appeal filed by the peti- tioner was rejected. The dismissal order against the petitioner is illegal. So, this petition is filed to set aside the removal order against the petitioner and for reinstatement with all benefits. Hence the petition.

A.O. Jeelani, S/o Md. Ghouse, H. No. 45-532, Moula Ah Railway Quarters, Prashanth Nagar, Secunderabad-47. Petitioner.

AND

1. The Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Hanamkonda Branch.

2. The Divisional Manager,,

Syndicate Bank, 6-3*653, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

3. The Asst. General Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, 6-3-653, Homajiguda, Hyderabad.

4. The General Manager,

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the respondents are as follows :—The material averments in th© petition are not true and correct. Petitioner was issued charge sheet for issuing pay orders with- out any amount! to the credit of the person in whose favour four pay orders were issued. Petitioner mis- appropriated amount to a tune of Rs. 1,10,191 by issuing of those four pay orders. The petitioner him- self reimbursed an amount of Rs. 1,05,500 on four different dates by filling up and signing the pay slips. Fair and reasonable opportunity wag given to the petitioner in domestic enquiry Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved with material on record; For the proved mis-coriduc?, dismissal of petitioner from service is just and reasonable. The-said punish- ment is not dis-proportionate to the proved mis- conduct against the petitioner. There are no merits in the petition. Petitioner is not entiled for any relief. The petition, is liable to be dismissed.

Syndicate Bank, Personnel Wing, Manmal.

176 Gi/aeoi—12.

496 THE 0AZETTE OF M>lA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART I I - S E C. JK")]

4. At the time of the arguments, respondents remained ex-parte. Advocates on behalf of the res- pondents failed to attend. This Tribunal to address arguments on behalf of the respondents, Ar- guments on behalf of the petitioner are heard.

5. On the above pleadings, there are three points for consideration:—

(1) Whether the petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the domestic enquiry?

(2) Whether tlhe charges framed against the petitioner are proved, according to law and material on record?

(3) Whether the punishment imposed against the petitioner in domestic enquiry is dis-propor- tionate to. the charges proved against the petitioner in the given facts of the matter ?

6. POINT No. 1 :—Domestic enquiry file receiv- ed by this Tribunal is perused. The petitioner parti- cipated in the domestic enquiry and cross examined the management witnesses with reference to the documents. Petitioner also examined two witnesses On his behalf besides himself as D.W.-l. Enquiry Officer has given opportunity for tfhe petitioner to address arguments. After giving fair and reasonable oppor- tunity, domestic enquiry was conducted against £&e petitioner. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

7. POINT No. 2.—Charge Nos. 1 to 4 are for issue of pay orders for the amounts stated therein by the petitioner without receiving any credit by way of cash or transfer in respect of said pay orders on different dates, as fully stated in the respective charg- es. Charge No. 5 is lor mis-appropriation of the amount covered by above four pay orders and for wrong certification in the accounts of the Bank in relation to the said pay orders. Charge No. 6 is for recovery of balance amount of Rs. 4,691 as over- due interest from the petitioner after accepting reim- bursement of Rs. 1,05,500 deposited by the petition- er out of the loss caused to the Bank to a" tune of Rs. 1,10,191 covered by four pay orders.

8. The advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 1999 (5)-ALT-450-O>iv'sional Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad and another Vs. E. Rara Reddy and another). It is held in the above deci- sion that Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is com- petent to re-appreciat" the evidence to come to a risV conclusion in relation to the charge against the workman in domestic enquiry.

9. The petitioner was charged for issue of four nfv orders aggregating a sum of Rs. 1.10,191 during tv n~yi~A between 1-1-1901 to 31-12-91 as Special Assistant at Hanamkonda-WaTangail Branch of Syn- dicate Bank. As oer the clharges, thp above pay nnW<; wer° issued bv the petitioner without receiv- ing anV credit in tesnect of above pav orders either bv cash or bv transfer, which resulted in financial jo** tn thp. Rant t>-> that amount covered by pay nH"r<: TV said 'tresisiaritv WO¹'M amount as mis- rn^J^t "r, the nart of the netftioner. In the expla- nation to fjtc charge -sheet, the petitioner stated that he issued pay order for Rs. 1,405 (MJbA-l> tavour- ing SRTA., Warangal and handed to S. Ravmder, who is the customer of the Bank. He further stated in the explanation that he informed the said tact to the Manager, when the balance was not tallied. He further stated in the explanation that the above- order was issued in hurried moment and with an intention to serve the customer better without delay.

In respect of other three pay orders (MEX-6, 11 and 17), the petitioner stated in his explanation he issued those pay orders as per the instructions of the Manager (M. W-l) without observing the normal procedure. The petitioner alleged friendship and financial dealings between the manager and M.A. Rab (D.W.-2) in whose favour the above three pay orders were issued. So in the explanation to the charge sheet itself, the petitioner categorically admit- ted issue of four pay orders in question by him without depositing of amount by cash or credit and without following the procedure for issue of pay ord- ers. The admission of petitioner in his explanation itself is sufficient to prove tlie irregularity commit- ted by the petitioner in issuing those pay orders. The personal difficulties or problems of the petitioner are absolutely irrelevant and the petitioner is bound to be deligent by all means while discharging duties in Nationalised Bank to serve people.

10. In the domestic enquiry, the four pay orders are marked as MEX-1, 6, 11 and 17. The manage- ment witnesses M,Ws-l to 3 clearly deposed the ir- regularity committed by the petitioner in issuing those four pay orders and the manipulation done by the petitioner in making wrong entries in the rele- vant registers. Their evidence is with reference to the documents marked as MEXs-1 to 40 in domestic en- quiry. M.W-1 categorically denied more than one time in cross-examination about his financial deal- ings in any manner with D.W.-2, in whose favour MEX-6, 11 and 17 were issued. The petitioner is examined as D.W.-l in domestic enquiry. Petitioner examined D.Ws-2 and 3 on his behalf. Exs. DEX-J to 3 are marked on behalf of the petitioner in do- mestic enquiry.

11. During evidence in domestic enquiry, D.W.-l admitted that there shall be credit either by cash or transfer and then only pay orders can be issued. D.W- 1 further deposed that when pay order is issued, it should be recorded in the pay order issued register and after closure of the business hours, all cash, and credit slips have to be tallied and figure has to be carried out through O.G. 167 and that total debit towards pay orders paid has to be carried to O.G. 167 and the same figure has to be reflected in OG-1 When D.W-1 was questioned in cross-examination whefier he followed the above procedure for issue of these four pay orders, he replied that h" followed the instructions of the Manager (MW-1) DW-1 in- tentionajlv avoided to answers question No 4 direct- ly I ,,?learly shows arrogance of the petitioner and his: intelligence and talented way of his discharging duties in the bank. TThere is absolutely no accept- r V Hi ^e m domestic enquiry in support of the stand token by the petitioner that he issued the four pay orders, only as per the instructions""of-IMr W-T la relation to MEX-1 pay order, D.W.-l admitted497 a close scrutiny of the- evidence of M.W.-2, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that DW-2 de- posed before enquiry officer in such manner only to help the petitioner to come out of the charges. DW-2 admitted that he received the pioceeds of the three pay orders, MEX-6, 11 arid 17. The evidence o) M VV.-2 that he handed over cash on different dates to M.W.-l by keeping on the table and left, is noth- ing, but false. The above cvkience is only to sub- stantiate the defence stand tukeu by the petitioner. DW-2 admitted that the petitioner (DW-1) stood as guarantor for him alongwith some other staff for his Chit from M|s. Warangal Chit Funds in 1991. The ubove evidence is sufficient to believe the friendship and understanding? between DW-2 and DW-1 since 1991, However there is no scrap of paper, to prove any type of money dealings between DW-2 and M.W-1. So l!he evidence of DW-2, that MW-1 only h.inded owi J IJ pay o:ders MEX-6", 11 and 17 is no-hint, but fiilsc. So also his evidence that he handed over cush to M.W.-l on four different dates is nothing, but fuhe. If the said amount was paid by DW-2 to M.W.-l on four different dates, there was no necessity or obligation for DW-1 to fill up the pay slips MEX-31, 33, 35 and 37 in hs own hand-writing and signature... The above circum- stances would support the theory of the management that petitioner only reimbursed the amount under Exs. MEX-31, 33, 35 and 37 and not anybody else, mudiless DW-2. The evidence of DW-2 is interest- ed to support the defence of the petitioner because of intcrse dealings, friendship and understanding between DW-1 and DW-2 since 1991. So the evi- dence of DW-2 cannot be accepted as trust-worthy. DW-3 supported the claim of the petitioner to some extern for the ieasohs best known to him. On per- usal of evidence of DW-3, his evidence is not suffi- cient to prove that DW-2 only deposited the amount under Exs. MEX-31, 33, 35 and 37. When the evidence oi D.W.-2 is found as not trust-worthy, the evidence of DW-3 also is liable to be thrown out as false. Management! filed MEX-39 as "ff^sional letter said to have been issued by the petitioner by admitting the irregularities covered by the charges. On appreciating the material on record, the enquiry officer found that MEX-39 was not given by the peti- tioner voluntarily. This Tribunal also perused the contents of MEX-39. MEX-39 contains some facts, which are not expected to be stated by the peti- tioner in the confessional letter. The said letter might hqve been prepared in sucb as attempt to prove the nexus between the petitioner and DW-2. On perusal of the contents of the letter MEX-39, this Tribunal also has no hesitation to hold that peti- tioner was not made any confession voluntarily as mentioned in Ex. MEX-39. So MEX-39 shall not be looked into for any purpose. Enquiry Officer also examined other evidence only to give findings on the charges. The findings of the enquiry officer are not based on MEX-39. This Tribunal also examined the mate- rial on record, excluding MEX-39.

id his explanation to the charge sheet! that he issued sdid pay order to serve customer better by handing oVer the said pay order to one S. Ravinder, without any credit by way of cash or transfer. During evi- dence in domestic enquiry, D.W-1 deposed as if he issued Ex. MEX-1 pay order also as per the inst- ructions of M.W-1. As rightly observed by tttie en- quiry officer, the stand taken by the petitioner for pVy order MEX-1 is in consistent and contradictory at different stages. It would only reflect mala fide in- tention of the petitioner to throw blame on M.W-1 for the irregularity committed by him, while issuing these four pay orders. The evidence of DW.-l is su- fficient to hold that he has not followed the pres- cjribed procedure for issue of the pay orders MEX- 1, 6, 11 and 17 and as such, Che said issue of pay ^rders without! any credit in favour of the payee of pay orders by cash or transfer, is an irregularity com- mitted by the petitioner with fuli knowledge. It result- ed in financial loss to tlie Bank and so the said irre- gularity would amount to mis-conduct. The answer of D.W-1 to question No. 12 in domestic enquiry is sufficient to believe that he paid the amount covered by MEX-6, when it came for payment through Clearing, eventhough the said pay order did not contain signature of the Manager. The evidence of D.W-1 that Manager informed him that he need not Worry and he would sign it later, cannot be believed to be true. D.W-1 admitted tlhat it is his duty to verify and ensure that credit is issued by the Bank by way of cash or transfer while issuing pay orders and that he did not do it, because of heavy work load. It is not art excuse. It is nothing but gross negligence jand irresponsibility discharge of duties by the peti- tioner, amounting to mis-conduct. It is the petitioner who attempted to throw every blame on M.W-1 to protect himself from the irregularities committed by jhim in issuing these four pay orders. The petitioner himself deposited amounts by cash to a tune of Rs. 1,05,500 on four different dates. Petitioner him- self filled no payment slips ay MEX-31, 33, 35 and 37 on 15-6-92, 22-6-92, 27-6-92 and 6-7-92 respec- tively end deposited the amounts as noted therein. DW-1 admitted that he prepared and signed the above pay slips for depositing said amount. But he r;tnted that he did EO as per the instructions of M.W.-l. There is absolutely no evidence to say that M.W.-l instructed the petitioner to deposit the amounts as above on different dates. The said evidence of D.W.-l is to defend himself and to throw mud on M.W.-l. The theory of the petitioner, that at all times he bluntly followed the instructions of M.W.-l which arc illegal and against the procedure to be followed in the Bank, cannot believed to be tni",. When it came to light that accounts were not tallied, petitioner is expected to be deligent, at least when major portion of the amount covered by pay orders ;s heinq deposited. The theory of petitioner that he blindly followed the instructions of M.W.-l and filled up MEX-31, 33, 35 and 37 is nothing but false.

13. The enquiry officer correctly apprecia- ted the evidence of M.W. s-1 to 3. supported by documentary evidence. The enquiry offi- cer has given clear reasoning on appreciation of the evidence^ to discard the evidence of 12. DW-1 n M.A. Rpb for whose benefit the pay orders MEX-6, 11 and 17 were issued. D.W.-2 idnv'teri that he has no pcccmnt in the branch of Syndicate Bank, where these transactions took place. TVre is absolutely no basis for the evidence of P-W.-2 about his cash dealings with M.W.-1. On498 THE GAZE7TE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(11)] punishment of removal in public interest. Therefore, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that punishment of removal of the peti- tioner from service for proved mis-conduct is proportionate and reasonable and so it shall not be interfcrred with by this Tribunal. So, punishment of removal imposed against the petitioner shall be confirmed. Point No. 3 is answered accordingly

15. In the result, an award is passed and the punishment of removal of petitioner vide proceedings dt. 29-7-1994 is confirmed. Peti- tion is dismissed accordingly. This award - shall become enforceable on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under section 17 of I.D. Act by virtue of the powers con- ferred Under Section 17-A(1) of the Act.

Dictated to stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court and given under my hand and seal of this court on 23rd day of August, 2000.

V. APPALANARASIMHAM, Judge

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

No oral or documentary evidence is addu-

ced on cither side,.

D.W-2 and D.W-3. Enquiry Officer also rightly observed the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner from the stage of explana- tion to the charge sheet to the stage of his evidence as D.W-I. The admissions of D.W-1 arc more than sufficient to hold that he issued these four pay orders knowingly without following the procedure and without any credit on the respective dates either by way of cash or transfer. The petitioner knowingly committed the irregularities with full knowledge of consequences. Petitioner cannot escape from the liability, by taking the plea that he aid everything in this transac- tion only as per the instructions oi: MW-l. D.W-1 admitted ihat he has not followed the procedure for issuing these four pay orders., When any instructions are given by M.W-1, even supposing such instructions are given- D.W-1 should not follow such instructions blindly, when they are not legal particularly when such instructions involved financial commitment and liability. The conduct of the petitioner by committing irregularities as per the illegal instructions of superior officer itself would amount to mis conduct, liable for disci- plinary action. The findings of the enquiry officer are fully supported by oral and docu- mentary evidence, circumstances and admis-. sions of the petitioner himself. On re-appre- ciation of evidence in domestic enquiry, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that all the charges framed against the petitioner arc proved satisfactorily and so the findings of the enquiry officer against the petitioner are confirmed. Point No. 2 is answered accord- ingly.

14. POINT No. 3 :—It is held in die deci- sion reported in 1999 (5)-ALT-45Q—that Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court is compe- tent to impose lesser punishment for reasons to be recorded in writing.

New Dalhi, tho 8th January, 2001

S.O. 179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pnbli'hes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relr.tion to the management of Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2001.

[No. L-12O12/98/98-IR(B-njI

15. This is a case where the petitioner indulged in issue of four pay orders involving total amount of Rs. 1,10,1911- Petitioner himself deposited Rs. 1,05,500)- out of the said amount. All the charges are found as proved against the petitioner. The mis-con- duct proved against the petitioner is grave in nature. It is not at all a fit case to take any lenient view in awarding punishment for the proved mis-conduct, wheh is grave in nature. This Tribunal cannot give any valid reasons for eivintr lesser punishment than removal from service. It is a deserving case to award

C. OANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

499

The workman Shri Ahmed N. Khun, Sub-staff Part-time ANNEXURE

Sweeper was therefore rightly dismissed from service.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

ORDER PRLSKNT:

Shri B. O. Sajcena, Presiding Officer.

The action of the management of Bank of India in dis- missing the services of Shri Ahmed¹ N. Khan, Sub-staflf, Part- time Sweeper vide oider of punishment No. CRO/PERS/P/ 2619 dated 31-3-97 ia legal and justified.

Reference No. COIT-20/2000

Employers in relation to the management of The Regional

The reference is answered accordingly.

Manager, Bank of India.

Daled: 29-11-2000.

AND

B. G. SAXENA, Pmidinjt Officer Their workman Shri Ahmad N. Khan.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of subjection (1) and tub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial dis- pu'c Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-12O12|98|98|IR(B-II) dated 20-07-1998 on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing the services of Shri Ahmad N. Khan, Sub-staff part timo Sweeper vide order of Punishment No. CRO/PERS/P/2619 dated 11-3-97 is legal and Justified 7 If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

The brief facts are that Shri Ahmed N. Khan was appoint- ed as Sub-staff Part-time Sweeper in Sironcha branch. He was charfi

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001 On 16-9-91 he fraudulently withdrew Rs. 1900 from S. B. Account No. 2518 of Shri D. Bhaskar, Customer of the branch by using withdrawal slip. He himself wrote ihc withdrawn! slip and forged signature of the account holder. On 18-9-91 he had again withdrawn Rs. 3000 from account No. 2844 of Smt. Sonari Durga and Ma*ter Sonari Somayya Jt. A/c. He used the withdrawal slip and prepared it in his own writing and forged the signature of Master Sonari Somayya. He thus used the withdrawal the slips End with- drew the above amounts.

S.O. 180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal| Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the am- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2001.

The departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The charge* were proved and he was dismissed from service on 31-3-1997.

[No. I>12O12|345|91-IR(B-ID] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

Shri A. N. Khan died on 25-9-2000 in a road accident. The mnnaecnKnt had submitted a copy of Branch Mnnagere report.

ANNEXURE The workman did not appear in the comt on IS-7-200O. The case was adjourned to 9-8-2000. On this date 9-8-200O also the workman did not turn up. No document* have been filej by the workman or hi" union representative.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1GBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT|LC|R|2|92 The case wan ajjiun adjourned to 15-9-2000. NoDody turned upto conduct the case for the workman in the court. Again 1S-10-2000 was fixed but nobody filed affidavit or any document in support of the claim of the workman. On 10-11-2000 the management submitted application that the workman had died in roed accident on 25-9-2000.

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI K. M. RAI On the file of the court there is Vakalatnama of Advocate A. Wahewl Khan. The advocate also did not turn vp in the court to conduct the case of the workman. 22-11-2000 was fixed for filing written arguments.

1 have heard the arguments of Shri P. M. Hnndit on*

Shri Munnalal Batharn, 1|173, Sardarpura, Behind Kama! Talkies, Ujjain (M.P.)

... Applicapt 28-11-2000. Nobody turned upto urgue the case tor the workman,

Versus

( i

The Regional Manager,

From the clrcumilancca discussed above dud documents filed by management it ie evident that workman had com- mitted fraud and had withdrawn tho amounts from the; account of customer Shri D. Bhasker and Master Sonarl, Somayya. The charge* against the workman were therefore! toroved.

Bank of India, 18, Shanku Marg, Ujjain. Nbn-applicani"$00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FfeBRUA*fcY 3, 20ei/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PARJ II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD Passed on this 1 lth day of December, 2000

Award any other provisions of rules have been violated by the Bank in not giving the regular em- loyment to the workman. In view of all these facts, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him,

1.. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-12012|345|91-IR(B-II) dated 31-12-91 has referred the following dispute for ad- judication by this tribunal ;—

4. The points for determination in the case axe

as under :

(1) Whether the workman is entitled to get regular appointment in the Baaik of India; as claimed by him ?

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Ujjain in terminating the services of Shri Munnalal Bathem S|o Narayan Prasad is justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to 7"

(2) Relief and costs ?

2. Tiie workman's case is that on 12-2-80, he was appointed as peon by the management after being duly selected by the selection committee. His pay was being regularly deposited in the Bank in his Account w.e.f.. 3-3-80. He had submitted the litness certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon as required by the management. He wa!> getting wages at the rate of Rs. 13.50 per day. His services were illegally terminated by the management on 26-4-84. He had continuously worked more tha-n 240 days in the office of management and even than. he. was removed from service without complying with the pro- visions, of Sec. 25-F(a)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Neither any notice nor retrenchment compen- sation was given to him while terminating his ser- vices w.e,f. 26-6-84. The junior persons employed in the bank were given regular employment by the bank and the workman was left aside. Neither any chargesheet was given to him not any DE for mis- conduct was conducted against him prior to ter- minating his services. In this way the termination order is void which deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to regularisation with all consequential monetary benefits.

5. Point No. 1.—It has been admitted by the workman in his statement that he was employed as badli seepoy by the Bank of India on 8-10-84. He has also admitted that he was performing his duty for a period of 15-18 days in a month for which the payment was done to him on the basis of daily wages. He was getting the employment on a tem- porary basis in leave vacancy for limited period only. He never continuously worked in the bank of India. He has also admitted that he was not satis- fied with this job because he was not getting regular employment. He used to get the wages for the period he worked in the Bank. The workmen has not been able to establish that he had continuously worked for 240 days in a yeax in the Bank and therefore he had attained status of regular em- ployee. On the contrajry, the management has filed the statement of the attendance dt the workman as shown hi Exhibit R-l to R-3. This statement has not been rebutted by the workman by any evidence. In the absence of this fact, it is not possible to hold that the workman had continuously worked for 240 days in a year in the Bank. He was therefore not inquired to be served with any notice or any re- trenchment compensation was to be paid to him prior to his alleged termination.

6., The workman has not filed any appointment order issued by the Bank to show that initially he wats appointed as a peon. In the absence of this document, it will not be possible to accept his contention that initially he was employed as peon by the Bank. On the contrary his own admission goes to show that he was appointed as badli worker on a temporary basis for a limited period on daily wage basis. There was also no vacancy for the employment as peon in the Bank. In such a case, the workman cannot get any regular appointment when there was no vacancy in the Bank.

7. On the reasons stated above, it is held that the workman was not appointed as a peon on re- gular basis by the Bank. He had also not conti- nuously worked for 240 days in a year for attaining the status of regular employee. Hence the workman is not entitled to get the regular employment in the 3ank. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

3. The case for the management is that the work- man was engaged by the Bank as a badli seepoy on daily wage basis in leave vacancy caused by the absence of permanent member of sub-staff cadre. He was not an employee on regular basis in the sub-staiff cadre in Ujjam. He has not continuously worked for 240 days in the Bank. He was given employment for a particular period on temporary basis in leave vacancy. He was never terminated by the bank. The workman himself stopped coming to the bank as he was not satisfied with the limited period of appointment given to him in leave vat- cancy. He wanted to get regular employment in the Bawk for which there was no vacancy. He had never continuously worked for 240 days in the Bank and therefore he was not entitled to be given any notice or retrenchment compensation t)rior to his alleged termination of service. The Bank gives temporary employment in leare vacancy to those who are on badli pannel and those who are avail- able for work. The Bank, could not give him such employment because he himself stopped coming to the Bank. The provisions of para-507 of Shastri501 8. Point No. 2.—In view of my finding given on point No. 1, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

i sanctioned and deducting wages thereof from Shri f S. S. Sambhare and others whoso names are men- tioned below is legal and proper ? If not, what relief the affected workmen are entitled to ?"

(1) S/Shri K. Jagadecsan, (2) Kishor Masram, (3) Mohan Moharir, (4) D. D. Shivankar, (5) S. R. Tadse, (6) K. K. Bnrat, (7) S. S. Sambharo, (8) Mrs. B. Savithri, (9) Mrs. Suriya Ghose, (10) Mis, Sun;.ta Moharir.

9.. On the foregoing reasons, the workman is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him itu the statement of his claim. Th refern.ee is accor- dingly answered in the favour of the management a'nd against the workman. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost,

10. Copy of the award be sent to the Govern-

ment of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

Tha case was fixed for arguments today. Shri K. Jagu* decsan, who had submitted the statement of claim for himself and nine others has moved an application today, that he den not want to proceed with tha case. He has withdrawn the case. He represented that the matter has been settled. Shri K. Jagudccaan was contesting the case for himself and other workmen mentioned in the schedule represented himself as Ex Vice President, Bank of India Staff Union (Regd.), Nagpur.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

Shri P. M. Pandit, Officer of the Bank of India was con- testing this case for the management. He represented lhat he lias no objection for the withdrawal of the claim.

fn view of the above representation of the parties the-r" is no dispute between the workmen and the management now.

Ths reference is disposed off accordingly.

ORDER

The workmen have withdrawn their claim and do not wr.nt to contest the case. The reference is therefore disposed off as no dispute exist? between the parties.

The workmen are therefore not entitled to unv relief.

The reference is answered accor<1!nnlv.

Dated : 5-12-2000.

B. G. SAXENA, Pressing Officer New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001

S.O. 181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of ihe Central Gr vsrnment In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the annexuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers-in relation tc the management of Bank of Inctia and their work- man, which was receded by the Central Government on 05-01-2001.

[No. L-12011/26/99-IR(B-Hj|

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNFXURE

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shri C. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGTT-9/99

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of

India.

AND

S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tho award of the Central Government ln- dustiisl Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur ai shown in ihe annTxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their woik- mr.n, which was received by (he Central Government on 05-01-2001.

Their workmen.

[No. L-12011/47/98-IR(BII)] AWARD

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR The Central Government. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause fd) of sub- section (1) and subjection 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Di'pute Act. 1947 ha- referred this dispute for adjudica- tion vM- n~V- No. L-i?0n m, /99 /1R(B-II) doled 16-08-1999 on the following schedule :

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

SCHEDULE

Refeience No, CGrT-40/2000

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of "Whether the action of the management of Bank of Imlh through it's Zonal Manager, S. V. Patel Marp, Post Box No. 4, Nagpur in cancelling the leave already

India.

502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(il)]

AND

New Delhi, the 8 th January, 2001 Their workmen.

AWARD

S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute botween the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, w:iich was received by the Central Govern- ment on 05-01-2001.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by claus* (d) of mb- scction (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudicu- tlon vide_ordcr No. L-12011/47/98 /IR(B-IIj dated 31-3-1999 on the following schedule : -

[No. L-12011/10O/2O00-IR(B-Il)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under becy.

SCHEDULE

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Sliri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-269/2000 "Whether the action of the management of Bonk of India, Nagpur in withdrawing the special allowance of S/Shri K. Jagedeesan and M. D. Moharir for a period of 2 years and 5 years respectiely and reduc- ing one increment for two years to Shri K. H. Meshrara with effect from 31-1-98 is legal and jus- lifted ? If not, what relief the said workmen are entitled and from what date ?"

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of

Maharashtra.

AND

TJieir workman Shri A, L. Pande.

AWARD

In this reference Shri K. Jagadeesan, Shri M. D. Moharir and Shri K. H. Meshram has raised the dispute against the order of the management dated 31-1-98 for withdrawing special allowance to them. The special allowance was with- drawn from K. Jagadeesan and M. D. Moharir the period of 2 years and 5 years respectively and from K. H. Mcshr.im the pay was reduced by one increment for two years. The statement of claim was submitted by Shri K. Jagadccun, who was representing himself and other workmen nlso, as Ex-Vi;i; President, Bank of India Staff Union. The case was, fixed for final arguments today.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of "ub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of th= Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vid: order No. L-12011/100/2000/IR(B-II) dated 22-08-2000 on the following schedule :

Shvi K. Ingadeegan has moved¹ an application today i.e. 05-J2-20C0 that he does not want to proceed with the cafic and has therefore withdrawn the dispute.

SCHEDULE

Shri P. M. Pandit, who Is representing the Bank of India represented that he has no objection if the claim is withdrawn by the workman. The application for the withdrawal of tlii reference is therefore allowed.

503

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001

S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the annexure in the Itidititrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2001.

{No. L-12012/10/95-IR(B-IT>]

C. GANGADHAUAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CG1T-36/99

Employers in relation to the management of Enik of India,

AND

Their workman Shri K. Jflfiadeesan.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of fub- section (1) nnd sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-120l2/10/95-IR(B-II) dated 21st October. ] 999 on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Nagpur in imposing the penalty of withdrawal of special' allowance permanently on Shri K. Japa- dees.n, Spl, Asstt., vide their order dated 29-12-92 is legal and justified ? Tf not, to what relief is the said workman entitled ?"

In this case the workman Shri K. Jagadeesan had raised the dispute regarding the imposing of penalty of withdrawal of. special allowance permanently which WRS being paid to him by the management ,of Bank of India. He had disputed the order dated 29-12-92 of the management.

Shri K. Tagadecsan, workman, today submitted an applica- tion that he does not wrnt to proceed with the case. He therefore, does not press the dispute further. He, therrForj, does not want any relief.

The representative of the. Bank of India, Shri P. M. Pandit represented that he has no objection for the withdrawal of the case of Shri K, TiiKnileesnti, wnrkmnn.

As the parties have settled their dispute and the workman does not press for his claim and does not want any relief, (he inference is disposed ofT for want of prosecution.

TH view of the above submissions of the parties there is no dispute between the workman and the management now.

ORDER

The workman has withdrawn his claim. He is therefore, not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly.

DoteJ : 5-12-2000.

B, G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd¹, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8 1-2001.

[No. L-1701J /2/200O-lR(B-Il)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 22nd December, 2000

PRESENT :

K. Karthikcyan, Presiding Officer.

Indusrtial Dispute No. 04/2000

tin the matter of tho dispute for adjudication under Sec- tion 101 Ifd) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute-; Act, 1947 between the Workmen and tho Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai.]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Chennai Region General Ins. E m p i r es Association, Chennai. Claimant/I Party.

AND

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai. Manafiement/II Party.

APPEARANCES :

For Claimant: M/s. D. Hariparanthaman, V. Aj"y Khose and P. Vijayendran, Advocates.

For Management: M/s. T. Sukilmar. G. V. Udayakumar, Advocates,

176 GJ/2001-- 13

504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAUHA 14, iy2^ U"ARI U—SEC i i u jj

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-17011/2/2000/lR(B-I) dried 5-6-2000.

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hulling on 08-12-2000, union perusing the reference, claim statement, counter statement and other material papers on recoid, the oral evidence let in on the side of the Ciasnr.nl and ine documentary evidence let in on other side and upon hearing ths arguments of Shri V. Harifaranihaman, Advocate for the Claimant and¹ Shri P. Sukumar, Advocate for the Man- agement and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration. This Tribunal passed (he following:—

AWARD

This reference by Central Government in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) r.nd Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Indusrlial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of dispute between Shri K. Naveen and the Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai. mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of reference

The Schedule reads as follows :—-

"Whether the demand of the Chennai Region Genjral Insurance Employees Association for posting of Shri K. Naveen (S. R. No. 20733) as Cashier in the Divisional Office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

On receipt of this reference, this Industrial Dispute has been taken on,file of this Tribunal on 26-06-2000 as Industrial Dispute No. 04/2000. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, both the parties appeared with their respective counsel and filed their respective c'.aim statement and counter statement.

2. The averments of the claim statement of the Claimant/I

Party are briefly as follows :—

505

3. The averments in the counter statement of the II Party POINT :

Management are briefly as follows :—

It ii iitimitteu that the workman Shri K. Naveen has joined the seiVices oi the Respondent Snsuiance Company as Assistant (Clencaij on 16-2-87. It is also admitted that he has been assigned witn functions of Data Entry Operatot in the Divisional Office ci the Respondent at Alwaipet, Chennai for which ne is getting special allowance as functional allowance. It is also admitted that Assistant (Clerical) when assigned the functions of the Cashier can get special functional allowance which is more than Data Entry Operatoi allowance. It is also admitted that when the Cashier post in the Ahvarpet Divisional Office of the Respondent became vacant, the workman Sh. K. Naveen was serving as Data Entry Operator and was getting the special allowance for thU same. The said workman, Sh. K. Naveen has stated to be the member of the Petifioner union.- But in the claim state- ment it is not stated as to from which date he is the member of the union. W.W. 1 the General Secretary for the Petitioner union has also not stated in his evidence as to when the workman K. Naveen became a member of the union. Xerox copies of 3 receipts said to be membership leceipts issued to K. Naveen by the union has been filed in court more than a month after W.W. 1 has been examined. Those 3 receipts were marked as Ex. W10 to Wi2 subject to objection by the ether side. This Industrial Dispute has, been raised by the union exposing the cause of the workman, K. Naveen on the ground that he is a member of the Petitioner union. liveufhough these Ex. W10 to W12 receipts have not been produced in time and proved properly and the learned counsel for the Respondent while advancing arguments has not seriously object to it so they have been accepted as Exhibits in support of the Petitioner's stand that the work- man concernrd in the dispute is the member of the Petitioner union. Further the said aspect does not loom large to affect deciding the main question in this dispute.

506 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC; 3(ii)]

the learned counsel of the Petitioner cannot be accepted as correct. Because me said G1CI circular dt. 23-5-2000 can - have only a prospective ertect and not a ietrosrxctr"e eftect. He would further contend that m the said circular itself, it has been clearly said that the Assistant (C) Jias to be pre- ferred for cash handling function and m absence of Assistant (C) tnen Assistant (i) is eligibie and that it is made clear in the cucular itself that the existing arrangement can con- tinue. Ims has not been disputed by tne counsel for the Petitioner as mcoriect. Here, in this case tlie assignment in question has already been allotted and the circular oi GICI referred to is only subsequent. When it is stated in that circular itself that the existing arrangement can continue the Peutioaer cannot rely upon that circular for requesting this Tribunal to grant the relief prayed for. As it is contended in the counter itself the procedures enunciated by the head office as procedural norms to be followed in the matters cf assigning ;peciai functional posts to the employee have got to be followed by the otiicers under the control of head office as Administrating. Authority. It is also staled in the counter that the Divisional Manager/ Branch Manager is the sole authority in recommending the names of the persons who is eligible to be allotted this function and before recommending the names of persons for assigning the functions of collective Cashier, tne factors like willingness, integrity, leave record, vigilance case and suitability are to be taken into considera- tion. This procedural norms followed by the authority cap- not be said, to be illegal or unjustified one. The two citations referred to by the counsel for the Petitioner are quite different in respect of the facts of the case. So, the decisions in those are not applicable to the facts of this case. The perusal of the documentary evidence on either side and the oral evi- dence given by W.W.I can lead this Tribunal only to the conclusion that the relief prayed tor by the Petitioner in; this ciaim petition cannot be granted, since the workman con- cerned cannot claim it as a right. Under such circumstances this tribunal comes to the conclusion that the demand made by the Petitioner Claimant on behalf of the workman K. Naveen is unjustified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus I answered the point accordingly.

In the result the award is pas?ed holding that the demand of Chennai Region General Insurance Employees Association for posting of Shri K. Naveen (S.R. No. 20733) as Cashier in the Divisional Office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is unjustified and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No cost.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by her direct, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this day the 22nd December, 2000.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

For Claimant/I Party:

WW1— Shri G. Kannan.

For Management/II Party :

None.

Documents Marked:

For Claimant:

Ex. No. Description

W.1/29-6-98—Letter from the workman concerned, K. Naveen to the Senior Divisional Manager.

W2/14-7-98—Application from the I Party Union to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C).

W3/15-10-98—Remarks filed by the II Party before the ALC(C).

W4/06-01-99—Addl, remarks filed by the II Party before the ALC(C).

W5/26-10-98—Rejoinder filed by the I Party to the remarks of the II Party dated 15-10-98.

W6/20-12-99—Failure Report.

W7/23-05-2000—Circular issued by Gen. Ins. Corpn. cf India reg. cash handling function.

WS/02-08-95—Circular of Oriental Im, Ce

V/9/! 1-06-96—Circular of United India Ins. Co. W10 to W12—Xerox copies of receipts for payment of subscription to union by K. Naveen.

For Management:

Ml /29-06-98 —Letter Lorn the I Party to the U Paity.

M2/13-07-98—Letter regarding cashier function.

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2001

S.O. 186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 194 7 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieoy publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in lelation 10 the management of Indian Bank and their workman, whicii was received by the Central Government on 09-1-2001.

[No. L-12012/212/92-IR(B-II)l

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the 2nd January, 2001

PRESENT:

K. kaUhikeydn, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 35/2000

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section SOUXd) and subsection 2(A) of the Inditsrtial Disputes Act, 1947 between the claimant and the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai.]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Indian Bank Employees Association, Chennai. Clainiant/I Party.

AND

The General Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai. Management/II Party.

APPEARANCES:

For the Claimant: M/s. Muthupandian H. Lawrence, Advocates.

For the Management: M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, Advocates.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-12012/212/92-IR(B-II) dated 28-2-2000 Government of India, Ministry of Labour. New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 8-12-2000, upon perusing the reference claim statement, coun- ter statement and the material papers on record having no nrrtl evidence on cither side, the rlommfintary <*\'\d?nzit let 50?

in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the claimant Shri M. Muthupandian and the counsel for the Management M/s. Aiyar and Doha and this dispute waving stood over till tins elate lor consideration, this Ti ibunal passed the following :

AWARD

the Indian Bank. Halting allowance and travelling allowance ars entirely ditiercnt which are paid oniy to meet the inci- dental expenses for stay. The respondent allowed overtime wages to Mr. Wilton, Ranipet Industrial. Complex branch to accompany cash remittance on 14-7-1989, a public holiday (Bakim;. Iheieiore ihe claim of the workman and the peti- iioiiei Union is xuliy justified. Hence this tribunal may be pleased to hoid th^t the action of the respondent to recover tie overtime wages paid to Shri M. Arumugam as unjust and du'ivt the Management not to recover the overtime wages already pa.c .and to pay cost to the petitioner.

3. The averments in the counter statement of ihe respon-

dent aie bnelly as follows :—

Th'.s reference is made by Central Government in the exercise oi the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (W atid Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of' ihe Industnal Dis- pt .c /vet, iy4/ in ruspeti of ai&jjuu ueiwvtu Sim M. /niimii- gam, clerk cum-shroif workman and the Management o£ Indian Bank, Chennai as schedule appended to the order of reference.

1 he Schedule reads as follows :

''Whether ihe action of the Management of Indian Bank to recover the overtime wages paid to Shri M. Arumugam, clerk-cum-shrorf tor the dut.es p-ytorm- ed by him from 30-7-1988 to 01-08-1988 io accom- pany the cash remittance to Reserve Bank oi India is justified and legal V If not, what relief, is this disputant workman is entitled to ?"

On receipt of this reference, this industrial dispute has been taken on fie by this Tribunal on 4-8-20GO as industrial Dis- pute No. 35/2000. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, both the parties appeared with their respective coun- sel and filed their respective claim statement and counter statement.

2. The averments in the claim statement of the claimant/

I Party are briefly as follows :—

Trie U Party/Management (hereinafter mentioned as res- pondent) ;ajs that the concerned workman Shri M. Arumugam UivJ on 19-5-1998. I he petitioner union never brought this to the nutic: of ihe Honouiauie High Court, when ihe honourable High Court was pleased to pass the order dated 25-6-1999 in the writ petition. The claim for overtime wages made by late Shri ivl. Arumugam was personal to him ana against ih.it his cause of action to claim ths same ceased Io exist and it does not turvive from the date of his death. Therefore Uie tenns of reference aie incompetent and there- fore iikeiy to be lejected. On 30-7-1988, it was the police who lOi.-k into their custody the treasure to be remitted to trie R.B.I, fiom the currency chest of respondent Bank's brar.eh at Ranipet Industrial Complex. The concerned work- man was required to accompany the remittance, so that it was possible for him to be present at R.B.I, where the trea- sure was handed over to the R.B.I, by the police authorities, it was ihe police authorities who took charge of the tieasure, were guarding at Madras Central Station. It was under the custody of the police till it was handed over to the R.B.I. ihe concerned workman Shri M. Aiumugam, was not under any obligation to stay with the treasure. It was not part of his duty. Any clerk-cum-shroii who is required to go on ciiicial ditiy and carry documents with him may possess the documents under his custody until it is handed ov;r to the pioper authority at the receiving end and such pos-ession of document obligating the staff to take due care required of lam cannot be t.ealed as his having been on duty making him eligible to claim overtime wages. The alleged stay of Shri A. Arumugam at central station is similar to the instance staled and therefore it cannot be construed that he wrs on duty working for ail the 24 hours on Sunday and Monday (i.e. 3)-7-1988 and' 1-8-1988) making him eligible to claim overtime wages. Since th© Branch Manager wrongly paid overtime v.eges to the deceased Shri Arumugam he was instructed to recover the payment made by mistake, by the higher Awhorilies. There was and is no substance in the protest made by the petitioner Association. The proviso to clause 9.13 of the first bipartite settlement provides the norms for overtime allowance as "where the period between ihe time when a workman commences work on that day and the time al which he returns to his place of work from out- station duty exceeds his normal "oikisii; lm-iii p!:,"s recess nte;val, full halting allowance at 'lie uppliclu mics-to him sh-Jl be pa;d in such cases the workman concerned shall not be entitled to any overtime aikrtvance". As could be seen from this the deceased Shri Arumugam was not entitled to be paid any overtime allowance, but by mistake the Branch Manager having paid erroneously Rs. 703.02 apart from T.A. and halting allowance contrary to the said provision, the mistake was rectified. Hence the allegation made by the Petitioner Association to the contrary are not correct. The claim is not based on any right inherent in the deceased' Shri Arumugani. The treasure was under the custody of 'police and they guarded it. For accompanying the treasure ths deceased Shri Arumugam had already drawn T.A. and halting allowance. There is no basis for the claim for over- time allowance in addition to haulting allowance and travel- ling allowance. Rectification of mistake does not attract principles of natural justice nor it could be alleged to be arbitrary or unjust. II was the amount which was errone- ously paid to the deceased Shri Arumugam in contravention of proviso io clause 9.13 of the first bipartite settlement da*ed 19-10-96 that was recovered by the Branch Manager on the instruction of the Regional Manager. Both the Regional Manager and the Branch Manager has acted in this behalf justly and properly. Having been already paid T.A. and halting p.tlovkonce, the deceased Shri Armrmgnm was not entitled to he paid any overtime allowance. Besides accom- panying the treasure, the deceased¹ Sbri Arumugam was not508 THE GAZE1TE OF INDIA : FEBRUART3, 2001/MAOHA 14, 1922 |PARX I I- S E C. 3(ii)3 the facts of each case. By and large the industrial disputes under Section 2A of the Act relate to the termination of services of the tcaczmzd workman. In the event ot death ot the workman during pen- dency ot tne proceeding, the relief ot re-instatemenl, obviously, cannot be granted. But the final determi- nation ot the issues involved in the remence may Ix relevant tor regulating tiie conditions ol service ol the other workmen in the industry. Primary object of the Act is to bring industrial peace, i v.s tnounals and Labour Couns under the Act are the instruments lor achieving the same objective. It i5, there-tore, in coiifirinuy with the scheme of the AU that the proceedings in such cases should continue at the instance of the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased workman."

under any obligation under the teims and conditions of iiis employment to remain with the treasure when it had been under the custody, conciol and guard of trie police authorities, till such police/auuiorities faanaed over it to the R.B.I. Hence tiie deceased Sim Arumugam was not entitled to any over time allowance ior me period ior which he is already paid" T.A. and naulung allowance. The drivers about whom alle- gations aie made in tne claim statement stand on a different tnmg. 'l'lie drivers do duving and undertake to do the same lor the period exceeding working hours, therefore, the claim inaae by the petitioner association is not tenable. In view ot the position that the duty of the deceased Shu Arurnu- g<.m was only to accompany the treasure which was under the possession and guard of the police, it was not his duty to stay wiih the treasure. I he case of Shri Milton stand on a diiieieni footing. He was paid overtime allowance because he attended office and worked on a holiday i.e. 14-7-1989 (Baknd) for taking charge of the treasure enroute to the railway station without any overiapmg ot the time between the period tor haultmg allowance and overtime. Hence none ot the allegations made in the claim statement is tenuble and correct. So it is prayed that mis Honourable iiiDunal may be pleased to reject the reference by dismissing the claim ot the claimant union.

In this case also when the drpute is pending adjudication the agneved workman expired and the petitioner Association a3 a rejjreseiutuive oi uje deceased workman is continuing the piO.eeding. The above decision of the Supiemc Court is squarety applicable to this present case. Under such cir- cumstances, it can be said that the present dispute raised bv uie petitioner association for and¹ on behalf of the concerned woriunaa Shu A. Arumugam, wno is cieau now, aces not die wuh the person, out su.Vivtb. rlence the present dispute being continued by the petitioner association is sustainable now. Thus 1 answer the point No. 1 accordingly.

4. When, the matter was taken up for enquiry the counsel on either side intormed the tribunal that they have no oral evidence to lei in. By consent three documents on the side of the petitionex and two documents on the side of the respondent, ail are xerox copies have been marked as exhibits Wi to V/i and Ml and MJ respectively. Counsel on either side advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point for my consideration is :

1. Whether the clsim of the petitioner association bv espousing personal cause of the deceased woikman. Slid M. Arumugam is sustainable now ?

2. Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank. to recover the overtime wages paid to Shri M. Arumugam, clerk-cum-shroff for the duties perform- ed by him from 30-7-1988 to 1-8-1988 to accom- pany the cash remittance to the R.B.I, is justified and legal ? if not, what relief is the disputant work- man entitled to ?

5. Point No. 2 : It is admitted that the deceased wtrkman, Snri M. Arumugam who was working as cierk-cuni-shroff in Rcnipet indimnai complex branch of the respondent Bank, accompanied we treasure on 30-7-1988, v.lien ths police e core took i.ito their custody the treasure from the currency chest of the respondent Bank to be remitted to R.B.I, till it was nanded over to the R.B.I, at 11.00 A.tvl. on i-is-1988. It is aiso admitted that apart from T.A. and haulting allow- ance the concerned woikman was paid Rs. 703.02 as over- time wages he claimed. It is further admitted that the Branch Manager took steps to recover the payment of Rs. 703.02 from me concerned workman as per the instructions of the higher authorities, as wrongly taid overtime wages. The xerox copy of the order dated 3-5-1989 passed by the Branch Manager of the respondent Bank for such recoveiy is Exhibit Wi. ihe xerox copy of the subsequent order dated 16-2-199.0 passed by the Branch Manager of the respondent Bank in, this regard is exhibit W2. The learned counsel for the peti- (ioner would argije that the action of the respondent manage- ment to recover the overtime wages paid to the workman Shri M. Arumugam is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. By that action ihe respondent has violated the principles of Natural justice because the recovery of overtime wages was ordered without Notice and without giving any oppoitunity to the concerned workman. He would further argue that 31-7-1988 happened to be a Sunday, the concerned workman who was directed and deputed to accompany the treasuie and to remit the same at R.B.I, on Monday was obliged to work on the holiday also and hence he was entitled to overtime wages apart from haultmg allowance and the haulting allowance is payable for stay outside the Headquarters. An official performing duty or involving onerous responsibility on holi- days have been paid overtime wages. The concerned work- n.cn while accompanying the treasure had discharged his duties as potdars as per the guidelines set out by R.B.I, and alsoj by the memorandum of instructions issued by the Indian Bank. As potdars he was required to be present constancy along with the treasure and he cannot move out of the place anc? the nature of duty is onerous till the treasure is remitted in the office of the R.B.I. Therefore the concerned workman was entitled to over time wages as well as haulting allowance.

509

that he was cm duty working for all the 24 hours on Sunday and Monday i.e. on 31-7-1988 and 1-8-1988 making him eligi- ble to claim over time wages. He has quoted the proviso to clause 9.13 of the bipartite settlement in support of his argu- ment. In that it is stated "Where the period between thi time when a workman commences work on that day and the time at which he returns to his place of work from outstation duty exceeds his normal working hours plus recess interval, full hauliing allowance at the rates applicable to him shall be paid to the workman concerned and in such cases he shall not be entitled to any overtime allowance.

7. The above argument put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent and the detailed mentioning of proviso clause 9.13 of the first bipartite settlement in the counter- statement of the respondent has not been disputed as incorrect by the petitioner or by his counsel. Exhibit W3 is a xerox copy of the memorandum of instructions for the guidance of potdars accompanying remittances issued by R.B.I. and followed by the respondent Indian Bank. In exhibit \V3 detailed instructions has been given as to how a potdar should act when he accompanies the treasure for remittance. In that list of instructions it is stated that as potdar on remittance duty will not interfere in any way with the proper discharge by the escort party of the assigned duties. No where in exhibit W3 it is mentioned that the poldar accompanying fhe remittance is a!so entitled for over time wages apait from haulting allowance and¹ travelling allowance when he happens to accompany the remittance outside the Headquarters. Ex- hibit Ml is a" xerox copy of the extract of bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 at page Nos. 35 and 36 which contains clause 9.13. Exhibit M2 is a xerox copy of the extract of bipartite settlement dated 8-11-1973 page No. 132 dealing with the subject overtime allowance to drivers in addition to haulting 'allowance. It reads as follows :—

After the proviso to clause 9.13 of the Bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 the following proviso shall be added:

"Provided further that drivers required to drive the! vehicles on out-station duty shall be paid over time wages for the period of actual driving beyond normal working hours in addition to batta/Halting allowance at the rates payable to them".

of the respondent bank under exhibits Wl and W2 as pi the directions of the higher authority, since it was a mistake payment and the concerned workman was not eligible to claim overtime wages. The action was taken straightaway ordering for recovery, since later it was found to be a mistaken payment. That was why orders under the originals of Wl and W2 were passed for recovery without jiving away notice to the concerned workman. It cannot be consi- dered as an action taken by the respondent Bank by violating the principles of Natural Justice.

8. On tlie basis of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the action taken by fhe Management against the deceased workman Sh. M. Arumugam as referred to in the schedule of reference is justified and legal and the disputed workman is not entitled to the said overtime wages. Thus point No. 2 is answered accordingly..

9. In the result an award is passed holding that the action of tiie Management of the Indian Bank to recover the overtime wages paid to Sh. M. Arumugam, derk-eum-shroff for the duiies performed by him from 30-7-1988 to 1-8-1988 to accompany the cash remittance to the R.B.I, is justified and lesal. The disputant workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

Dictated to the typist and typed by her direct and corrected arid pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 2nd January, 200'h

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witness examined : On either side : None Documents marked: For ciaimant/I Party:

Ex. Wl 3-5-1989 : Xerox Copy of the ord;r to refu

Fx. W2 16-2-1990: Xerox copy of the order (o recover the overtime allowance from the salaries for the month of February, 1990.

Ex. W3 _ : Memorandum of instructions for the guidance of jjotydars accompanying remittances —xerox copy.

For the Management/IT Party:

Fx. Ml 19-10-1966 : Xerox copy of extract of I Bi- partite settlement page Nos. 35 and 36.

Ex. M2 8-11-1973: Xerox copy of extract of 2nd Bi- partite supplementary settlement page 132.

New Delhi, the ,9th Janmry, 2001 S.O. 187.—In tmrsuaiice of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the awnrd of the Centra' Government Industrie! Tribunal/Labour -Court, Calcutta as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART [I—SEC. 3(ii)] Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-1-2001.

[No. L-12012|47|92-IR (B-III)-BT] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA Reference No. 44 of 1992

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the manage- ment of State Bank of India.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

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

APPEARANCE :•

On behalf of Management — None. On behalf of Workmen — None. State : West Bengal. Industry :• Banking.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012|47|92-IR^B.Hl dated 20-7-1992 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section lOfO (B) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing the services of Shri Shani, Sweeper- cum-Farash is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. When the case is called out today* none appears for the either of the parties. On the last date also no one appeared for them.lt also appears from the record that on earlier several occasions, no one appeared for the union and the case was being adjourned from time to time. It is accordinslv clear that the union is no longer interested to proceed with the case.

3. In the aforesaid circumstance, this Tri- bunal has no other alternative but to dispose of the present reference by p^ii? * a "No Dispute" Award.

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

B. P. SHARMA. Presiding Officer Dated, Calcutta,

The 22nd November, 2000.

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

S.O. 188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in thei Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was rceeived by the Central Govern- ment on 8-1-2001.

[No. L-12012/104/97-IR(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1998

In the matter of dispute:

BETWEEN

Sri Suresli Chandra Mishra, S/o Ram Bharosey Mishra, Gram Kakupur Rabban Post Kanpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

AND

Manager, State Bank* of India, Branch Gwaltoli, Kanpur Nagar.

AWARD

1. Centtal Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-12012/104/97-IR(B) dated 16-1-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Surcsh Chandra Mishra is legal and inrtified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. In the claim statement the workman has stated thaf he was engaged as casual labour in State Bank of India branch GwaHo'.i Kanpur on .20-1-89 and he worked there511 till 16-2-90. He was again employed by the bank on 20-1-95 as canteen boy but he also discharged the duties of an em- ployee of the bank. When the workman demanded the pay scales and ether amenities like regular employees of the bank his set vices were terminated w.e.f. 10-6-96 by an oral order. The work which the workman was performing in the bank is stiU continuing. Thus the management ot the bank has violated the provisions of section 25F, 2*G an3 25H of the Act, because no retrenchment compensation or nciice pay was given to him before termination of his seivices. On the basii of these allegations he has prayed thti he be reinstated in service with back wages.

3. The management has filed written statement with con- tention that re'aiioEship of master and seivml never existed between the bank and the concerned workman. It has been alleged that the workman was employed as canteen boy in Ihe canteen run by Local Implementation Committee (here- inafter referred to as LIC for the sake of brevity). It has been alleged that the branch manager was ex officio pi evident of that committee ard that committee consisted of s-mployees of the bank wh;ch was running the canteen. It has been alleged that it vvns a non statutory body, hence the employees of the LIC wo king in the canteen could not get the status of an employee of the bank. The workman was also appointed as canteen boy imdei control of LIC ami his services were terminated by LIC hence he has no right to get reinstatement in the s-ci vices of the bank. It has been aliened that regular empkyse:¹ of the bank get the benefit of House Allowance, Leave Fare Comtssion, Bonus, G.P.F., City Allowance, Casual leave and medical leave but canteen boys dc not get ruch benefits which shows that canteen boy is noi sn employee of the bank. The concerned workman never demanded the: aforesaid facilities while working as canteen boy. It is alleged that the woikronn is not entitled to get any relief against. the bank and the reference is liable to be decided against the :oncerned voikman.

3A. The workman has repeated the allegations made in the Statement of. Claim in Rejoinder.

4. The workman himself has examined as W.W. 1 and filed 4 documents marked Ext. W-l to W4 in support of his case The management examined Sri Suresh Kumar Verma as M.W. 1 and filed 5 documents marked Ext. M-1 to M-5 in support of its case.

5. I have heard the representatives for both the sides and have gene through the records of the case. The autho-ised representative for the management has argued that Suresh Chandra Mishra the concerned workman was appointed as canteen boy by LTC of State Bank of India branch GwaltoM, Kanpur and his services were also terminated bv that com- mittee, hence he is not entitled to get any relief against tlic bank a" to get reinstatement in the services of the hank. After going through the record of the case and evidence! on the record, I find force in this contention.

6 The workman has himself admitted in his statement of claim that he was appointed as canteen boy on 20-1-95 .and his services were terminated on 10-6-96. In his statement on oath also he has stated that he was appointed as canteen boy on 20 1-95 and he worked on that post till 10-6-96. He has also filed the ccpy of appointment letter dated 19-1-95 Fxt. W-l which shi ws that he was appointed as canteen br.y by the Secretary of LIC State Bank of India Gwnltoli Branch. Kanpur. He has also filed his termination order d?ted 10-6-96 Ext. W-4 which shows that his services were teimi- nated bv the then Secretary of LIC State Bank of India Gwaltoli Branch. Kanrmr. Sri Suresh Kumar Vermi, branch m.inaaer State Bank of India, Gwaltoli Branch. \l W. 1" clearly fta'td On oath that canteen bovs are appointed by: LIC which consists of the employees of the bank and branch mannger of the bank is ex-officio President of that committee He stated that LIC has a Current Account in its namel in the bank and the salary of the canteen boy is paid from that current account of the LIC. He has stated that canteen boy worked under control and supervision of LIC and was not the employee of the bank nor bank has any administrative control over him. The contention of MW1 appears to be correct because Suresh Chandra Mishra, the concerned work- man was appointed as canteen boy by Secretary of LIC and rot bv any officer of the bank. The workman has not Bled any document to show that he was appointed by any 3fncer of the Bank and was ever selected for any post in P6 GI/2001—14

7. The representative for the management has drawn my attention towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State Bank of India versus State Bank of India, Canteen Employees Union, 2000', Lab IC 1481, in which similar question was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under—

Even if LIC consist of employees of the bank and those employees are directly under the control of the bank, it cannot be held that bank is the employer of the persons working in the canteen.

A similar question was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India versus Their Workmen, 1996, Lab IC 1048 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under- -

Held, in the absence of any obligation statutory or otherwise regarding the running of a canleen by the bank in the absence of any effective or direct control in the bank to supervise and control the work done by various persons the workers in the canteen run by the Implementation Committee (Canteen Committee) cannot be said to be employees of the RBI.

The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above fully applies to the facts of the preseinti case. The Local Implementation Committee of the State Bank of India, Gwaltoli Branch. Kanpur is a non-statutorv body and in view of the law laid down in the cases cited above,, T hold that Suresh Chandra Mishra Canteen boy being an employee of LIC could not get status of an employee of the bank and was not entitled to get anv relief aeainst the bank either for reinstatement or for getting back wages as the relationship of master and servant did not exist between the bank and the concerned workman.

8. In view of findings recorded above, I hold that the workman concerned is not entitled to get any relief against the State Bank of India in pursuance of the reference made to this Tribunal.

9. The reference is answered accordingly.

Let six copies of this award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for its publication.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer5P Tin- GAZBIIL OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAUHA 14, LV22 yARr 11—bEC jWj 2. The main averments round m the Claim state- New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001

ment of the petitioner are as follows :

llie petitioner was a clerk in Tricliy branch when S.O. 189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the In- dustrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Indian Bank Ltd., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-1-2001.

[No. L-12012/188/94-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 30th day of November, 2000

PRESENT :

Thiru S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc. B.L., Industrial

Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 77 of 1995

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman and the Management of South Indian Bank, Trissur).

BETWEEN

Sri A. Fredric Constantine, No. 44, III Street, Pucfupet, Madras-600 002.

AND

The Chairman, South Indian Bank Ltd., Trissur, Kerala.

Reference :

Order No. L-12012|188|94-IR (B-I) dated' 30-11-95 Ministry of Labour Govt, of India New Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Monday, the 27th, day of November, 2000, upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter statements and all other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Tvl. D. Hariparanthaman, V. Ajoykhose, advocates appearing for the Workman and of Tvl. Warason and Sairams, advocates appearing for the Management and this dispute having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the following:

AWARD

The Govt, of India has referred the following K-sue

for adjudication by this Tribunal :

he was dismissed from service by an Order dt. 25-1-92. VYIiiie the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, lie was deputed to other branch at a long distance for 3 times in April 1991. The request of trie petitioner to the Branch Manager not to disturb linn went un- heaaed and mis only aiggrcvated the situation leading io suspension and dismissal at the instance of the Branch Manager. The whole trouble started on .2-4-91, when the petitioner made a request not to dis- turb him from Tnchy as he was suttering heart aii- ment. No order was passed on his leave application. He was accused of refusing to receive order relieving him and also that he was unauthorisedly absent from 3-4-91 to 9-4-91. He was deputed again immediai- tely in vengence to another branch. He went to that branch on 12-4-91 at about 4 p.m., he had a slip and fell down. In these circumstances, he applied leave from 13-4-91 to 16-4-91. Again on 22-4-91, when he went to the Branch, the Branch Manager called him inside and asked him why he had not come and reported to him. The petitioner made his grievance that inspite of his heart ailment he was subjected to deputation that too frequently and that not even order was- passed on his leave application for his absence from 3-4-91 to 8-4-91. But the Branch Manager had no sympathy and abused him, Wild it became the Charge No. 3. Accordingly he went to the lodge where the Branch Manager stayed to express apology for the past incident. But the P ranch Manager refused to meet him. Hence he quitely returned. But unfortunately this became the subject matter of Charge No. 4. Hence on 23-4-91 he went to the Branch and submitted leave application seeking leave from 23-4-91 to 26-4-91. The Branch Manager refused even to receive the application showing his bad mind. He was accused of abusing and threatening the Branch Manager on 23-^-91 in Charge Nos. 5 & 6. While he was placed under sus- pension, for having visited the Branch, he was accused of closing the safe room on 4-6-91 and plucking the telephone wire in Charge No. 7 and 8. The direct witness to the Charge is Mr, Henry Joseph because it was the case of file manage- ment that when Mr. Henry Joseph served the order, he refused to receive. Though he was exa- mined as first witness, he did not speak +o the charge. The Branch Manager of Trichy was enimical not in eood cr (he 1enve le'ter and not sanctioning would speak for itself. The only witness examined as to this Charee J"J Mr. Thomas, Branch, Manager of P. Me'tuoaiavam branch. Mr. Thomas did not saV that the petitioner refused to do work on 1?-4~C>1. This witness ad- mittpd that the petitioner met with accident due to skidding of scooter on 1^-4-91 while he cam? to the hrnnch. Submitting leava jtpoii^atfon on 13-4-o-j fnr TT'C. sfiwn'pc from 13-4-Q1 to 16-4q| wreiM r>1 him in '.lie previous day night, MW.l and MW.3 did not speak to the alleged threat made by the petitioner and the) are independent witnesses and not belonging tu oilicer cadre. Charge No. 7: Mr. Sampalh, who belongs to oilier-cadre like ihe Branch Manager, along makes allegation againsl the petitioner lhat he closed the .safe room. When 2 of the witnesses did not support the management and supported the defence vert-ion, the finding of enquiry officer has lo be rejected. Charge No. 8: As iherc is no independent witness except the evidence of Mr. Sampath who is an officer belonging to the cadre of Branch Manager, it is not safe to relv h's version lending to the dKmi'-sal of petitioner. The petitioner prays fo direct the res- pondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, backvvages and other attendant benefits.

3. The main averments found in Hie Counter statement of the Respondent arc as follows :

513 evidence and can reasonably presumed to be pressed into service tor mceang the exigencies of situations. The delinquent was informed well in advance by the Enquiry officer that he would be alforded full opportunity to conduct his defence by cross-examining the witness on the .side of the management and by examining his wincsses it any. The enquiry commenced on 22-10-yi was completed only on 24-10-91. Copies of the enquiry proceedings were furnished to the work- man. Denial of assistance of a lawyer in this case is not violativc of the principles of Natural justice and does not amount to denial of equal opportunity. No haste was theiein conducting the enquiry. There was no denial of reasonable opportunity, A personal hearing on the proposed punishment was also granted. While dealing with the evidence under the different heads of charges, the workman has totally ignored the fundamental aspect regarding the standard cf proot required in a domestic enquiry. He has dealt with the evidence as if it was criminal trial. The delinquent could not establish that the Branch Manager of Trichy branch was on. enimical terms with him, Irf shoft going Ihrough the evidence as n whole it can be seen that the charges stand proved. The punishment of dismissal awarded cummensurated with the gravi'y of the offence proved and is fully justifiable. The workman is not cntilk-d for any of the benefits claimed. The lespon- dent prays to pass an awaird upholding the punish- ment awarded and rejecting the claim of the workman.

4. On behalf of petitioner, Ex. Wl to W26 were marked by consent. On behalf of respondent, Ex. Ml to M35 were marked by consent. No witnesses were examined for both sides.

5. The Point for consideration is : Whether the ac- tion of the management of South Indian Bank Ltd. in terminating tihe services of Shri A. Fredric Constantine w.c.f. 25-1-92 is justified? If not to what relief is he entitled?

6. The Point : The petitioner was a Clerk in Trichy branch of South Indian Bank Ltd., when he was dis- missed from service by an Order dated 25-1-92. Tho said order was marked as Ex. W20. The enquiry report dated 28-12-92 was marked as Ex. M26. A perusal of the same would go to show the following charges:

1. That on 2-4-1991, he refused to accept the order relieving him from Trichy branch on deputation to Br. Kaniyalampatty and un- authorisedly absented from duty from 3-4-91 to 8-4-91.

2. that he refused to do any wo>:k aficr joining duty on deputation, at the P. Mettupalayam branch of the bank at 4 p.m. on 12-4-91 and left the branch on the next day by submitting a leave application for his absence from 13-4-91 to 16-4-91.

3. th.it on 22-4-91 at 4 p.m. he entered the cabin of the Branch Manager of Trichy branch along with a few other persons and abused him using filthy word's.

514 THE GAZETTU OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 LPART I I — S E C. 3(ii)J

convey the message to him in person and ltt'L the place when Branch Manager did not allow him to cmcr the room suspecting some foul play.

5. that on 1SA-9 L he abused the Branch Manager

using nnny words timing lunch recess in ihe presence ol ih.e siail members ol the branch.

6. tnai on !Z3-4-yi at 3.30 p.m. he Ikrcaiened the uruneu Manager leiijug mat lie snoma not live m iricny irom tne next day onwards.

Ihe tribunal is clothed with the power to reappraise ihe evidence m the domestic enquiry, sadsly iisclf whether the said evidence relied on by an employer esiablishcd misconduct alleged against a workman. Thus what was originally a plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the tribunal that the findings of the misconduct is correct. It has also been held in Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber Company case (1973 I LLN 278) that what was largely in the realm of satisfaction of employer has ceased to be and now it is the satisfaction of tribu- nal that finally decides the matter. Thus, the tribunal has gop the power to reappraise the evidence. Now we will do the same,

7. thai, wnnc he was under suspension he came to ^ne orancn at about 4.43 IJ.M. on 4-b-yl and wnen JVi|s. K ivJaunusoocianan, Accountant, V'. VunlaUtraman, Cashier and 'Henry Joseph weni ntside the sate room lor keeping me cash, he closed the sale room door rrom omside and ihey could' conic OUL ot the sale room only wnen tin. G. £>ampath, ACcouiiLant opened the sate loom door.

515

Dfhers, as the later refused to give, the delinquent Dccame wild and plucked the telephone wire.

12. Regarding 7th Charge, Mr. G. Sampath was examined as MW. 6 in the domestic enquiry. He said that h© was not aware of the intension of Sri A. Frednc Constantino, the delinquent workman m dosing the door. Even Mr. Ycnkitaraman who was jxajxuncxl as MW3 in. toe domestic enquiry kins nut vividly told against the delinquent MW1 also felt ignorance of the incident. Therefore Charge No. 7 is found not proved. So far as Charge No. 8 is con- cerned, what MW1 Mr. G. Sampath says is that on 4-6-91 the delinquent asked money from Mr. Madhu- soodanan, Tilak Kumar and Venkitararuan that ihe did not know whether he had paid any amount from him and Chat there was no provocation from any- body. Neither Madhusoodanan nor Tilak Kuinar was examined to show whether there was any demand of money made to them by the delinquent. Even Mr. Venkitararnan who was examined as MW3 in the domestic enquiry had nof spoken about Charge No. 8. Thus it is found as not proved.

13. Now the remaining charges are 3 to 6, Charge Nos. 3 and 4 relate to incident on 22-4-91 whereas Charge Nos. 5 and 6 relate to incident on 23-4-91. A careful analysis of evidence of Branch Manager Mr. Bumaboss who was examined as MW5 in the domestic enquiyy would go to prove the same. That apart the evidence of Thiru R. P. Raj the Security guard of Hotel Devi Paradise wherein the Branch Manager had stayed also go in support of the charges. Even in para. 5 of the Claim. Statement, the work- man has stated as follows r

"Accordingly he went to the lodge wlrere flic branch manager stayed to express apology for the past incident. But the Branch Mana- ger refused to meef him. Hence ho quietly returned."

Thus, not only from the evidence of Mr. R.P. Raj and Mr., Bumaboss that abusive words uttered by the delinquent was provedi but also that it was strengthen- ed by his own admission made in para. 5 of Claim Statement. Thus it is proved that at 10 p.m. on 22-4-91 he went to Hotel Devi Paradise where the Branch Manager stayed. But the workman say that he went there to Tender appoiogy. It is unbelievable fhat a person would go at 10.00 p.m. to seek apology. What Mr. R. P. Raj, the Security Guard says is that at that time delinquent was in a drunken mood and he had falsely stafed as if the mother of the Branch Manager died. Similarly, a careful analysis of the evidence of Mr. Bumaboss, Branch Manager and other witnesses examined on the side of the Manage- ment would go to prove the other charges 5 & 6 also. The very fact that R. P. Raj an independent witness had contended about the incident relating to Charge No. 4 would go to show the motive of delinquent against¹ the Branch Manager pnd this would make us to believe the version of remaining witnesses in respect of the threat made to the Branch Mananer by delinquent both on 22-4-91 and 2.1-4-91 resulting to Charges 3 to 6. Thus it is found that Uiey are prov- ed.

14. The learned counsel for the Workman relied upon 1996 IJ LLJ p. 335 between Palghat BPL & PSP Thozhilali Union & BPL India Ltd., Anr., and contended that any conduct committed outside the factory may not amount to misconduct and so the alleged threat made by delinquent in the hotel pre- mises may not also become misconduct. But it is to be seen that what was held in the above cited case is that any act umelatable to the service committed outside tho factory would not amount to misconduct. Again it was found as follows:

"Any act subversive of discipline committed outside the premises is also misconducf. Any act umelatable to the service commit- ted outside the factory would II'JL' amount to misconduct."

What is unrelatable to service may be misconduct. But! workman knew (his Branch Manager only as re- lating to his service and there is no personal relation- ship and due to his service matter only he had gone to the Lodge where his Manager was staying. There- fore, this citation will only go to establish the mis- conduct.

15. The Learned Counsel for the respondent also Hied upon 198? 1 LLJ p. 472 between Rama Kant Misrn and The State of U P. and Others, wherein it was contended as follows :

"When it is said that language discloses a threatening postuie it is the subjective con- clusion of the persou who hears the lang- uage because voice modulation of each per- son in the society dilTers and indiscreet, improper, abusive language may show lack of culture but merely the use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and. . . pre- ceded by any blame-worthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service."

But in this case, the riction preceding the incident and subsequent to the same would show the mala- fides of the delinquent.

16. Again reliance was placed upon 1984 I LLJ p. 546, between Vcd Prakash Gupta & Messrs Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., wherein a similar filthy lang- uage was found used, which is as follows :

"When informed that it was Durg Singh you without any rhyme and reason or provoca- tion abused Sri Dur& Singh in a filthy manner saying (translated in English as— I fuck the mother of Durg Singh, bring him."

In this connection, the observation made is as follows :

"We are therefore of the opinion that Ihc punishment awarded to the appellant is516 THE CiAZETTL- 0 1' INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAOHA 14, 1922 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)] shockingly disproportionate regard being to the charge iramed agsinst him. We are also of the opinion that no responsible employer would ever impose in like cir- cumstances the punishment of dismissal to the employee and that victimisation or un- fair labour practice could well be inferr- ed from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dis- missal for a Himsy charge of abuse of sonic worker or officer of the management by Ihe appellant within the premises of the factory."

Hence it was contended that similar filthy language was allegedly used in this ease also and others is also power for this tribunal to interfere in the punish- ment. This was according to (he introduction of Section 11A of the l.D. Act and the observation made in 1989 I LLJ p. 71 (Scooter Tudia Ltd., Lucknow Vs. I.;:bour Courl, Lucknow & Others). So considering th; entire circumstances and the ob- servation made iir 1984 I LLJ p. 546 and also dis- tinguishing circumstances are there in this case, as the woiUtiiin had regularly and frequently misbehav- ed , jt is found that instead a¹.' reinstatement in the same post, we e;iii give him some kind of punish- nient and not lotiii terrnitin^on. Thus it is found that although the charge,-. 1 to ft were found proved, the delinquent may be given an opportunity to mend himself and he c;ui be put in a rank lower than the post of clerk. Thus on.? reduction in status of ser- vice will meet the cads of justice. The Order of termination is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in one po t lower than that of the clerical post. It can be offered as and when first vacancy arises in the lowei post. There is no con- tinuity of service since reduction in status is made. Applying the principle of lNo pay for No work', there is no backwug'.'s for th;"" absence period. Award passed accordingly. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, tius 30th day of November, 20U0.

Sd/- Illegible. Industrial Tribunal

L D. No. 77/95 Witnesses Examined

For Petitioncr|Workman : None, For Rcspondent/Manafiement: None.

Documents marked

For Petitioner/workman

Ex. Wl 12-4-91 Order deputating the petitioner to Metropolitan Branch.

Ex. W2 18-4-91 Letter from the Branch Manager of Mettupalayam stating that he was received in order* to join at Trichy,

Ex. W3 20-4-91 Letter from Trichy office informing about the relieving of petitioner fiom Trichy.

Ex. W4 23-4-91 Leave application.

Ex. W5 4-5-91 Letter from Branch Manager of Mctlupa- Iayam.

Ex. W6 21-5-91 Suspension order. F,x. W7 1-7-91 Charge memo. Ex WS 27-7-91 Letter liom Brunch Manager, Trichy directing the petitioner to submit leavo application.

L\. \V-> 27-7-91 Letter trom JJrnncn Manage! incny lo petitioner about the deputation to Kaniyalampatly Branch.

]J\, W10 27-7-91 Reply to Charge-memo.

Ex. W ll 21-8-91 Letter from tho enquiry officer.

Ex. W12 30-8-91 Letter from tho Branch Manager to the petitioner relating to his request for special Medical leave.

Ex. W13 6-9-91 Letter from Enquiry Officer regarding Poslponment of enquiry.

Ex. W14 13-9-91 Letter from Enquiry Officer.

Ex. W15 23-9-91 Letter from the petitioner to tho En- quiry Officer enclosing Medical certificate.

Ex. W16 23-9-91 Medical certificate.

Ex. W17 4-10-91 Letter from the enquiry officer to the Petitioner.

Ex. W18 9-J-92 Letter from the Disciplinary authority asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.

Ex. VVI9 -y-l-02 Report from the enquiry oJIkcr, Ex. W20 25-1-92 Dismissal order.

Ex. W21 22-2-92 Appeal by the petitioner to the Appel- late authority.

Ex. W22 29-5-92 Order of the Appellate authority.

Ex. W23 16-2-94 2A petition.

Ex. W24 27-4-94 Remarks of the bank before the Con- ciliation officer.

Ex. W25 15-6-94 Letter from the petitioner to the- Conciliation Officer.

Ex. W26 5-8-94 Conciliation failure report.

Pnciitneuls en behalf of Management :

Ex. MJ 25-5-88 : Letter from the petitioner to the Respondent.

Ex. M2 27-12-89 : Circular from the Respondent.

Ex. M3 16-6-90 : Letter from the Respondent to the petitioner.

Ex. M4 30-3-91 : Circular from the respondent.

Ex. M5 Apr'91 : Attendance register.

Ex. M6 2-4-91 : Letter from the respondent to the petitioner.

Ex. M7 2-4-91 : Telegram from ho petitioner to tho respondent.

Ex. M8 2-4-91 ; Telegram from the petitioner to tlie respondent.

Ex. M9 9-4-91 : Letter from the respondent tu the petitioer.

E\. Mil) 9-4-91 : -do- Ex. Mil 9-4-91 : -do- Hx. M12 18-4-91 : -do- Kx. M13 20-4-91 : -do- Ex. MJ4 23-4-91 : Application for leave from the petitioner to Respondent.

Ex. MI5 27-4-91 : -do-

Ex. M J6 8-4-01 to 20-4-91 : Attendance register from the respondednt to the petitioner.

Ex. M17 6-5-91 : Rent receipt from the petitioner lo respondent.

hx. M18 8-5-91 : Letter from the respondent to the petitioner.

Ex. MI') 21-5-91 : Memo fi'Om the icspondent to the petitioner.

T\. M20 28-5-91 : Telegram from the respondent to Ihe petit [on.T.

lix. M21 Jiine'91 : Aitendadnct rcgislci.

517

Ex. M2? 1-7-91 Memo from the respondent to petitioner.

Ex. M23 24-9-91 : Enquiry proceedings from the respondent to Petr.

Ex, M24 22-10-91 : -do- Ex. M25 24-10-91 : Show cause notice. fix. M26 28-12-91 : Enquiry report from the respondent to the petitioner.

Ex. M27 9-1-82 : Personal hearing Notice from the Res- pondent to the petitioner.

Ex. M28 16-2-94 : Petition for Labour Commissioner (Ernakulam) from the Respondent to the peti- tioner.

Ex. M29 2-4-94 : Letter from the Labour Commissioner Ex. M30 7-4-94 : Notice issued by the respondent to the Petitioner.

Ex. M31 27-4-94 : Reply notice from the respondent to the Petr.

Ex. M32 19-4-92 : Ledger.

Ex. M33 20-4-91 : Parking Ledger.

Ex. M34 .. : Acknowledgement Card

Ex. M35 .. : Translatioin in Enquiry proceedings from the respondent to the petitioner.

New Delhi, the 10th January, 200 J S.O.I90.—In pursuance of Section, 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial TribunaljLabour Court, Godavari Kha'ni, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managment of S.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9th January, 2001.

[No. L-22025I25I2000-C-II1

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN. INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT :

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 8th Day of November, 2000 Industrial Dispute No, 35 of 1997 BETWEEN :

M. Veeraiah, S!o. Ramaiah, Age 38 years., (ice : General Mazdoor, SCC Ltd., H.. No. 596, C|o. Ram Reddy, Kaman-pur Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

. .. Petitioner

AND

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.. Hyderabad.

2. The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam Area-Ill, Godavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar. . .. Respondents This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K., Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C, Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following :—

AWARD

1. This is a¹ petition filed Uis. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A. P., Amendment Act, 1987.

Facts of the case briefly are as follows :—

The petitioner was appointed a's General Maz- door on 30-4-83. He joined duty on. 16-7-83. On 24-12-93, he was going on a motor cycle, he was stopped at open cast project-I by Jaimedar. His vehicle was seized on the allegation that he was carrying hydraulic oil belonging to the respondent company. Charge-sheet was issued on 26-12-93. He was suspended for 10 days. Domestic enquiry was conducted. He was dismissed from the service on 6-9-95.

3. Ex. M-I to Ex. M-12 are marked.

5IR THE GAZETTE OV INDIA : FEBRUARY?. 2001/MAGHA U, 1922 [PART if—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. The point for consideration, is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so, whether the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge.

6. POINT : The petitioner questioned the vali- dity of the enquiry on the ground that he was illi- terate and does not know English. The enquiry proceedings were conducted in English,

Counsel for the petitioner has not cited any authority to show thai the enquiry proceedings conducted in English against a worker is invalid.

If the worker is prejudiced by the proceedings for the reason of conducting the proceedings in English then, it cart be considered.

In the present case, the petitioner admitted that lie was carrying hydraulic oil in a motor cycle and his motor cycle was seized.

The petitioner produced a quotation showing that he purchased hydraulic oil.

The petitioner was working as General Mazdoor in the respondent company.

He was caught red-handed while carrying hydrau- lic oil. He did not produce any receipt at the time of seizure of hydraulic oil from him.

7. Ex. M-3 is explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner stated that he purchased the oil at N.T.P.C, and carrying it on a vehicle.

Ex. M-4 is a quotation produced by the peti- tioner. It is not a receipt. It is ai quotation dt. 23-12-93. It shows the name of the petitioner, the rate of oil and nothing else. It contains L.T.M. of the petitioner. It cannot be believed that Ex, M-4 is a receipt for purchasing 16 litres of hydraulic oil.

The petitioner did not stated in Ex. M-3 explana- tion that he purchased 16 litres of hydraulic oil on 23-12-93 for Rs. 64O|-.

The petitioner did not state, the purpose for which he purchased 16 liters of hydraulic oil.

8., Ex. M-5 is enquiry report and proceedings. The enquiry report shows that the security Guard and another witness were examined on behalf of the management and the petitioner did not cross- examine them.

The petitioner got himself examined as a witness and stated that he purchased the oil on 23-12-93 and carrying the same on. the next day.

The petitioner did not state the purpose for which he purchased the oil. His statement is not believed.

I consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved.

The petitioner was charged with committing theft of hydraulic oil from the respondent comapny. He was found carrying the same in a specially de- s'gncd vehicle. He was caught red-handed.

I, therefore, consider that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the! service is in proportion to the charge. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 8th day of Novem- ber, 2000.

P. GURUNADHA RAO,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Appendix of Evideiice

Witnesses-examined

For workman : NIL

For Management : NIL

Exhibits

For workman ; NIL

For Management :

Ex., M-l dt. 24-12-93 Report of Sr. Inspec- tor, Security, RG-III.

Ex. M-2 dt. 26-12-93 Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-3 dt. 2-1-94 Reply to charge-sheet.

Ex. M-4 dt. 23-12-93 Quotation bill of Rama Petroleum (xerox copy) for Rs. 640|- (six hundred forty only).

Ex. M-5 dt. . . Enquiry report and¹ enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M-6 dt. 28-12-94 Proposal for dismissal of petitioner.

Ex. M-7 dt. 31-5-95 Notice issued to peti- tioner for collecting a copy of enquiry report.

Ex. M-8 dt. 20-11-95 Representation of the petitioner.

Ex. M-9 dt. 6-9-95 Dismissal order.

Ex, M-10 dt. 22-12-95 Copy of writ peti- tion No. 28844|95.

Ex., M-l I dt. 13-2-96 Letter addressed to the petitioner by the General Manager, RG-TTT, (xcroy copy).

Ex. M-l 2 dt. .. Telugu daily news- paper Andhra Jyothi calling the peti- tioner to submit his appeal.

519

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2001 S.O. 191.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenfn I Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tr"biitial[Labaur Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was receiv-" ed by the Centra] Government on 9-1-2001.

[No. L-22025/25/2000-C-1I] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : ™ "*~ - " * — " * "^ - - - Sri P. Guranadha Rao, B. Sc, B.L., Chairman- cum-Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, 'the 8th day of November, 2000. Industrial Dispute No. I ll of 1997 BETWEEN :

Arkulla Mallanna, S|o. Raja Lingu, Aged 32 yrs., Ex.-E. P. Operator (Trainee), Rio H. No. T2-644, Tilaknagar, P.O. Vittalnagar, 'Godavarikhani-505 214, Dist. Kariranagar.

. —Petitioner.

AND

1. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

Represented by its Director (P, A&W), P.O. Kothagiidem-507 101, Dist. Khammam.

2. The General Manager, Ope,i Cast Project-Ill, M|s. S.C. Co. Ltd.. P.O. Godavarikhani-505 209, Dist. Karimnagar. —Respondents.

This petition coming before me for final hearing h. the presence of Sri E. Venugopal, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Riddy,. Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for considera-' :' -it -.PI this date, the court passed the following :—

176 GI/2001—15.

AWARD

1. This is a petition, filed u|s. 2-A(2) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act, 1987.

Facts of the case briefly are as follows :—

The petitioner was appointed as E. P, Operator by order dt. 27-6-95. He underwent training for a period of three months from 15-7-95. He was charged for having given false information regarding his driving license. He was removed from the ser- vice on 18-4-97 after enquiry.

2. Respondent No. 2 filed counter stating that the driving license of the petitioner was sent to the R.T.A. Hyderabad for verification. It was informed that the Driving License of the petitioner was not genuine. A sarge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation Domestic enquiry was conducted. As the petitioner was not having valid heavy vehicle Driving License as on the date of his appointment, he is not entitled to work as E. P. Operator.

3. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-14 are marked.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so, whether the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge.

6. Point—Ex.- M-2 is . provisional appointment order dt. 27-6-95. It is mentioned in the order that the appointment is subject to verification of ante- . cedents and original certificates.

Ex. M-3 is letter from the licensing authority, R.T.A., Hyderabad. The Driving License of the pcrition.'r was verified and found not genuine.

Fx. M-4 is charge-sheet. E.t. M-6 '*. ?yp1: ration t^ thp chfrge-sheet". The petitioner stated that he obtained driving license through brokers. It was converted to Heavy Vehicle Driving License on 8-12-84. It was renewed upto 21-11-88 at Hyderabad. He got it transferred to Knrimnagar and the license was renewed upto 1995.

7. Ex. M-9 is enquiry report. Jt shows that the presenting officer stated that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to terms and conditions. The original driving license of the petitioner was verified with the licensing authority, R.T.A., Hyderabad. It was found not genuine. Copy of letter received from the licensing authority R.T.A., Hyderabad was given to the petitioner. The petitioner stated in the enquirv that he has nothin? to say about the letter of ihe licensing authority. R.T.A., Hyderabad.

On the basis of the letter from the licensing autho- riV R.T.A..__Hvrterabad and the petitioner not con- testing against the said letter, the enquiry offieer came to the conclusion that the charge was proved.

520 TT-TU GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)]

8. Ex. M-10 is enquiry proceedings. The peti- tioner participated in the enquiry.

Ex. M-ll is order dt. 18-4-97. It shows that the report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner made representation on 7-1-97, It wfls found not satisfactory. Thereafter, the" petitioner was dismissed from the service, 9. This is a case where the petitioner produced a false driving license and obtained job. The driving license of the petitioner was verified with the licens- ing authority at Hyderabad. The petitioner was given oppoitunily to defend himself in the enquiry. The petitioner, did not produce any evidence to show that the driving license WHS genuine.

If , the driving license was not genuine, the ap- pointment, of the petitioner comes to an end. It is not purllshniinl yiven to the petitioner. The peti- tioner is not entitled to continue in the service if his Driving License is not genuine. Since the driving license of the petitioner is not genuine, the petitioner is removed from the service,

T, therefore, consider that the charge against the petitioner h proved. It is not punishment given to the petitioner. It is consequence of the petitioner producing a false Driving License. There cannot be any other order except to remove the petitioner from the service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. The order of removal of the petitioner from the service is con- firmed. E;ich p;.rty do bear their own costs.

Typed to n-.y dictation, corrected and pronounc- ed by me in the open court on this, 8th day of November, 2000.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses-examined

For" Workman :—

Nil.

For Management :—

Nil.

EXHIBITS

For Workman :—

Nil.

For Management :—

Ev M-l dt. 15-7-95.—Copy of training of E. P. Operator of the petitioner.

Ex. M-2 dt. 27-6-95. —Provisional anpointment order'of petitioner (xerox copy), F.x. M-3 di. 17-4-96.—Copy of verification re- port of the driving license.

Ex. M-4 dt. {8[20-5-96.—Charge-sheet (xerox copy).

^ Ex. M-5 dr. 30-5-96.—Acknowledgement.

Ex. M-6 dt. 9-6-96,—Reply to the charge-sheet.

F.x. M-7 dt. 22-11-82.—Driving license of the pHitioru'r (xerox copy).

Ex. M-8 dr. 8-11-96.—Enquiry notice.

Ex. M-9 dt. 19-U-96.—Enquiry report of- the enquiry officer.

Ex. M-10 dt, 4-11-96.—Enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M-ll dt. 18-4-97.—Office-order.

Ex. M-l2 dt, . . Acknowledgement.

Ex. M-l3 dt. 23-12-96,—Letter addressed to the petitioner by the Training Manager, TTC, Manuguru.

Ex, M-14 dt. 7-1-97.—Application of the peti- tioner (xerox copy).

New Delhi, the 10th January, 200.1 S,O. 192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dubirial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court GoiJavarikhani aS shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, .which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 9-1-2001.

rNo. L-22025/25/2000-C-1I]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARTKHANI

PRESENT :

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B L, Chairman- cum-Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 8th day of November, 2000 Industrial Dispute Nd. 189 of 1007 "~~"

BETWEEN521 AND

Ex. M-9 is enquiry report. It shows that the peti- tioner did not cross-examine the management witness.

The petitioner got himself examined as a witness.

The General Manager, S. Co. Ltd., Ramagundam Area-Ill, Gcxiavarikhani, Karimnagair. —Respondent.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the en- quiry officer came to the conclusion thai the charge against the petitioner is proved.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ravi Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Satyanarayana Reddy, Advo- cate for the respondent and having stood over for con- sideration till this date, the court passed the follow- ing:—

8. This is a case of producing forged certificate. rlhe management verified the certificate produced by the petitioner and the management was informed by the concerned authority that the certificate pro- duced by (he petitioner was not, genuine.

AWARD

The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that the Certificate produced by rjim was genuine.

1. This is a petition filed U|s. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act 1987.

I, therefore, consider that the charge against the

petitioner is proved.

The petitioner was given employment on the basis of the certificate produced by him. It was found not genuine.

The management did not impose any punishment

on the petitioner.

Facts of the case briefly are as follows :— The petitioner passed S.S.C., in the year, 1977. He completed I.T.I, in Electrician Trade in the year, 1983, Basing on his qualification and, experience, he was appointed as electrician on 26-4-85. On 4-2-90, charge-sheet was issued, Domestic enquiry was con- ducted and he was removed from the service on 2-12-92.

It is the consequence of the petitioner producing

•d false certificate.

The petitioner is not. entitled to continue in service

vvhen his certificate was found not genuine.

Therefore, the mamagement removed the petitioner from the service. Hence, T answer "the ploint accorr j> dingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. The order

of removal of the petitioner from the service isi confirmed. Each party do bear their own costs.

2. Respondent filed, counter stating that the peti- tioner was appointed as Electrician on 2-6-89, but not on 26-4-85. The I.T.I., certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Director, Training and Employment, Hyderabad for verification. The Commissioner, Em- ployment and Training, Govt, of A.P., Hyderabad in- formed that the provisional certificate of the petitioner was not genuine. The signature of the Regional Direc- tor was forged. Basing on this information, the peti- tioner was charge-sheeted on 4-2-90. The explanation, of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Enquiry was con- ducted. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 9-12-92.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 8th day of Novem- ber, 200O.

, 3. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-31 are marked.

Petitioner absent. His advocate absent.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman- cum-P'rcsiding Officer 4. Heard respondent.

Appendix of Evidence 5. The point for consideration is whether the charge

Witnesses-examined against the petitioner is proved.

For workman: For Management 6. POINT : Ex. M-l is charge-sheet.

—Nil— — N i l- Ex. M-2 is explanation of the petitioner.

Exhibits

For workman:

_.Nil—

The petitioner stated that his l.T.I. certificate is genuine. He got it after undergoing two years regular classes and going through examinations.

For Management:—-

Ex. M-l dt. 4-2-90 : Charge-sheet.

Ex, M-30 is explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the charge-sheet dt. 4-2-90 was suspended by the High Court and therefore, the en- quiry is vitiated and liable to be set-aside.

Ex. M-2 dt. 6-2-90 : Explanation to the charge-

sheet.

Ex, M-3 dt. 27-4-90 : Enquiry proceedings.

The petitioner further stated that he is not res- ponsible for the forged certificate as the private managements of the I.T.I.s are responsible for issuing froged certificates.

Ex. M-4 dt. 27-1-88 : Letter addressed to the petitioner by the Chief Personnel Officer, Kothagudcm,

7. Ex. M-28 is letter dt. 3-9-92 from the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner received enquiry repori gtxd proceedings afad other' documents on 30-8-92.

Lx. M-5 dt. 23-2-88 : Office order,522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex. M-6 dt, 9-2-89 : Copy of letter addressed to the Director of Employment aud Training Govt, of A.F., Hyderabad by the Director, (Personnel) for verification of I.T.I. certificates.

Ex. M-7 dt. 15-12-89 : Lr. No. 12J245JS9 of the Commissioner,,Employment & Training. A.P., Hyderabad.

Ex. M-8 dt. 2-6-89 : Office-order.

Ex. M-9 dt. 18-7-92 : Enquiry report.

Ex. M-1U dt. 15-4-90 : Enquiry notice, Ex. M-ll dt. 27-4-90 : Application of the peti- tioner.

Ex. M-12 dt. —do— : Lr. addressed to the peti- tioner by the enquiry officer.

Ex. M-13 dt. 29-4-90 : Enquiry notice. Ex. M-14 dt. 18-5-90 — d o- Ex. M-15 dt. 10| 13-1-92 : Enquiry call letter. Ex. M-16 dt. 30-1-92 : — d o- Ex. JM-17 dt. C-3-92 : Enquiry notice. Ex. M-18 dt. 11-3-92 : — d o- Ex. M-19 dt. 14-3-92 : Postal returned cover. Ex. M-20 dt. 17-3-92 : Enquiry notice.

Ex. M-21 dt. —do— : Application of the petitioner.

Ex, M-22 dt. 19-4-92 : Enquiry Notice.

•Ex, M-23 dt. 4-6-92 : —do—

Ex. M-24 dt. 16-6-92 : — d o-

Ex. M-25 dt. 19-6-92 : Authorisation letter of Sri. G. Solomtin, APCMS (INTUC) Office Secretary.

Ex. M-26 di. 21-6-92 : Letter addressed to the petitioner by the enquiry officer.

Ex. M-27 dt. 18-8-92 : Notice issued by the G.M., RG-III, to the petitioner.

Ex. M-28 dt. 3-9-92 : Application of the peti- tioner.

Ex. M-29 dt. 11-9-92 : Letter addressed to tlie petitioner by G.M., RG-III for granting one month time.

Ex. M-30 dt. 27-9-92 : Explanation to the notices.

Ex. M-31 dt, 2-12-92 : Dismissal letter of the petitioner.

New Demi, the llflh January, 2001 SO. 193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in. the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between, the employers in relation to the management of F.C.I, and flhcir workman, which was received by tflie Central Government on, 10-1-2001.

[No. L-22012/67/96-C-II] "

N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. : CGIT-165/2000 Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur

AND

Their Workman Shri Abdul K. S. Haneef.

AWARD

The Central Government, .Minisfiry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers, conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22OJ2/67/ 96-IR(C-II) dated 10-3-1997 on the following sche- dule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of FCI, Nagpur in discontinuing his services in the year 1980 and in not rcappointing the work- man Sh. Abdul K. S. Haneef in the year 1991 at par with other workers/loaders of equal status is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? What other directions aii- necessary in the matter ?"

This reference was sent to CG1T Court No. 1 at Mumbai on 10-3-97. The ca-se was registered on 19-3-97 in that court. The workman did not submit any statement of claim.

This file has been received in this court in June. 2000. 16-8-2000, 10-10-2000, 9-11-2000 and 8-12-2000 were fixed in this- court. The workman did not! turn up in the court. Nobody appeared to rc~ present the case of the workman in this court also, in

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the power; conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide, order No. L-22012/ 160/95/IR(C. II) dated 27-1-1997 on the following schedule.

lite workman has not submitted his statement of claim either himself or through any advocate. None ifrom his union turned up to contest tlhe case. The reference shows tihat the services of the workman was discontinued in 1980. Ft appears that the workman is not interested in contesting his case. The representa- tive of the management Shri G. R. Son aye is present today. He represented that the workman did not work from 1982 to 1991 when the departmentalization took place.

SCHEDULE The workman has not submitted any statement of claim so far, hence no relief can be granted to him.

ORDER

The reference is disposed ofr for want of prosecu-

"Whether the action of the management of Rayafwari Colliery in retiring Sh. Matala Rajaya Ballaya on the basis of the age de- termined by Age Determination Committee is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" tion. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

This reference was sent by Ministry of Labour to

CGIT Court No. 1 at Mumbai on 27-1-97.

Date: 8-12-2000.

• The statement of claim was filed by Matala Rajaya BaJlaya on 1-4-97 through advocate Shri R. S. Bhure in the CGIT Court No. 1 at Mumbai. The party No. 2 in this case was Secretary, Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), District Chandrapur through which the matter was referred to Ministry of Labour.

On 17-6-97 management of W.C.L. submitted writ-

ten statement and disputed the claim of workman.

The order sheet dated 5-3-97 of CGIT Court No. 1 Mumbai shows that both the parties were djrected to submit their documents and further hearing was fixed at! Nagpur on 28-5-97, but their is no order- sheet dated 28-5-97.

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2001

Tho order-sheets dated 9-7-97 and 13-10-97 show (Jhat the further orders were not passed. The last order-sheet dated 4-12-97 on fhe file of CGIT No. 1, Mumbai shows the undcrnoted order.

"Next date will be intimated".

Tins file was received in CGIT Court at Nagpur in June, 2000 and information was sent to bofh the parties for appearance on 30-6-2000. The next date fixed was 14-8-2000. On 14-8-2000 the counsel for 'workman represented that workman had died.

SO 194.—in pmsu.ince of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Indusfrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of W.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10th January, 2001. ,

[No. L-220L2/16()/95-(C-ir,l

On 8-9-2000 application was moved by Shri R. S. Bhure, advocate that Matala R. Ballaya wrokman expired on 26-2-98. He also represented that he had moved one application in March, 1998 which Is not on the file.

N. P. KESAYAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

He submitted true copy of the application dated 10-3-93 for taking legal representatives of the de- ceased, Matala Rajaya Ballaya on file.

bEJFORE THE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. : CGIT-163/2000

The arguments of the counsel Shri R. S. Blhure and the counsel for management Shri B. N. Prasad were heard. The counsel for the workman submitted rul- ing 1999 Lab. I.C. 286 and 1996(2) L.L.N. 726 on the point that proceedings can continue under section 10(8) of I.D. Act after fhe death of workman.

Employers in relation to thei management of

W.C.L.

AND

Their Workman Shri Matala Rajaya Ballayu,

I have considered this ruling. The ruh'no Smt. Dhnnalnkshmi vs. Reserve Bank of India 1999 Lab. I.C. 286 shows that the legal heirs can be524 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2U01/MAUHA 14, IVLL L^ART n —S E C. J I U JJ brought on record if the relief of pecuniary benefits can be granted to the legal heirs under section 33(1) (b) or 2(b) or 33(3). From this ruling it is evident that if any amount is left unpaid to the deceased, then The proceedings can continue.

In the second ruling Central Bank of Tndia vs. C.G.l.T. & Others 1996(2) L.L.N. 726, it is huld that right of a workman to be reinstated in service after grant of declaration that termination of his ser- vice is unlawful, is personal to him and shall become impossible to be enforced after his deatlh.

From this ruling it is clear that a tlcad person can not be reinstated into service. After the death of the workman the dispute between him and management has come to an end and does not exist now. The workman during his life-time was given opportunity to show documents and poof of iris age by the manage- ment and he had availed of this opportunity. The legal heirs can not be reinstated in service in place of deceased workman.

In Che light of above facts, the above rulings arc- not applicable in this case. The deceased had retired. He had received all the benefits of His service during his life-time. Hence, application dated 10-3-98 fur taking the legal heirs on record was rejected by this court on 1-12-2000.

The parties did not produce any further evidence in this case. The document and the written argument have already been filed by the advocates of both the parties in this case.

The workman had claimed that he was appointed as loader with effect from 4th January, 1973. At the time of appointment the workman thad informed the date of birth and had also submitted the copy of his age certificate issued from Gram Panchayat. The de- tails of his age was noted by concerned clerk. The workman had submitted date of birth certificate and his dafe of birth in that certificate was mentioned as 24-10-1944. In 1987 workman was suffering from poor vision and was provided work at surface as a general mazdoor.

The workman further claimed that in 1989 the clerk of the office called him and asked him to sub- mit a fresh age certificate so that his service book may be completed.

On 14-10-1983 an order was served upon him for retiring him from 16-10-1993 on completing 60 years of his age.

The dispute was raised by him before A LC through letter dated 9-3-1994.

The management had submitted written statement on 17-6-1997. Both the parties have also submitted documentary evidence in this case.

The workman claimed that his retirement from 16-10-1993 is illegal and the order dated 14-10-1993 be set aside.

Both the pn'rties have submitted their written argu- ments. I have considered tfhe evidence on record!' The W.C.L. contested the case through Sub-Area Manager, Ohanda Rayatwari Sub-Area of WCL. Shri B. N. Prasad, advocate represented the management.

On 19-6-1986 (he workman was directed to sub- mit his. age certificate and appeared before Sub-Area, Manager on 21-6-1986. As the workman had not submitted his age certificate when his services were transferred, to W.C.L., the letter was issued to Superin- tendent of Mines, Chanda Rayatwari Colliery on 14-5-1988 and Superintendent of Mines was advised to submit record witflrin 6 days, otherwise fhe matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee and decision of the Age Determination Committee of W.C.L. would be final. The claimant, Matala Rajaya Ballaya did not produce any certificate or document as proof of his age inspite of all the. above notices. Coal Mines Provident Fund record also did not con- tain the age of Shri Ballaya.

On the advice of Genera^ Manager an Age Deter- mination Committee was constituted vide office ordeO No. WCL/CHA/SAM/RSA/27S1 dated 9|ll-6-19S8 fur examining all the cases of Chanda Rayatwari Col- liery. On 11-6-88 Matala Rajaya Ballaya was again given opportunity to submit documents regarding his age. After verifying the documents and ascertaining other particulars from other persons and Medical Examination the committee determined the age of Matala Rajaya Ballaya, His date of birth was deter- mined as 1st July, 1932. This information was given to claimant, Matala Rajaya Bal1a.ya also.

On 1-1-90 the workman submitted certificate show- ing his date of birth 5/9/1944. As his age had al- ready been determined by Age Determination Com- mittee, his representation was rejected. The work- man was retired from 16-10-1993.

The management did nut believe that on 11-6-88 his date of birth was determined as 1-7-1932 then how the Gram Panchayat mentioned his age 14-10-44 i.e. reducing age by 12 years and 3 months.

It is admitted to both the parties that the claimant has died on 26-2-98.

Under secfion 10(8), ID Act the proceedings could continue provided there was the question, of the payment of any amount which was left to be paid to the heirs after the deafli of the workman. Under section 33(1), it is specifically mentioned where any money is due to a workman from an employers under a settlement or an award in case of death of work- man his assignee or heirs may without prejudice to any mode of recovery can make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him.

The counsel for the workman had cited ruling 1999 Lab. I.C. 286. In this ruling also it is held that the relief of pecuniary benefits can be granted to the heirs. So the scope of section 10(8) is limited. This section is only enacted to make payment of some money which is left unpaid to the deceased. The dis- pute therefore can not continue if the workman has been paid hi', dues after his retirement from the ser- vice.

Another riding 1996(2) L.L.N. 726 had been sub- mitted. From the ruling it is clear that a workman cahnot be reinstated in service after his death. The heirs of the deceased can bring au action in a court relating to the rights which servive after the death of the workman.

In this case the workman had retired on 16-10-93. He died on 26-2-98. The workman had received all the amount of Q.P. Fund and Gratuity etc. during his hTe time. There is nothing on record to show tliaC ariy amount was left unpaid to the workman Motala Rjajaya Ballaya.

The matter of determination of the age was also considered by the management during the life time of the workman, wihen he was in service. The man- agement had. also constituted The age determination committee to decide that issued before his retirement and workman has given full opportunity to produce all the documents that the workman had in his pos- session regarding his age. The workman could not submit any document before the management to show that he was not bom on 1st Jury, 1932.

It is not believable that a Sarpanch of Gram Pan- chayat had got authority to reduce the age of any Workman by more than 12 years. The difference in the age of any person can be hardly for a 1 or 2 years and the medical report can somehow justify it, A Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not a qualified person to determine the age of any workman.

The order of WCL|CHA|SAM RSA]PER|2640 dtd. l|4~10-1993 Exhibit 10 on this file shows that age tyas determined by Age Determination Committee during 1988 in which 7 persons were involved. Matala I^ajaya Ballaya's age was determined as 1st July, 1932. The age certificate submitted by the workman is dated 14-12-89. The Sarpanch has not mentioned anywhere as to how he has mentioned the date of birth in the certificate. He also did not attach the death and birth record or any certified copy of thai! register. The Sarpanch also does not appear a well literate person, tie nas mentioned in the certificate flhe under noted line "He date of birth 5-9-1944". |Tiis Sarpanch was unable to understand the mean- mg of English word he and his. He did not enclose tjhe deaih and birth record of the Gramin Panchayat with the certificate. The workman had submitted this certificate before the management on 1-1-90. It shows that this certificate was not available to the workman in 1988, when he was given opportunity by the man- agement to produce his certificate concerning age vide notice dated VEKOL/CHAKSHE KHA P R A/ JtAYAT/67779 dated 9-6-1988.

In view of the above circumstances the workman Jiad retired on completing 60 years of age. He had received all the benefits i.e. Gratuity and other pay- ment^ due to him during his life time.

In the above circumstances this is not the caie of reinstatement into the service. The legal heirs can jnot claim any relief.

The workman hag dial on 26-2-98 and proceed- ings therefore can no? continue further.

5:5 The written arguments of the parties and docu- ments submitted by parties have been discussed above at length and i'he reference is therefore finally dispos- ed off.,

ORDER

The action of the management of Rayatwari Col- liery in retiring Matala Rajaya BaUaya on the basis of the age determined by Age- Determination Com- mittee was legal and justified. The workman has died and no relief can be granted to his heirs.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Date: 11-12-2000.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th January, 2001 S.O. 195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of Hhe ndustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), flic Cen- ral Government hereby publishes the award of the 'ndustrial Tribunal, Kota as shown in the Annexure n the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Srinath Enter- Driscs and their workman, which was received by Ihe Central Government! on 5-1-2001,

[No. L-29011/4/97-IR (Misc.)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

526 THH n^tim-. 0T* FNnTfl : FEBRUARY 3, 2Pni/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] 527

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2001 S.O 196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government! hereby publishes the Award of tlhe Industrial Tribunal, .Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2001. >

[No. L-34011/1/93/IRCM)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Srcy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM PRESENT:

Sri K. Veerapu Naidu, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated: 7th day of December, 2000 I.T.I.D. (C) 36/98

Re^rence No. L-3401 l/l/98/IR(M) dated 2-9-1998

BETV/EEN

Visakhapatnam Port Employees Union, Rep. by its General Secretary, 26-15-204, Dlharmasakti Bhawan, Visakhapatnam.

...Workman.

AND

Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam-530 035. . . .Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in Che presence of Sri S. Sivanundas, advocate for ' W i m en and Sri D. V. Subbarao, advocate for man- agement, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the- entire material on record, the court passed the following:

AWARD

(1) This is a reference made by the Government of India under Sec. l0O)(d) of the Industrial Dis- [putes Act, 1947 for adjudication of fhe following dispute :

"Whether the action of the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust in regularising S.No. Name of the Senior Designation 1. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao

Driver 2 Sr S.K.S. Moorani

3. Sri K.R. Mohan Rao

Rao

Sri K.R.M. Lakshmarm

Sri M. S. N. Raju

176 Gl/2001— K,

the juniors namely Sri K. Robert, M. N. Patrudu, S. P. Y. Naidu, V. Dhanaraju-II and K. V. Ramanrao w.e.f. 1-7-93 and thereby regularising flieir seniors namely Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, S. K. S. Noorani and K. R. Mahana Rao, w.e.f. 14-5-94 is justi- fied? If not, to what relief the concerned senior employees are entitled to?" (2) The case of the workmen represented by Visa- khapatnam Porf Employees Uniun is that K. Srinivasa Rao S. K. S. Noorani and K. R. Mohana Rao> are senior drivers (diesel-TT) than Sri K. Robert, M. N. Patrudu, S. P. Y. Naidu, V. Dhanaraju-II and K. V. Ramana Rao and that they are promoted and regu- larised w.e.f. 1-7-93 as driver Class-I (diesel-T) with- out following the procedure and rules prescribed there- under and fhc seniority. The posts of driver Ist Class (diesel) is a non-selection post and is to be filled in by fsenjority-cum-fitness from the line of promotion i.e. Driver 2nd Class (Diesel) failing which by direct recruitment. The normal practice following in filling up of the vacancies of driver 1st class (diesel) by the management, all the while, was deviated during 1993—96 and juniors were regularised over their seniors. The normal practice is that whenever any one of the junior in the cadre of 2nd class driver (diesel) theF.C. Section gets MMD 1st class driver certificate earlier to his senior in that category, he is promoted as driver 1st class on ad-hoc basis when- ever there are SC/ST candidates short fall of reser- vations. The posts of drivers being a non-selection posts, dereservation orders from the competent autho- rity would be obtained subsequently at a future date, fo fill up the vacancies reserved for SC/ST by gene- ral candidates, following the non-availability of candi- dates from the respective communities in the line of promotion. Thereafter, the approval of the Depart- mental promotional committee will be taken to regu- larise the ad-hoc services of the employees who have been promoted as driver 1st class. While, doine so, the seniors who also later acquired 1st class certificate and promoted on ad-hoc basis are given protection of their seniority at the lime of regularisation of ad-hoc services, since cadre seniority is to b- foilowpd as per the recruitment and since both Juniors and seniors were working as Drivers 1st class on ad-hoc by fhe fime of receipt of D. R. Orders. But in the instant case, the seniority of the following Table-I senior employees was denied.

FDate of regulari- Date of Adhoc pro- motion

sation

30-3-94

Tst Class

25-5-96 31-03-94

19-11-96 1!

31-03-94

19-11-96 It

09-02-96

10-05-97

10-05-97 09-02-965:8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : TUSRUARY 3,. 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART J Q - S E C. 3(ii)] The following juniors were nwk¹ snuiors to the above mentioned employees (Table-II)

Designation Name of the Juniors

S.No.

Driver Ist Class

Sri K. Robert

~ l.

Date of udhoc promotion

Date of rcgulari- sation

1-7-93"

1~7-93~ ~

i> •""

SriM.iN. PJtrudu

2. 3. Sri K.V. Rainana Rao

4. Si V. Danayya 11

Sri S.P.Y. Naidu

Sri B.V. Prasad tiro

Sti M.S. Venkata Rao

It is the further case of the union that direct recruit- ment was resorted to by the management to give pro- motions to the juniors in the abovesaid table on the ground that ofiicia^in?? as driver 2nd ckss on adhic basis and a selection was conducted to them: on 21-6-93 and they were given ad-flioc promotion as Driver, 1st class w.e.f, 1-7-03. Even though later de- rescrvation orders of the reserved vacancies against which the above juniors were promoted on adhoc basis despite being approved candidates were obtain- ed in May, 1994~and by then i.e. by May, 1994 seniors namely K. Sriuivasarao, S. K. S. Nooraiii and K. R. Mohana Rao were also promoted on adhoe basis as dii.'SoJ driver, Class-I and that the above said juniors mentioned in table No, 2 were made seniors. In the cinim stateni':nf the union have also stated the case of K. V. Ramana Rao, B, V, Prasada Rao and N. S. Venkata Rao and whose case was not at all referral in the reference. Therefore, the claim rmde by them cannot be considered in this reference.

(4) On the other hand, it is the case of the mana- gement that the management has not deviated the filling up of the vacancies of the driver 1st class, during the yxarj. 1993-1994 nor any juniors were regularised and ihese drivers have not obtained the MMD certificate arui hence (heir cases were not considered along w;th the named juniors in the S. No,

Promoted Name of the employee

;is

1-7-93

J -7-93

1-7-93

19-11-96

11-8-96

19-11-96

6-6-95

reference and ii is further case of the management that in the year 1993 when the vacancies of driver 1st class (diesel) arose there were no eligible candidates in the line of promotion to the post of di"vei" l"t c)a-s as per the recruitment rules. It is only the employees in the driver 2nd class who art. in the line of promotion were officiating purely on ailhoc basis. Hence direct recruitment was resorted to in the vacancies of driver Class-I and a depart- mental circular was issued vide G. O. No. E|A(50| 338 dated 12-3-93. In response to the circular Sri K. Robert, M. N. Patrudu, S. K. V. Naidu (Drivers 2nd c!;isf.) and K. V. Ramana Rao (Graser) who up: having fir;t class MMD driver certificate applied f'T 'he said post and on 21-6-93 selection was con- dueled by the management and the said employees wore selected and appointed as driver 1st class on udhoc basis w.e.f. 1-7-93 by the Selection Committee. The workman namely K. Srinivasarao, S. K. S. Nocrani and K. R. Mohnna Rao have not acquired the driver, Ist Class MMD certificate by 21-6-93 as that cerfificiU: is the requisite qualification and they also did not .submit any applications for the posts. Hence their case;* were not considered then. Subse- quently, they have detained the certificates and were also promoted as driver-Jst class after acquiring the driver, Ist class MMD certificate fa requisite onali- fication) and later their services were also regularised :iffer obtaining descrvation orders. The order of seniority and their service particulars are as follows :

Date of acquiring of MND Dr. I

Cl, (Dl.) certificate

31-05-85

1. KR. Robert

Dr. I. Cl. fdicsel) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

-:lo-

22-11-85 27-02-89 31-03-89 20-11-89 03-02-94 18-03-94 04-03-94 01-06-95 02-05-95 04-09-95 23-01-96

M.N. Patrudu S.P.Y. Naidu V. Danayya—II K.V. Ramanarao K. Srinivasarao S.K.S. Noorani K.R.M. Rao B.V. Prasadarao N.S, Venkatarr.o K.R. Lakshnana Rao M.fl.N. K:ji;

2. -3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Date of adhoc pro- motion as Driver-I Class

Date of Regular is ation as Driver-I Class

01-07-93

01-07-93 01-07-93 01-07-93 01-07-93 ' 30-03-94 31-03-94 31-03-94 07-07-95 01-06-95 25-09-95 09-02-96

25-05-95 19-11-96 19-11-96 19-11-96 19-11-96 J 0-05-9? 10-05-97529 legularisation ought to have been made without eilee- ung the seniority oi ihesc 3 workmen as against the juniors namely ihe 5 mentioned persons above.

'Ihuss, it is clear that the Seniors have acquired the re- quisite qualifications only after the juniors acquired the required qualifications and in the post of driver 1st class there was no deviation at all. The Juniors were not promoted on adhoc basis and they were selected by the selection com- mittee as direct recruiters. It is also the further case of (he management that K. Robert, S.P.Y. Naidu, V. Danayya 11, K. V. Ramanarao were also re- gularised by the date of their appointment as driver eia'ss-I (Diesel). The direct recruitment system was adopted in the year 1993 as the management felt that the tilling of these vacancies was very much essential to avoid ihe dislocation of works and candidates alleged to have been considered, have applied against direct recruitment system, iuc management have also stated with regard to the promotion ol" borne other junior em- ployees'whose dispute was not referred to this tribun- al and the sam<. is noi considered here and it is also further submitted that the seniority cannot be the sub- ject matter of the Industrial dispute a'nd the persons who are going to be ellected are being the necessary parties without adding them it cannot be adjudicated. Hence the reference without joining the effected parties is to be rejected.

(5) Before this Tribunal on behalf of the manage- ment, the employees Union Secretary is examined as WW1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the woikman. On behalf of the management one Junior Assistant, Mechanical Department is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M l9 are mark- ed.

(6) No oral arguments are adduced by both sides

and written arguments are filed by both sides.

< 1n T H T; r , A 7 R i TF C \P T N D 1A • F E B R U A RY 3. 2 0 0 1 / M A G HA 1 4. 1 9 22 I P A RT I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )l

Ex. M4 : 21-01-93 : Application of V. Dannyya. Ex. MS : 19-01-93 : Application of K. V. Ramauarau

Ex. M6 : 07-08-85 : Cctification of Competency as E, Driver of JC. Robet,

Ex. M7 : 27-02-85 : Cetificate of Competency as E. Diver of M. N. Patiuau.

Ex. M8 — : Certificate of compentency as E. Driver of S. P. Y. Naiclu.

Ex. M9 : 04-08-89 : Certificate tff competency as E. Driver of V. Naraiah.

Ex. M10 : 03-5-90 : Certilicate ot competency as E. Driver of K. V. V. Rao.

Ex. MU : — : Record of trade test of K. Robert.

Ex. Ml2 : — : Record of trade test of M. N. Palrudu.

Ex. M13 : — : Record of Trade test of S. P. Y. Naidu.

Ex. Ml4 : — : Record of trade test of V. Danayya.

Ex. M15 : — : Record of tnde test of K. V. Ram ana.

Ex. Ml 6 : 03-02-94 : Certificaie of competency of K. Srinivasarao.

Ex. M17 : 18-03-94 : Certificate of competency ot S. K. S. Noorani,

Ex. M18 : 04-03-94 : Certificate of competency of K. R. Mohanarao.

Ex. Ml9 : 14-05-94 : Derescrvation order.

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2001

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM PRESENT :

Sri K. Vccrapu Nafclu, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman, In- dustrial Tribunal & Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

J.T.I.D. fC)7!99

Dated : 30th day of October, 2000 No. L-34O12(6|98|1R(M) Ministry of Labour Government of India.

Dt : 3-3-99

BETWEEN

Shri K, Appa Rao, S|o Shri Ycllaiah, Casual Labour, Engineering Department. C|o. Ihc General Secretory, Visakhapatnam Harbour & Port Workers Union, D. No. 26-26-27, Hatbour Approach Road. Y'jsakhapatnam-530001.

. .Workman

AND

The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.

. .Management.

This dispute coming on for hearing before me in the presence of Sri, L. Satyanarayana, Advocate for Workman and of Sri, G. Venkata* Reddy, Advocate foi Management, Memo filed¹ by bolh parties. Upon perusing the material papers on record the court passed the following :

AWARD

Since both parties have appeared at ]2 noon the matter is advanced to this day. Memo's filed by both paities to pass an award in terms of their settlement ouf side the court.

lu view of the memos filed by both the workmen as well as the management Port Trust an Award is passed directing the management to reinstate the workman as Khalasi without any backwages on par with one Dcvencin Saliu workman in I.T.I.D. 8|93, ufler setting aside the termination orders of the work- man dated 27-3-82 of the management and each party to bear its own costs.

Given under any habd and seal of the court this the 30th day of October, 2000.

K. VEERAPU NATDU, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For

Workman : Management:

WW1 K. Appa Rao None.

531

Ex. W2 3-12-1997—Letter addressee! to the management by the union.

Ex. W3 12-12-1997—Letter addressed to the union by the management.

Ex. W4 12-12-1997—Leltei addressed to the management by the union.

Ex. W5 26-2-1998—letter addressed to the management by the union.

Documents marked for Management': Nil. * New Delhi, Ihe 12th January, 2001 S,O. 198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Chennai as shown in the Anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tuticorin Sailing Vessel Owner's and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 5-1-2001.

[No. L-44012i4|93-lR(Misc.)l

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TAMIL NADU, CHENNAl-104 Tuesday, the 28th day of November, 2000 FRESENT :

Thiru S. R. Tngjiar Velu, B.sc, B.L. Industria Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 1994 (Tn the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industria Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workmar and the Management of Sh. J. Wilfrec Fco and Sons C|o the Secretary, The Tuti conn Sailing Vessel Owner's Association Tuticorin.)

BETWEEN

Sh. R. Francis,

CJo The General Secretary, Tirunelveli Dist. Democratic General Workers Union, Tuticorin-6'!8 001

AND

Sh. .). Wilfred too and Sons, The Secretary, The Tulicorin Sailing Vessel Owner's Association. 72, Thattar Street, Tuticorin-628 001.

Reference : Order No. L-44012|4|95-IR(MLsc.) dated 1-3-94, Ministry of Labour, Govt, of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on this day for final disposal upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter state- ments and other connected pjper.? on record and both parties being absent, this Tribunal passed the following :—

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of J. Wilfred Feo and Sons, in denying employ- ment to Sh. R. Francis is justified? If not, td what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

Respondent was already served and counter filed. But even Today both called absent. Matter is of 1994. As both party did not appear continuously for long period, Industrial dispute dismissed for default. No costs.

Datccf at Chennai, this 28th day of November, 2000.

S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal New Delhi, the 12th January, 2001 S.O. 199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act,. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the In- dustrial Tribunal Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to the management of M|s. Srinath Enterprises and their workman, which wa!s received by the Cen- tral Government on 5-1-2001.

[No L-290H|105|97-IR(Misc.)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

53 2 THH GAZliTTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2001

S.O. 200.—In this Ministry's order No. L-30011|

15|2000-IRfM), dt. 14-11-2001) published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part 11-Sec. 3 (ii) vide S.O. No. 10<56(E) dated 14-11-2000. The following sentence may be incorporated at the end of Paragraph 3 of Ihe abovesaid order.

"The said National Industrial Tribunal shall give its award within a period of six months".

[No. L-30011|15|200O-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

533

Hydrogen and their blends including Synthetic Fuels, Lubricating Oils and the like which is covered by ilem 26 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferr- ed by sub-clause (vij of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Gov- ernment hereby declares with immediate effect the said Industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months,

[No. S-11017|6|97-IR(PL.)] H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

DIRFCTORATE GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

. New Delhi, tho 23id January, 2001

S.O. 201.—In pursuance of sub-rules (2) ancf (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purpose of the Union) RuL-s, 1976 as amended 1987, the Central Government herehy noiifios the following subordinate offices of Directorate General of Employment and Training (Ministry of, labour), the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

1. Advance Training Institute, Mumbai.

2. Regional Vocational Traninfi Institute for Women,

Mumbai.

[No. DGE&T-l 1017/2/99-Hindi.]

SARITA MITTAL, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001

S.O, 203.—Whereas ihe Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the 'services in any Oil Fields which is covered by item 17 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferr- ed by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Gov- ernment hereby declares with immediate effect the said Industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months.

[No. S-11017|10|97-IR(PL)]

H..C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2001

S.O. 202.—Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the Industty engaged in the manufacture of production of Mineral Oil (Crude Oil), Motor and Aviation, Spirit, Diesel Oil, Kerosene Oil, Fuel Oil, Diverse534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 3, 2001/MAGHA 14. 1922 IPART I I — S E C. 3(U)1 New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001 S,O. 204.—Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest • so re- quired had, in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clauso (vi) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the NotifkitJOii of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 1788 dated 25-7-2000 the Copper Mining Industry to be a pub- lic utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of. six month;; from the 25-7-2000;

And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension t>[ the said period by a further period of six. months;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confer- red by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said in- dustry to be a public utility service for the- purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 25-1-2001.

[F. No. S-UO17|11|97-1R(PL1

H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2001 S.O. 205.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-.-ection (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Tnsuranc A d. 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (r.Nccpt Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VT (except sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely :—

"All the areas falling in the Revenue Villages of Shameerpet, Sampanbole, Lalgadi, Aliabad, Jaggamguda, Turkapally, Laxmapur and Majidpur in Shameerpet Mandal and Mur- harapally in Medchal Mandal of Ranga- reddy District."

[No. S-38013|l[2OOl-SS,T] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001 S.O. 206.—Tn pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby, notifies Regional Office, Hyderabad under Employee's State Insurance Cor- poration worl.ing under the Ministry of Labour.

[File No. E-U011]l|93-RBN(Pt.)]

K. K. MARWAH, Dv. Secv.

ted by the Mannsec Oovt. of India Press. Riiv Road. New Delhi 110064

and Published by JM Controller of PublicHtJi.m "%elhi-lIf w ^nni