This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D. L—33001/2000

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 8] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a

separate compilation

PART II —Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2001

S.O. 357.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act. No. 25 of 1946) the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Bihar vide Gov- ernment of Bihar Home (Police) 'Department notifica-

[741]

413 GI/2001—1742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2OOI/PHALGUNA 5,1922 [PART il—SEC. 3(ii>] tion number 3|Vividh-6O31|99H(P) 4713 dated 4th May, 2000 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of offences punishable u|secs. 399|402|353|307|34 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 0213421201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 alongwith Arms Act 1959 (Act No, 54 of .1959) and attempts abetments and conspira- cies in relaMon fo or in connection with the said offen- ces ana* any o'her offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts with reeard to 'he case FIR No. 130|98 dated 12-12-98 of Police Station Barhara (Fumia), Bihar and case FIR No. 244|98 of P. S. Bihariganj (Medhepura;, Bihar.

[No. 228|55|99-AVD.1I]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2001 New Delhi, the 7th February, 2001

S.O. 358.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (.1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act. No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of .the State Government of Karnataka vide Notifica ion No. HD 232 PCR 2000 Karnataka Gov- ernment Secretariat, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore dated 14:h D"cember, 2000 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment within the whole St&tf, of Karnataka for investigation of offences under section 380 IPC and attemot. abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the frmrsfi of same transaction or arising out of the same fact¹;, in resriect of Theft of three antinue idols regis- tered vide FTR No.123'91 with Police Station, Ennore, Chennai againsl unknown persons.

S.O. 359.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sSction (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946j (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD|116[PCR|200O dated 9-5-2000, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investiga- tion of offences punishable under section 120B IPC read with 420 of IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1 ) ( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and attempts, abetmtnits and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one ot more of the offence men- tioned above and any other offence and offences com- mitted in the course of the same tr?nsact;on or arising out of thy same facts ng^mst (1) Sri. P. S. Palmis- watnv, formerly Director, DDK, Bangalore (2) Sri Aupanio v. formerly Director, DDK, Bangalore (3) Sri. S. Bh.^Lar Executive Producer, DDK, Bangalore (4) Sri Mahesh Josh' formerly Executive Producer, DDK, Bnnpalore (5) Sr B. N. Chandra Kumar, Asstt Station Director DDK, Bangalore (6) M's. Creative Advarces, J. P Nagar, 3rcf Phase, [No. 228|6<5|2OO0-AVD. IT] HARI SINGH, Under Secy,743 Bangalore (Private person) (7) M|s. Cuecom Enter- tainment Pvt Ltd., 38 Karpagambal Nagar, Mylaporo Chennai (Private firm).

[No. 228)O7|2OO1-AVD.IU HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2001 New Delhi, the 8th February, 2001

S.O. 361.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act. No. 25 of 1946). the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudba, Bangalore Notification No. HD|180|PCR| 2000, dated 28-07-2G0C hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) IO the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2), read with 13(1)(d) of *the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered¹ against Sri. K. Kishore Kumar, Assistant Director (Quality Assurance), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Kendriya Sadan, Koramagala Banga- lore and attempts, abetments and conspiracy in rela- tion to or in connection with the offence|offences com- mitted in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts in relatop to the aforesaid facts.

[No. 228l9l2001-AVD.il] HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

S.O. 360.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sectioa (1) of section S rcau with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1940), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No 17(>;PCR[2OOO, dated 19-7-2000, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences against Sri G. S. Gupta, Deputy General Manager, UAL, B?jigaloie, punishable Under Sec- tion 13(2) read with 13(l)(e) of Prevention of Corrup- tion Act, 1988 and attempts, abetments and conspi- racy in relation 10 or m connection with one or more of the offence mentioned above and any other offence and offences committed iii the course of the 'same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228|8|2OO1-AVD1I] HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

(c) fails to furnish tlhe audit report as requir- ed by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the In- come-tax Rules, 1962.

3.The enterprise approved is—Provision of Inter- net Service in India by M/s. Macronet Private Limit- ed, (since changed to M/s. Reliance Infocom Limit- ed) 2nd Floor, Shrcc Ram Mill Premises, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400013, under the license agreement No. 820^3/98-LR dated 9-11-98 between president of India, acting through Assistant Director General (LR-I), Department cf Telecommu- nication and M|s. Sukhkarla Fintrade (P) Ltd.

[Notification No. 25/2001 /F. No, 205/77/2000- ITA-II]

KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(Central Board of Direct Taxes)

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2001

S.O. 362.—It is notified for general information that the enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for (he purpose of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

2. The approval is subject? to the condition that—

(i) the enterprise will conform to and comply with tfhc provisions of section 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) Che Central Government shall withdraw this

approval if thp enterprise :—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility;

or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or74$ in addition to the reftirn of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

S. No. Name of the organisation Period for which approved NoQrkation is effective

1. Natya Shodh 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

Sansthan

EE-8, Phase-II, Bidhan Nagar, Near Tank No. 10, Cakutta-,700 064 CF. No. 203/61/2000-ITA-II)

Notes.—The notified Institution is advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for further exten- sion of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of the application for extension of approval shall be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 36|2001|F. No. 203|6J-2000- ITA. II]

KAMLESH C, VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2001

INCOME TAX

S.O. 363.—It is hereby notified for general in- formation that the organisation mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against its name, for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 or the Income tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the In- come tax Rules, 1962, under the category "Institu- tion" subject to the following conditions:—

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain sepa- rate books of accounts for its research acti- vities;

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of' Scientific .t Industrial Research "Techno- logy BSiawan", New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year.

(iji) The notified Institution shall submit¹, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Direc- tor General of Income tax (Exemptions), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta- 700071, (b) the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) the Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions), having jurisdic- tion over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audit- ed Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (1) of section 35 of Income-tax Act, 1961, vm • • WK G / \ Z f f vm Q$ I N l N A '; F E B R U A RY 2 4, J 0 0 1 / P H A L O U NA 5, 1 9 22 [ P A UT H ^ & g c. 3 ( J i )J

New Delhi, the 12th Fbbruary, 2001 S.O. 364.-—It is notified for general information that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for tfoe purpose of section 10(23G) of the Income-fax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962,forthe assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004- 2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that*— • (i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial under- taking :—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility;

or

(b) failstomaintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an account- ant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ; or (c) fails to furnish tfy© audit report as requir- ed by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the In- come-tax Rules, 1962.

3. The enterprise approved is—Upper Krishna Project of M/s. Krislhna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd., PWD Offices Annexure, 3rd Floor, K. R. Circle, Bansalore-560001 for executing Upper Krishna Irri- gation Project.

[Notification No. 37/2001/F. No. 205/67/98- ITA-IT, Vol. II] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001 S.O. 365.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-section (2) thereof and clause (af) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri M.V.S. Chalapathi Rao, presently Executive Director, National Bank for Agri- culture and Rural Development (NABARD) as the Managing Director, National, Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 31st December, 2002.

[F. No. 7|111200-B.O-I] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001 S.O. 366.—In exercise of the powers conferred b; clause (b) of section 19 and sub-section (1) of sec tion 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 o 1955), the Central Government, after consultation wit] the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri V Radhakrishnan, Deputy Managing Director, Staii Bank of India as Managing Director, State Bank o India for the period from the date of his taking chalrgi and upto 30th June, 2002.

[F. No. 7| 1112000-B.O.-I

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secj747 New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001 New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001

S.O. 368.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act shall not apply to the Federal Bank Ltd. for a period upto 4 Novem- ber, 2001 in respect of landed property of 1 acre and 90.5 cents in Chitalra Village, Koftarakkara Taluk, Kollam District, acquired by it.

S.O. 367.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of L949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the srovisions of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act shall not apply to United Bamk of India, Calcutta for a period upto 31st December 2002 in respect of Us holding shares of M|s. Bengal Health and Chemical Works Ltd. as pledgee.

[F. No. 15|8I99-BOA] t>. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

TF. No. 15N99-BOA] D. CHGUDHURY, Under Secy.

413 GI/2001—2750 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001

S, O. 369.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in Column (2) of the Table below being Officer equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer of Government, to be Estate Office for the purposes of the said Act who shall exerrisc the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on th-c Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of the public premises specified in column (3) of the said Table

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Categorises of Public Premises and Local Limits of Jurisdiction SI- No.

(1)""

(2)

. _ __• (3)__ __ ,_ _ 1.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the

UCO Bank and situated in the State of West Bengal.

Asstt. General Manager, (General Administration), UCO Bank, 10, Brabournc Road, JCOLKATA^-700 001,

2.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of th

UCO Bank and situated in the Union Territory of Delhi.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, 5, Sansad Marg, NEW DELHI—110 001.

3.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of th< UCO Bank and situated in the State of Tamilnadu and in th< Union Territory of Pondicherry.

Regional Manager, Regiona) Office, UCO Bank, UCO Bank Building, 169, Thambu Chetty Street, CHENNAI—600 001.

4.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the UCO. Bank and situated in the States of Maharashtra & Goa and Diu area in the Union Territory of Daman & Diu.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, Mafatlal Centre (2nd Floor), Nariman Point, MUMBAI—400 021.

5.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the

'UCO Bank and situated in the State of Bihar.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, 'Mauryalok', LA' Block 4th Floor, Dak Bungalow Road, PATNA—800 001.

6.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Orissa.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, UCO Bank Building, C-2, Ashok Nagar, Unit-IL Bhubaneshwar—751 009.

7.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the UCO Bank and situated in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, Maniram Dewan Road, Silpukhuri, GUWA'HATI—781 003.

8.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or On behalf of the

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Gujarat and Daman arei in the Union Territory of Daman & Diu.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, UCO Bhawan, PB No. 4085, Near Sanyas Ashram, Ashram Road, AHMEDABAD—380 009.

9. Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, S.C.O. 55—57, Bank Square,

. Sector 17-B,

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the UCO Bank and situated in the States of Punjab & Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir and in the Union Territory of Chandi- garh.

CHANDIGARH—160 017.

(3)

(2) _

(1)

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the |10.

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Rajasthan.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, A-30B, Shastri Nagar, JAIPUR—302 016.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the ] 1.

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Regional Manager, Regi6nal Office. UCO Bank, Akashdeep Building, 23, Vidhan Sabha Marg, LUCKNOW—226 001.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the 12.

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, E/5, Arcra Colony, BHOPAL-462 016.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the 13.

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Karnataka.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, UCO Bank Building, 13/22, Kempegowda Road, BANGALORE—560 009.

Premises belonging to or I^kon on lcisc by or on behalf of the 14.

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, P.B. No. 59, Himland Hotel, Circular RoadvSHlMLA—171 001

Premises belonging to or taken on behalf of the UCO Bank and 15.

situated in the-State of Andhra Pradesh.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, Anasuya Commercial Complex, 3-6-10, Himayatnagar, HYDERABAD—500 029.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the 16.

UCO Bank and situated in the State of Kerala.

g.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, TC 25/2286 (1), UCO Bank Buildin Over Bridge Junction, THIRUVANATHAPURAM—695

001

[F. No. 13/I/2001-BOA] D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O. 370.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

(AACSj read with Section 56 of the Banking Regu-

lation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Gov-

ernment on recommendation of the Reserve Bank

of India, hereby declares that the provisions of Sub-

section (1) of Section 11 of the Banking Regulation

Act, 1949 (AACS) shall not apply to the Suvidha

Manila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Hoshangabad

for the period from the date of publication of this

jiotiPio£!ion in thj Gazette of Indiu to 31 March,

2003.

[F. No, l(3)]2001-AC]

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect) from 8-1-2001.

[No. T-4330|l |2000] Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons-JT)

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

{Consular Section)

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001

S.O. 372.—In pursuance of the Clause (a) of the Section 2 of tho Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Cen- tral Government hereby authorises Shri Rajbir Singh, Assistant in the Consulate General of India, Zanzibar to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect! from 8-1-2001.

[No. T-4330| 1|20001 Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons-Il], S.O. 371.—In pursdahce of the Clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri S. Tlhomas, Assis- tant in the Consulate General of India, Istanbul, to MINISTRY OF COAL

CORRIGENDA

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001 S.O. 373.—In the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1430 dated the 19th June, 2000 published aC page 4379 and 4380 of the Gazette of India, Part-II, Scction-3, Sub- Section (ii> dated the 1st July, 2000,—

(1) at page 4379—

(i) in the first para, in the second line, read "September" for "Septenber";

(ii) in the second para, in first line, read "report" for "rcpor";

(in) in the fourth para, in the third line read "schedule" for schedule";

(iv) in the fifth para, in the tfurd line read "of for "or" and read "(Revenue Sec- tion)" for "(Revenue Sector)";

(v) in the heading Plot numbers acquired in village Nigahi, read "acquired" for "adquired";

(vi) Under the heading Plot number acquired in village Nigahi. In the first line after plot "9(p>" and before "69(p)!¹ read "10(P)".

(2) At page 4380—

Under the heading Boundary description:—

(i) against sub heading B-C, in the second line after "un numbered" and before "R-F" read "plot";

(ii) against sub heading J-K, in the second line after "73" and b&fore "and" for "79" read "70";

(h'i) against sub heading. L-A,—

(a) in the second line after "1888" and before "1890" read "1889";

Hi (b) in the third line after "685" and before "653" read "706" for "705".

[No. 43015/7/96-LW/PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

CORRIGENDA

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001 S.O. 374.—In the notification of Goernment of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1938 dated tic 17th August, 2000 published at page 5704 of the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section-3, sub-section (ii), dated the 2nd September, 2000, at page 5704,—

at page 5704,—

(a) in thej left portion, in line II, foi; "in' ection" read "intention";

(b) in the right portion, in line 2, of t*he words , "report after", read "report and after";

(c) in the right portion, in line 16, for th© words "in Office" read "in the office".

[No. 43015/12/96-LW/PRIW1 SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

7*5-.

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001

S.0.375.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1465 dated 17th May, 1999, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and published in Part-Il, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 29th May, 1999, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 82, 169 hectares (approximately) or 203.04 acres (approximately) in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government.

And whereas the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after Consulting the Govern- ment of Chhattisgarh, is satisfied that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 82.169 hectares (approximately) or 203.04 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe Rowers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 82.169 hectares (approximately) or 203.04 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto are hereby acquired.

The Plan bearing No. SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/Land/228, dated the 26th July, 1999 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the Office of tbe Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh) or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section) Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

SCHEDULE

Banki-Surakaehhar Far South Extension Block

Korba Coalfields

Dislrict-Korba (Chhattisgarh)

Mining rights

District

Remarks

Tahsil

Area in Hectares Serial Name of " number Village

Patwari Halka number

50

Korba Korba

Part Part

5.285 76.884'

1 Bb.air.otal 2 Geora -

Katghora Katghora'

54

TOTAL : 82.169 hectares (approximately) OR 203.04 acics (approximately)

1. Plot numbers acquired in Village Bhairotal (Part)

236 (Part), 702 (Part), 791(Part)793 (Part), 794 (Part), 795 (Part). 796(Part)^56 TSfE GAZETTE OF INDIA iHEBRUARY 34, 20O1/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [Fwtr flU-Sac. 3(H>] 2. Plot numbers acquired in village Geora (Part).

1 to27,28/1, 28/2, 29/],29/2,29/3,30/1,30/2, 30/3, 30/4,31,32, 33/1,33/2,33/3, 34to70, 72 to 78, 107 to 109, 120 (Part), 121 to 123, 133/1 (Part), 133/2, 133/3, 960 (Part), 961 to 976, 977 (Part), 978 (Part). 979, 980 (Part), 981 to 990, 992 to 994, 995 (Part), 997, 998 (Part) 1005 (Part), 1006 (Part), 1007/2, 1013 (Part), 1015 (Part).

Boundary Description

A—B Line-start from point 'A'on the common boundary villages Geora and Kuchena and passes along the common boundaries of villages Geora-Kuchena, Bharotal-Kuchena and meets at point 'B'.

B—C Line passes in village Bharotal through plot numbers 793, 236, 793, 79U 702, 795, 796 then enter in village Geora and passes along the Eastern Boundary of plot number 1007/2, then through plot num- bers 998, 1006, 1005 along with the eastern boundary of plot numbers 1007/2, 997, 995 and meets at point'C.

C—D Line passes in village Geora through plot number 995, then southern boundary of plot numbers 995, 994, 992, 981 through plot numbers 980, 978, 977, 960, 1015, 1013, 960, 133/1 then along tho southern boundary of plot numbers 37, 123, through plot number 120, again southern boundary of plot numbers 109, 107, 108, 76, 77, 78, 74, 73, 72, 69, 70 and meets at point 'D'.

D—A Line passes partly along the common boundary of villages Geora and Mangaon and meets at the starting point 'A'.

IF. No.43015/13/98-PRIW] SANJAY B AHADUR, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001

S.O. 376.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in he locality mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed.

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

The plan bearing No. MCL/SAMB/CGM(CP&P)/Naini/00/21 dated the 28th April, 2000 of the area covered jy this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (Coal Project and Planning), Maha- iadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768018 (Orissa) or at the office of the Collector and district Magistrate, Angul, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata.

413 GI/2OO1—3

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

SCHEDULE

Naini Block

Talcher Coalfield

District Angul (Orissa)

AH rights

(Plan bearing NO. M C L / S A M B / C GM (CP&P)/Naini/00/21 dated the 2Sth April' 2000;

Police Station and Village

number

District/State

Remarks

Area in Acres

Tahsil/Sub-

Division

SI. No.

Santrabandha

Chhendipada/106

Angul

!. 2 ' Bhalukhaman

Angul

Chhcndipada/105 - 3.

Chhendipada/107 Khajurikhai

Dhaura Khaman Chhcndipada/81 4.

Chhendipada/103 Kudapasi

5.

' Chhendipada/101 Thalipasi

.Angul

6.

Bimbadharpur

Chbehdipada/102 7.

Kasidiha

Chhendipada/95 8.

9.

- Chhendipada/100 Karadabahal

Angul

Chhendipada 10. Reserve Forest

aiheudipada/lll ' 11. Brabmanbil

Boundary description

A—B

Angul/Orissa

1837.65 Full Angul/Orissa

Full

214.05

Angul Angul/Orissa

519.76 Full

235.75

Angul

Full Angul/Orissa

, 311.74

AnguJ Angul/Orissa

Full

Full Angul/Orissa

109.13

235.74

Angul Angul/Orissa

Full Angul/Orissa

Angul

507.75 Full

550.43

AnguJ/Orissa

Full

2040.00

Angul Angul/Orissa

Part

Angul

1430.60

Angul/Orissa

Part TOTAL 7992.60

(Approximately)

or

3234.561 Hectares

(Approximately) The line starts from point 'A¹ at the south-eastern corner of village Kankurpal. From here the line moves towards south and southeast along the eastern boundary of Reserve Forest and northern & eastern boundary of village Santrabandha and eastern & southern boundary of village Khajurikhai and eastern boundary of village Brahmanbil upto point "B".

B_ C—D The line.proceeds towards west through village Brahmanbil and touches .the eastern boundary of village Karadabahal at point 'C\ From here the line raOves towards south aloiig the eastern boundary of village Karadabahal upto point 'D' which is the trijunction point of villages Karadabahal, Brahmanbil & Balinali.

D^E The line proceeds towards west along the southern bdundary of village Karadabahal and Kasi- diha upto point 'E' which Is the trijunction point of village Kasidiha, Kunjabiharipur & Tetttuloi Gopinathpur.

E—F—A The line proceeds towards north along the western boundary of village Kasiditui and eastern boundary of Chhendipada PF and that of village Dahibar upto point 'FV From here the line proceeds towards east through the Reserve Forest and along the southern boundary of village Kankurpal and meets the starting point 'A'-

|NO. 4JU15/13/2000-PRIWJ

SANJAY BAHADUR. Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2001

S.O. 377.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal h likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

The plan bearing number : SECL/"SP/GM(PI.G)/LAND/239, dated the 25th May, 2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh) or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta^700 001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur—495 006 (Chhattisgarh).

AH persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other docu- ments referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Oificer-in-Charge/Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur—495 006 (Chhattisgarh), within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

HARDI BLOCK

KORBA COALFIELDS

GEVRA AREA

DISTRICT KORBA (CFfHATTJSGARH)

Plan No. : SECL/BSP/GM(Pig)/Land/239

Dated 25th May, 2000 (showing the land notified for prospecting)

Tahsil

District

Patwari Khcwat

Village

Remarks

number

Area in hectares

Serial Number

hallca number

4

3

5

6

7

8 2

1

55 Katghora

Korba

29

421.994 Part Reilki

1.

Katghora

38

Korba

29

38.717 Part Suwabhondi

2.

39

37 Malgaon

3.

36

. 29

Amgaon

4-

56

29

Hardi bazar

5.

57

29

Saraisingar

6.

58

34

Bamnikona

7.

Katghora

Korba

65.292 Part Korba

Katghora

220.000 Part Korba

428.997 Full Katghora

Katghora

Korba

Part

200.000

Korba

50.000

Katghora

Part TOTAL ; 1425.000 Hactares (Approximately) OR 3521.18 Acres (Approximately)

DESCRIPTION :

BOUNDARY

A—B

Line starts from point 'A' in village Renki, then passes through villages Renkj, Suwab- hondi, Malgaon and partly Northern boundary of village Amgaon and meets at point B'.

Line passes through village Amgaon, then along the Eastern boundary of village Sarai- B—C

singar and meets at point *C\

Line passes through villages Saraisingar, Bamnikona, Renki and meets at point 'D'.

Line passes thorough village Renki and meets at the starting point 'A'.

D -A

413 Gl/iOOl—4

[F. No. 43015/19/2000-PRIWJ SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION

(Delhi Division)

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2001 • S.O. 378.—In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) read with clause (g) of sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri S. Banerjee, Joint Secretary (UD), Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation as Membei of Delhi Development Authority vice Shri Modhukar Gupta, Joint Secre- tary (D&L), Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation and makes the following amend- ments in the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Health No. ]2-173|57-LSG dated 30-12-1957, namely :

"In item No. 9, for the entry "Shri Madhukar Gupta, Joirit Secretary (Delhi and Lands), Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation", the following entry shall be substituted, namely, "Shri S. Banerice, Joint Secretary (UD), Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation".

[No. K-11011|20|97-DDIAJ V. K. MISRA, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001

S.O. 379—In' pursuance of clause, (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards. Rules, 1987, the Btttb&X of Indtfan" Standards hertby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which its given in the Sfchedtrte fteretb arfnexed, have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

No. year and Title of the Indian Standard Established

No. & year of the Indian Standard 6r Standards, if any, superseded by tne new ftidian Standard

SI. TSto.

Date of Estat>ftshmertt

(3)

(2)

(4) (0

IS 14900 : 2000

1.

2000-12-31 IS 14900 : 2000—Transparent Froat GfasS —Specification

Copy of the Indian Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah" ^afar Marg, New Delhi—110 002 and Regional OD5&S : Ne!W Delhi, Cafcufta, tnandigaf n, Chennai. MttfrnS&i and afetf Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Faridabad, Ghaziabatf. dJii^ahati', Hydbrabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Lucknow, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Rajkot, TtnYuvananthapuram.

f N"o. CMD-1/13 : 2)

SATISH CHANDER, Addl. Director General763 413OI/2001764 _ ^_ ™ E G A Z E T rE OFJNDIA ; FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 380.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Ad, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of 'TDP¹ series belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy Class III) and with brand name "SWIFT" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s. Tula Digitals (India) Private, Limited, 3O2,Gurunak House, B-9, Ranjit Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Dclhi-110 008 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/193;

The said model (figure given) is weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 60kg and minimum capacity of 20()g. The verification scale interval (e) is lOg. It lias a tare device with a 100 per cent subiractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is of square size of sides 600 millimetre. The liquid crystal Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares thai this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 5 tonne with number of verification scale interval (n) greater than or equal to 500 and less than or equal to 10,000 (500 <_ n<_ 10,000) and with 'e' value 1* 10", 2 * 10\ 5 * 10\ k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured

IF. No. W.M.-21(33)/981

P A KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology * 'F .f¹?'"^* 1

, 2 W*ft, 2001

3 8 1 .—

(

) 1976 (1976 ^PT60) zfa.'Sire 3fa "fTN"RPTfT ( , 1987

(7)

36

£, 14/7,

^T "TFT

T37T^/O9/2OOO/218 ft^TT^'t,

200 TIT.

3 0^

anft; %

( 1 2)

200 TIW

3flfk f*p?r ^n?n t

TTo7et" ' THE (jAZ.tJr.HS Ut 1NU1A : M1BKUAKY 24, 2VU 1/fMAHjUJVA 3, Vill [f ART XI—SEC. 3 (J1)J

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S. O. 381.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model, described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of model of automatic, filling machine (cup filler) (hereinafter referred to as the model) of "3S/4S/CS" series with brand name "EC", manufactured, by M/s. EC Packaging Private, Ltd., 14/7, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Fandabad-121 003 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/218;

The model is an automatic filling machine (cup filler). The maximum capacity is 200g. The machine is designed to fill products like powders, granules, coffee, hair-oils, shampoos, liquid-detergents, etc. The rate of filling is 30 to 100 pouches per minute.

And further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the instruments of same make and design with maximum capacity upto 200g manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same design and with the same materials which the approved model has been manufactured

[F. No. W.M.-21(84)/99]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology y ffl" THBimsas^mcffmofm^-i^

."% "

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2001

S. O. 382.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and Hie Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval 'of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic, weighing instrument (Table Top type) with digital indication of 'BH' series belonging to High accuracy class (accuracy class II) and with brand name 'Exceir, (hereinafter referred to as the Model) manufactured by M/s. Aditsan Technological Products, 102, Southex Plaza-II, 209, Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110 049 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/00/205;

The Model is a non- automatic weighing instrument of table top type with digital indication of maximum capacity 300 g, minimum capacity 200 mg and belonging to High accauracy class (accuracy class II). The value of verification scale interval (e) is 10 mg. The display unit is of light crystal diode. The instrument operates on 230" V, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 1,00,000 for 'e' value 1 mg to 50 mg and with number of verification' scale interval (n) in the range 5,000 to 1,00,000 for 'c' valure of 100 mg or more with 'e' value of l*10k, 2*10k or 5x10"where k is negative or positive whole number or zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle design and with the samematcrials with which the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(2)/99]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology769 770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2001

S. O. 383.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model Automatic weighing machine (on line Chcck-Weigher type) with digital indication (hereinafter referred to as the model) of 'DS-450 CWSS' series and with brand name "ESSAE DIGF manufactured by M/s. Exxae Teraoka Limited, 377/22,6th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore- 560027 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/00/207;

The Model is an automatic weighing machine (on line check weigher type) with digital indication of maximum capacity 3 kg. The value of scale interval (c) is 1 g. The display unit is of vacuum fluorescent display (VFD) type. The instrument operates on 230 V, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, of same series with maximum capacity in the range 600 g to 6 kg, and with scale interval of value 1 x 10\ 2" l()k and 5* 10k,k being a positive or negative whole number manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials which the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(73)/99]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology 413 GI/200J-£ ffly* jififfiftfe^^

f^itKr|a^E773 774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001 PHALOUNA 5, 1922 [PAKT II—Sue. 3 (ii)]

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2001

s. o. 384.— whereas it appears to the Central Government that It Is necessary In the public Interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mangalore to Bangalore In the State of Karnataka, a Pipeline should be laid by M/s. Petronet M.H.B. Limited.

And whereas, it appears that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline It is necessary to acquire the right of users In the land described In the Scheduled annexed to this notification.

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub section (1) of the section 3 of the Petroleum and MinerabPlpellnes(Acqulsltion of Right of User#f 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 \n the said Schedule may within 21 days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Mangalore Bangalore Pipeline Project, Old Deputy Commissioner's Office Compound, Mangalore-575 001* Karnataka.

S C H E D U LE

STATE : KARNATAKA DISTRICT; DAKSHINA KANNADA

STATE : KARNATAKA D I S T R I C T: CHIKMAGALUR

STATE : KARNATAKA D I S T R I C T: HASSAN

-rtv'

SCHEDULE

Hissa No.

Name of the

Village

Name of the Taluk Channaraya patna

1

STATE : KARNATAKA DISTRICT : HASSAN Extent Survey No. 9 122 21 8

0-02 0-02 0-02 0-05

Krishnapura Govinakere Bhuvanahalli Rayasamudra Kaval Mulakere

1 2 2 1

Bilikere Narihalli Melahali Obalapura

44 43 92 94 ' 19 88 135

3B 2

0-02 0-01 0-02 0-01 0-06 0-05 0-01

[No. R-31015/3/98 OR II Part] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

413G1200"-"78C ITte dAZETfE 6F INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001PHALQUNA 3, 1922 [PAKT n—SEC. 3 (11)] 781 Tin J&QXZETtBOFWDIA: FEBRUARY 24,20Q1PHALGUNA5^ 1922 P"ART H-^SBC. 3 (H)] -m.

78*'

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2001

s.o. 385.— WHEREAS by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 2688 dated the 4th December, 2000 Issued under sub-sectlon(l) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its Intention to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified In the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transport of Petroleum products from Vljay?wada to Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

AND whereas, copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the public on 19-12-2000;

AND whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government; AND further, whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report decided to acquire the right of user Jn the lands specified In the Schedule appended to this notification;

NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powerj conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said tands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline^;

AND, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on this date of the publication of this declaration In the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

•78T

SCHEDULE

STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICT: KRISHNA

Nairn; of Village Name of Taluk/ Mandal

(2) d)

G. Konduru

Ch.Madavaiam Survey

No,

Extent Acres - Cents Part/ Hlssa No. (if any)

(4)

(5) .

0)

126

2

Telladevarnpadu

68

68

69

Geddarnanugu

Veeiulapadu

Timmapuram 136 ,

Pallnmpalli

Mandiq^nia

Uamwl'iiu Penuuanchiprolu Penuqanchiproiu

Venkatapurani

Kollikollg

Subbajfyacjucfsm 413 OI/2001-O

1B 2B 2B A5B B1 1

132 74 74

75

2 2

75

1

16

3A

1

00-20 00-18 02- 10 ' 00-21 00-32 00-37 00-78 00-17 00-25 00-01 00-84 00-50

9 -•*

1

HI 5

1

2

151

•lr<6

3A2B 3B 3A2B

153

1C1

161

3B

161

6A

161

1

1

159 I^q

159 7 (

oy

2 5 5 4

79

1

786:

4 A

792

4C

143

63

2K

17

6

15

10.5

2 2

00 -02 00 - 60 00-04 00-93 01 -02 00^71 00 06 00 - 04 00-72 00 - 45 00 - 04 00-20 00- 14 00 - 30 00-68 00-87 00-04 00-11 02-87 00-05 00-04 00-66 01 -01788 _ __ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001 PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)] (2)

(3)

(4)

(5) <¹) —I40 Penuganchiprolu Mundlapadu 41 60

Vatsavai

Bhirnavaram

192

198 198

1 1 2

Tirumalagiri

112

Jaggayyapeta

132 133

Jagggyyapeta 113

108

107;

105

104

103

102

101

97

08

Anunianchipalli

00-51 00-81 00-43 00-35 00- 14 00-08 00-08 01 - 12 00-80 01-47 00-05 00-05 00-62 00-03 00- 10 00-27 00-06 00 - 30 00-20 00-08 00-25 STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICT: NALGONDA Nam" of Taluk/

Swtvcy

Part/

Extent

Mandal

Acres - Cents

Hissa No.

(if any)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

Murifiyala

"343

1 5

6 If- '

00 - 02 00 - 03 00-66789 STATE .ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICT : NALGONDA

Name of the

Name or the

Survey

Mandal

Village

Mo. Hissa No. (2)

(D Kodada

(3) 389

Chimiryal

Redlakunta

70

227

201

193

Kapugal

2 5/

257 196

206

208

223

213

212

Kodada

697

700

718 715

866

Chilukuru

Chilukuru

226

224 11)7

inr,

1flf)

Koridapwt

13-1" 13CW . i ;v;>

123

102

127

179

3ethavolu

171

1R5

189

-

190 !91

4UGI/200t,-tf790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 24,2001PHALGUNA 5,1922 [PABT Il^Sttc, 3 (ii)l (4) 195 (1) ChiluKuru (2) Bethavolu 156 155 GP 157 149

195

15)

00-26

00-14

00-02

00-03

00-22

00-01

GP

80

Cheedella

Penpahad

Bhaktalapuram

69 $2 110

Dha^mapuram 228

250 '249 253

Chivemula

Undragonda

315 94 95 95

100 125

Suryapet

Imampeta

GP

189 179 208 355

293

292

Kesaram

236

232

356

355

353

GP

292

286

Suryapet

463

461

460

459

473

464

717

K.T.Annavaram 222

00- 13 01 -03 00-35 00-30 00-06 00-37 00-04 01 -24 00-04 00-04 00-12 00-03 00-01 0 0 - 11 00 - 06 00 - 11 00-01 00- 10 00-30 00-32 00-01 00-01 00-09 00-19 00-30 00-08 01 -07 00-09 00-03 00-12 00-06 00- 18 00-20 00-13 00 - 03791 (4) <³L_ 50 (5) 00-22 (2) Koppollu (1) Kethepalli Thungaturti

GP

151 52 51

Cherukupalli 647

00-04 00-05 01 -00 01 -03

Kethepalii

638 674

00-32 00-13

GP

00-01

Korlapahad

674 121

Bandapalem

124 149 148

00-34 00-12 00-30 01 -00

147

00-02

143 117

01-10 01-15

118

00-21 01 -14 00-07

119 65 62 38

00-15 00-18

363. 798

Chandnjpatla

794

790 791 .

00-01 01 -00 00-13 00-06 00-16

780

00-15 00-05

781 782 729

01-05 01 - 02

715

00-15

6U6

00 - 26

Kattanyur

Nakrekal Itipamula

320

00-05

00-14

MunuKunua

00-01 00-10

335 119 310 317

318

•

319

00-02 00-17 00- 13

332

00-15

320

00-02

185 184

00-36 00- 14

102

00 - 16

Ut3toWe*v-3

W

(3) 83

(1) Kattangur

(2) Munukuntla6b 64 184 Parada Utaaturu

Ramannapet

211 41

42

10

Janampalli

69 32

196

134

Ramannapet

121

37 153

Nidhanpalli Bhogaram

'1 1

308 690 134

Bibinagar

Yellanki Inkriyala

134

GP

(5) 00-01 04-33 00-05 01 -10 00-12 00-01 01 -17 00-27 00-15 00-11 00-37 00 - 36 01-27 00-16 00-24 01-20 00-34 01 -00 00 - 05

STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICT : RANGAREDDI

Name of the

Name of the Survey Part/

Extent

MamJal

Hisaa No.

Village

No.

Acres - Guntas

(if any)

Ghafkflsher

127

Ankushapuram

0 1 - 12

GP

236 255

0 0 - 11 0 0 - 15

[No. R-31015/1/2000 OR II Vol-m] HAR1SH KUMAR, Under Secy,793 MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001

S.O. 386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-1-2001.

[No. L-17012/12/95-IR(B-Il)}

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

(In the Labour Court, Ernakulam)

(Monday the 11th day of December, 2000) PRESENT:

Sri D. Mohanarajan, B.Sc., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer. Industrial Dispute No. 34 of 1998 (Central)

BETWEEN

The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Thiravanathapuram.

AND

The workman of the above concern represented by the Secretary, L.I.C. Employees' Union. Thiru vananthapuram-695004.

REPRESENTATIONS :

Sri Lal George, Advocate, Lucky Star Building, Market Road, Ernakulam.

., For Management Sri p. N. Suknmaran, General Secretary, L.I.C. Employees' Union, Thiruvananthapuram. por Utiicn 413 GI/2001-—10

AWARD

The issue referred for adjudication to this court by the Government of India as per Order No. L-I7012/12/95-IR (B-II) dated 21-4-98 is:

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India in not. giving the grade/scale of pay applicable to Engineering Assistant Grade III to Shri Mohandas w.e.f. 27-9-87 is legal and justified? :If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from v/hat date?" 2. The union filed claim statement making the following averments. Sri R. Mohandas, the workman involved in the dispute, joined the services of the management corporation on 14-2-1972 as a helper in the sub staff cadre. Then he possessed the following qualifications:

(1) National Apprentice Certificate of three years course conducted by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation.

(2) Electrical Supervisor License issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board.

(3) National Trade Certificate issued by National Council for Training in vocational Trades.

(4) Wireman's Certificate issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board.

(5) Practical experience undergone full-time apprentice- ship for H years in Kerala State Electricity Board, Kollam Sub-Division.

AP a result of repeated efforts, he was promoted as Electrician equivalent to the grade of driver w.e.f. 21-1-1984. But the post of helper vacancy consequent to' his promotion was not filled up. In that circumstance, he was discharging the duties of both helper and electrician from 21-1-84. The Engineering Assistant Grade II was promoted and transferred on 26-9-1987, from which date onwards the workman was doing the duties of the said Engineering Assistant as well. After about 6 years, one lady was posted as Engineer Assis- tant ,Grade II mainly for the purpose of handling the project works. Thus the workman has been practically handling the entire electrical works in the 4 storeyed building of the Thiravanathapuram Divisional Office of the L.T.C. of India single handedly without any additional remuneration. He is beins; t"id the wages of an electrician only. His request for promotion to Engineering Assistant Grade III was turned down on the plea that the qualification required for pro- motion to that post is diploma in engineering. In fact, the qualifications possessed by the workman, if taken together pre far more higher than the diploma in engineering for the limited purpose of promotion to the ?aid post. The workman is entitled to a declaration that the qualifications possessed by him are equivalent to diploma in engineering. Even in the specialised institutions of electricity such as Kerala State Electricity Board, a certificate holder of Industrial Training Institute (TTT) is entitled to be promoted un to Assistant Engineer. It is therefore prayed that an award mav be passed directing the management to promote the workman to the post of Engineering Assistant Grade III w.e.f. 27-9'87 or to grant scale of pay/grade equal to that post from 27-9-87,

3. The management filed written statement contending as follows : The workman was appointed by the management as a sub s'aff and posted as a helper to the Engineering Assistant. He iqined dutv on 14-2-1972. He had not sub- mitted any certificate other than the national apprentice certificate at the time of appointment. After hH promotion as electrician he did not perform the duties of helper As or the date of his promotion there was no necessity for a £eT"er to the eVrtruvsn ps Ml the works connected wi'h the r>tHd"ie of the Divisional Office was over bv t^en He hao not been ntmested or cnthorised to perform the dnV"794 f M£ GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24,2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)I csdre of Engineering Assistant Grade III is diploma in engineering with 5 years service .as electrician. National apprentice certificate possessed by the workman has not been recognised equivalent to dip.'omj in engineering by any educational authority. The nica of the union that when different qualifications possessed by the workmi.rt are added together he is qualified for promotion is unsustainable and Sannol be accepted. Since the workman does not possess the required qualification of diploma in engineering, his claim for promotion to the post of Engineering Assistant Grade IU or grade/scale of pay equal to that post was rightly rejected by the management. The apprentice certificate, electrical supervisor license and wireman's certificate cannot be "O'Vdcred as equal to a diploma in engineering. The promotion rules mentioned above have the force of law and are to be implemented uniformly in all the offices of L r r. of India th-oughout the country. The workman is not eligible fcr any of the benefits/reliefs claimed. Hence it is prayed that an award may be passed declaring that the action of the management in not giving grade/scale of pay appli- cable to engineering assistant to the workman as claimed by the union is legal and justifiable and that the prayer of the union to declare the qualifications of the workman equivalent to diploma in engineering is inadmissible.

4. Union filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments in the claim statement and refuting the contentions of the manage- ment in the written statement.

5. The points that emerge for consideration arfc:

(1) Whether there was denial of promotion to the workman ?

(21 Whether the workman is entitled to get promotion as Engineering Assistant Grade IH w.ei. 27-9-87 as claimed ?

(3) Whether the management is liable to give grade/ scale of pay applicable to Engineering Assistant Grade III to the workman w.e.f. 27-9-87 as contended ?

6. The evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 and Exts. Wf to W7, Ml and M2. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the argument notes submitted by the union.

7. Points 1 to 3 : The Life Insurance Corporation of India is the management. Sri R. Mohandas, the workman under reference entered the service of the management corporation as heiner to Engineering Assistant on 14-2-1972. H? was promoted to the nost of electrician in the grade of driver w.e.f. 21-1-1984. His claim for promotion to the post of Enefriferins! Assistant. Grade III was rejected by the m?nage- nrmt on the greund that he does not possess the required Qualification of dioloma in engineering. His cla'm for erads/

8 T^f wo-Vrnan involved in the d'spute has given evidence a" WW1. P'aerie reliances on Exts. Wl to W7, he has <"""-n *hot *e ;,. pnt;nefi to j ,e nromoted to the post of F " p n " n nc As*M?nt Grade IH. What is contended by the m^n!"""m"nt is that nromotions of Class TTI and IV employees a™ eov-rned bv the Life Insurance Corporation of India U'a°s TJT and CIa*s IV employees (Promotion) Rule* 1987. is w w'-"'c* an emoloyee in the Grade of electrician should -,„,,„ 5 v"ar3

" '•o"d;*ion* of ^liei'bijifv for nrorflotion to th- various " " . 7 "* ^nv"n ;" th* "<*/"dnfe to the uromatkm Rules AH -„-,., No ,< tht. c c^d, , ,e t | )e qua1;ficnt:on!, f or p r o m o t i on nr>°* °* fnem"enii> ^csicfgnt Gr^de TTT arc. n r ^ c r i b^ „- * ,„„,.„ QD^,,v" w^4 „ (i;niom-> m encineeim?. TIndnnbt"'^v 9. The definite case of the union is that diploma in en- gineering is inferior to the qualifications acquired by the workman as per Exts. Wl, W3 and W4. Ext, Wl is the National Apprenticeship Certificate of 3 years course in the trade of Wireman obtained by the Workman front the Government of I'adia, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, ft is seen from Ext. Wl that the Workman passed the concerned trade test conducted in September 1969. The union has been able to prove that as on the date of joining duty as helper in the cadre of sub staff in the manage- ment corporation, the workman had obtained Ext. Wl certi- ficate. Ext. W2 Government order dated 6-7-1966 declares that the National Apprentice Certificate is a higher standard certificate than the National Trade Certificate awarded from Industrial Training Institute after 18 months training and equivalent to National Trade Certificate awarded from that institute after 1 years course with one year's experience. Relying on Exts. W3 and W4, it has been argued on behalf of the union that the workman has secured further qualifica- tions entitling to be promoted to the post of Engineering Assistant. Ext. W3 is the permit for Electrical Supervisor Grade B competency certificate dated 16-12-198(1 issued by the Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board to the workman. Ext. W4 is the permit for Electrical wireman issued by the Licensing board constituted by the Government of Kerala under the Indian Electricity Rules to the workman. This permit.was issued on 11-3-1970 and renewed up to 10-3-1986 authorising the workman to carry out electrical wiring works. As WW1 the workman has deposed that if the qualifications acquired by him by virtue of Exts. W l, W3 and W4 are taken together, diploma ;n ernVwriir ;s inferior to the said qualifications and tfe; 'ii"- t!!'.-.!ii:-:;ri-:!v. "'iall be considered as equal to diploma in *•:-•.••••-•".•• ••;*' "•>r lii.: purpose of giving promotion to the po-t of l:i<-"-•'i.'r.a .'.••sista^t Grade Ill- Nothing is specified in Ext. W2 Government order that National Apprentice Certificate obtained from the Ministry of Labour. Employment and Rehabilitation is higher quali- fication than or equivalent to diploma in engineering. What is stated in Ext. W2 is that certificate of the nature of Ext. Wl is equal to National Trade Certificate Awarded by! Industrial Training Institute after 2 years course with one year training. So Ext. W2 does not in any way held the case of the union that Ext. Wl certificate should be equated with diploma in. engineering in the matter -''f giving promo- tion to the workman. I am unable to agree with the union that the workman has acquired Qualification leading to diploma in ensineering, if Exts. Wl. W3 and W4 certificates are considered together. The assessment of different aualificatiot.s and dae1*rat;on of its equalifv to diDlomt in ensineerint; are not within the purview of this court. Those matters are to be considered by the appropriate educational authorities.

10. The union has contended that in otrrr snedalfced in?titr.tions such as Kerala State Electricity Board, even a certificate holder of Industrial Trainme Tn^itute is given nriwm'inn unto A?s'sfant Engineer. Ext. W5 series, 3 in number ar" photocopy of the orders of nd pr^de overseers holding certi- ficates of the nature of Ext. Wl with 5 years service are eligiblp for promotion to the post of first grade overseers. No doi'bt. Ext. W5 series orders of Hie Kerala S*atja Electricity B^ard are not binding on the mari>femetif| corporation. So lone as L.I.C. of India Class ITI and Class IV Emolovees (Promotion) Rules. 1987> ditly riofi.Vd bv the Gov^rnm^nt of India is in pxtstfnce the management cannot be blamed in having tfeiected the claim of tbc! workman for his rjromotion to the post of Engineering Assistant Grade III.

t l. Rpiylns on the Surtreme Court decision rpiwt.^ in ATR 1964 S C. 737 (J. K. Cotton Stn'nn'nc aid W^avint; Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Labour ArmelUfo Tr-Junat of Jr.r(h>, 't has been subrn'tt"d on behalf of tbe nniin thrt con"i- drration<3 of social justice are relevant >'n d"*'⁵"" w'th industrial disputes. But in the insffnt r.%*- no co"*-!.

?* ^t~l2ZT'2Z^t^ h™ ihp fnrrp of Uvj M^ must

^w r.r, . "o.n (:^ *^o,:ttpdiy f^e worl-rn^ v-v nof i " ? " i^ n l"rm m engineering.

12. Ths specific ca?e of the union i' *Mt t*i- P I T ' T ' C! works in the L.I.C. Divisional Offlde. Th!rwv9aepth-->iiraia795 EXt. W3—Identity Card of Kerala State Electricity

Licensing Board,

Ext. W4—Identity card of permit for electrical wireman.

W5 (series)—True copy of Kerala State Electricity Bonrd abstract—recruitment—I Grade Overseer dated 28-12-1967.

W5 (a)—True copy of K.S.E.B, abstract Rules promotion

Ist grade overseer (Electrical).

W5 (b)—True copy of K.S.E.B. abstract recruitment rules

for method of appointment.

Ext. Wri—Letter

Ext. W7—Certificate issued by Assistant Divisional

Manager to R. Mohan Dae.

were previously handled by an Engineering Assistant Grade II, one electrician and one helper to the electrician and that when the workman was promoted to the post of electrician, nobody was appointed as helper to him. The Engineering Assistant Grade II waj in charge of the e¹fcclri- cal works and the workman was working under him as electrician. The engineering assistant was promoted and transferred on 26-9-87 and so the workman has liteeri per- forming the entire electrical works of helper, e'ectrician and engineering assistant from 27-9-87 onwards. Only In 1993 a person was posted as Engineering Assistant Grade n who is handling the project works. According to the union, the workman Is eligible for grade/scale of piy equal to that of an Engineering Assistant Grade III as he has been doing the entire electrical works in L.I.C. Divisional office, Thiruvananthapuram. It is contended oy the management that since the construction of the buildings of the Divisional Office attained completion and all the electrical Installations weie completed, the service of an electrician alone was necessary and so the transfer and promotion of the Engineering Assistant has not affected the electrical works. The fact that the constructions of the building* of the Piv'S'nnnl Office and electrical installations to it are cyir is not disputed. The newly appointed Engineering Assistant Grade II has been mainly attending project works.

Mew Delhi, the 24th January, 2001796 TU12 GAZLTTL Of IKE1A : FE3RUVHY 24, 2001/PttALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J APPEARANCES:

For the Workman: Mr. S. D. Srinivasan, Asstt. Regional Secy, of I Party Union.

y For the Management: M/s. P. S. Raman, IJ. R. Hainan and S. Aravamudlian, Advocates.

REFERENCE:

Older No. L 12011/3 0/2000/IR (B-U) dated 23-6-2000, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 19-12-2000. Upon perusing the reference, claim statement, counter statement, rejoinder and other material papers OJI record, oral evidence of the Management witness and docu- mentary evidence of the I Party and upon Jicuirng the urfiu- ments of the representative of the first party, Shri S. D. Srini- vasan and the counsel for the Management, Shri S, Aravamudhan and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following:—

AWARD

This reference by Central Government in the exercise of their powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In respect of dispute between woikman, Part-time Sweepers and the Dy. General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chennai, Management mentioned us Schedule to appended to the order of reference :—

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Wheher the action of the management of Vijaya Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai in not cunsiduing Shri S. Ajith Kumar, Shri S. Surcndran, Shri S. Arunacha- lam, Smt. P. Indragandhi, Smt. V. Muthulakshnii and Shri P. Jceva Surcndyan working as part-time sweepen for the poLt of permanent part-time sweeper is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?"

On receipt of this reference, this Industrial Dispute has been taken on fKe of this Tribunal on 27-7-2000 as Indus- trial Dispute No. 26/2000. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, the 1 Party through its representative and the II Party through their counsel appeared and filed their res- pective cluim statement and counter statement. The I Party has also filed a rejoinder to the counter statement.

2. The ttvsrments of the claim statement of the Claimant/] Party are briefly as follows :—

The I Party, Vijaya Bank Workers Orsn., Chennai (here inflftcr mentioned as the Petitioner) is a registered trade union recognised by the II Party Bank representing the majority Jf workmen in the II Pany Bank (hereinafter mentioned us the Respondent). The dispute arose out of the wrongful and unilateral decision of the Management of the Respondent Bank in not piovicllng an opportunity to th? temporary part- time sweeper numbering about 6, who have worked in the Nagerkoil Branch of the Respondent Branch for considering them for the permanent post of part-time sweeper, when the Bank Management decided to fill the above said permanent vacancy. The 6 temporary part-time sweepers viz., Shri S. Ajithkumar, Shri S. Surendran, Shri S. Arunachalam, Smt. P. Indragandhi, Smt. V. Muthulakshmi and Shri P. Jceva have been engaged by the Respondent Bank at the Nugerkoil Branch on rotational basis for various periods with intcr- mittant breaks. AH these workmen have been duly sponsored by the District Employment Officer vido their letter dated 22-1-1997 containing a list of 21 candidates. Out of them, these 6 workmen were selected for the poct of temporary part-time sweeper through a process of an interview held on 7-3-1997 at the Branch. The said post has been duly reserved for SC Category and all the six employees belong to Scheduled Caste. The 6 workmen worked as part-time sweepers during a period between 1997 and 1999 as Shri Ajithkumar for 190 days, Shri S. Surendran for 213 days, Shri S. Arunachalam for 55 days, Smt. P. Indragandhi for 138 days, Smt. V. Muthulakshnii for 175 days and Shri P. Jeeva for 178 days. The Respondent Bank continues to engage these 6 employees on rotational bnsis even now nt the Branch. The Branch Manager of the Nagercoil Branch of the Respondent Bunk while submitting the requisition form to be used when calling for applications from the Employ- ment Exchange, has clearly notified that the said, vacancy of part-time sweeper as one reserved for Scheduled Caste. Pursuant to engaging the 6 workmen employees as temporary part-time sweeper against the permanent vacancy at the Nagerkoil Branch of the Respondent Bank, for various periods the Respondent Bank submitted a fresh requisition foim foi recruitment through employment exchange calling for fresh list of candidates to fill the permanent p_ost of part-time sweepers. In the process, tht temporary services rendered by these 6 workmen have not been taken into consideration ai all by the Management of the Respondent Bank. It is un- reasonable and unjust. It was in breach of para 20.8 of the first bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 governing the Fer- vice conditions of workmen in the Banking Industry. Thus serious prejudice has been caused to these 6 workmen, [B terms of para 20.12 of the first bipartite settlement, the Respondent Bunk ought to have accorded equal opportunity and fame type of preference to the 6 candidates in the pro- posed interview to be conducted Bank at that relevant point of time. But the same was not complied with by the Res- pondent Bank. Even though these 6 workmen arc duly qualified and meet all the requirements of the Respondent Bnnk having been selected through the employment exchange, the aclion of the Respondent Bank in rejecting their candi- dature and nof 'calliag them for their interview to fill the permanent vacancy amounts tp serious infringement of the previsions of the bipartite settlement. Aggrieved by that attitude of the Bank the petitioner Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), Madurai. Since the conciliation ended in failure, he sent a failure of conciliation report to the Ministry of Labour, which in turn referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. There- fore it is prayed that ihh Honourable Tribunal may be pleased lo hold that the Respondent Bank is not justified in denying the opportunity to the 6 workmen concerned by no! considering them for the post of permanent part-time sweeper and to direct the Respondent Bank to consider thest 6 workmen for that post at Nagerkoil Branch and to pas: an award accordingly together with cost.

3. The averments in the counter statement of II Party Management/Respondent arc as follows:—

The service conditions of the award staff in the Bank are governed by Shastri Award as modified by Desai Award and subsequent bipartite settlements entered into between I.V.A. and Ccntr.il Unions at apex level. Para 20.7 of the first bipartite settlement deals with temporary employees. As per that provision temporary employee will mean a workman who has been appointed for a limited period of work, which is of essentially temporary nature or who is employed tempo- rarily as an additional workmen in connection with the tem- porary increase in work of the permanent nature and includes H workman other than a permanent workman who is appoint- ed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of parti- cular permanent workman. Based on the said provision, the workmen concerned in this dispute were engaged as temporary part-time sweepers on pro-rata daily wages. The permanent vacancy of parl-timo sweeper at Nagerkoil Branch had fallen, vacant subsequent to promotion of the then part-time sweeper to the cadre of Peon. The recruitment restriction imposed by the Gcvsrr-incnt of India and Reserve Bank of India have been in force for last several years. That apart, the Govern- ment of India and Reserve Bank of India have imposed total ban on recruitment in the Bank during later part of 1996 which was in force till the end of 1997. Under the circumstances, there is no other alternative but to engage temporary employees as part-time sweeper for short durations which is legally permissible. These 6 workmen were tem- porarily engaged from time to time for a specific period. On expiry of the specified period, their services come to an end and as such they cannot claim permanent employment in the Bfjnk. All the 6 workmen could not be taken for the single vacancy and strictly speaking, they are not workmen. The employees who enjoy the status df the post as per statutes awards and bipartite settlements only can be considered m workmen. Therefore all the 6 concerned workmen are not the employees of the Bank. The temporary employees engag- ed without following the recruitment rules, cannot put forth a contention for permanent appointment la the Bank. The court? have held that the Tribunal cannot create a new con- dition of service or niter existing conditions of service, when conditions of service are governed! by law and make an award directing the employer tp regulate the service of iu workmen omerwise than in accordance witn the statutory Provisions 01 jaw. rience this tribunal is not veiled witn the power to uuerlere/alter/bubstitULC and modify trie exist- ing awaids bipartite settlement governing the parties unless anil until Lhe employer aud the union have allured the posi- tion on a negoiuiuon LfeDie. 60, ail the concerned. 6 persons have no rtgni to raii>e a dispute at all either individually Or through the Union. Moreover the petitioner union is not vested Wiih the right to sponsor these workmen's cau!>e raising aa inauscnal uwpute. lhe union has erroneously stated in the cimro statement tiiat the post of part-time sweeper lias been reserved lor £>C CaLegory. l he requisition 101m referred to in the para 6 or tnu claim petition, pertain 10 temporary vacancy only and not tor permanent vacancy. The vacancies in lhe riarut are identified as per the reservation polity lor the Stale as a whOie and not based on individual branches, la the claim statement, the Union has quoicd para Z0.12 of the bipartite settlement erroneously. It is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence the 6 workmen for whom the Union is representing are not eligible for any leiici claimed. Therefore it ,', pi..yta 'lu.! ii'-, t.cnuu'.'ub J T.'il u-.v! m> i)? plea.ed to dismiss tnis claun with cost.

4. The Petitioner Union has filed a rejoinder. The aver-~ merits in the rejoinder arc briefly as follows.;—

The contention of the Respondent Bank that the vacancy has been reserved for SC Category only tor temporary vacancy and not for permanent post is neither acceptable nor con- vincing. The Branch Manager's recommendation while calling for candidates from District .Employment Bxchanjje at the time of engaging temporary candidates bears a clear testimony that the vacancy is reserved for SC Category. At Nagorkoij Branch, of the Respondent Bank originally one Shri bsakki- muthu had been working as part-time sweeper, since 1342-86 and belong to SC Cadre. The said employee during 24th November, 1995 has been promoted to full-time Peons cadre and posted to Tuticoiin Branch. Henco the vacancy arosn in the taid branch. Therefore the Respondent are estopted from putting forth a contention that the said vacancy is (or OBC Category. The provisions of bipartite settlement which is continued to be binding on the Respondent Bank as it is ono of the parties to the settlement dated 19-10-1966. Hence k is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to paE§ orders to the effect to consider the past seivices of these 6 workmen at the Npgetkoil Branch by the Respondent Bank for the appointment to the post of Sweeper and pass an award accordingly.

5. The Points for my consideration is :—

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai in not considering Sh. S. Ajith Kumar, Slui S. Surcndran, Shri S. Arunachalara. Smt. K fndiragandhi, Smt. V. Muthulakshmi and Shri P. Jeeva Surendyan working as part-time sweep- ers for the post of permanent part-time sweeper ij justified ? If not, what relief the concerned work- men ure entitled to ?"

Point:

ft?

chosen by M.W.I to give that employment on rotation basil. Fiona this it is clear that M.W.I had made temporary arrange- ment for the sweeper work of the branch for only two hours per day. It is the evidence of M.W.I, as stated by the Respondent in their counter that they are not regular emp- loyees of the Bank. It is also the admission of the witness M.W.I that th? letters dated 26-2-97 were sent to four of these six workmen concerned for ilk? interview and the xerox copies of these four letters are Ex. W3 series. From this it is evident that for one pott of part-time sweeper in the Branch, M W-l has given them opportunity to work in that post temporarily on rotation basia and it is not in accordance with any fixed rules or guidelines for recruitment by the Repondent Bank Management. So under such circumstances the Bank Management cannot provide the job of peimanent part-time sweeper for all the concerned six workmen for the said one vacant post available in Nagercoil Branch of the Bank.

6. It is not denied that the said part-time sweeper pout was held by Shri Esakkimuthu prior to his promotion to the post of subordinate staff during the year 1955, and he belongs to SC Category and all the concerned six workmen alsp belong to SC Category, The present vacant post of permanent part- time sweeper of Nagercoil Branch is not exclusively allotted for SC Category candidates. It is no body's case also. It cannot be disputed that the concerned Branch Manager is not empowered to appoint a person of his choice in that permanent part-time sweeper post and he is obliged to follow the rules and guidelines prescribed by the Management for the same. It is the contention of the Respondent that the appointing authority is the personnel deptt. (HRD;, Chief Manager of Zonal Office. The learned counsel for the Res- pondent has referred in his aigument, a xerox copy of the document dated 30-3-98, as inter office memo—a memo sent by General Manager, Zonal Office, Chennai, marking copy to each of the four Branch Managers inclusive of Nakercoil Branch and has stated that the procedure to be followed for filling up the vacancy of part-time sweeper of the concerned branch has been mentioned and it cannot be violated. This is not disputed by the representative of the Petitioner Union, who represents the Petitioner in this case. It is evident from that inter office memo that the present vacancy in the post of permanent part-time sweeper in the Nagercoil Branch of the Bank is not exclusively allotted for the SC Category can- didates. The concerned six workmen are belonged to SC Category. So from this it is seen that the action of the Management in non-considering the concerned six workmen! cannot be said as unjustified.

7. The learned counsel for the Respondent has nrgued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with matters covered by law and to make an award directing employer to regulate conditions of service of its workman otherwise than in accor- dance with statutory provisions of law. He relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported as 1998 I LLN 771 "Mangalore University Non-teaching Employees Association Vs. Mangalore University and another". That decision of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka in quite applicable to this case. Further it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that a person appointed for a short term as an ad hoc appointment cannot claim as a right to be appointed as a permanent employee. He relied¹ upon a decision of High Court of Gujarat reported , as 1987 1 LLJ 447—'Patel Evelin Ranchhodbhai Vs. Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnaaar'. It is held by High Court of Gujarat in that case as follows:—

1M TUB OAZB1TB Of m^ : j ^ t t y A K/ ^fJ99l/fH^ljSu^A *• ^{1 9 22} ^ *RT #—SBC 3(101 Qovemment of India. So, the temporary employees engaged • without following' the recruitment rules cannot put forth a contention for permanent appointment in the Bank. This argument of the loamed counsel is acceptable. It cannot bo said gs follocious.

In view of these condition it can be held that the action of the MLinagement is justified in not considering the con- cerned nix workmen for the post of permanent part-time sweeper is justified. Thus 1 answer the point accordingly.

In the result an ewurd is passed holding that the 6 work- men concerned are not entitled anv relief as the action of the management of Vijaya Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai against them iS justified. No cost.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by her direct, corrected and pronounced in the open court this day the 17th January, 2001-

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

For ClaimantA Party—None. For Management/II Party—M.W.I, Shri V. Vijayakwnar Document! Marked: Ex. No. Date Description

For Claimant/I Party:

Wl 03-12-1996—Xerox copv of Bank's Notification to;

District Employment Exchange, Nagerkoil.

W2 09-01-1997—Xerox copy of Bank's requc't letter to District Employment Exchange, Naaerkoil.

W30) 26-02-1997—Xerox copy of Bank's interview call letter to S. Ajith Kumar.

W3(2) 26-02-1997—Xerox copy of Bank's interview call letter to S. Surendran. -

W3(3) 26-02-1997—Xerox copy of Bank's interview call letter to T. Indiragandhi.

W3(4) 26-02-1997—Xerox copy of Bank's interview call letter to V. Muthulakshmi. •

For Repondertt/II Party—Nil.

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001 S.O. 388/—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, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2001.

[No. L-12012(27"|97-IR(B-IDJ C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Indstrial Dispute No., 130[98

In the matter of dispute between

The General Secretary, Bank of Baroda Staff Association UP Madhav Bhavan, Civil Lines, Kanpur

AND

The Regional Manager Bank of Baroda Regional Office, Lankar Varansai

AWARD

1, Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its notification No. L-12012|278|97|IR(B-Il) dated 20-7-98, has referred the following dispute for ad- judication to this Tribunal

Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda for not giving the Casfr Peon post to Shri Jai Ram Bansfor ii legal and justified. If not to what relie: the said workman is entitled ?

2, Sri Munna LaJ Gupta, General Secretar Bank of Baroda Staff Association filed statement of claim on behalf of the concerned workman Sr Jai Ram Bansfor. The management has filed writtei statement agaiinst that statement of claim and As sociation has filed rejoinder against that writtej statement. During the pendency of this case the? concerned workman died on 3-7-2000. The mana- gement moved Application dated 7-12-2000 to the effect that the concerned workman has died hence the relief claimed cannot be granted to any one after the death of the concerned workman, nence the case should be dropped and a no claim award may be parsed in the interest of justice. The mana- gement has filed the copy of the death certificate dated 14-7-2000 issued by the competent authority to the effect that the concerned Workman died on 3-7-2000. The authorised .representajtive for the workman has appeared and has accepted the fact that the concerned workman has died during the pendency of this cajse. He has also made an endorse- ment on the statement of claim that now it is not pressed.

3, Jn view of the statement made by the autho- rised representative for the workman, I have no dption but to hold that the concerned workman who has died is not entitled to net any relief in pursuance of the reference made i :ivls Tribunal.

79"

AWARD

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ibated 25th January, 2001.

This reference by Central Government in the exercise of tho powers conferred by clause (dj of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in re&pect of dispute between Shri A. Dhanushkodi, workman and the General Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, Manage- ment, mentioned as schedule appended to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follow* ;—

Whether the disengagement/discontinuance of Shri A. Dhanushkodi, Temporary Casual tub-staff by the management of Indian Bank is justified 7 If not, what relief is the said disputant entitled¹ to '

On receipt of this reference, this Industrial Dispute ha" been taken on file of this Tribunal on 4-8-2000 as Industrial Dispute No. 43/2000. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, both the parties appeared through their counsel iand filed their respective claim statement and counter state- ment.

2. The averments in the claim statement of the I Party

workman are briefly as follows :—

New Delhi, the 1st February. 2001

S.O. 389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub ishes the awanj of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the- Management of Indian Bank and their work- mart, which was received by the Central Governmeftt on 31-1-2001.

[No. L-12012/261/9l-IR(B-H)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Se"X-

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday the 23rd lanuary, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karlhikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 43/2000

fin the matter of the dispuffe for adjudication under Section 10(1 )(d) and Sub-section 2(A) of tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the workman and the management of Indian , Bank, Chenna,i,]

BETWEEN

Shri A. Dhanushkodi, Workman/I Party.

AND

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

honesty was highly doubtful. His continuance would have definitely lowered the image of the bank in the eye, of die customers/public. He was never appointed to any regular post of sub-staff to say that he was terminated from service. He ntver had the status of the Bunk's employee at any point of time. Since he indulged in frudulent acts even when he was engaged on casual day to day basis, his casual engafie- ment was discontinued with effect from 24-09-79. So the question of holding enquiry against the Petitioner, who did not belong to the regular establishment of the bank did not arise. There is no violation of natural justice. It is incorrect to allege that he was retrenched. The provisions of Sec. 25P and 25 H of Indusrtial Disputes Act, 1947 have no application to the facts of the case. During the period between 1977 and 24-09-1979, he had never worked for 240 days, in the pre- ceding twelve calendar months. The Petitioner is not entitled to stake his claim for reinstatement and his disengagement is legal, valid and justified. Hence, this Honourable Tribunal may bo pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner, 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the counsel on either side represented that they have no oral or docu- mentary evidence. Arguments advanced by the learned coun- sel on cither sidu was heard.

5. The point for my consideration is :—

Whether the disengagement/discontinuance of Shri A. Dhanushkodi, Temporary casual sub-staff by the Management of Indian Bank is justified ? If not, what relief is the safe? di?putant entitled to?

Respondent Bank Management is not bound to hold an en- quiry as per any rules or administrative provisions. It is also not the ca.se of the petitioner that the action of the Management is against any Bipartite Settlement or violation of prescribed rules of adrainistiation by the Management. So from the above discu>sion, I come to the conclusion that the Indian Bank Management's disengagement/discontinuance of Shri A. Dhanushkodi, Temporary casual sub-staff is justified and hence the said disputant is not entitled to any relief Thus I answer the point accordingly,

Tn the le.ult an award is passed holding that the Petitioner Shri A. Dhonushkodi is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. No cost.

Dictated to the- typist and typed by her direct and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 23rd January. 2001.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

Documents Marked :

On either side : Nil.

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

SO 390.—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, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India nnd their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-1-2001. L.1 2 0,2/252/93-IRm-IDl

C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

No. ID 73/94

t8Vl AWARD

AND

Dated : 19tli December, 2000

General Manager, Union Bank of India, Taksal Theatre Building, Nadesar, Varanasi.

AWARD

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification No. L-l2012/252/93-lR(B-2) dat>;d 26th July, 1944 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1. Cenlral Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vido its Notification No. L-12012/189/95-IR(B-2) dated 26-11-96, has referred the following dispute tor adjudication to this tribunal—

"Whether the demand of CBI Employees Union, Haryana on the management of Central Bank of India, Ambulu for designation of Shri Madan Rum, Peon as Bill Collector ond payment of Special Allowance to him w.e.f. 26-3-1991 is justified 7 If so, what relief is the said workman entitled to ?"

"Whether the action of the management ot Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Basant Kumar Pandcy a casual/part time worker of their Maunath Bhnnjan Branch in U.P. in 1993 is justified 7 If not, to what relief the .workman is entitled 7"

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of affidavit by the workman. Today rep. of the workman appeared and made the statement that the workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. He has also filed an ariplic.ilinn to this effect on behalf of the workman. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry ss No dispute award as there exjst no dispute with the Management. Appropriate Government be informed,

B. L. JATAV. Presiding Officer

Chandigarh,

J 9-12-2000.

2. Basant Kumar Pandey, the concerned workman in his claim statement has alleged that he was employed by the General Manager, Union Bank of India, Varanasi as sub staff at Maunath Bhanjan Branch of the bank. The wurk and conduct of the concerned workman was good and he has never given any chance of complaint. The management without any rhyme or reason terminated his services with effect from September, 1993. His- services were laminated*, verbally by the branch manager of Maunath- Bhanjan Branch of Union Bank of India, who had no authority to do ;=o. He tvas kept on daily wage basis. The termination of his service was made in violation of provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act because neither notice pay not retrenchment com- pensation was paid to him before termination of his service, hence termination of his service is illegal, 'null and void. On the basis of these allegations he has prayed that hp may be reinstated in service with back wages.

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

3. The management of Union Bank of India has alleged that Basant Kumar Pandey was not employed by the bonk in any capacity and relationship pf master and servant never existed between him and the bank. It has been alleged that he was Operator of generator which was provided to the bank by Sri A; K. Sharma. Sri A. K. Sharma paid Rs. 15C per month to him as remuneration, Tt has been aliened th:ii as casual labour he was Tenjaged by the bank for lifting or fetching water for which wages were paid to him for part- time engagement. He was engaged on short term casual work due to exigency and urgency of work for which wages were paid to him. Trie bank was not expected to make compliance of provisions of Industrial Distmtes Act for not engaging him further "s a casual labour. It has been alleged that reference made to this tribunal is bad and the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in pursuance of this reference.

4. The workman has filed rejoinder in which he has

reiterated the- facts alleged in the statement of claim.

SO, 39J.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19-17 (14 of. 19471, the Cenlral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employer* in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 1-2-2001.

[No. L-12012/1H9/95-IR(B-II)l

5. The workman has examined hinmclf as W.W. 1 and filed one document Ext. W-l in siipport of his case. The manage- ment has examirfed Sri Lalit Mohan Sharma as M.W. 1 and has filed 29 documents marked Ext, M-l to M-29 in support of its case.

C GANGADHARAN. UnVr Sv-v

6. I have heard the representatives of both the sides and

have gone through thle record of the case.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE Ski R, P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICES, CENTRAL GOVFRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTRUN-\L- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 122/96

In the matter of dispute:

BETWEEN

7. Sri Bnsant Kumar W.W. 1 stated on oath that he worked as peon in Maunath Bha^ian Branch of the bank from 6-10-92 to 21-8-93 continuously and hip service-; w-ra -termi- nated without civinc him notice or retrenchment comoen=ntirm. Tie ju'mitted in his ciosB-rxarninatinn that he was never jiiven anv appointment letter and no cmkrs were pushed! for termination of his services. He admitted that be was getting only IK 50 per month for fetching water for the staff of the bank. On the other hand Sri Lalit Mohan Sharma, M.W. 1 clearly stated on oath that he was the branch manager of Union Bank of India, Maunath Bhanjan Brunch, from August 92 to June 94. He stated on oath that dm;r.g thai time the workman concerned worked Ar* operator of the jtenerator provided to the bnnk by Sri A- K Shnrma nnd hr voi einp'oyeii bv A. K, Shrtrma and¹ not bv the bank. He further stated that when there was temporary need the concerned workman was engaged as casual labour and labour General Secretary. Union Bank Fmnlovees Union, 628/M-33 Murarl Nagar, Faizabad Road, Lucknow.

413 GI/2001—11802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; FEBRUARY ?4, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 LFART il-r.EC. a wj 10. In a similar ease of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarihi versus State of Bihar and others 1997(76)FLR 23/, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under—

Admittedly they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with thte rules but were engaged 01 the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of retrench- ment, therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. Since they are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts their disengagement is not arbitrary.

11. The few laid down in the cases cited above fully applies to the facts of the present case. As the present) workman was engaged on the basis of need of the work as casual part time worker hence his disengagement cannot be treated to bs retrenchment under the provisions of Industrial Dispu'es Act. therefore, hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get protection of provisions of section 25F • of the Act.

charges were paid to him accordingly. He stated that vouchers Ext. M-2 to M-29 related to the labour charges paid to the concerned workman. This witness was not cross examined at all on ihe point that the concerned workman was an employee of A. K. .Sharma, the owner of the generator which was operated by the concerned workman. He was also not cross examined on the point that he was engaged as a casual labour by the branch manager of Union Bank of India, Maunath Bhanian Branch and was paid labour charges according]}'. On the other hand (he letter of the branch manager of Maunath Bhanian Branch of Union Bark of India addressed to the General Manager of Union Bunk of India, Varanasi. Ext. M-l indicates that the concerned work- % man was engaged on various dates as a casual labour and¹ : labour charges were paid to him accordingly. This supports the admission of the concerned workman that he was paid only Rs. 58 per month for providing water to the staff of the bank. The vouchers Ext. M-3 to M-29 indicates that the concerned workman was paid labour charges for fetching goods from the market and also for fetching water and supplying the same to the staff of'the branch and was paid wages accordingly. The certificate dated 16-1-95 i?r,usd bv Sri A. K. Sharma Ext, M-2 goes to show that the concerned workman was engaged bv him for about 2 and half years as generator operator and he was paid wages at thfe rate of Rs. 150 per month by him. In view of aforesaid evidence on the record, I am inclined to believe the case of the manage- ment that the workman wa*s working as generator ' operator of Sri A. K. Sharma at the branch of the bank and he some times worked as casual part time labourer in the bank for which wages weie paidv to him by the bank through vouchers. Admittedly no appointment order was issued by the competent authority in favour, of thte concerned workman giving him appointment on the post of peon. There is nothing on record to show that he was ever selected for the r>ost of peon according to the rules and was appointed against the post of peon by the competent authority. In these circumstances. I find force in the contention of the management that the concerned workman could never get the status of an emplovee of the bank nnd was rot entitled to get protection of the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

and their workman, which was received by the Cfentral Government on 1-2-2001.

[No. L-12012/379/<)7-lR(B-lI)]

C. OANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

"Whether the action of the management of Central Buik of rn4iSi Jaipur is justified in terminating the Nervicea ol Sh. Babulal, w.e.f, 22-1-96 as em- ployed junior workman Sh. Tare Chand Sogra in his place without giving him any oppoitunity o£ employment in violation of sec. 25-H of JD Act, 1947? If not, to wtiHt relief the said workman is entitled and from what date ?'".

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Jaipur is jus\fied in lerminaMng the services of Sh. Babu Lal w.e.f. 21-02-96 and em- ploy junior workman Sh. Tara Chand Sogra in his place without giving him any oppoitunity of em- ployment in violation of Sec, 25-H of ID Act, 1947 ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date 7".

New Delhi, the 2nd February. 2001

S.O. 393.—In pursuance of Section 17 of th< Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), thi Central Government hereby publishes the award o. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Jaipur, as shown in the annexurc it the Industrial Dispute between the employers ir relation to the management of LIC of India ant their workman, which Was received by the Centra Government on 1-2-2001.

[No. L-17011|6]96-lR(B-IT)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No. B-42|98

Reference No. L-1701l|6|96|IR(B II)

Daied : 4-12-1997

1. Kailash Chandra,

s|o Sh. Salagram Kumhar, Nakashi Mohalla, Sambhar Lake. Jaipur.

2. Babulal Bairwa\

s|o Sh, Gopiram Bairwa, B-24, Bajaj Na'gar, Jaipur.

3. Dcvilal, s|o Sh. Hukmaram Balai, Chota Bazar, Purana Kil'a, Devmani Phatak, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur. . \ .. Applicants

V|s.

1. The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhawami Singh Road, High Court Circle, Jaipur.

2. Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhawani Singh Road, High Court Circle, Jaipur.

. •. Non-Applicants

ATTENDENCE :

For .the applicant : Sh. B. C. Jain

For th806 THE GAZETTti OF INDIA .FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 LPAKT II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD

The Central Government has referred the fallow- ing industrial dispute under clause (d) of Sub- section (i) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred a,s the Act, 1947) for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management, of LIC of India, Jaipur in terminating the services of SjShri Kailash Chand, Ba'bulal Bairwa and Devi Lal w.e.f. 23-6-96, 18-5-94 and 18-5-94 respectively is legal and justified ? If not. to what relief the said workmen are entitle/I ?"

poration before raising the dispute. The joint claim: is not maintainable. The provision of Act, 1947 are not applicable in the case of the Corporation. The claim in not maintainable as per Section 2(oo) (bb) of tru? Act, 1947). In parawisc reply to the claim, it was denied thai the applicants worked in the Corporation as stated in the claim. It was stated that Kailash Chand had worked in Unit Ist of the Corp. only for 24 days during! the period from Septembcr-Q2 to April-93 as a casual worker on daily wage basis. It was denied that the worked in the branch Sarabher Lake of the Cor- poration. Babulal Biirwa had worked for 147 days from the month of October-91 to March-92 as a casual vvorker on daily wage ba.sis. It was denied that he worked in the Corporation upto 17-5-94. Dsvilal had worked in the Corporation only for 45 days from April-93 to July-93 as a casual worker on daily wage. It was denied that he worked upto 17-5-94. It was also denied that the appl;cant1- tionVf rules 76 and 77 of the Rules, 1947 was also denied.

The applicants also filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts mentioned in the claim peti- tion.

On the pleadings of the parties the following

points of disputes were framed :

The applicants filed jcrnt statement of claim in which it was stated that the applicants were ap- pointed in the establishment of Life Insurance Cor- poration, (hereinafter referred as the Corporation) on daily wage basis. Applicant Kailash Chand worked in Sambher Lake branch of the Corp. from November '91 to June '92 and from November '92 to 22-6-94 in unit I of the Corp. Shri Babulal Bairwa worked in Unit Ist of the Corp. from 19-9-91 to 17-5-94. Shri Devilal worked from 27-3-93 to 17-5-94 in the above unit of the Corp. The applicants worked in the Corporation conti- nuously but in order to avoid regularisatlon of the applicants and to evade the provisions of the Act, 1947, the applicants were pressed to work in the name of different persons and the payment was also made in the name of the different • persons. The applicants did so in order to earn livelihood and they also did not have bar- ga7ning power. Applicant Kailash Chand was shown in the books in the names of SaJagram, Mahesh Kumar and Salish Kumar, while the name of Salagram is the name of his father and Mahesh] Kumar and Satish Kumar are his sons. Babulal was .shown in the books in the names of Shankarlal and Bansilal who are his brothers. Similarly Devilal was shown in the books in. the names of Hukmaram, while Hukmaram is his father and Decndayal and Pritom Singh, are his brothers. The Corporation has, therefore. Used unfair labour practice, The servces of applicant Kailash Chand were terminated w.c.L 22-6-94 and of Babulal and Devilal w.e.f. 13-5-94. The applicants have worked for more lhan 240 days in a calendar year prior to the date of termination,, The Corporaton has engaged other persons after terminating services of applicants without giving any opportunity of employment to them. The applicants service was terminated by the Corporation in violation of Section 25 F & G of the Act-47 and rule 76 and rule 77 of Indus- trial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred as tha Rules, 1957). It was prayed that termination of service of applicants be declared illegal and be set aside and they may be reinstated in service with continuity in service with back wages.

The non-applicants filed reply in which by way of preliminary objections it was stated that the ap- plicants did not raise any demand before the Cor-807 cross-crami nation he has also admitted that certi- ficate r.x. W-7 is ior the period he worked in his own name.

Applicant Devilal has stated that he worked in the Unit Ist of the Corporation from 27-3-93 to 17-5-94 and his services were terminated from 18-5-94 orally. About his work, certificate Ex. W-8 was issued by Smt. Jyotishri. Asst. Administrative Oliiecr. Under compulson he worked in the name of Hukmaram, Deendayal and Pritam Singh while Hukmaram is the name of his father and Deendayal and Pritam Singh are the names of his brothers.

In support of th? claim the applicants filed their own- affidavits. The counsel for the non-applicants was gi.vcn opportunity to cios,i-examine them. In the iemi of documentary evidence, copies of certi- ficates marked 1, 2, 7 & 8, copy of the application marl.cd 3 & 4, copy'cf the notice Ex-5 and copy of the failure report Ex-6 were filed,. On behalf of. th'j non-appliuapts, affidavits of Shri R, K. Siiarnia s[o Shri R. P. Sharma, Branch Manager, Shri R. lv. Sarma sjo Damodar Sharma, Manager I .egal and Shri R. K. Gautom Ex. Manager of the Sainbher Lake Branch of the Corporation were fi]< d. T¹'.: t.MjMirtiinity to cross-examine them on their sllidavits was given to the counsel for the ap- pl;c:vus. B;.vd.-s the above affidavits the affidavits of Shri Sitaram Mccna and Hazarilal Meena were also filetl. On direction;; of the Tribunal the Budget Control Register for the year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 were also filed.

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The points are de- eded as follows : — •

114

Devilal

192/- 6 173

640/-

31-7-93 7-5-93 28-6-93

140 J42

K00/-

20 25

51 contended that ncn-applicants have not been able to produce payment vouchers and, therefore, an adverse inference lias to be drawn against them. On the other hand the learned counsel of the non-ap- plicants has contended that the certificates are lorged. The applicants were not compelled 10 work in the name of other persons and from the record it is proved that the applicants did not work, conti- nuously in the Unit Ist of the Corporation as alleged and none of the applicants has worked for 240 days before the date of termination of his service,

As stated above Shri R. K. Sharma has stated that signatures on Ex-2 are forged. Shri P. N. Sharma and Jyotishri who are said to have retired and who are alleged to have given certificates Ex-7 & 8 respectively have not been examined by the applicants. It does not stand to reason that on the one hand it is alleged that the work was taken from the applicants in the name of other persons so as to avoid regularisation and avoiding the pro- visions of the Act, 1947 and on the other hand certificates were issud to the applicants in their own nrmes. The contention of the applicants there- fore, that they were compelled to work in the names of other persons xvith the above motive cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, not believable that certificates might have been issued to them. No reliance, therefore, can be placed on the certi- ficates marked Ex-2. 7 & 8 alleged to have been isseed by Shri R,. K. Sharma), Shri P. K. Sharma and Smt. Jyotishri. It is true that payment vouchers have not been produced by Corporation as they could not be traced. Shri Sitaram Meena and Shri Hazarilal Meena have filed their affidavit ' to this effect. Budget Control Registers for the period from 1991 to 1995 have been- produced in which, the payment for the work made by the corporation to the employees has been shown. As per the Budeet Control Register KaiJash Chand, Babulal and Devilal have been paid the following amounts on the dates and at Sr. No. of the page mentioned against them. (The working days also have beeni mentioned on the basis of daily wage) :

Amount Days Page

Date

149

I

Worker Kailach Chand ~8-12-92

123

19

30/ -' "" 570/-

2-1-93

23

736/-

1540

1-5-93

23-5-94

15 59

480/-

58

10

250/-

107

4-10-91

Bnbulal

1-11-91 3-12-91

As per die Budget Control Register Shri Kailash Chand, Shri Bafoulal and Shri Devilal had worked in the Unit Ist of the Corporation as above. From the payment vouchers the payment could be found out only. In my view the statement of the applicant Kailash Chand that he worked in the name of Salagram, Mahesh Kumar and Satish Kumar, the statement of Baibulal that he worked in the name of Shankarlal and Bansilal and the statement of Devilal that he worked in the name of Hukmaram, Deendayal and Pritam Singh cannot be believed for the following reasons. Firstly because it has been denied by Shri R. K. Sharmai on behalf of the non-applicant that work was taken from the ap- plicants in the name of other persons. Secondly be-' cause as per Budget Control Register Kailash Chand had worked only for one day in the yeaT 1992. 42 days in the year 1993 and for 15 days in the year 1994. Baibulal had worked for 56 days each in the years 1991 and 1992 and for 2 days in the year 1993. Devilal had worked for only 51 days m the year 1993. None of them had worked for even, 200 days NO that his period might have come to close to 240 days so as to attract pro- vision of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. Thirdly because as per the Budget Control Register Hukma- ram, Deendyal and Pritam Singh had worked for a period of 309, 19 and 17 days. Salagrara, Mahesh Kumar and Satish Kumar had worked for 221, 117 and 75 days, Shankar lal and Bansilal had worked for 440 and 206 days and therefore, the persons in whose names they have worked for 240 days in a year could have raised the dispute. It is, therefore not believable that the applicants might have compelled or allowed to work in the name of other persons even for more than 240 days. Fourthly, because no regularisation scheme has been produced on behalf of the applicants to the effect that on completion of certain, period of service the applicants could claim regularisation. On the basis of the above discussion and the Budget Control Register. It is proved that Kailash Chand had worked only a period of 58 days during the period from 1992 to 1994. Babulal had worked for a period of 114 days during the period from 199] to 1992 and Devilal had worked for a period of 51 days during the year 1993. There is discre- pancy in the working days of the applicants as 110

given by Shri R. K. Sharma and the Budget Con- trol Register but the same appears to be on account of mrs-calculation. It was expected from him that on thorough checking of Ihe record the period of woiking days should hav*c been given. It is, there-, fore, not proved that the applicant Kailash Chand has worked continuously from November, 1992 to 22-6-94, Babulal has worked continuously from 19-9-1991 to 17-5-94 and Devilal hais worked continuously from 27-3-93 to 17-5-94 in the Corporation. It is al?o not proved that any of them has completed 240 days of service during the year preceding to the date of term;nation of his service.

Point No, 2 :—As none of the applicants has continuously worked in the Corporation in any year or has worked for 240 days during the year, preceding to the date of termination of his ser- vice the prov'sions of Section 25 of the Act, 1947 are not attracted. There is no evidence that while terminating the services of the applicants any junior to them was retained in service. As none of the applicants has served more than a year the provisions of Rule 76 of Rules, 1957 are not at- tracted. Similarly therb is no evidence on record also that at the time of termination of the services of the applicants, other persons were also working 'in the unit 1st of the Corporation on casual and daily wage basis. The provisions of Rule-77 of Rules, 1957 are also not attracted.

Poin Nos. 3, 4, 5 &6 :—Points Nos. 3, 5 & 6,' h?ve not been- pressed for the learned counsel of the •non-applicants. There is no prohibition that joint claim cannot be filed. All these points are therefore decided against the non-applicants.

Point No. 7 :—On the basis of the above fin- dings, the termination of the services of the appli- cants can not be held to be illegal and unjustified. The applicants are therefore, not entitled to any relief.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Cen- tral Government under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd.l-

Presidins Officer 413 GT/2001—J2

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001

S.O. 394,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Ad, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2001.

[No. L-12012/I77/95-IR(B-lI)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI

Monday, the 8th day of January, 20O1

PRESENT:

Thiru S, R. Singhanivelu, B.Sc. B.L,, Industrial Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 92 of 1996

[In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the vioiknum and the Management of Bank of Tndia, Madras-86.]

BETWEEN

The workman represented by The General Secretary. Bank of Tndia Staff Union, 46, Cathedral Road, Madras 600006.

AND

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, 46, X"athedral Road, Gojnlapurum Post Office. Madras-600086.

RFFERENCF. :

Order No. 1.-12012/177/95-IR(B.Il) dated 30-9-%, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

1 Uifsdpv.

*•''(• 27th day of December, 2000, upon perusing the reference. Onim and Counter statements and all other material unpers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru N- A. PTi-vn/huthi, advocate appearing for the Workmen and of /Thirijvalarpal S. Ramasubramaniam and Associates, advocates approving for the Management and this dispute having stood i"vr t>'ll this day for consideration, this Tribima] made the 'following:

AWARD

The Government of Tndia has referred the following issu" for ncfiudicit-'on by this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of Bank of Tndia in tevminatmo; the service of Shri C. Swsminathan. Cieic w.ei. 20-5-1994 is justified? If not. to wha+ relief he is entitled T

?,. The main averments found in the Claim Statement of the pftitionpv ate as follows :

Mr. C. Pwiromnthan is a member of the Union. The workman S'-i C. Swamin^han, joined the service of the bank nn 6-7-i"R* m0 n %' vnrKnu at variou- branches. urnmotsd dnnriir 1089 as a Special Assistant and¹ transferred to Melrwlli- rnttn fcrnni-h, He wo'f-ed there for two vears and noain it-an,/,.,..-,.,! t0 N.-w.thorlu branch durintr 19Q1 and wnrVed r W- H11 hi- arJiifr.iry dism'-ini en ?5-5-')4 bv an on.'cr dated '•O-^-Q.1. The cbfrpet we frnmed bv the Regional M-naper, T-ith regard 'o irrfiTlariHe:; said to Ii^ve br-en committed by thi- "'o-kmnn. An cnauiry wns rondurted and n Show Cause nnni"!inient no'ice "vas scr"ed on 25-1-94. The workman had "V.,-1 the retMvn sirhnvision in reply to the show cause notice810 TOH GAZIiTTK 01 INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/T1IALGUNA 5, 1922 [FART U - S E C. -3-WJ on 15-2-94. Bui th': disciplinary authority without going into the merits of the reply passed the Order of Penalty on 20-5-94 imposing n- consolidated punishment of "Dismissal without notice'. It is pertinent lo Tiole that the management has not placed the workman under suspension in spite of the said charge sheet, enquiry elc. until he WHS dismissed on 25-5-94. Wild regard to Charpc No. 1 as follows:

The allegation of misuse of interest free vehicle loan bv the woikman is not only untrue but also it will not cause any prejudice to the interest of the bank.

Charge No. 2—On 14-12-1989 you obtained an, application lo; financial assistance from Shri S. Kathhvilu. The loan of Rs. 25,000 was sanctioned bv the Mi'naficr under proposal No. 137/89-90 (CBD 6/4R) dated 16-12-1989. The proceeds of the loan were credited to llie Cash Credit Account of M/s. Poompuhnr Thunyaham. An amount of Rs. 8000 was ditwn on 18-12-89 and Rs. 17,000 was drawn on 28-12 89 hy you from the account of M/s. Poom- puhar Thunivaham making use of the loose cheque leaves wherein you had obtained the signature of Mr, L. M;mi. Thereafter you repaid the amounts in the loan account of Mr. S, Kathirvelu. Thus . you obtained the application for loan from Sri Kathirvelu and¹ Biiarnntee from Sri Pandyan by mis- representation taking advantage of their lack of knowledge of Bank's procedures, with interior motives and obtined sanction of Rs. 25,000 in the name of Sri K'iliirvtjlu with the assistance and connivance "f Sri K. Sarangapani, Manager and drew the pro- ceeds of the loan through the C/C account of M/s. Poompuhar Thuniyahom by misrepresentation and thus misappropriation bank's funds of Rs, 25,000.

Charge No. V- -On 13-9-N6 you had laken a disburse- ment o( Rs. 25,000 from your housing loan account at Melpallipaltu branch. You secured disbursements of housing loan without providing the required mar- gin, and in order to suppress the political, you put through Credit and Debit vouchers on the relevant dates without cmrying out the actual transactions.

Charge No. 4—On 5-8-1987 you utilised the proceeds of housing loan and PF loan sanctioned to you, lor repayment of-money borrowed by you from borrow- er customers of the bank and to partly repay the umount fraudulently obtined by you from the loan account of Mr. R. Parasuraman and Mr, S. Kathirvelu.

Charge No. 5—On 2-3-1987 you obtained sanction of a iewel loan of Rs. 3700. You availed loan from the bank at concessional rate of interest by pitting up a ci'sfomer 'if the bank as a front for availing jewel loan for agricultural purpose.

own cause which resulted in miscarriage of justice, j ne management have failed to neither project nor consider that the whole episode was the outcome of a fraud running to several lakhs of rupees committed by the then Manager and Cashier of the branch which was unearthed during De.crnber, 1993. The investigation was conducted by CBI on all issues including the subject matter of this Charge sheet- While criminal cases were filed against the Manager and the Cashier bv CBI, Uio mailer relating to the present Charge sheet were held to be of procedural irregularities without resulting in any criminal liabilities and hence the CBI had haudedevir the same to the bank for proceeding in the departmental en- quiry. The entire exercise of the management is only to victimise the workman with mala fide intentions. The work- man was also victimised because another reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The alleged trans- actions were taken place between the year 1987 to 1989. The charges were fiamed only in 1992. Such a lonjj gap to leply for transaction'! was against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner prays to pass an award holding the dismissal of workman Sii C. Swaminathan as illegal, unjust, mala fide, dixpioportionato. L.nd against the principles of natural jus'ice and to direct the respondent management to reinstate tVie workman Sri C. Swaminathan with all back wages, continuity of service and caher attendant benefits.

3- The nuln averments found in the Counter Statement of the respondent ore as follows;

The workman Mr, C. Swaminathan joined the service of the respondent bank in the year 1981 and he was promoted in the year 1989 as a Special Assistant and at the time of dismissal the workman was working at Namathodu branch. The workman has been charge sheeted on 15-9-92 fot certain alleged misconducts under 19.5.(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. Against the charge sheet dated 15-9-92, the respondent bank conducted an preliminary enquiry on 28-10-92 at Regional Office Coimbatore. During the Preliminary enquiry, the workman denied all the charges. During the enquiry one Mr. K. Srikanth, Co-staff assisted the workman and alsoi during the enquiry the respodncnt baTik marked 101 docu- ments. The respondent examined 8 witnesses as management witnesses and the workman was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. During the enquiry on 8-10-93 the charge sheeted workman voluntarily and unconditionally admitted all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet. After con- ducting an enquiry both sides were given an opportunity lo submit theit written submissions. Hence the respondent) followed the principles of natural justice while conducting; an enquiry. The workman fully participated in the enquiry and ho himself unconditionally admitted all the charges before the Hnquiry officer on 8-10-93 and pleaded jinilty of the charges. THo enquiry officer submitted a detailed report dt, 18-12-93, and concluded that thr charges levelled r.gainst the workman have been proved. The respondent issued a show cause notice dt. 25-1-94 proposing the consolidated punishment oi dismissal without notice and the workman submitted his detailed explanation dt. 11-5-94. The respon- dent after careful' consideration of the submissions made bv the workman based on the enquiry repoct and seriousness of the misconducts informed the petitioner thnt he was dismissed from service on 20-5-94. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the dismissed employee on 6-7-94, and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by theii Order dt. 5-9-94. After goinp into the merits of the reply to the second siiow cause notice the -respondent passed the Ordc- of dismissal on 20-5-94 imposing a consoli- dated punishment of Dismissal without notice. The punish- ment was given after taking into account the gravity of the pross misconducts committed by the workman The Disci- plinary authority independently aprtlied his mind and gave the punishment to the workman. The disciplinary authority considered only three charges for 'Dismissal without notice'. The respondent denies the allegation that no act to cnusa uny prejudice to th- interest of the bank was committed by the workman. The vehicle loan WHS sanctioned to nny worfcrnnn without interest for a specific purpose. By seiiinp the vehicle and utilising for some other pnrpo"-', nff'tloiT has intentionally misused bank's funds eiven nt 'Nil' interest. The above facts clearly show that the workman nded prejudicial to the interest of the r-ttnV. Hencr the rnnuirv nfflr-er r'ghtJv held tbn.t 811 sheet murked as Ex. Ml, Although, tnc woikman says ttiat his services was unblemished, besides appreciating the same, we h.we to subjective.y go through the charges and the lact proof thereof nnd also the procedure followed therein. Sup- posing ihe misconduct is established, thereby the earlier aood services may not become a potential defence. Of course, the antecedents may have 10 be considered in awa ding punishment.

7, Charge No, 1 is that the woikuuin hud applied for an interest free vehicle loan of Rs. 18,400 on 2-1-yO from the bank, to purchase one Two Wheeler Susirki from M/s. D.N.C. Agencies, Dh.umapuii. The loan was sanctioned by Regional Manager, Coimbatore Region on 5-1-90. One of the term¹-. of sanctioned loan was that banks charges over the vehicle were to be rcpiscered with the Regional Transport Oflicer, On 2-6-90, the workman had al.egedly sold the vehicle withbut even registering it with Lhc R.i.O, On the dato oj s.ile i.e. 2-6-90 there was an outstanding oi Rs. 15,387 in the above said vehicle loan account. Although the loan was disbur-cd on 17-1-90, within six months the workman had allegedly sold the venicle without lcgistering the bank's charges on the .vehicle with the Regional Transport Officer and with- out closing the vehicle loan. Thus according to the manage- ment the misuse of the loan faculty is there. It is pertinent to note that the loan was interest tree.

8. The wotkman in his written argument had pointed oui various documentary evidence filed on his side referring to the page number of the concerned document, wherein he narrated the event?. ; Sufficient it is to quote his own wordu which wnuld uitinitiiciy no to snow thai, he had yiucni;,-,ed the said vehicle as per the said loan application., His own mentioning i;f the same in his written argument is as follows :

"It is proved that I purchased the above vehicle as per the loan application. .. .The stall had no ohter intention other than purchase of better vehicle."

Apart from the intention that he had which, has to be looked into subjectively, it is to be seen that he has sold the vehicle when the loan was due, Admittedly he sold the vehicle on 2-6-yo to one M. H. Asmath, S/o Amir Sahib, 13, Alanthi- kulam, Mohidoen Street, Kannamnngakim. It is pertinent tn note that there was no denial made by the workman. What he mentioned in the Claim Statement was,

...'"that the only Act of the workman in this context is that he had given his R. C\ Book for the vehicle as security to a third party for availing sonic loan. . ."

to the workman, he has not turned up. Hence llie question :ot violation ol principles of natural justice does not arise. The workman on 8-10-93 also in his written submission to the enquiry officer admitted the Charge No. 2. Hence the 'cuarges are proved against the workman. The noting made- in the withdrawal slips, credit paying slips, along with receipt book entries in S.B. Ledger folio etc. which was corroborated by the evidence given by Sri K. N. Varadarajan, dearly proved that the impressioji was created as though Margin money had been brought without actually remitting, the amount and without actually receiving the payment. This amounts to acts prejudicial to the existing practices and wore not of normal transactions. Hence thy Charge No. 3 is proved. The respondent denies that the charges have not been proved in tha- enquiry. The workman himself admitted voluntarily' and unconditionally before the Enquiry Officer that all the charges against him are correct and he further eaid that without knowing the consequences he had com- mitted the above misconducts. The above statements clearly prove the Charge No. IV.. Now the workman cannot challenge the same which i s only an after thought. The misusing of Housing Loan and PF loan to purposes other than what is stated in the application is not expected from any staff. Especially in the Housing loan, the Bank losses it security to that extent atleast till it is made good by the employee. Hence the above misconducts Lie definitely pre- judicial to the interest of the bank and the above acts of the workman constitute gross misconduct under para. 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement dt. 19-10-66. The Charge No. 5 was admitted by the workman before the enquiry officer. Hence, he cannot go back after admitting the Charge. After all the charges were admitted by the workman the question of examining the witnesses, docs not arise. Once the delinquent employee pleaded guilty and admitted the charges there is no necessity for conducting the enquiry. The apex Court has held the above judgement. Hence the non-examination of Caihier and Mr. Gownnathan does not vitiate the enquiry. The respondent denies the allegations that there is an under- standing reached between the management and the Union. The petitioner is- put to strict proof of the same. On the other hand the lespondent submits that the admission made by the workman was on his own will and violation and there was no pressure whatsoever on him to make such an admission. During the confession made before the enquiry officer, the Union President also was very well present there. The Disciplinary Authority after having gone through the full enquiry report and the reply by the workman to the SCN and after considering the gravity of the misconducts committed by the workman gave the punishment of dis- missal. The findings of the enquiry officer are peTvcrse in nature and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in con- flrmity with the principles of natural justice. In the event of the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the en- quiry conducted against the workman was net fair and proper, then an opportunity may be afforded to adduce additional evidence to the workman to Drove the charges. In view of the grave nature 6f misconduct committed by' the petitioner the management cannot repose any confidence in the workman, Therefore, the punishment of dismissal is justflVd, and the same can not be interfered. The respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition.

4. On behalf of petitioner, WWI Thiru C Swumimuhnn and WW2 Thiru K. Srikmth, have been' examined and Ex Wl to W116 were marked. On behalf of respondent, Ex. Ml to M9 were marked by consent.

5. The Point for consideration is : Whether the action of Bank of Tndia in terminating the service of Sri C Swami- nathan. Clerk w.e.f. 20-5-1994 is justified? If not to what relief he is entitled 7

Thus without denying the sale of the vehicle by the workman on 2-6-90 to one Asmath the admission that the R.C. Book of the workman waa handed over to the .ibove individual, would only clinch that the workman had sold the vehicle. The further mentioning in the Claim Statement as the vehicle was in possession of the workman, could neither be believed nor may nullify the effect of the transfer made by the workman. Now a perusal of Ex. VV18 which is the copy of the $LarT Loan Ledcer-cum-registcr would go to show that as on the time of sale the outstanding balance was Rs. 15,380 as ajjainst the total loan of Rs. 18,463. By then it was only roughly Rs, 3,000 that was repaid, Thjxc may be a D P. Note executed by the workman to the bank as a security ant! there are also opportunities for the bank to exercise its rights to recover or reimburse the amount. But it does not mean that the workman may huve the licence to misuse the vehicle loan facility so to coi.vert it inlo an interest free simple loan facility. In fact what had been done by the workman was, to utilise the vehicle loan interest free and to purchase the vehicle end within a short period to realise the amount by way of sale proceeds of the vehicle. The repayment of instalment could be treated as a repayment for a simple loan without interest and that was not the term on which the loan was actually sanctioned. The loan was sanctioned as u facility to purchase vehicle and to make use of the same. Bhi instead of m.r:k;n.? i^c of the > inn;, he iuO .-old it ^ot jht MIC pr.rjei'.'ds and enjoyed the amount interest free. This is highly objectionable; because whnt was represented by the workman to the bank was betrayed subsequently. While getting the loan the representation was that it was to purchase a vhicle. Subsequently it was not incoiiformity with the facility for which the loan was santtioncd. Thi- amounted to usage of bank cash as. an interest froc loan which of812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA $, 1922 I PART 11—Stc. 3(ii)l course is jwt pcixiiiisible, The permissible facility was utilis- ed lor a uon permissible purpose. This is misconduct, This had been proed by the documents referred to in Hie enquiry proceedings marked as Exs. M2 to JVi4. The workman had pointed oui some iuluicies on the pan of me enquiry orhcer to have mentioned IKC Attendance ftegister ot Aielpaliipaltu branch as R.T.O, Ccccilitate, hvenuiough it niay be a slip, no benefit is cnsur.i.g thereby to ihe workman. I lie" woik- man said that no mention made in the audit ieport ot we bank is not wonny ol consideration. A fact lhal was missing in me amdt rtpou if otherwise proved by the bank is sum- cient. ho even assuming that ttie hypothecation oi the vefjicie to the Dank wa=> rifzmiy made Ihe appropriation oi a facility and the subsequent ruisappiopnation ot the sale proceeds amounts to misconduct, ihis has been ptuyed. ihereioie Charge No. 1 goes against the workman.

find was so explained. Taking Ex. W23, il is dated 13-9-8*) which is a withdrawal slip, similarly Ex. VV27, another with- drawal slip is dated 16-10-86. It is pertinent lo nole that on the sume dates namely 13-9-8d and 16-10-86, the loan was admittedly availed hy the workman. It is pertinent lo mention thai the margin money is Ks, 3000 in the first loan and Rs. 10,000 in the Second loan were found paid under Exs. W21 and W29 on 13-9-86 and 16-2-86. The withdrawal of the same amount of Ks. 3155 through Ex. W23 was also made on the same d'ate on 13-9-86, Therefore, in the first instance of 13-9-86 the date of payment of margin money and withdrawal of roughly the same amount wore found.made on 13-9-86. The loan was said to have been sanctioned on the same day on 13-9-86. It is a rare coincidence that the dnte of the pi.ymcnl of the margin money, the date of sanction of loan i.nd the date of withdrawal, all fall on the same day i.c, 13 9-8b. Therefore, wo cannot positively say that the margin money was alone withdrawn. The suggestion put hy workman that part of the housing money was with- drawn is also probahlo. Similarly, in the second Joan. the. maigin money wor- shown to have been paid under Ex. W29 on 16-10-86. ft win transferred to the loan account on the same day under ll\. W26. The Joan was sanctioned on the same df-y through Ex. W25. The amount of cash of Rs. 9000 w.is also withdrawn under Ex. W27 on J 6-10-86 itself. Thus everything was on the same day. Therefore, the suggestion of workman that what he had withdrawn wns not the margin amount but only the loan amount may also be cOirect. Therefore Chaigc No. 3 was not found proved-

11 Charge No. 4 is that (he workman had utilised pro- ceeds of Housing loan and P.F. loan sanctioned to him for repayment of money borrowed by him from customers of (he bank.

12. In the "Written argument of the workman, he had admitted that on 5-8-87 he had availed housing loan of Rs. 17190, under Ex. W31 that he had nvaiL-d housing loan of Rs. 13000 on 6-1-90, under Ex. W38 that he has availed a P.F. loan on 30-1-91 for a Mini of Rs. 11500. Under Ex. W41 we have to verify as to vvhelhci- this amount had gone to the credit of the otber customers* of (he bank. In fact, the managernenl wanted to say that according to the evidence of MW2 hi Ihe enquiry, the disbursement taken by the workman from the Housing loan on 5-8-87 and 6-1-88 had fionevto the credit of the various loan accounts of the customers; thfit on 30-1-91 the workman had availed P.F. loan of Rs. 11000 and that adjustments were worked out from the reverse of that document as to how Ihe transaction were accounted on 30-1-91. Now the specific allegation of the management is that the other party to the transaction was Mr. V. Ashok Kumar, Gowrinathan Pnrasuraman and Ahmed Basha. Tiue il is that they were the customers of the Bank. Instead of seeing whether they have got a hand in the loan amount of the workman Mr. C. Swaminathan, we may also see the reverse side namely that whether the account of the customers above named, was individually settled or that whether the loan amount of the workman was utilised. Tf it is shown that the account of the customers were individually settled, unconnected with the amount of the workman, then there is the end of the matter.

9. The next chaige is that the workman has obtained sanctioned toun ol Ks. 25,000 in the name of Kathirvciu, drew Ihe proceeds ol the loan through C/C Account ot Al/s. Pocmtnihar Thumyagam by misrepresentation and misappro- priated the bank s rund (.il ivs. 2^,000. In this connection, in Ex. M4 tnc Enquiry Oilii-ei's report, it is found that >IK amount ot Rs. 8,000 was drawn on 10-12-89 and Ks. 17,000 was drawn on 28-12-U9 by tno workman (Mr. C. Swammaluanj from the account ot M/s. roombutiar Thumyagam make use of ioo!>e cheque leaves, wnercin signatuie of .L. Mani was. obtained. It w i'ound mat thaeaftei Ihe workman had repaid the following aruOunls in the Loan account ol S. Kathirvdu, Rx. 500 each on 11-12-90, 30-1-91, 3-2-9L and 28-6-91 and Rs. 1,2,512 LM o-!> 'Jl. The receipt for Ks. 7000 and Rs. 10,000, were found to have been remitted on 9-7-91 and 12-7-yt by Mr. Sarangapam, the Manager who in all these matters aided the workman. iviW2 in the enquiry evidenced on 18-8-9J in page Nos. 5, h and 7 of his Deposition that all the remittances weie made by the suid Swaminalnan and Sarangap.ini. Further MW6 in the enquiry depostd on 15-9-93 that when he contacted Kathirvciu j[or recovery, the later denied having taken the loan and that it was found that he never opened the textile shop at all. He seem to have demed ol Having availed any Joan from the ^aid bank. The report of the Enquiry Officer had also mentioned about M.E, 70 to 100 as documents based for the purpose. In the Written argument ol workman regarding Charge No. 2 what he noted was that iiliici ate mun can sign in the bank document. He also said that Xathirvelu has not said thai JVlr. Swaminallian has taken the loan. He l'uither said thai Clerk iikcl workman by himself could not sanction any loan, and that the Manager has not been enquired and that MW2 to JVIW6 were not l edited to the Charge. To say that the evidence of MWi to MW6 are not unacceptable because (hey are all bank oili- cials and to say that the Sanctioning Officer was not examined is unnecessary, because the Charge has been found proved otherwise, in the sense that Mr. Kathirvelu himself has told that he has not availed any lo;m. Hroni this, it is clear thai the Joan fictitious. MW2 m ihe enquiry, had said that Ihe workman had remitted the various amounts as against this particular loan. From this the involvement of the workman waa shown; MWI it none but the Stalf Officer. Again to nay that Mr. M. C. Varadarajan, the Investigation Officer has obtained all the statements by threats is unacceptable unless the threat is either suggested or proved. Therefore", a perusal of all records found in the domestic enquiry do clearly show that Charge No. 2 is salisfactoi ily proved against Ihe workman.

13. So far as the jewel loan account of. Ashok Kumar, a customer is concerned, Kx. W35 dt. 5-S-88 denotes the loan amount was of Rs. 2332.20. This amount was credited to the jewel loan Jedger under Ex. W73. As he had dis- charged the Joan, lie has also received the jewel back as per Kx. W71 the loan stock register, Similarly the loan of Rs. 509.15 got by Gowrinathan under Hx. W3'6 on 5-8-87 was credited under Ex. W74 and he had also got back the jewels. Similarly under RX. W69, it is found thai Parasumra- man has repaid tlio Crop loan of Rs. 3600 obtained by him (under F.x. W40. Similarly Madhavan's loan of Rs. 300 obtained on 30-1-91 under Ex. W45 was repaid by him under Ex, W66. Likewise another customer Mr. Ahmed fasha repaid the loan of Rs. 300 under Ex. W67. Thus all the transactions were repaid by the individuals. The withdra- wal of housing loan of Rs. 17190' under Ex. W31, Rs. 13000 under Ex. W38 and the P.F. loan of Rs. 1150O under E.x. W41 bv the workman C. Swaminathan, were shown to have been wihtdrew bv him muter various documents. There is no satisfactory link heiwocn this amount to the account of the customer, The suspicion aro:e in the mind of the manaw- ment may not be replaced for proof against the workman, 10. Charge No. 3 is that (he workman had secured dis- bursement of Jjousing loan without providing the requirement Of margin money, and in order to suppress the position hi hud put through the credit and debit vouchers on the relevant dates without any actual transaction. In the written argument of the- workman, it is admitted that on 13-9-86, 14-10-86 and 10-8-87 he had availed housing loan of Rs. 25,000; Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 17,190 rcspecively. He mentioned that he paid marginal money for each of the loan. He also men- tioned that after transferring the marginal money to the loan account lo the Manager had sanctioned the loan. Subsequent ti> the sanctioning of the loan, according to the workman. he had withdrawn the amount. Thus it is fiom the loan amount oniy, the workman had withdrawn the cash- In this conneclion, he drew our attention to some scribbling made on the. back of Exs. W23, W27, W91 and W32. It is true that the reverse of the above document contains some cal- culations. Win no paiticular significance could be attached 8U

Ex. W2 28-10-92 upto 8-10-93—Enquiry proceedings.

Ex. W3 12-11-93—Management Written argument.

We find that there ia no direct connection between the accounts cf the customer and the housing loan and P.F. loan account of the workman. Thus the Charge No. 4 is not found proved.

Ex. W4 1-12-93—Workman Written arguments.

Ex. W5 18-12-93—Enquiry report (findings).

Ex. W6 25-01-94—Show cause notice.

Ex, W7 11-05-94—Reply to show cause notice.

Ex. W8 20-05-94—Order of penalty.

Ex. W9 06-07-94—Appeal to appellate authority.

Ex. WIG 05-09-94—Appellate order.

Ex- WII 28-10-94—Conciliation application to Real.

14. Charge No. 5 relates to alleged misuse ot a Conces- ional rate of interest of jewel loan for agricultural purpose y the workman. The charge was that on 2-3-87 an gricultural loan on concessional rate of interest, was take" ar Rs. 3700 by one T. Gowrinathan, and tnat it was misused y the workman, in the sense that Rs. 2095 out of the aid loan was credited 1o the S.B. Account No. 1200 bclorig- ig to the workman. Reliance was placed by the management 'n the oral evidence of MW2 in the domestic enquiry, who ccording to the management had clearly brought out, how he adjustment of Rs. 2445 was credited to the workman's ;.B. A/c No. 1200.

Labour Commissioner.

Ex. W12 04-11-94—Management reply.

Ex. W13 28-04-95—Failure of Conciliation report.

Ex. W14 —Application cum proposal form with

ref. No. Staff. 03/89-90 dt, 2-1-90.

Kx. WJ5 —Demand Promissory Note 17-1-90 for Rs. 18,400 executed by Mr. Swaminathan.

Ex. W16 —Quotation Proforma invoice dt,

9-12-89 for the Two wheeler,

Ex. W17 —Form CL 3/dt. 17-1-90 executed by C. Swaminathan inter-alias, by pothecating the Two wheeler to Bank,

Ex. W18 —Folio 81 of Staff loans ledger at Melpallipattu Branch reflecting the interest tree

vehicle advance taken by C. Swaminathan.

Ex. W19 —Loan Ledger Folio of Mr, !>.

Kathirvelu.

Ex, W20 —Letter No. MET. BSl. 334. dt. 31-12-91 of Mclpallipattu Branch addressed to the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruvannamalai on the reverse of which the. Regional Transport officer, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District on 3-3-92 has certified that Motor cycle with Rean. No. TN25/ 1081 was transferred to one Mr. M. A. Asmath w.e.f. 2-6-90.

Ex. W21 — Ciedit Voucher dt. 13-9-86 bearing Printed No. 2.'>99i. for Rs. 3000 in Joint S.B. A/c 1663 of Mr. C. Swaminathan.

15. A perusal of Ex. W105 show that Gowrioathan had vailed Jewel loan of R". 3700 on 2-3-87. On the same day, he amount was debited from the, account of Gowrinathan inder Ex. W75 which will show that he had availed the owel loan. Even if there had been a subsequent credit of Is. 2445 to the Workanvi's S.B. A/c No. 1200, how could t be presumed that it was only from out of the jewel loan )f Gowrinathan, especially when the later redeemed the ewels as shown under Ex. W72. The management seem to lave relied upon the calculation made on the back of Ex. Nl05 under which Rs. 3700 the jewel loan was sanctioned o Gowrinathan. While payment of the same, it is true that imount of Rs. 2445 was deducted and Rs. 1600 alone was said. What for the deduction of Rs. 2445 was made, is not nade known. To presume that it went to the S.B. account }f the workman on the same day is a surmise. Two things ire certain namely that the deduction in the jewel loan of Rs. 2445 made on the back of Ex. W105; that on the same Jay, similar amount was credited into the S.B. Account of ;he Workman. But where is the link that the credited amount in the S,B. account of the workman has got any connection with this Rs. 2445 found on the back of F.x. W105. We cannot rule out the possibility that apart and away from Rs. 2445 mentioned on the back of Ex. W105, the workman might have put his own money in his S.B. Account. The unity of time and amount alone may not make us to con- clude that it was this amount of Rs. 2445 found in Ex. W105 that was credited into workman's account. There should be further evidence to that effect. Suspicious circumstances cannot take the place of proof. In this connection, the non- examination of Gowrinathan is bad for the management. If Gowrinalhan comes and days that from and out of bis amount alone, the workman got credit inlo his account then also we must analyse the matter subjectively. But that evidence is lacking in this incidence. Thus Chaige No. 5 is found not proved.

Ex. W22 —Credit Voucher dt. 13-9-86 for Rs. 25000 in the Joint S.B, A/c 1663 of Mr. C. Swaminathan.

Ex. W23 —Withdrawal slip dt. 13-9-86 for Rs. 3000 issued by Mr, C. Swaminathan in his S.B. A /c 1663.

Ex. W24 —Folio 112 of SB Ledger 7 bear ins the Joint S h. A /c 1663 of Mr. C. Swaminathan and his wife Mrs, Gloria Swaminathan at Melpalli- pattu branch,

16. Thus two charges namely Charge Nos. 1 and 2 got proved; among which Charge No. 2 is serious in nature in as much as it involves fiscal matter of Rs. 25000. The bank's money was found mishandled by the workman. Therefore, when mishandling of bank's money is involved, and even then sympathy shown under" Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. it will only be of misplaced sympathy. Further, there is no reason for me to bold that this is a case for showing sympathy. Again it can be- said that no misplaced sympathy enn be shown. Therefore, tho punishment of termination is justified'. Award passed accordingly. No cocls.

Doted at Chennai, this 8th day of January, 2001,

Ex. W25 —Credit Voucher dt. 16-10-86 of Mclpallipattu branch for Rs. 10,000 in Jont S.B. A/c 1663 in the name of Mr, C, Swaminathan and his wife signed by Mr. K. Sarangapanl.

THTRU S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Tndustrinl Tribunal

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner/Workman:

Ex. W26 —Debit voucher dt. 16-10-86 for Rs. 1000 not signed by any Superior official of Joint S.B. A/c 1663 of Mr. C. Swaminathan posted in SR. Ledger Folio 7/112 by Mr. D. Vijai staff clerk then at Melpailipattu branch.

WWl : Thiru C. Swaminathan

WW2 : Thiru K. Srikanth For Respondent/Management: None.

Ex. W27 —withdrawal slip dt, 16-10-86 for Rs. 9000 (cash) of joint S.B. A/c 1663 in the name of Mr, C. Swaminalhan (see reverse of this with- drawal slip).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner/Workman

(All XrroV

Ex. Wl 15-9-92—Charge sheet.

F.x. W28 —.Paying in slip Credit voucher with printed No. 531878 dt. 16-10-86 for Rs. 1000 (canh) of Joint S.B. A /c 1663 in the name of Mr. C, Swaminathan and his wife,314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART I I — S EC 3(ii>] Ex. W29 — P.iying in

Ex. W30 —Credit Head Office A/c Vellure demand draft voucher with printed No. 76728 dt. 16-10-66 for Rs. 3000.

Ex. W31 —Credit voucher fur Rs. 17100 ilf. 15-8-87 in S.B. A/c 1663 of Mr. C Swaminathan.

Ex. W32 —Credit paying in slip Voucher wilh pritnted No. 292581 dt: 5-K-87 for Rs. 2300 in Joint S.B. A/c 1663 of Mr. C. Swaminathan (Cash).

Ex. W33 —Withdrawal slip dt. 5-8-87 for Rs. 2000 in Joint S.B, A/c 1663 of Mr. C. Swami- nathan (cash).

Ex. W34 —Withdrawal slip dt, 5-8-87 for Rs. 15000 in Joint S B. A/c 1663 of Mr. C, Swami- nathan (cesh).

Ex. W35 —Credit voucher dt. 5-8 87 for Rs. 2332,30 in Jewel loan A/c of Mr. V. Ashok Kurftar

Ex. W36 —Credit voucher dt. Nil for Rs. 5U9.15 in Jewel loan A/c of M. Oowri (cash) with en in received stamp of 5-8-87.

Ex. W37 —Debit voucher for Rs. 2190 dt, 5-8-87 in SB. A/c No. 1663 of Mr. C. Swami- nathan.

Hx. W38 —Credit voucher for Rs, 13000 dt. 6-1-88 favouring joint S.B. A/c 1663 cf C. Swami- nathan (transfer).

Ex. W 39—Withdrawal slip dt. 6-1-88 for Rs. 11300)- in Joint S.B. A/: 1663 of Mr. C. Swaminathan (cash), Ex. W40 —Credit voucher of CCC A/c R. Purasuraman for Rs. 6300 dated 6-1-88.

Ex. W41— Credit voucher dt. 30-1-91 for Rs. 115001- of S.B. a|c 1200 of Mr. C. Swaminathan (transfer).

Ex. W42—Withdrawal slip dt. 30-1-91 for Rs. 65001- on S.B. A/c 1200 issued by C. Swaminsthan (cash).

Ex. W43—Withdrawal slip dt. 30-1-91 for Rs. 45001- on S.B. a|c 1200 issued bv C. Swaminathan (cash).

Ex. W44—Credit voucher HO A/c Vellore with printed No. 436166 for D.D. of Rs. 1152 dt. 30-1-91.

Ex. W45—Credit voucher dt. 30-1-91 for Rs, 300|- (cash) in CBD loan A/c of Mr. G. Madhavon.

Ex. W46—Credit voucher dt. 30-1-91 for Rs. 300|- (cash) in CUD loan A/c of Mr. Ahmed Basha.

Ex. W47—Receipt Scrool Book for 13-9-86 of Melpalli- f-attu branch.

Ex. W48—Receipt scrool Book of 16-10-86 of Mclpalli- pattu branch.

Ex, W49—Receipt scrool Book of 2-3-87 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex. W50—Receipt scroll Book of 5-8-87 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex. W51—Receipt scrool Book of 30-1-91 of Melpalli- pattu branch,

Ex. W52—Receipt scrool Book of 6-1-88 of Melpaili- pattu branch.

Ex. W53—Loan Ledger cum Rexisler of Melpallipattu branch.

Ex. W54—Cash receipt book of 16-10-86 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex. W55—Cash receipt book of 30-J-91 of Melpnlil- pattu branch.

Ex W5&-D.P; Note of Mr. S. Kathirvdn of Ri. 250001- of Melpallipattu branch, dt. 16-12-89.

Ex. W57—Cash receipt book of 5-8-87 of Melpallipattu branch.

Ex W58—Cash receipt book of 6-1-88 of Melpullipattu branch.

Ex, W59—Cash payment Bonk of 13-9-86 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex. W60—Cash payment Book of 16-10-86 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex W61—Cash payment Book of 2-3-87 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex. W62—Cash payment Book of 5-8-87 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex W63—Cash payment Book of 6-1-88 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

Ex W64—Cash payment Book of 30-1-91 of Melpalli- pattu branch.

E\. W65--Statement of housing loan A/c in the name of Mr. C. Swaminathan and Gloria Swaminathan.

E\. Wo6~ Ledger Folio CBD 6/147 bcannjf the A/c of Mi. G. Madhavan.

Ex. W67--U'Ugfr Folio CBD 6/.I49 bcnriiifl the A/c of Mr. Ahmed Basha.

hx. W68—Ledger Folio of P.J/. loan in the name of C. Swaminathan.

L'v. Wb9—CC ledger foiio 3/64 (new 1/64) bearing A A of Mr, R. Parasuraman.

Ex. \V7>> -Stnicraeiil of S.B. A/c 1200 in the name of C. Swaminathan at Melpallipattu branch.

Ev. "W71—Folio 19 of Jewel Stock register.

Ex W72—Folio 20 of Jewel Stock Register of the Bank.

Jix. W73—Folio of Jewel loan ledger 2/73 A/c V. Ashok Kumar.

lix. W74—Folio ni Jcwe Loan Ledger 3/129 Ah M. Gowri.

V.\. W75—Jewel Lawn. Lodger tolio 3/9, bearing the A/c of Mr. T. Gowrinathan.

Ex. W76—Debit Voucher for.Rs. 17190]- dt. 5-8-87 in Housing Loan A /c of C, Swnminathan (Transfer).

Ex. W77—Credit voucher for Rs. 2)90|- dt. 5-8-87 in Hou.'iiiifi 1 oan A /c of C. Swaminathan.

Cx. W78—Debit vr.nchVr in Housing Loan A/c of C. Swaminathan for Rs .130001- dt. 6-1-88 (Transfer).

1 x- W79-~Dchii. voitcrier dt. 6 1-83 c' S.B. A/c 1663 dt Mr. C. Swaminathan for Rs. 1300k

Ex. W80—Credit voucher dt, 6-1-88 "in the housing loan A/c of Mr. C. Swaminathan for Rs. 1300.

Fx. W81—1 edscr Folio CHB 6/48, hearing the loan A/c of, Mr. S^ Kathirvdu.

Ex. W82—Statement dt. 29-4-92 of Mr. C. Swaminathan to Mr. Mohan menon,

F,.x, W83—Bank's Standard application form No. S.SI.D. 21 dt. 14-12-89 signed by Mr. S. Kathirvelu of 13.F Rajaji St, Chongam.

Ex W84—Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 25000|- dt. 16-12-89 executed bv S. Kathirvelu favouring Bank of India.

Ex. WK5—Form CBD 9 dt. 16-12-89 owcuted by S. Kathirvelu hypothecating clothes to the bank.

Ex W86—Letter of Ruaruntce dt, 16-12-89 for Rs. 250001- executed by one Mr. S. Pandlyan favouring Bank of India for the advance giyenjto be Riven to Mr- S. Kathirvelu.

Ex, W87—Statement dt. 29-10-91 of Mr. K. Sarangapani, then Manager of Melpallipattu branch to Mr. S. Vivckanandan, Investigating officer, Bank of India, Zonal office, Madras.

Ex. W8S—Statement dt. 14-10-91 of Mr. C Swnroinathan. the CSE, to Mr. S. Vivekanandan, Investigating officer, Bank of India, Zonal office, Madras, E .. WG9—Stnlement dt. 21-8-91 of Mr. S. Pandiyan of 13/2 M GR Nasar Chent^m to Mr. S, Vivekunandan, Investigating officer. Bunk o£ India, Zonal office, V.x

. W90—SB A /c opening card dt. 16-12-84 signed by Mr. S. Kathlrvelu with which account No. 3804 opened at Melpallipattu branch of the bank.

Ex . W91—Cheque No- 0000885 dt. 18-12-89 for Rs. 8000|- drawn by M |s Poompuhar Thuniyagam on Bank of India, Mclpallipattu branch.

Ex W92—Cheqiio No. 0000886 dt. 18-12-89 for Rs. 170001- drawn bty M|n Poompuhar Thuniyagum on Bank of India, Mclpallipattu branch.

Ex W93—Credit voucher dt. 16-12-89 for Rs. 15000- tiansfeninK money K> the account of M s Poompuhar Tbuniyagam.

Ex W94—Credit voucher dt. 28-12-89 for Rs. 100001- favourins CC a]c of Poompnhar Thuniyagam to the debit of loan a|c of Mr. S. Kathirvclu.

Ex W95—Credit voucher dt. .3-2-90 for Rs. 5001- favourinR the 'oan a|c of. Mr. S. Kathirvelu. Credit voucher dt. 11-12-90 for Ri 500]- favour- ing the loan ale of Mr. S. Kathirvelu.

Ex W96—Credit voucher dt. 30-1-91 for Rs, 5001- favouring the Inan a /c of Mr. S, Kathirvelu Ex W97—Debit H.O, voucher dt. 1-7-91 for Rs. 500|- frorn Namathodu branch M.T. favouring loan a|c of Mr. S. Kathirvelu.

Ex W98—Credit voucher dt. 9-7-91 for Rs. 7000|- favouring the loan a]c of Mr. S. Kathirvelu.

Ex. W99—Credit voucher dt. 13-7-91 for Rs. 100001- fivourinf thr loaii Ah o'f Mr. S. Kalhirvclu.

$15 Ex. Wl 12—Refer ME 75 which is a similar and thi same statement (W-88).

lix W113^Lctter fr^m S. Kathirvelu to Mr. N Shamnugam of 13-F, Rajaji Street, Chengam.

Ex. W114—DR. Letter,

kx WU5-26-10-93 Letter from K. Srikanth, Presi dent, Bank of India, Staff union to Th. C Swaminathan (origin,il).

Ex \\ 116—24-2-94 Letter from K. Srikanth, President Bank of India Staff urion to Th. J. S. Baiiui (xerox).

FOR KESPONDENT1MANAGEMENT

E.\. M1—15-9-92 Charge t,heet.

Fx, M2—15-9-92 Enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M3—15-9-92 Documents filed- before the enquiry Ex. M4—18-12-93 Enquiry officer's report.

Ex. MS—25-1-94 Second rhow cause notice. Ex. M6—11-5-94 Reply given by the petitioner.

Ex. M7—20-5-94 Punishment order.

Ex. M8—6^7-94 Appeal preferred by the petitioner.

Ex. M9—5-9-94 Appellate order.

V.x..

W10n -Credit \oni;h"r dt. 6-8-91 for Rs. 12512 favouritiR the loan ale of Mr. S, Kathirvelu.

E.\. W101 —CAN application form No, 460953 dt. ?N-fi-91 for Rs. 500 of Namolbodu branch favour- trip S. Knthirvehi CBD 6|4R at Melpallipattu branch wade by Mr. C- Swaminathnn.

Ex. W1O2—CAN No. OO1Q573 dt 2R-6-91 for Rs. 500|. •of Namathodu branch ™ppkmcntal to item 34 above.

Ex. W103—Debit vpuchrr in the loon a|c of Mr, S. Kcthirvelu dt. 16-12-89 for Rs. 150001-.

Ex. W104—Debit voucher in thi" loan Me of Mr. S. Knthirvehi d*. 25-¹2-R9 for Rs 10000|-.

Ex. W105—Debit voueb'-r dt 2-3-R7 for Rs 3700|- (cawh') in the iewel loan ale of Mr. T. Gowrinathan passed for payment by Mr. K. Sarangapani.

Ex, W106—Withdrawal slirv dt. 2-3-87 for Rs. 359|- on SB ?|c 1200 of C. "SttamHiathnn. passed for pay- ment by Mr, K, Samnc"pani.

Ex. W107—Credit pnvin" in-'lip vouc'i"r dt "> 3-*!7 for Rs. 2445 fcushi in SB ale 1200 of Mr. C. Rwhminotfnin, hnr'tiR his sipratnre ;n' blue and that of the cashier in 'ed-

Ex. W10R—Copy of ccrtifiote of Rf^istrafion No. 1081 dt. 2-2-90 issued hv +be Repisterintr authority, Th:H'v\nnani3l:n S-Mnbuveraynr d;strict for the 2 vhtieler vehicle in the name of Mr, C. Swaminathnn.

Ex

Ex,

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001 S.O. 395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2001,

TNo. L-12012|211l92-IR(B-H)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Wednesday the 24th January. 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyar^,Presidinfi; Officer.

Tndusrial Dispute No. 3812000

BETWEEN

The General Secretary Allahabad Bank Staff Union Channai. Claimant|I Party

AN1>

The Regional Manager Allahabad Bank Channai, Management|II Party

APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant : Sh. C. F. Krishnan, Adocate.

For the Management : M[s, T. S. Gopalan & Co.,

Advocate.

Reference : Order No. L-12012|2ill92-TR(B-Il) dt. 28-02-2000, Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 9-1-2001, upon perusing the reference, claim statement, counter statement and other material papers on record, the documentary evidence on the Management side and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Claimant Sh. C. P. Krishnan and counsel for Management Sh. T. S. Gopalan and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following:—

AWARD

This reference by Central Govt, in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 in respect of dispute between Sh. R. Sivanandam, Workman arid the management of Allaha- bad Bank mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of reference.

The schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether the fixation of pay of Sh. R. Sivpnandam on his promotion to clerical cadre with'effect from 9-8-83 in accordance with the provi- sions of the settlement dated 22-01-1983 is proper and¹ just and as per the regulation;? in force ? If not, what relief is the disputant workman entitled to" ?'

On receipt of this reference, this Industrial Dispute has been taken on file of this Tribunal on 4-8-2000 as Industrial Dispute No. 38|2OOO. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal both the parties appeared through their respective counsel and filed their respec- tive claim' statement and counter statement.

2. The averments in the claim statement of the

cadre to the post of clerk, the Respondent Bank instead of fixing his basic pay in the scale of pay for the clerk on stage to stage basis and on par with other similarly promoted persons, fixed his basic pay at Rs. 365 instead of Rs. 385. This is unjust, arbitrary and* ille- gal fixation of pay. So he was deprived of his due and correct salary and he was drawing less salary, when the juniors who joined the clerical post on pro- motion from sub staff subsequent to him were drawing more salary. Thus the juniors were fixed in higher basic by giving one additional increment. The same fit- ment formula was not adopted in the case of Sh. R. Sivanandam. Further, while fixing his basic pay in the clerical post, the component of C.C.A. has also been takeu into account clerical pay, when he was not re- ceiving any CCA at all as a sub-staff. Due t0 this also, he was not fixed in correct basic. He was pro- moted as clerk, when he was working at Coimbatore. He was not drawing any CCA at Coimbatore, since it was not coming under CCA area then. He would be eligible to draw CCA only after joining the post at Chennai. Aggrieved by the wrong and arbitrary fixation of basic, Thiru. R. Sivanandam had filed a writ peti- tion W.P. 7132|87 against the anomoly in his pay fixa- tion. The Honourable High Court while dismissing the W.P. directed him to invoke the machinery pro- vided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to redress his grievance and to indicate his right. Then the Peti- tioner Union took up the cause of the Workman and raised an Industrial Dispute. The Conciliation Officer, on failure of conciliation filed a report to Govt., which in turn instructed the Workman to take up the matte under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Acf 1947. Aggrieved by that order of Govt, the Petitione Union filed W.F. 12967(93. The Honourable Higl Court allowed the writ petition', directing the Govt. t< refer the dispute for adjudication. Thus this rcferenci for adjudication is made- t>y any order by the Centra Govt. Two juniors, V. K. Gopalakrishnan and B Subramanian were given one addiriorinal increment But B. Sivanandam was not given additional increment Therefore it is arbitrary and discriminatory, Thosi juniors were fixed hieher basic pav abd thev have beei drawing more and higher salary than R. Sivanandam T* is against the basic rules of service law. Tn anv even Sh. R. Sivanandam is entitled to 0*?t same Kisic ant salarv on par wiih his juniors when the qnaiificatidi and the nature of duty are one and the sam?. Therefor. Ihis Honourable Tribunal ruav be plensed to rms ^ flward holding thnt the fivation of basic nav of Sh. R, Sivanandam on his promotion to clerical rr>dre with, effect from 9-8-1982 at Rs. 365 ai unimtifirrl. co^se- cmentlv fix *he basic nav at Ps 385 with effect from 9-R-19R? with neriodicni revisions rrrears and conse- quential Vnefi's and direct the IT Pnrtv to pr.y the same with cost.

Claimalnt[I Party arc briefly as follows :—

3. The averments in the counter statement, of the

Respondent are briefly as follows:—

The first party claimant (hereinafter mentioned as the Petitioner) is the General Secretary of the Allahabad Bank Staff Union as the Officer bearer of the Unidn is espousing the cause of the workman Sh. R. Sivanandam. The concerned workman is a member of the I Party Union. He joined the services of the Bank Management (hereinafter mentioned as the Respondent) as an armed" puard at Coimbatore on 25-11-1975. Thereafter he was oromoted as a clerk on 9

This dispute can obviosulv oniv be a collective In- dustrial Dispute. The Petitioner Union has to wove its representative character and its anthoritv and compe- tence to esotfuse the cause of Sivanandam and rnisr> 'he disrtiite. There is no valid Industrial Dispute capable of be;n<> jirTiiinVntcd, As such the order of reference is bad in law. The service conditions of officers of the Respondent arc governed by Allahabad Bank Officers817 4H GT/7001—13818 Tlffi GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, liUOl/rHALUUNA 3, l^zz irARr u—ajsu. J WJ later and are drawing more pay by getting their Basic-Pay fixed at Rs. 405, when the concerned work- man's Basic Pay was fixed at Rs. 365 on promotion, This is against the basic rules and service laws. Though those two juniors have joined service subse- quent to line concerned workman on 17-8-78 and 12-2-76 were piumotcd to clerical cadre on 7-11-83 subsequent to the promotion of the concerned work- man on 9-8-82. The Bank Management outfit to have fitted the concerned workman's Basic Pay at Rs. 385' and not at Rs, 365. Thus Ihc fixation of pay for the concerned workman on his promotion tv> clerical cadre by th'¹ Bank Management is not just and proper.

the learned counsel for the ^Petitioner that "the juniors to the concerned workman arc getting more pay than the said workman", that Ex. M5 and M6 are the fitment diait of those Cwo employees Sh. O. K. Gopalatrishnan and V. Subramaniam respectively and when both of them got promotion on 7-11-83 their Basic Pay on file earlier day as sub-staff was .Rs. 300. But, the Basic Pay of the concerned work- man as sub-staff on the .day prior to his promotion is Rs. 290 only and that was why there is a.difference in pay among these three people. So frum this, it is seen that in view of the promotion policy adopted by the Management Bank, which is in accordance with their settlement! with the majority union, cannot said to be impioper or unjust. Further the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has put forth an argument that the union has raised this dispute belatedly only on 23-10-91 and ,no reason has .been given by them for raising the dispute in 199.1 ques- tioning the fixation of basic pay of the workman on his promotion in the month of August, 1982. So on ithat score itself, the cilaim of the Petitioner union cannot be sustained, For thiss the learned counsel for the sustained. For this the learned counsel for the Petitioner replied that a writ has been filed in this regard in 1987 was dismissed only in 1991 and sub- sequent to that only, this dispute has been raised. So, it cannot be considered as a belated raising of this dispute and further this concerned workman has be- come the member of the Petitioner union only in 1990. This reply given by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as an answer tc the belated raising of this dispute is acceptable. From the above discus- sions it con be concluded that the fixation of pay of Sh. R. Sivanandam on his promotion to clerical cadre with effct from 9-8-82 is in accordance with the provision?; of the settlement dated 22-1-1983 and it is 'proper and just as per the regulations in force and hence the disputed workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus T answer the point accordingly.

M3 22-01-1933—Xerox copy of the settlement on promotion policy under Section 18(1) of the J.D. Act.

M4 22-1-1983—Xerox copy of the chart showing the fitment of the concerned work- man in the clerical cadre.

M3 22-1-1983—Xerox copy of the chart showing the fitment of Sh. O. K. Gopala- krishnan in the clerical cadre.

M6 22-1-1983—Xerox copy of the chart showing the fitment of Sh. B. Subramaniam in the clerical cadre.

M7 22-04-1989—Xerox copy of the extract of clause 12 of the Memorandum of settle- ment under Section 18(1) of the l.D. Act. New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001 S.O. 396.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Central Blank of India and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 8-2-2001.

[No. L-12O12|36O|97-1R(B-ID] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN T H$ COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

(Dated, this the 9th day of January. 2001) PRESENT :

Sri P. V, Abraham

Industrial Tribunal

IN

Industrial Dispute No. 6(98

BETWEEN

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Regional Office, P. B. No. 98, Gopal Buildings, Thyvilla Road, Trivandrum, (By Sri R. Kuniukrishnau Potti, Advocate,

Trivandrum)

AND

Smt. Vimula Bai, K., W|o Sri. A. Challappan, Para- knttukon;:m, Puthuval Puthenveedu, Chempazhanthi P.O., Trivandrum.

(By S!o H. B. Shenoy &. Ashok B. Shenoy, Advo- cates, Ernakulam)

AWARD

The Government of Indui a; per Order No. L| 12012|360!97-TR (B41) dated 27-2-1998 referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tri- biaiai.

The issue teferrcd tor adjudication is the follow- ing :

"Whether ihe action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt. Vimala Bai. K, w.e.f. 25-8-1997 is legal and justified? If not lo what- relief the said workman is entitl- ed ?"

2, As per award duled 6-5-1999 it was held that the termination of service of the workman was illegal and unjustified and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with all benefits. However the manag:ment had filed original petition No. , 23176|99-H before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and as per judgment di.ted 31-3-2000 the award parsed by this Tribunal was set aside and was directed to consider this industrial dispute again affording opportunity to hoth parties. The Hbn'bte High Court has also directed to pass an award with- in three months from the dsite of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

3. The workman has contended that she was emp- loyed as a Peon at Trivandrum branch of the mana- gement bank from 22-10-1987 onwards. She had also worked at Rishimtuigaliim branch and the Tri- vandrum Regional Office of the management bank. Even though she was eppointed in a regular vacancy of Peon and she was doing regular and permanent nature of work, no appointment order was issued her. She was treated as a temporary workman. Even though she had requested the management to regularise her services, no steps were taken in that direcrinn. According to the workman, she had worked for 54 days in the year 1987, 257 days in 1988, 235 days in 1989, 190 days in 1990, 221 days in 1991, 252 days in 1992, 174 days in 1993, 244 days in 1994, 136 days in 1995, 160 days in 1996 and 161 days in 1997. However the mana- gement hod terminated her services w.e.f. 25-8-1997 without assigning any reason and in violation of chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short). The workman has further contend- ed that as she had completed 240 days of service during a period of 12 consequtive months before 17-3-19Q1. Inview of the circular No. C-622 dated 12-3-1991 issued by the management. She should have been absorbed on regular basis as a peon under the management. In the circumstances the work- rmn seeks to pp.ss an award directing the manage- ment to reinstate her in service wilh all benefits.

Kishimungalam branch for the period from 6-4-1993 lo 6-8-1994, other documents called for by the workman were not produced before this Tribunal. The management has not filed any objection nor any aljldavit stating that the documents are not in their possession. In the circumstances it is only reason- * able to draw adverse inference against the manage- ment. Therefore I accept ihe oral evidence of the workman and hold that she had worked more than 240 days during 1988, 1992 and 1994.

6. Ext. W6 is a photostat copy of a letter issued by the branch manager of (he Trivandrum, branch of the management bank. The workman had filed a petition seeking for a direction to produce the original of Ext. W6 letter and as per order dated 17-11-1998 my predecessor had directed the mana- mjju to produce that document. Despite that the management h 'd neither produced that document nor filed any affidavit saying that the document is not available with them On a perusal of Ext. W6 it can be seen that the workman had erased the eligi- bility criteria fived for absorption in the manage- ment's service,

4. The management has contended that Smt. Viinala Bai was engaged by Rishimangalani and Trivandrum branches of the management for short periods on daily wages and she was not having any eontinuous service with the management. She was a casual labour 2nd the management had never ap- pointment her as a peon. The Employment Ex- change had sponsored her name for engaging her as casual labour. She was poi working against a regu- lar Vacancy of peon in the bank. The management had never appointed Smt. Virnala Bai in the service of the bank and hence there is no question of any retrenchment. The piovisions of chapter V-A of the Act is applicable only to persons who are engag- ed by the management on regular basis. According to the management, they have not violated the pro- visions of law, all India Awards and bipartite settle- ments because of the reasons that Smt. Virnala Bai was employed only us 11 casual labour on daily wages. As Smt. Vimala Bai was engaged only as a casual labour, she is not workman as defined under the Act and therefore the management has not vio- lated the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act. The management has further contended that circular No. C-620 or circular No. CO 93-94 and 234 dated 29-9-19l>2 u not applicable to Smt. Vimala Bai. Sim, Vimalu Bui is not qualified to be appointed as a permanent employee under the management and she had not worked as a casual labour under the management for more than 240 days during a con- tinuous period of 12 months.. In the circumstances the management seeks to pass an award holding that the workman is not eligible for any relief.

7, Ext. W5 is a photostat copy of the central office circular dated 12-3-1991 issued by the mana- gement prescribing criteria for absorption, of tempo- rary employees in Ihe management's service, The management has aho produced another photostat copy of that circular along with a photostat copy of the rnomerandum of settlement arrived at between (he management and All India Central Bank Emp- loyees Federation. On a perusal of the settlement mentioned above, it can be seen that Ext. W5 circu- lar wns issued by the management on the basis of settlement, Clause-1 of the settlement mentioned above is extracted hereundcr ;

11) To absorb all those temporary employees who have put in 240 days of temporary service in any continuous period of 12 months after 1-1-1982 upto 31-12-1990 subject to the following :

(a) Qualificationjage norms will not be in-

sisted.

(b) No tcri(interview will be conducted -for

such candidates.

(c) Such candidates will be absorb in the

future vacancies .

(cl) Those who have worked full time- sub- stuff shall be absorbed as regular sub- staff while those who have put in. 240 days of temporary service as part time Safai Karmcharies shall be absorbed as permanent part time Safai Karmcharies only eg. 113 wages, 1(2 wages, 3|4 wages respectively or at consolidated wages as the case may be.

(e) Postings will be made within the region.

(f) No arrears shall be payable.

(g) No back dated weightage in seniority will

be given.

5. The workman who was examined as WW1 has stated in evidence that he had been working under the management in their Trivandrum main branch as peon from 22-10-1987. The management had dented employment tu her w.e.f. 25-8-1997. She had worked under the management for 2013 days during the period from 22-10-1987 to 25-8-1997. The workman has further stated in her evidence that during the years 1988, 1992 and 1994 she had work- ed under the management for more than 240 days. Her working time was fiom 10 AM to 5.30 PM. Before she was denied employment, no com- pensation nor any notice was given to her. Even though the management has contended that the workman had not worked on 240 days in any con- tinuous period of 12 months, they have not pro- duced any service registers to prove that contention. According to the workman, she was not allowed to sign any attendance Rgistej or wages register by the management pnd she was paid wages after obtaining signatures in the vouchers. IT] the circumstances the workman had filed a petition seeking to direct the management to produce the register of retrenched and temporary employees, the Profit and Loss mis- cellaneous daily wages paid account and the debit slips|vonchers in respect of Hie Profit and Loss mis- cellaneous daily wages paid account maintained at Trivandrum and Rishimangajani branches and Tri- vandrum Regional office of the management bank for the period from 1-10-1987 to 31-8-1997 and five circulars issued by the bank and other two letters issued by the bank. As per order dated 17-11-1998 my predecessor had directed the management to pro- duced the documents called for in the petition. Ex- cept three circulars and few vouchers maintained at

(h) Candidates revered above will be given appointment first before any recruitment is made.

Based on the settlement extracted above Ext. W5 circular was issued by the management and clause-3 jf Ext. W5 circular is extracted hcreuncfer :

(3) (1) Temporary employees who have put in 240 days of temporary service in any continuous |>eriod of 12 months after 1-1-1980 upto 31-12-1990 will be consi- dered for absorption in the immediate available vacancies without any test and interview.

3(2) Qualification and age norms will not be [ insisted for them.

3(3) Such, candidates will be considered for ap- pointment first before initiating any recruit- ment process.

3(4) Such candidates will not be entitled to arrears of wages and back dated weigbtage in seniority.

3(5) Candidates who have acquired higher qua- lifications than what is prescribed for re- cruitment of subordinate staff after their initial their temporary engagement shall not be eligible for any consequential benefit like appointment in clerical cadre etc. 3(6) Candidates will be absorbed as Peons only at any of the office in the region.

3(7) In respect of Safai Karmacharies, they will be absorbed in their respective scale wages vi>: consolidated wages l|3rd, l]2nd, 3|4th or full time scale Safai Karamchari as the ca"e may be.

3(8) An undertaking! affidavit incorporating aforesaid terms and conditions should be obtained from the candidates before issu- ing the appointment letter.

8. 1 have already found that the workman had worked lor more than 240 days during 1988, 1992 and 1994 under the management as a Peon. In view of clause (1) of the settlement and clause (3) of Ext. W5 circular extracted above and as the work- man had worked for more than 240 days during 1988 under the management, he should have been appointed on permanent bnsis in the immediate avail- able vacancy. Despite that the management had denied the workman even the temporary employ- ment during 1997. Clause (1) of the* settlement extracted above is binding on the management and in the circumstances the worVman is eligible to be absorbed as a regular Peon under the management's service. The settlement mentioned above was signed on 24-12-1990 and in view of clause (1) (h) of the settlement extracted above, the workman should have been given appointment first before any recruit- ment was made thereafter. Tn the circumstances 1 hold that the workman will be eligible to reckon his seniority from the date on which a Peon was ap- pointed under the management at their Trivandrum region after 24-2-1990. However the workman will not be eligible for any back wages.

9. In the result, an award is passed directing the management to reinstate the workman in service as a regular Peon without any backwages and reckon his seniority from the date on which al Peon was re- gularly appointed in the Trivandrum region of the management bank after 24-12-1990.

P. V, ABRAHAM, Industrial Tribunal Witness examined on the side of the Management MW1. Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the Workman WW1. Smt. K. Vimala Bai the concerned work- man.

Document marked on the side of the Management Exr. M l. Nil,

Documents marked on the side of the Workman Ext. Wl.—-Letter dated 22-10-1987 from the management to the workman.

Ext. W2.—Complaint dated 28-10-1997 sub- mitted by the workman to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central).

E\t. W3-series.—Photostat copy of the objec- tions dated 13-10-1997 and 5-11-1997 sub- mitted by the management to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central).

Ext. W4.—Minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 6-11-1997 before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) Trivandrum.

Ext. W5—Photostat copy of Central Office Circular dated 12-3-1991 issued by the management.

Ext. W6.—Letter from the branch manager of Trivandrum branch to the Regional Office, Trivandrum.

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2001 S.O. 397.—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 Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in, relation to the management of Gun Carriage Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-1-2001.

TNo. L-14012|15|86-D.II(B)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PA-RT II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT|LC|R|77|88

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai

Shri Laxinan Prasad, T. No. 2368|N.I.E.|C.M.D. II, Adhartal, In front of Power House,

Sanjay Nagar, Sastri Ward No. 6, Adhartal, Jabalpur

. .. Applicant

Versus

The General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur

. .. None-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of January, 2001

Appellate Authority concurring with the Discipli- nary Authority rejected Iris appeal on 19-6-87. The workman was not given proper opportunity for de- fending himself during the Departmental Enquiry. He was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce defence wimess in support of Ins case. He- was not allowed to inspect the relevant documents relied on, by the prosecution during the course of enquiry proceedings. He was not permitted to examine as many defence witnesses as he wanted. In this way, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the Depart- mental Enquiry in a prejudicial manner adversely effecting the case of the workman. The finding of Enquiry Officer is absolutely perverse. The charges have not been proved against the workman on the evidence available on record,, The Enquiry Officer held the charges No. 1, 2 & 3 not proved and the remaining charges No. 4 & 5 were held proved against him which is not just and proper. These charges were not supported by the material on re- cord. He had not got the diary signed through o flier person fraudeutly in order to save himself from the charges of misconduct. In view of all these facts, the order of removal from service de- serves to be set aside. He is entitled to reinstate- ment with all back wages and other consequential benefits attached to the post.

1. The Government of India¹, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-14O12|15|86-D. 1I(B) dated 22nd July, 1988 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by jhh tribunal—

"Whether the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur is justified in termi- nating the servics of Shri Laxman Prasad, Driver Grade II vide order dated 18-5-85 ? If not, to what relief and from What date the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that he was working as a driver in the GCF, Jabalpur since 1974. His performance had been absolutely satis- factory. On 5-8-92, one management's truck No. MBJ5367 was found abandoned near Raddi chowki, Jabalpur at about 6.. 10 P.M. The manage- ment was not aware of the missing of the said vehicle until they were informed by the police authoities of police station, Gohalpur. The manage- ment deliberately, to save the real culprit, wrongly suspended the workman for the alleged missing of the said vehicle. The chaxgesheet of misconduct dated 14-12-82 was served on the workman who gave the explanation to the same. The manage- ment did not accept the explanation of the work- man and proceeded with the DE.

4. The case for the management is that the workman was working as Civilian Motor Driver Gr. II in GCF, Jabalpur. On 4-9-82, about 7.30 P.M., the workman had committed the theft of Govt, truck No, MPJ-5637 and in order to save himself he truudlently made entries in the vehicla diary and get it signed against the rules and regu- lations of the factory. The matter was reported to the authorities and the chargesheet for committing this theft was framed against the workman. He was suspended w.e.f. 19-9-82. He denied the charges and the DE was conducted against him. The mana- gement further alleges that on the request of the workman, the Enquuiry Officer was changed in order to conduct the Departmental Enquiry in a fair and just manner. On his request several oppor- tunities were given to him to defend his case. He was also given the opportunity to take the help of Assistant to defend his case. He wa;s also given ample opportunity to produce the witness in this case. The Enquiry Officer held the charges No. 4 & 5 proved against the workman after apprecia- ting the evidence, adduced by the parties during the Departmental enquiry. Charges No. 1, 2, 3 were held to be not proved on account of in-sufficient evidence. The Enquiry Officer had properly appre- ciated the material en record and thereafter he had held the charges No. 4 & 5 proved. The report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority who ac- cepted the same after carefully cexamined the re- cord. Ultimately the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of removal on 18-5-85. The punish- ment of removal from service is absolutely just trnd prop.T nnd docsiiot require any interference.

3. The Workman further alleges that the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the work- man and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. After accepting the said report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal fom service on 18-5-R5. The appeal was preferred against the said order md Ultimately the 82i

proved against the workman from the material on record and therefore, the punishment of removal awatrded to the workman is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The High Court too has observed empliedly in its order in respect thereof.

5. The vvorkman raised the depute before the RLC(C), Jabalpur and on failure of conciliation proceeding, tlic matter was referred to the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for reference of the dispute to this tribunal for ad- judication. Thereafter the matter has been referred to this tribunal by the Government of India for adjudication..

9. On the foregoing reasons, the punishment of dismissal awarded by the GCF, Jabalpur is hereby set side. The workman shall be reinstated with all back wages. He should be given all consequential benefits as if he were rever dismissed from service. He -shall be deemed to be in service from the date of dismissal till his re-instatement.

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

ment of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAIT Presiding Officer 6. On 4-1-91, this tribunal passed the award and held the termination order as just and proper. The workman filed the writ petition before the High Court, of MP at Jabalpur challenging the validity of this award. On 6-5-99, the High Court remanded the case to this tribunal for considering the question of quantum of punishment awarded by the manage- ment, The enquiry has been held to be just and proper and therefore, this question docs not need further consideration.

7. The sole point for determination in the case is an. to whether the award of punishment of re- moval from service given to the workman is just and proper ?

8. The wokman was charged for committing

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2001

S.O. 398.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cerjtral Government Industrial Tribunal| Labour Court, Chandigarh, ais shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Com- mander Works Engineer and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2001.

[No. L-14011|41|2000-IR(DU)] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMJABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. T.D. 379|20O0 theft of the vehicle and procuring the entry in the vehicle book by exercising fraud in order to save himself from the misconduct. From the material on record, it is not established that the workman had committed the theft of vehicle in question on 4-9-82. It has ajlso not been proved that by any fredulent means the workman got the entry of the vehicle in the vehicle diary to show that the vehical was kept inside the campus of GCF on the relevant day. In the abesene of the material on record, the enquiry officer held the charges No. 1, 2 ,& 3 not proved against the workman. None of the prose- cution witnesses had deposed during the proceeding that the workman had in any manner avoided to perform his duty assigned to him by the manage- ment. No relevant record has been produced by the management to show that on the day of occu- rence, the workman was deputed to perform the duty at Satpuda- Sub-station and he avoided to be present at the site for performing the necessary duty. In the absence of evidence on record, it can- not be presumed that the workman is guilty for distribution, of duty as alleged in the chargesheet. None of the witnesses had seen him removing the truck in' gueston dishonestly from the premises of GCF Jabalpur and abandoning the same at Ra

Union t,hrough Branch Secretary, Chatidiparh Area MES Workers Union, CSO MES Colony, H. N. 26 Chandimaindtr, Panchkulla, Haryana .. Workman824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2UU1/PMALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J Versus

Commander Works Engineer, • Chandimandir, Panchkulla (Haryana) . . - Management APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Slid Puran Chand

For the management : Shri Rudal Shah

AWARD

Dated 3rd of January, 2001

The Central Govt, vide Gazette Notification No. L-14011|41|2000-IR(DU) dated 28th September, 2000 has referred the following dispute to this; Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Commander Works Engineer, Chandimandir in denying the under mentioned demands of the Chandigarh Area MES Workers Union is just and legal ?

(I) Removal of discrepancies of three grade structure.

(2) Holding of DFC for FGM HS Gradc-I.

(3) To fill the vacant post of industrial staff in all categories.

(4) Timely payment of all dues to the retired) dependint of deceased Workers.

(5) Payment of washing allowance.

(6) Maintaining of seniority list of uach category of workers.

If not. to what relief the union|concerned work-' man are entitled ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filling of claim, statement by the workman. Mr. Puran Chand, Secretary of the Union appeared and made the statement that the demands under reference has been amicably (settled with the management, and there remains no dispute with the management. Statement to this effect has also been recorded of the rep. of the management. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry a,s no dispute Award, as the dispute has been settled amicably. Appropriate Govt, be informed.

Chandigarh,

3-1-2001.

3., L. JATAV. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 7th February, 2001 S.O. 399.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of Opto Electronics Factory, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2001.

[No. L-l4011|12|99-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

PRESIDENT:

Pnitiraksha Shramik Sankh Opto Electronics Raipur, Dehradun (espousing cause of Jeet Singh)

AND

General Manager Opto Electronics Factorv. Raipur Dehradun-248001.

AWARD

By reference No. : L-J4011|12[99|TR(DU) Dated 18-11-1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d> of sub section (1) of section 10 T.D. Act., 1947 made over tbis industrial dispute between President. Prnti- raksha) Shramik Sangh Opto Electronics. Raiput, Dehradun espousing cau^e of Jeet Singh nnd the Gene- ral Manager, Opto Electronic Factory, Raipur Dehra- dun for adjudication.

The reference is re-produced as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Opto Electronics Factory in not promoimc825 (iv) To what relief the workman is entitled?.

Sh. Jeet Singh fitter general (Skilled) to the post of HtS.-II from August, 1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief .he is entitled ?"

6. The admitted facts are that categorisation] classi- fication of posts on the basis of pay scale and propor- tional upgradation [ promotion followed in the establish- ment is as under :

65%

(i) 0i) (in)

265O-4006\ 3050-4590/ 4000-6000^

II

Semi Skilled Skilled Highly Skilled Gr.

20%

35%

I

(iv)

4000-6000 y 5000-8000 \

Highly Skil"cd Gr. Masicr Craftrnan

15% One Post 2. Fratiraksha Shramik Sangh Opto Electronics, Raipur Dchradun has espoused the cause of Jixt Singh 4 fitter general (Skilled) MCF 133 No : 500549. Jfeet Singh was appointed on 24-4-1989 as semi skilled¹ fitter and promoted as skilled fitter on 31-7-1991. He became eligible for next promotion on 1-8-1994 but could noi foe promoted due to non-availability of vacancies. Two clear vacancies, in Highly Skilled Gr.-II(H.S.-II) became available on 1-8-1998. The workman was senior inost and qualified to be considered for promotion but was denied his entitlement.

/. As per rules semi sKillcd ana stilled categories fitters, in general fitter trade, occupied 65% of the sanctioned strength (80). From amongst them 20% could be promoted in H.S.-II grade and 15% in H.S.-I grade from H.S.-II grade. There was only one for the Master , Craftrnan. Management clarified that H.S.-II and H.S.-I posts are in the same scale as per Vth Pay Commission Report, so, 35% ( 2 0 + 1 5) vacancies are being filled from fitters (skilled) as per 200 points roaster.

workman was senior most and qualified to be consi- dered. There existed a clear vacancy in general cate- gory. A Schedule Tribe skilled litter was not avail- able on 1-8-1998. There was no justification to keep the vacancy in abeyance in face of legitimate claim of the workman.

10. The management submitted¹ that it was the sole iudpe to assess functional requirements and could re- designate fitters from one trade to another as per re- quirements. The contention does not need discussion as even on assumption of this position there was one available vacancy in general category which was filled bv a Schedule Tribe category, months later against the rules. However, this authority must be scrutinised iri rational and legal manner, not to. cause prejudice to anvone. It is not, permissible for the management to rede*'eiwte some fitters from one trade to other, only fo deny promotional avenues to legitimate claimant and further to enhance reduced strength as per convenience. Tn the ore^ent caise, no evidence has been (riven to show tW reduction in strength was justified and not arbitrary.

11. Thus, the workman was entitled to promotion '" tTS.-Tr Boffins* the vacancy in general category tvf.T l-'ft.y^ofc T h w: is; no denial that the workman wan fully omened. The management did not consider tn fliinn fhis vnrancv wrongly on the plea of reserving fhm eoni<* fnr RrW"dule Tribe category, which wris not oe-m fusible in XAW,

1?.. As d;scnssed above, the workman Jeet Sineh is ""Tit;tlc(T to hr ireafed oromoted in H.S.-TT since 1-8-98. Tt ;<; mM that he hnt ^Ireadv been promoted in the iw *>

T* A*w^>rd according.

T TTOKNOW

* 1-1-20Q1

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001 S O 400 —Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the" Tnrhic^al Depute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the 'Central Government hereby publishes the Award of mP rVrk+rai Government Industrial Tribunal| labour Court. Jaiour as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State IB auk of Bikanor and Jaipur arid their workmen, which was re- ceived by the Centra] Government on 2-2-2001.

[No. L-12012|3|96-IR(B-l)]

A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. JAIPUR Case No. B-58198

Reference No. L-12012|3|96|IR(B)

Dated : 31-12-97 The Zonal Secretary, Akhil Bhsrtiya State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur fCararachari Sangfiathan, Pali, Marw&d-302001 . .. Applicant

V|s

The Managing Director, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

Hwid Office, Jaipur-302001 . .. Non-Applicant ATTENDENCE :

For the applicant : None

For the non-appplicant : Shri Sanjeev Mathur Date of Award : 17-11-2000

AWARD

The Central Government has referred the fol- lowing industrial dispute under clause (d) of Sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for akljudicaion.

"Whether the action of the Man-aging Director, SBBJ Head Office, Ja'pur in not granting special leave and other privilege to the members of Akhil Bhartiya State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Karamchari Sangh for attending conciliation procec- ding|Industrial Tribunal at par with're- cognised trade union ijs legal and justi- fied ? If not what relief the concerned union vrc entitled to ?'"

The statement of claim was filed bv Shri T al^t Si.srmn, President of the Akhil Bhartiya S.B.B.J. I Kajamchari Sangh (hereinafter referred as the . Sangh). It was stated that the Ssn^h is a p g ^ e r ed organisation of the employees which is affiliated to Bhart'ya Mazd^or Sarteh and NOBW and rerce- "s?nts rpoi'ority of the employees in the ectublish- rji?iit. of S.B.B.J, (lvrreirt.if.ter referred ns the B;tnV> I and he i.s authrri'jrd fa file the claim on their behalf. It was stated that the Sangh has raised disputes for attending the conciliation proceedings and the proceedings in the. Labour Courts and Tribunals.

The rejoinder to the reply was filed by the Sangh reiterating the allegations made in the claim. It was further stated that officials and representatives of the recognised Union are invited by the non-appli- cant by letters[telegrams for solving the problems of the members of the recognised union and ihe officers and representatives of the union are not required to take leave for the same and they are paid T,A. also for the above purpose for which there is no provision in the -bi-partite settlement

On the basis of pleadings of the parties the

following points of dispute were framed :—

relating to the employees of the Bank which are pending before the Settlement Officers, Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal^. In these cases authorised Officers of the Sangh are representing the cases of the employees. For the above purpose the officers of the Sangh have to take leave of their own with the result that they cannot avail leave for their own personal cause and they are deprived of availing leave encashment facility, On the contrary the Bank is providing special casual leave and other amenities like travelling allowance to the members of the Union recognised by it for atten- ding the meetings organised by the management of the Bank. Thus the Bank is discriminating in bet- ween the members of the recognised Union and the Sangh. It was further stated that the non appli- cant avoids in relieving and granting leave to the authorised representatives of the Sangh for partici- pating in the conciliation proceedings and for attending the cases pending before the Industrial Tribunal with intend to prevent them for pursuing the cause of their members and in order to weaken the Sangh which is unfair and unwarranted. It was prayed that the above practice of discriminating be declared unfair laibour practice and the non ap- plicant be directed to grant leave and other ameni- ties to the members of the Sangh at par with the membrrs of the recognised union.

On behalf of the Sangh the affidavit of Sh. Lalit Shaima was filed. The representative of the Bank was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri Satish KumaT Ajmera, Deputy Manager of the Bank was filed. The representative of the Sangh. was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affidavit. Besides certain documents Were also filed on behalf of the parties.

Heard arguments of the learned representative of the Bank,. The points are decided as follows :—

Point No. 1 :—Point No. 1 is not pressed by

the learned representative of the Bank.

Point No. 2 :—There is no dispute tha:t the Bank has its seperate entity but there is no denial that the non-applicant is not the employer and being the employer the claim is maintainable against him.

In reply to the claim it was started that Sh. Lalit Sharma has no right to file the claim and to raise the dispute. It was further stated that the dispute referred does not fall within the definition of "Industrial Dispute" under the Act 1947. It was further stated that Managing Director is not a seperate entity and the Bank has its legal entity under Section 4 of State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank) Act 1959 (hereinafter re- ferred as the Act, 1959) and the claim may be filed against the Bank and not against the officer of the Bank. It was further stated that the Bank alone is net in a* position to take decision about the matters referred for adjudication and the Bhartlya Bank Spngh takes decision for the facilities to be provided in the nntion'ilised bank ^hich are applicable to all the Banks., The bi-partite settlement is appli- :ablc to all the Bank employees and special leave is permissible only as per paxa 13.39 of the bi- partite settlement. As per the Bi-partite settlement special leave facility and other amenities are not >ennissible to the officers of the Sangh fox attending Labour Court and Tribunal. In the case of work- man of Indian Bank v|s India Bank reported in J 994 II LLJ 497 and in the case of AH India Blue Star Employees Federation vjs Management of the Blue Star Ltd. reported in 1996 I CLR 673 office rearers of recognised unions cannot claim immunity from the Banks work to indulge in trade union activities. It was denied that any discrimination is being made in granting amenities to the members u£ the recognised Union; and officers of the Sangh

Point No. 3 :—It has been admitted by Shn Lalit Sharma on behalf of the Sangh that it is cor- rect that as per para 13.39 of th$, bi-partite settle- ment officers who attend conciliation proceeding?

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 4C1.—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 Triburial|Labour Court, Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 01-02-2001.

[No. L-12012/31/97-lR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. 1'ANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER; CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 201/97

In the matter of dispute between

Sii Bindra Prasad S|o Ram Nath Village Kisni Ka Purwa, Post Said Khanpur Khudeaar District Sultanpur.

AND

The General Manager State Bank of India Local Htjud Office t Hazratfianj LucknoWv

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vlds its notification no. L-12012|31|974R(B-I) dated 18-9-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—

and who attend proceeding before Industrial Tri- bunal are not granted special leave. It has also been admitted by him that there is uo provision vide which facility of special leave granted to the officials for attending conciliation proceedings and proceedings before Industrial Tribunal. It has also been admitted by him that officials of recognised Union are not granted special leave for attending conciliation proceedings and for attending pro- ceedings for the Tribunals, However, he has stated that the aiboye officials are treated on duty and are granted TA|DA. He has admitted that in the affi- davit such averment has not been made. He has also stated that he has also been treated on. duty. In cajse as per his admission he has been treated on duty then how the Sangh may feel discriminated ? He has further stated that it is not within his know- ledge that any official of the recognised union has been treated on duty for attending the Tribunal. Thus as per the statement of Shri Lalit Sharma it ' does not remain disputed that no special leave has been granted to the officials of recognised union for attending conciliation proceedings and atten- ding proceedings at Tribunals. Although it has been staled by him that for attending conciliation proceeding and proceedings before Tribunals the officer of recognised union are treated on duty and arc ganted TA|DA but no example has been given by him as to who was treated by the Bank on duty and was granted TA|DA. On the other hand Shri Satish Kumar Ajmera Deputy Manager of the Bank ha"? stated that no official of the union whether recognised oi unrecognised is treated on duty for attending proceedings before conciliation officer and proceedings before the Tribunals. It has also been stated by him that no special leave or any other privilege is admissible to any official of the union as per the circular of the Bhartiya Bank Sangh. Nothing has come out in cross examination so a-3 to discredit his statement. It is therefore, not proved that members of the recognised union are being granted special leave and other privilege for attending conciliation proceedings and the pro- ceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. The ques- tion, therefore, for granting above facility to the members of the Sangh for the above purpose does not arise.

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGE- MENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SHRI BINDRA PRASAD, TEMPORARY MESSENGER AT THEIR SULTANPUR BRANCH W.E.F. 1-4-80 IS JUSTIFIED 7 IK NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED ?" Point No. 4 :—The members of the Sangh are not entitled for any relief on the basis of decision on point No. 3.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd|- (illegible)

Presiding Officer

2. The workman Bindra Prasad in his statement of claim slated that he was employed by the State Bank of India, Sultanpur Branch as a temporary messenger on 31-10-7? and thus he comes within the definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of . the Act. He was paid Rs. 460,60 paisa per month as salary. His services were abruptly terminated on 1-4-80 by the bank without giving anv notice or notice pay as provided under para 522(4) of the Shastri Award, hence termination of his service is illegal. It has also been alleged that Bhaiya Ram who was junior to him has been retained in service; hence his termination Is in breach of section 25G of the I.D. Act and Is, therefore, illegal and he Is entitled to bo reinstated in service with back wages.

S2$ 3. It has been further alleged that on tbe reference made bv the Government of India in I.D. No. 223185 Bindra Prasad versus State. Bank of India proceedings were started in which termination of his services dated 4-6-83 \vas in question. That award was passed in favour of the workman by this tribunal on 11-3-86. The management filed writ pttition no, 14865 of 86 against that award which was ultimately allowed on 9-11-95 and the award parsed by this tribunal was set aside on the ground that this tribunal passed award beyond the scope of referncce. However, flon'ble High Court observed that nono can prevent the workman in taking such steps which may be availabli to him under the law. Thereafter, the workman has raised the industrial dispute regnrding termination of his services w.e.f. 1-4-80 and the matter has been referred tr> this tri- bunal by the Government of India in terras of the reference order as mentioned above.

Bind™ Pra"ad (tatcd on oath that Bhaiya Ram was junior to him and he- was continuing' in service even after termination of his services. It has been clearly pleaded by the management that Bhaiya Lal was also temporarily engaged as messenger in the leave vacancies but later on he was selected for the post of peon in the regular selection madq for such vacancy and has been appointed regularly against a post " of peon, hence the concerned workman cculd not $et any benefit of the continuance of Bhaiya Lal in the service of the Bank. The workman has said nothing about it in his rejoinder. Thus the contention of the' management on this point almost goes un rebutted. In. the*e circumstances the non engagement of the concerned workman w.e.f. 1-4-80 cannot be held to be illegal merely because Bhaiva Lal is continuing in the services of the bonk after being selected according to the. rules. The con- tention of the workman that his termination of service is in contravention of section 25G of the Act is, therefore, rejected.

9. In" view of findings recorded above, I do not find nny Illegality in the action taken by the management in dis- en^aginq Binda Prasad w.e.f. 1-4'SO. Consequently, he is rot entitled to get any relief in pursuance to the reference made to this tribunal.

10. The reference is answered accordingly,

bated 24th January, 2001.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 402.—In puiiuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of iy47), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in rho Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workman, which was received by ihe Central Government on 2-2-2001,

[No. L-12012/49/97-IR(B-I)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR CORUT, JAIPUR

Case No. B-51/98

Reference No, L-12012|49|?7|IR(B) Dated : 12-12-97 Shri Gopal Singh Rajpoot S/o Shri Sujan Singh Rajpoot Bnj Ki Qtrhar Vill: Wadianada, P.O. : Tadgarh Via Byaber Distt: Ajraer APPLICANT

v/s

The Assistant General Manager The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. D-22 Moti Du;tgri Road Juipur NON-A: 1'LlCAWT ATTENDANCE:

For the applicant : Shri B. M. Bagra For the non-applicant : Shri R. C. Papriwal 26-12-2000 Date of Award :

AWARD

The Cential Government has referred the following indus- trial dispute under clause (dj of snb-scct;on (1) of Section. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (.hereinafter referred as the Actt 1947J for adjudication.

"Whether the' action of the management of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Jaipnr is justified in terminat- ing the services of workman Shri Gopal Singh Rajput, Drive;- w.e.f. 7-6-95 treating him to have left th: service of his own 7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7"

The applicant filed the statement o!f claim 6tating that he was, appointed in the IJank of Rajasthan (hereinafter refeired ai the Bank) on the post of driver and he WEB permanent employee of the Bank. He was on medical leave from 15-3-94 to 13-6-95 after giving information about the stime. Aftor having obtaining fitness certificate he jvent to join his duly in the Bank on 14-6-95 alongwith an application with medical certificate. He waq not taken on duty in th.; Bunk and his services were terminated w.e.f. 7-6-95. It was stated that no departmental enquiry wos conducted against him and, therefore, termination of his service is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. He had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and his services were terminated without compliance of provisions ol section 25-F of the Act, 1947. It was further stated that he did not abandon service at his own. It was prayed that he may be reinstated in ser- vice alongwilh ba^k wages with continuity in serviix.

The non-appljcant in reply admitted that the applicant wa.; appointed on the post of driver. It was stated that on 12-3-94 the applicant was present on his duty and on that day he went on duty after taking motor-cycle o£ the Bonk, 13-3-94 and 14-3-94 were holidays in the Bank. The applicant remained absent from 15-3-94 and he did not deposit even the motor-cyck of the bank. Vide registered letter dt. 21-3-94 Ex. M-l he was aaked to report along- with the motorcycle but the applicant neither replied to the letter nor reported. Thereafter ho was issued show cause noticei dated 18-4-94 Ex M-2, the reply to which was also not given nor the applicant presented himself. At this registered letter Ex-M-3 was again sent at the available address of the appik-ant on 21-6-94 The letter wus retur- ned with the remarks of post man

"^T< 3HX 5JT^ ^ rft ftr^Rfl", m # fetTcfT, STTTET I Again notice was sent to the applicant to report for duty upto 22nd July, 1994. Having sympathetic attitude to- wards the applicant und for giving sufficient, opportunity to him, notice Ex. M-6 was published irj Rajasthan Patrika dated 7-5-95. The applicant was informed¹ vide above notice to report for duty within 30 days from the dale of publica- tion of notice alongwith motorcycle and to show cauce about his absence. The applicant did not report for duty within 30 days of the notice and therefore the applicant was treated as having voluntary retired from Bank's ser- vice The appiiCant was also informed about the said notice vide letirr dr. 15-5-95 Ex. M-8 alonjzwith the copy of the notice published in the Rajasthan Patrlka, It was further stated that the applicant never informed the Bank about going on leave or about his sickness. He did not submit any application for leave on ground of sickness. It was denied that the applicant was on medical leave from 15-3-94 to 13-6-95, In'the nlternati¥&, it was stated that even if it is assumed that the applicant came to join fall831 on 21-3-94 and 7-4-94 in re'pect of his absent and entries regarding the same Were made in the register maiked M-32 and M-33. He has further stated that registered letter marked Ex. M-l was also sent to the applicant in respect of hw absence from duties. The applicant has stated that he doerc not remember as to whether he received the letter marked M-l. He has also not denied the receipt of the phonograms. It can, therefore, be believed that letter M-l and phonograms were received by the applicant in respect of his absence. Shri B. S- Kayathwal, has stated that notice Ex. M-2 was sent to the applicant in respect of his absence from duty and not' returning the motorcycle to the Bank. He was aho asked to give written explanation within 7 days. Similar notice Ex M-3 was also sent to the applicant on 21-6-94. He hai further stated that letter dated 21-6-94 Ex, M-3 was returned by the post office with remark. .

duty on 14-6-95 there was no justification Tor the same a* the applicant's service stood terminated w.e.f. 7-6-5*5 for having abandoned the service as par' clause 17(A) of the Bipartite settlement. It was stated that th^re was no neces- sity for conducting departmental enquiry against the applicant, yet the non-applicant is ready to prove the ah- sence of the applicant in the Tribunal. It was further cl'ited that the applicant had been careless in the past also. He had been habiiual for remainin£ absent without per- mission for which show cause notices were issued to him for which no satisfactory reply was given. The applicant rfjmnincd nbsenl from 10-8-87 to 12-11-87, 12-3-W to 25-6 90, 9-10 01 to 21-1-92, 2-5-92 to 27-8-92 and 18-2-93 to 16-6-93 without prior permission. The applicant also requested for excuse with an assurance not to remain- ab- sent in future vide letter dated 13-4-92.

On the rcauc't of the applicant opportunity was given to

His statement finds corroboration frdm prcv; the allegation* aj;ainit the applicant.

The non-applicant examined Hardayal Gupta, V, S, Kayath- wal, Sugna Lal Singlial and Bhagchand Jain. In the form of documentary evidsnee copies of doarment marked Ex. M-l to Exs. M-4, M-6, M-8, M-9 to M-22, M-22A, M-23 to M-33 were produced. On behalf of the non-applicant copy of the application marked Ex. W-l and copies of medical certificate mnrked W-2. W-3 and W-4 were produced!.

Heard arguments of the learned representative of the appli- cant and learned counsel for the non-applicant and perused the record.

It may be appropriate to refer the relevant para of clause 17(A) of the Bipartite settlement umfcr which the applicant was treated to have voluntarily retired Bank's service which is as follows :-~

Pt-H n j v. O-rnirt r->'n. r e m i 'y Senfnr M a n n er o* the

the conduct of the applicant has been such that he does not deserve any sympathy. Tf a workman remains absent for more than a year with the vehicle of the Bank, the work of the Bank is likely to be paralised. He has also contended that in case of abandonment of service provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not applicable. In support of his contention he has cited 2000(85) FLR 87 Syndicate Bank V/s. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and others, 1997 LLJ 1007 B.V. Ramnarayan V/s. SBI, Hyderabad¹ and others, RLW 1999(1) 314 Vijay Singh Charan V/s. Management Shri Shwetamber Nakodia Parshwanath Tirth-Mewimuqar, 2000 Lab. IC 2005 Mansoori Brothers V/e. Chotukrmn and others and RLR 1990 (1) 611 DCM Ltd. and another V/s. Labour Court. Kota.

to resume the same. Iii the above case from the con- duct of the petitioner the Bank was held justified in declaring that the petitioner has voluntarily abandon- ed the Job. In case reported in RLW 1999(1) Raj. 314 the petitioner remained absent for 75 days with- out leave Dr excuse. He was served notice but he did not care to reply. It was held that he voluntarily aban- doned the service. In case reported in 2000 Lab IC. 2005 workman remained absent from duty for long period voluntarily. It was held that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the job and the case cannot be brought within ambit of retrenchment. In RLR 1990(1) 611, workman was absent for long duration of without leave or sanction. Penalty of removal of service was imposed. The Labour Court substituted the above penalty with stoppage of two annual incre- ments. It was held that Labour Court should not have interferred with the punishment.

In D. K. Yadav's case the services of petitioner were ter- minated under clause 13(2)(iv) of the Standing Order. It was held by the Apex Court that the fair play required that the reasonable opportunity should be given to employee to put foith hia case and proper enquiry should be held before terminating his services. In case Union of India V/s. Giriraj Sharma, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of overstaying leave period by 12 days, subsequent to the order of rejection of application for extension of leave. The punishment was found to be harsh and disappropriate. The petition was granted relief of reinstatement with all monetary and service benefits with liberaly to visit mnior punishment. In the ca;.e S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 349/98 the petitioner was charged for his absence from service for the period from October 1991 to December 1991 in the year 1991, for the period of 155 days during the year 1992 and for being absent from 19-12-92. The enquiry was held ex-partc. In the order of removal the absence of the petitioner during the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 was also considered in respect of which there was no charge. In these circumstances removal was substituted by penalty of 6 grade increments without back wage? and with the direction that intcrvning: period will not be counted for any purpose.

In the case reported in 2000(85) FLR 807 the Bank invoked clause IS of the 4th Bipartite Settlement which is reproduced below:

It is well settled that in case of abandonment the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable. Simply because the non-applicant has requested for enquiry in the Tribunal and has produced evidence in res- pect of the absence of the applicant, the non-applicant is not precluded from supporting the case of aban- donment of service on the part of the applicant in pursuance to para 17 of the Bipartite Settlement. The Supreme Court after considering D. K. Yadav's case reported in 2000(85) FLR 80 held that the principles of natural justice are in built in clause-16 of the settle- ment referred above. Para 17 of the Bipartite Settle- ment invoked in the present case is similar to clause 16 of the Settlement referred in the above case. In view of the above authority no departmental enquiry was required to be made against the applicant. The applicant remained absent from 15-3-94 to 7-6-95 for more than a year without informing the Bank and without any application for leave. Notices were sentj to him but he did not care to reply. Inspite of service of notice M-8 dated 15-5-95 alongwith copy of notice in Rajasthan Patrika he did not report for duty with- lin 30 days of the publication of notice nor he gave any explanation for his absence. In these circumstan- ces the Bank was perfectly justified in invoking para 17 of the Bipartite Settlement for treating the appli- cant to have abondoned the service.

"Where an employee has not submitted any application' for leave and absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without or beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsc- qucmly extended or where there is satisfactory evi- dence that he has taken up employment in India or the management is satisfied that he has no present intention of joining duties, the management mav at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee's hist known nddtcss calling upon the employee to report for duty within 30 days of the notice, slating inter alia, the grounds for the management coming to the conclusion that the employee ha? no intention of joining duties and furnishinp necessary evidence, where available. Unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days or unless he gives an explana- tion for his nbsence satisfying the management that lie has not taken up another employment or avoca- tion and that he has no intention of not joining duties, the employee will be deemed to have volun- torilv retired from the Bank's service on the expiry of the "aid notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without nrriudiec to the Bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service,"

m

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 403.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shewn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-2-2001.

[No. L-12O1'.21227|96-IR.(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer has produced certificate Ex-W-3 dt. 13-3-95 in which the applicant was advised to take rest and! treatment from 15-3-94 to 31-3-95 for colitis and was referred to local physician. No certificate has been produced of the local physician or any other physician for getting the treatment. He has also produced medical certificate marked Ex-W-2 dt. 6-6-95 in which it has been stated that the applicant is suffering from hepa- titis and he was recommended for 16 days period for recovery to health. It has been stated that he was fit to resume duty from 7-6-95. The applicant has filed another certificate marked Ex, W-4 dt. 13-6-95 in which it has been stated that the applicant was suffering from pyrexia, diarrhoea, and a period of 7 days w.e.f. 7-6-95 to 13-"6-95 Mas necessary for restoration of his health. It has been stated that he is fit to resume his duty from 14-6-95. The applicant has not examined¹ the doctors who have issued the medical certificates. The certificates halve been given on the dates prior to a day before the date of fitness,. Whether a person is actually ill or not during a particular period can be easily tested during the period of his illness. The certi- ficates on being found suspicious, the person submitting the medical certificate may be Teferred to another doc- tor for examination but after fitness it becomes diffi- cult to test the varacity of the medical certificates. The applicant has not furnished the medical certificates during the period of his absence for more than a period of one year. The doctor frdm whom he got treatment during the period from 15-3-94 to 31-3-95 having not been named nor examined and the doctors who have issued medical certificates having not been examinee?, the oossihiJity that the applicant might have obtained the medical certificates by manipulation cannot be ruled out. ft was for the applicant to prove that he was actually ill but tic has failed to prove the connineuess of the medical certificates. The applicant has failed to rerove that he.was actually 511 during the period of his absence.

On behalf of the non-applicant evidence has been led that the applicant was habitual in remaining absent from duties. Hcrdayal Gupta has stated that the aippli- cant remained absent from 12-3-90 to 15-6-90. 9-10-91 to 21-1-92, 2-5-92 to 27-8-92 and 18-2-93 to 16-6-93 without permission. He has admitted that during the above period on production, of the medical certificate the application was granted icaVe. The appli- cant has admitted in the application Ex-M-27 in reply to the notice Ex. M-30 dt. 13-1-92 in which he has stated that he is absent w.e.f. 9-12-91 without infor- mation. He hasadmiffed fbnt he mrtv be excised and in future this conduct will not be reoeatM. Tt h thus evident that the applicant was habitual in re- mainine absent from duties without prior permission. Lookirie to the conduct of the applicant the Bank was perfectly justified in terminating his services treating him to left the service on his own. Thf cases renor+ed in ATR 94 SC 215 and in the case S.B. Civil Writ P'etition No. 349'98 are distinpuishable on facts. The PDOlican*'^ case is neither of overstaying of leave nor rfmovnl from service but is the case of abandonment of server The applicant, therefore, is not entitled to anv relief.

Tlie copies of the award mav be s"nt to the Central Government under section 17(1) of th? Art. 1947 for publication.

"Whether the action of the management of Stale Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur is justified in terminating fti& services of Shri Govirid Narain S/o Shri Mohan Lal (Peon) w.e.f. 28-11-8") from branch collecto- ratc of SBBJ, Jaipur ? Tf not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date 7"

Presiding Officer

413 GT/2001 —-15834 THE GAZETTE Ob INDIA.: FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii>l 335 836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGtWA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3tfi)] "This expression, according to us, cannot mean tho^e days only when the workmen worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but must necessarily com- prcheud all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express of implied contract of service by compulsion of statute, stand- ing orders etc." toi838 THfc GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART K—SEC. 3(ii)]

83

2(g) "employer" means—

(i) in relation to an industry carried cm by or under the authority of any department of (the Central Government or a State Government) trie authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department;

(ii)_ in relation to an industry carried on by or on be- half of a local authority, the chief executive officer of fhat authority;".

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 404.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the

Labour Court-IInd Solapur as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial 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 1-2-2001.

[No. L-12014|0112001 ]IR (B-I¹)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ji)] ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI F. S. SHINDE, THE PRESIDING OFFICER IIND, LABOUR COURT, AT

SHOLAPUR

Ref. I.D.A. No. 20|98

Adjudication between— The Regional Manager (IV) The State Bank of India, East Street, Pune. Punc-1.

1st Party

AND

Shri P. V. Mane, R|o:—649, North Kasba,

Near Guruji's Printing press, Gaivandi Galli,

Solapur. 2nd Party.

APPEARANCES :

Shri N. R. Khandal, Advocate for the Ist party.

Shri G. R. Joshi, Advocate for the 2nd party.

AWARD PART-I

(Delivered¹ on 26th Sept., 2000)

1. The Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry

of Labour referred the present dispute for adjudication on the issue directed in the schedule which reads as follows:

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Regional Office-IV, Pune in terminating the services of Shri P*. V. Mane, cashicr-cum-clerk at Balives Branch Shola- pur w.e.f. 7-2-89 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

^nmrVii'+^rl imi nvsriwrflirt HS all^per' nPfl'ist him ir t^o rrinr<""'>>ept. Tnsnire of 1he s*me ?nrt nfftv'hns beer made a senpe float to protect said Shri Deshpnndo. Th{841 2nd party was the member of union by name S.B.I. employees Union (Bombay Circle) which was not recognized union, The 2nd party referred his matter to his union of which he was the member as well to subsidy bank employees union which is functioning as recognized union. One Shri R. Y. Ghadage, Asstt. Cicrieral Secretary was the defence representative of the 2nd party in the enquiry. The 2nd pafty lost his papers and therefore was not sure as regards defence taken by him in the enquiry. The enquiry officer has not taken any cognizance of the material favourable to the 2nd pairty and held the 2nd party guilty only on the bare statement of admission giVen by the 2nd party. The punishment imposed on the 2nd party is shockingly disproportionate as against the punishment imposed on Shri A. V. Deshpandc. The 2nd party on the basis of aforesaid pleadings prayed for holding the termina- tion to be invalid and illegal. The 2nd party also prayed lor the relief of reinstatement with continuity of ser- vice and back wages in full.

chargesheet issued to the 2nd party and Shri Deshpande Shri Deshpande against whom charges were proved subscquentiy was compulsorily retired considering his age and the total number of service he feas rendered. As such there is no discrimination as alleged. The punishment imposed on Shri Deshpande cannot be equivated as minor punishment considering the gravity of the misconduct proved against Shri Deshpande and that of 2nd party. No officer or superior ever instructed or advised the 2nd party for not contesting the charge- sheet or no any assurance having been given to the 2nd party for minor punishment. The 2nd party was never pressurised by any of the officer or superior and was never enduced to give apology. On consideration' of the reply dt. 20-8-88 given by the 2nd party one can draw the conclusion as regards apology sub- mitted by the 2nd party being in its true sense or not. The 2nd party in his reply explained the circumstances under which he was helplessly indulged into committing the misappropriation. The 1st pally taking into con- sideration the reply of the 2nd party dated 20-8-88, seriousness and gravity of the misconduct and consi- dering the findings of enquiry officer took decision to remove the 2nd party from service to protect the inte- rest of the 1st paTty. The 1st. party has not shown any discrimination while imposing the punishment on the 2nd party. According to the 1st party the case of Shri Deshpande Head clerk was of some checking the entries and records made by the 2nd party which shows that the duties carried out by Shri Deshpande were cA secondary nature compared to the dntjes of 2nd petty. The 2nd party has shown lapses in his duties and for that matter Shri Deshpande cannot be held responsi- ble. The enquiry officer within his power conducted the enquiry and considering all the aspects which he thought fit given his findings on the issue. The 1st party being a banking institute and dealing with the finan- cial aspects of the public the persons like 2nd party canndt be tolerated as he was also required to handle cash and issue of D.D. etc. The 2nd party has lost intigrity, honesty, faithfullness, confidence and moral as he found indulging in the acts of misappropriation to the extent of Rs. 20,641 -90 alongwith commission of forgery, toring of registers and therefore the punish- ment of dismissal imposed on the 2nd party is just, proper and commensurate with the eravity of the mis- conduct. The 1st party on consideration of all the material before it imposed the punishment of dismissal which is legal arid proper. The 1st party contended that this court cannot sit in appeal on the order of the 1M iwtv find thi<; court has no power to interfere with that descrcation of the 1st partv. The 1st partv on the basis of aforesaid pleadings prayed for dismissing the reference.

3. Considering the pleadings and counter plead- ings of the refractive parties before me T have be- fore me the following issues for my consideration out of which issue No. 1 is tried as Preliminary Issue.

ISSUES

---

1. Docs the 2nd party prove that the enquiry conducted against him by the 1st party is not fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 2. The 1st party appeared and filed w.s. below Exh. C-8 and contended therein that the 2nd party was dismissed from the service by order dated 7-2-89 and :lie same was accepted by the 2nd party. The 2nd party had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which came to be decided on 20-4-89. The present dispute- came to be raised against the dismissal but till 1995 the 2nd party has kept! quite. The 2nd party nowhere explained as to why the period of 6 years was lapsed in between. The conciliation officer ought not to have refer the dispute on the delay point. The dis- pute as such suffering from latches and barred by law of Limitation. The basic principle of Law is to help only those persons who are alert about their rights. The reference of the 2nd party therefore on this ground alone deserves to be dismissed. The 1st party denied the contentions raised by the 2nd party in his state- ment of claim and prayed{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} for putting the 2nd party to the strict proof thereof. The 2nd party in the past was issued with memoes and notices and was found in- dulging in various illegal activities on vakious acts and misconducts. The 1st party contended that the 2nd party was issued with chargesheet on 20-7-88 and at the same time Shri Deshpande was also issued with chargesheet on 25-8-88 who was working as a Head clerk- The gravity of the charges levelled against the 2nd party and Shri Deshpande was different in its nature and contents and therefore the misconduct alleged again the said Shri Deshpande in no way'be comparable with the misconducts committed by the r2nid' party. The enquiry officer has rightly considered the material before him and inspected the record which was within his right and jurisdiction; and thereby shown p& to hov imbi&s manner he hab conducted the enquiry iThc 1 st party is not obligatory to provide copy of the findings to the 2nd party inview of the Shasta Award. The findings drawn by the enquiry officer arc not at all perverse or one sidted but infact the same are submitted by cogent evidence. The enquiry conducted by the en- quiry officer Shri Hardikalr is fair, proper and in accor- dance with the principles of natural iustice. The charce- «4ieet Issued to Shri Deshpande and charges levelled thereunder were with reeard to failure of Shri Oesh- /pandc in his duties to supervise the work carried{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} out •by the 2nd partv which cannot be comnau-d with Hie 'HCt-atid misconduct committed bv the 2nd nnrtv find •therefor there "annrt be any comparison rfc records 2. DOJS the 1 st party nrovc the charces level- led against the 2nd party on the basis 413 GT'(2001—16 ↩

842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 HPART I I — S E C. 3(ii)]

of evidence recorded in the enquiry and/ or before the court to the satisfaction of the court ?

3. Does tihe 2nd party prove that the punish- ment imposed oil him deserves interference?

4. Docs the 2nd party prove that he is en- titled for the reliefs as prayed of other- wke ?

5. What order?

A. My finding on the Preliminary issue is as under

for the reasons given below.

FINDINGS

]. In the tifhrmalive.

REASONS

ISSUE NO. I :—

5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned ad- vocates of the parties inuonsonance with the conten- tions raised and material placed on record. The 2nd party deposed in thia proceeding whereas the 1st party examined one witness below Exh. C-16. Both the parties placed on record documents con- nected with the matter and in "support of their res- -pL-^tive contentions. The 2nd party placed on re- cord the documents below exh. U-7 whereas the 1st party produced the documents below exh. C-9 and C-14. The enquiry, papers arc placed on record, by the 1st party in original below exh. C-9. The 2nd party admittedly was issued with chargeshect on 22-7-88, alleging therein certain miscon- ducts on the part of the 2nd party. Thv chargesheet contents all the neces- sary and relevani details which are required to be necessary to understand the charges to the 2nd . party. The 2nd party viae his letter dated 3-8-88 sought time to submit his reply to the chargesheet. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer wherein one Shri S. N. Joshi was the representing officer. The 2nd party participated in the enquiry alongwith his defence representative. The enquiry commenced on 13-10-88 and it appears that the same was concluded on that day itself. The enquiry officer initially read over the chargesheet for the sake of 2nd party and theieafter asked certain pre- liminary question and recorded the same alongwith answers given by the 2nd party. It appears that there is one line mentioned in it wherein wording contains.

"Charge No. 2 is accepted by me."

£oing through :he enquiry papers nowhere it appears that any document have been produced in the en- quiry in connection with the charges which were not, accepted by the 2nd party and infact the charges which were not accepted io 2nd party it was aband- ant duty of the lyt party to adduce evidence and the enquiry officer ought to have given cross exami- ning the witnesses without which no conclu- sion can be drawn that the charges are proved. No witness came to be examined in the enquiry and no opportunity of cross examination was granted to the delinquent-employee. Before concluding the en- quiry the enquiry officer ought to have explain 2nd part) that apart from charges admitted he is giving findings on the charges which were not admitted by tlie 2nd party also. However, that has not been done by the enquiry cfficer which amounts violation of principles of natural justice. The chargesheet contents charge No. 3 to the effect that 2nd party .submitted 5 applications for leave for specific num- ber of days and therefore charge of absenteeism cume to be alleged alougwith violation of legitimate orders of superiors. However, in the enquiry pro- ceeding neither the leave applicants arc appearing on record nor the attendance register and wage regis- ters to verify and to check the varacity of the charges levelled against the complainant. Further it is not sufficient to product¹ the documents or to check the vuiacity of the documents by the enquiry officer but at the same time it was duty of the en- quiry officer to offer witnesses for cross examination. From the enquiry proceeding nowhere it comes to the knowledge as to how the charges arc proved so far as charge No. 2 and 3 arc concerned. It at all any documents are produced in the enquiry by the delinquent said documents are not appearing in the enquiry proceeding whicih is filed in this proceed- ing by the 1st party. The evidence of the 2nd patty as well Che witness of the 1st party goes to show that the advocate for the 1st party emphasised so far as tihe admitted charges are concerned. But as regards other charges which the 2nd party denied no witnesses were examined and therefore the enquiry officer on his own and without offering any witness to cross examination ought not to have come to the conclu- sion of proving of the charges. The learned advocate appearing for the 1st party argued that the 2nd party having admitted the charge there was no necessity to adduce t te evidence and offer witnesses for cross examination. In my opinion apart from the charges admitted other charges have not been held to' be proved against! the 2nd party that to without adduc- ing any oral evidence or offering any witness t<> ci§S| examination to the delinquent, such submissions do not have any ground. The learmxl advocate for tho. 1st party placed reBaneej on the Judgment of HonTrfS High Court of Madlhya Bharat reported in 1957- AIR- page 15 in the matter between Jagdishprasad Saxena V/s. State wherein flie Hon'ble High Court observ- ed that:

'^Wherein a particular case the facts are- proved or admitted and the only question is as re- gards the inference to be drawn from these facts, the fact, thatf the petitioner submitted a written reply setting our the reasons.why the inference drawn tentatively ought no* to be drawn, should be considered to be sufficient and it i& no* necessary in stfch k The enquiry proceeding contents the signature of all the persons present in the enquiry. The en- quiry was concluded on 13-10-88 itself. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 9-12-88 wherein apart from charge No. 1 a, b, c, d and 2 which were accepted by the 2nd party the enquiry officer held the 2nd party guilty of charge No. l ( e ). The en- quiry officer also held the 2nd party guilty in con- nection with Charge No. 3 also . In totality the en- quiry officer held that the charges levelled against the 2nd party apan from those accepted and other also have been held to be proved. However, on843 being violative of principles of natural jus- tice stands vitiated.

case to make a rehearsal of recording entire cvidenie ugain."

t

II. The 1st parly is at liberty to prove the

changes before the court.

.III. Reference to proceed further on its merits. IV. No order as to costs.

P. S. SHTNDE, Presiding Officer

Hf fcWft, 2 ViTXft, 2001

^r. "n. 405.—sfoftfora; fa*rc srfafainr,

1 9 47 ( 1 9 47 *fTf 14) "pV OTtT 17 % S ^ TT if,

^fjfor tf&rz sra^V vx%, $Hi$i"n"!c % s"rf"Rwr % *t3sr fn*ft3r*T[ aft?: g^fc wppfli % "ft% *r^'ff Jf fafesa: 3ftg>frEfr farPT if &£ft wvtx?. ajWtfta?

% ^r WR =P> 1-2-2001 *G) ura 5m m i

[a. ^ - 4 1 0 1 2 / 2 7 1 / 9 9 -^ "rn: (*fM)]

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 405.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Art, 104" (14 f 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure m the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2001.

{No. L-41012]271|99-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI. R. P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR ^OURT SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 42 of 2000

In the matter of Dispute between:

Sri Dinanath Tjwari Divisional Organizational Secretary Uttar Railway Karamchari Union No. 61, 119|74 Nascemabad Kanpur.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager Northern Railway AUahabad.

AWARD

844 Ttffi GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PAKT II—SEC. 3(ii)J

Is justified? If not to what relief the workman is emitted for ?"

2. In the present case after receipt of reference order registered notices were sent to the Union raising instant dispute for filing of statement of claim Sri Dinanath Tiwari, the au horised representative for the union ap- peared before the Tribunal on 11-8-2000 and sought time for filing of the claim statement thereafter several dates were fixed in (he case but neither the represen- tative of the union appeared nor filed his s*atement of claim in the case. On 4-1-2001 when the case was taken up none was present from the side of the Union.

3. Therefore, from the conduct of the representa- tive for the union it becomes crys'al clear that neither the workman nor fhe representaive for the union is interested in pursuing the present case. In view of it the Tribunal is left with no other opion but to decide 'the mait'er arainst the concerned workman for want of pleadines and proof.

4. A c c o r d i ng it is held that +he concerned work- man is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the re- ference order made to this tribunal for want of plea- dings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th February, 2001 SO ^Ofi—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), flic Cen- tral G-ivernTTient bsrebv p u M ^ es the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplo- yers in relation to the management cf Stafe Bank of T^rMa nnd their workman, vrhich w:;° received by the Central Government¹ on 5-2-2001.

[No. T.-U012/499/98-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR. D^V: Officer

ANNEXURE

PFFORF, THE TNDUSTRTAT. TRIBUNAL CD, U.P. AT ALLAHABAD

PRESENT:

Justice V. P. GoeJ, -formerly judge. High Court, Allahabad now . Presiding Officer.

Adj. Case No, 74 of 1999

In the matter of an Industrial dispute

BETWEEN

(1) Branch Manager, State Bank of India, G.T.B. Nagar Branch, Allahabad.

(2) Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, ^Varanftsi.

AND

Ved Prakash Shukla S/o Sri Bal Kukund Shukla, 42/116, Thakur Ka Hata, Bahadurjjanj, Allahabad.

APPEARANCES :

For the employers—1. Sri Oanga Prasad Agra- wal, 2. Sri Sougata Mitra, Authorised Re- presentatives.

For the workman^Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Authorised Representative.

INDUSTRY: Bank. DISTRICT: Allahabad Dated: January 6, 2001.

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/499/98-lR(B-I), doted 22-3-1999, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following matter of dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the parties aforementioned:—

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Ved Prakash Shukla, w.e.f. 1-12-90 is justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled f o r ?"

2. Subsequently, vide Order No. L-12012/499/ 98-IR(B-I), dated 25th July, 2000 corrigendum was issued to the effect" that the date of termination, which is mentioned as 1-12-1990 due to typographical mis- take in the Schedule, may be read PS 1-2-1990. Ac- cordingly, the amendment was permitted to be in- corporated in the Schedule vide order dated 4-8-2000.

3. The workman has filed written statement of demand 4 /A and has alleged therein inter-alia that he was appointed on the post of Messenger by flic opposite party No. 1 on 1-4-87 ; that whole service record of the workman was spotless and he was working with entire satisfaction of his superiors; that the opposite party No. 1 has orally terminated the services of the workman w.c.f. 1-2-90 without any reason and justification; that the workman has conti- nuously worked with the opposite parres wifh effect from M - 87 to 31-1-90; that he has worked far more than 240 days witih the opposite parties during the prececding twelve calendar months lhat at the time of termination cf service of the w r k i mn opposite party No. 1 has not paid one months wtis-es i" lieu of notice and retrenchment? compensation thus violat- ed tlhc mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Frdustrial Disputes Act, 1947, Uhflt th? termination of service of the workman by the opposite party No. 1 w.cf. 1-2-90 in wholly illegal, unjust and jiable to be quashed, I'hat after illegal termination from service workman made written demand letters to the opposite party No. 1 and others and personally met with the top officers of he Bank and prayed for his reinsatement with full back wages and it was assured by the officers of the bank that he will be reinstated very soon and thus he was hopeful that! his demand will be considered by the department; that when tfie opposite party did not pay any heed on the just and valid demand of th* workman Then he has filed his case before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Aillahabad and the Central Govern- ment being satisfied that industrial dispute exists bet- ween the parties referred the matter of Jisputc for adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal; that the workman is cntiiled for reinstatement with full back wages, and nil other service benefits; and that the con- cerned workman is out of employment since the date of termination of service and due to unemployment he and his family arc suffering great hardship.

not appoint/discharge any worker and cannot fake ' any disciplinary action or direct any canteen employee to cio any particular work nor is nny scheme laid by the bank for that purpose; toat recruitments in banks are made as per statutory rules framed by it and holding test/interviews; tlhai? persons hired by the L.I.C. for serving at the canteens run by the LIC are noI recruited by the bank and the service rules of the bank does not apply to such persons; that it has been held conclusively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Si-'ate Bank of India Vs. S.B.I. Canteen Em- ployees Union (AIR 200 SC 1518) following the ruling of Employers of R.B.I. Vs. Workmen U9y6 (3) SCC 267] (hat the workmen engaged at the Can- teens run by the Local Implementation Committee are not employees of the State Bank of India; that at G.T.B. Nagar Branch of tiie bank there are only 11 employees of the bank and the canteen located therein is run by the L.I.C. under normal scheme of things; that the workman Ved Prakash Shukla was engaged as a cantben boy at the G.T.B. Nagar Branch between 1-4-1987 and had worked till 31-1-1990 whereupon he was disengaged. It shall be evident . from the mode of payment of remuneration to him that he was hired by the L.I.C. and was paid remune- ration by the L.I.C. and the bank liad neither en- gaged him nor was responsible for payment of wages to him; that at the G.T.B. Nagar Branch there is a post of only one Messenger and at the relevant point of time Sri Ram Gopal Kushwaha was appointed in the sad post and had been working as such as the G.T.B. Nagar Branch since 16-8-1983; that Shri Ved Prakash Shukla was not an employee of the bank hence there was no question of retrenching him or for payment of any retrenchment compensation to him; that the workman was disengaged from 1-2-1900 but he had raised the claim only in 1998 before th© Assistant Labour Commissioner after an unexplained delay of eight years; that the delay on the part of Sri Ved Prakash Shukla being inordinate and no ex- planation having been offered by him the claim should be dismissed on this ground itself In view of the submissions made above it has been prayed that the claim of Sri Ved Prakash Shukla.be rejected as unjustified and not maintainable.

4. The employer has filed writtea statement and has alleged therein inter-alia that the State Bank of India carries out various Welfare Activities fcr the benefit of the Staff members of the bank at the branch level and also at the Administrative Offices. Provid- ing Canteen facilities to its s&ffs constitute one such Welfare activity carried out by the bank at branch level; that! pursuant to settlement entered into by the representative Union and the Management of th© bank at the All India level a Staff Welfare Fund was created fot carrying our various Welfare activities for the benefit of the staff of the bank and a portion of the Fund is allocated to each Circle of the bank far providing Canteen facilities to Dhe staff of the bank at concessional rates hi the respective branches under its control; that for the purpose of implementing the various schemes for which the StafT Welfare Fund has b^cn created Local Implementation Committee, hereinafter referred as L.I.C. is constituted at the branch level in which Branch Manager is the Ex- officjo President and another employe; of the branch is elected by the staff by secret ballot to act as Secre- tary. The involvement of the Branch Manatpr in the functioning of the L.I.C. is limited for scrutinising the proper utilisation of the fund allocated to the respec- tive branches for running the various Welfare acti- vities of the L.I.C. and the Committee appoints/en- gage Canteen boys etc. to run the Canteen; that in the branches of the State Bank of India having staff strength less than 100 the Canteens are run by the I-.I.C. Such Canteens are no statutory, non-recog- nised Canteens; that the workmen engaged by (he LXC. are not employees of the bank and are not under the control of the bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by the bank; that there is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run thc_-Canteen by the Bank; Chat no master servant relationship exists between the bank and the workers engaged by the L.I.C. for managing the Canteen; (hat the bank only provides subsidy for promoting and running of the Canteen which serves tea|lunch etc, on subsidise rates to the staff members on no profit basis; that the Bank does not employ the canteen worker?; that the bank does not supervise or control, the work or tine details regarding the canfceti or its workers engaged by the L.LC; that the. Bank docs

5. The workman concerned has filed rejoinder 7/A and has reiterated what has already been mentioned in its written statement. It has been further submitted that concerned workman was never engaged by the L.I.C. as canteen boy to work in the canteen. True fact of the case is that concerned workman was en- gaged as messenger by the Branch Manager G.T.B. Branch, Allahabad. The duties of the concerned workman was to sort cut the voucher's, keep the re- gisters on the proper places and other documents and to go for clearing the cheques to other banks for the purposes of banks. The concerned workman has re- ceived expenses conveyance allowances and wages from the Branch Manager, G.T.B. Nagar, Allahabad. He was working under the control and supervision of the Branch Manager, G.T.B. Nagar, Allahabad. Tlie name of the concerned workman is available on the petty expenses payment register of the bank. It is further submitted that name of he L.I.C. in the in- stant case is only caraoufldgc and sham. It is held by the Supreme Court of India in case of Gurmale Singh Vs. Principal, Government College and others846 TH£ GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART I t - S a c. 3(ii). reported in U.PX.B.E.C. 2000 Vol. 1, pnge 798 that the dispute cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The same view was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajaib Singh case reported in F.L.R. 1999 Vol. (82) page 137.

6. The workman has filed 3 documents vide list' l-B/2, out of which only one document was proved marked Ex. W-l. The employers have filed three banker's cheque issued by the President and Secre- tary of the Loca] Implementation Committee, SBI, G.T.B. Nagar Branch in favour of Sri Ved Prakash Shukla towards remuneration paid to him. The employers vide list 2-B/l filed photo copies of petty expenditure register (20 pages).

7. Sri Ved Prakash Shukla examined Iiimself as W.W. 1 and reiterated the facts staled in the written statement and rejoinder. He further deposed that' when he was sent to other banks for giving cheques, he was paid conveyance allowance by the State Bank of India tihrough petty charges payment register. This register belong to State Bank of India. This register has been marked as Ex. E-l. The Branch Manager used to take his attendance in a separate register and salary used to be paid at the end of the month.

In cross-examination the witness stated that for the last 10 years Ihe is doing cultivation. He has got 2/3 bigha land. He does not know Local Implementa- tion Committee. He has worked for two years, nine months and 30 days. He used to get payment through cheque. It is wrong to say that cheques were issued by Local Implementation Committee. It is correct to say that he has neither any appointment leiter nor termination order. Still he has stated that he was appointed by Branch Manager and he has passed orders for terminating his services. He has not made any complaint to the Branch Manager or senior offi- cers of the Bank that no written order for appoint- ment or termination has been given to him, He has further denied that there is no canteen in the bank premises and employees go outside for tea cite. He never brought tea for employees from outside-. When he was working tlhcre were 10 employees in th© bank including him. There is omly one messenger in the bank named Ram Gopal Kushwalia. Ho has admitted that he was not on the post of messenger. The wit- ness volunteered that Ihe used to give registers to em- ployees and used to go to other banks for giving. cheques then he got conveyance allowance from bank. He has continuously worked for 240 days since 1987. It is wrong to say that there is no canteen in the bank premises and he is employee of the canteen.

8. The employers examined Sri Om Prakash Lakhani, Ex. W-l. He has deposed that he knows Ram Gopal Kushwaha who is permanent messenger. He was getting salary like other employees/staff of bank. He also knows Ved Prakash Shukla who was not appointed as a messenger. Workman concerned was working as canteen boy. Canteen bov was ap- pointed by Local Implementation Committee. He has brought original cheque and deposed that it has been issued by Local Implementation Committee. The cheque bears the signature of President and Secretary of L.I.C. The clhcque bears the sienafure of Sri Ramji Tandon, Secretary which the witness recognised and proved his signature on the cheque as President of L.I.C. marked Ex. E-2. The workman has never re- fused to accept the cheque nor ever protested. He Bias broughi' original petty charge register. In this petty charge register Sri Ved Prakash Shukla has put sig- nature in token of having received the money for the articles purchased for canteen. It is wrong to say that entries belong in the petty charge register for taking cheques etc. outside. Attendance was regularly re- corded by the employees of the bank in the attendance register. In the Guru Teg Bahadur branch of the bank there was no temporary employee. It is also wrong to say that the attendance of Sri Shukla was recorded in separate register or copy. Tlhe then Branch Mana- ger Cyit Naraiii Srivastava had died. The witness was Branch Manager since 1989 to 1991. He was paid conveyance allowance for bringing goods of canteen.

In cross-examination ho stated that Ram Chandra- was not sweeper but Rajertdra Prasad was sweeper. He has specifically deposed that Canteen boy was appointed by L.I.C. and payment made through cheques are proof for tlhe same. There is no proof en the file that L.I.C. has appointed the workman concerned on the post of Canteen boy. The workman was working in the branch of Guru Teg Bahadur of State Bank of India as Canteen boy. A small place was given in the bank premises for canteen. It is wrong to say tlhat he was Secretary of the L.I.C. but he deposed thac he was President. He has not filed any proof in the present case that he was President of the L.I.C. L.I.C. is an institution of employees and looks after their welfare. Bank gives money as subsidy. The money which is given by State Bank as subsidy tlhat is the fund of L.LC. L.I.C. is a institu- tion of staff. The witness has not filed any rules and regulations of L.I.C. The work done by Ved Prakash Shukla was being looked by the L.I.C. and the Bank was not concerned with the same. It is wrong to say that Ved Prakash Shukla was the employee of Guru Teg Bahadur branch of State Bank and was working there and the Bank used to ilook after his work.

9. The workman moved applicaton 8 |A for sum- moning certain documents from the employers to which objection 9[A was filed by the employers. However, when the case was taken up on 17-10-2000 Sri Anil Kumur Srivastava, authorised representative, for the workman stated before the Court that the cause in the application 8|A, dated 27-9-2000 has become in- fructuous as the employer has filed the photostat copies of the Petty Cash Payment Register. The genuineness of the photostat copies has been accepted after sceinr" the original by the representative for the workman. The application 8lA was accordingly dis- missed as infnictuous.

10. On the pleadings of the parties the- follcfcving issues arose and framed by the Tribunal on 17-10-2000:—

(i) Whether the workman is not entitled, to the relief claimed on account of delay in raising the- industrial dispute ?

(ii) Whether the workman was engaged as a Cant&en bov in the Canteen run by-L.I.C. at G.T.B. Nagar Branch, Allahabad or as a Messenger there?

*41 (iii) Whether, a Canteen Boy appointed by the Local implementation Committee is an em- ployee oi the S.B.L 7

(iv) As in the terms of reference order,

11. Heard the learned representatives for both par-

tics ana perused the record.

Allahabad and the Central Government being satisfied that industrial dispute exists between the parties re- ferred the matter ot dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal. .In his statement before the Tribunal he has not said a word regarding delay and failed to corrobo- rate the averments made in paras no. 7 and 8 of the written statement. He has miserably failed to explain the delay in his oral evidence. The averments made m paras no. 7 and 8 of the written statement appears to be concocted and after thought. A person who comes before the Tribunal with a false case to gain illegally is not entitled for any sympatBy. The workman has miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the conci- liation proceedings and has not said single word in the statement before the Tribunal as to what he was doing for over 9 years after his termination. The representa- tive for the employer submitted that the claim of the workman is highly belated and suffer from laches, and! as such deservess to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is correct that the workman or any person cannot be permitted to raise a claim after lapse of time which has became stale.

12'. I shall take up issue No. (i) first." for decision 1'he iearneu representative for ihe workman submitted thai mere is no limitation prescribed tor making a re- lerencc Detore the Tribunal or Labour Court, He argued that when once the reference is made, by the Government it is obligatory on the Tribunal to decide me case on merit ana it cannot be to the question of limitation. He has referred to case law reported in U.P.L.E.C. Vol, 1-2000 page 7098. The argument of the le^iiiiu rcpnisciuuUvc for ihc woikiiiaji that ihc delay in making the reference is not relevant for ad- judicating a case on merits is not correct. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1217 Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe:—

14. The Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 7505 of 1999 decided on 9-2-2000 between Tele- com District Manager and others and A. A. Angali and others reported in 2000(87) F.LR. 97 held as under:—

11. "So far as the second question is concerned, admittedly, there was undue delay of 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute before the Tribunal. Therefore, for the reasons re- corded in the case of Shalimar Works Ltd. Vs. Their workmen (A.I.R. 1959 SC 1217), and in the case of Ratan Chandra Sammanta Vs. Union of India [1993 (67) FLR 70(SC)] the reference is not maintainable because of laches committed in seeking the reference.

12. Reecntly, the above principles have again been reiterated in the case of Nedungali Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutti, [2000 (84) FLR 673(SC)] in para 6 whereof it has been held that:—

"There is no doubt tfeat strictly speaking the order oi me company aiscnargmg iis workmen on April b, ly^e, wnen a dispute was aumutealy pending was a breach oi section 3-H-funjaD National .bank Ltd. V. Employees ol the Bank 1W3 S.C.K. 686). ine remedy for such a breach is provided in Section 33-A and it can be availed ot by an individual workman. If, therefore, it was felt by the workmen who were discharged on April 6, iy48, that there was breach of Section 33 by the company, they should have applied indi- vidually or collectively to the Tribunal under Section 33-A. None of them did this. It is true that some kind of tetter was written to the Assistant Labour Commissioner in November, 1949, but that was also very lale and nothing seems to have happened there- after for almost another three years, till tLe first reference was made on October 7, 1952. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an Industrial Tribunal; even so it is only reason- able that dispute should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, parti- cularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale, as in this case."

"Law does not prescribe-any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that tins power can be exercised at any point of tune and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exer- cised powers in this case after lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service. At the timo reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject " matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on¹ the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incon* gruous that the reference top made wider 13. According to the pleadings of the workman he was terminated on 1-2-90 and the reference by the Central Government was made on 22-3-99. The work- man attempted to explain the delay in his written state- ment pleaded' that after illegal termination from service concerned workman made written demand letters lo the opposite party no. 1 and others and personally met with the top officers, of the Bank and prayed for his reinstatement will full back wages and it was assured by the officers of the bank that he will be re- instated very soon and thus he Was hopeful that his demand will be considered by the department. When the opposite party did not pay any deed on the iust and valid demand of the workman tben he has filed' his case befo"e the Assistant Labour Commissioner,ftp THrOAaSTTE Of INfttA: FBBftUAfiY 24,200l/PHAU?tJNA 4, #22 [p^t it-Sa?. $ the Bank is not having any statutory o. tractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such Calnteens." Section 10 of the Act in tile circumstances like the present one. in fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the tune when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other em- ployees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circum- stances they were dismissed and SUD:>C- quently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by he respondent tor raising industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent.

18. Sri Om Prakash LakJiani, E.W.1 who appeared on behalf of the Bank corroborated the avcrmetns made in the written statement of employers by his oral evi- dence before the Tribunal After detailed¹ cross-exa- mination nothing has come out to disbelieve him on any point. The deposition of W.W. 1 is far from truth. He has led negative evidence which is not sufficient to establish his case. Heavy burden lay on the workman to prove his case which he failed to discharge.

19. In view of the legal position declared by the Hon'able Supreme Court in the decision of A.l.R. 2000 SC 1518, the issue Nos. (ii) and (iii) are decided against the workman and in favour of employers.

20. From the evidence on record, pleadings of the parties and after hearing learned representative for the parties, I haVe no hesitation in holding that the re- ference made by the Central Government is ex-facie bad and incompetent being highly belated and has be- came stale deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also.

In view of the facts a>nd circumstances above, the

reference is decided against the workman.

849

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI K. S. SRIVASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

5. The workman though had on the earlier occasion filed a objection against the managements application but at later stage vide endorsement made on the appli- cation he has no objection for a no dispute award to be given in the case.

I.D. No. 40191

a No dispute award is given accordingly in the case.

In the matter of dispute between;

Shri C. P. Kapoor s|o of Shri Suraj Prakash

Kapoor r|o 6|111 Subash Nagar, New Delhi.

Versus

Manager, Citi Bank, Jiwan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

APPEARANCES :

Sri Ramesh Kadam—for the workman. Shri Dinesh Agnani—for the management. .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-12O12|88j91-I.R. (B-3) dated 25-3-91 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of Citi Bank, New Delhi in not giving the H.R.A. CCA and special allowance to Shri C. P_ Kapoor in conformity with its settlement was justified ? If riot to what relief the Workman is entitled to?"

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2001 2. The statement of claim written statement and re- joinder filed by the parties in the case were earlier ex- changed between them. On the basis of the statement given on behalf ©f the parties for not adducing evidence in the case vide order dated 21-7-92 case was fixed for arguments but it could not be concluded¹.

S.O. 408.—In exercise of the powers confenec by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (24 of 1948) the Centra Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2001 a tb; date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (ex cept Sections 44 and 45 which have already beei brought into force) and Chapter V and VI (excep sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77. 78 79 and 81 which have already been brought inti force) of the said Act shall come into force in th lolloping areas in the State of Haryana namely :—

"The areas falling in the extended Municips limits of Jagadhary, as notified by th Government of- Haryana from time to t'm" in addition to the areas already covered."

[No. S-38O13I2J2OO1-SS.1 I,. H. RUOLNGUL Under Secj850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2001/PHALGUNA 5, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 15th February, 2001

S.O. 409.—In exercise of th© powers conferred by Section 4 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India iti the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 32fE), dated ihe 4th January, 2000 pub- lished in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3(ii) dated the lllh January, 2000;

In the said notification under the heading "Appointed by the Cenlral Government under clause (f) of Section (4) in consultation with the organi- zations of employers recognized by the Central Gov- ernment for the purpose" against Serial No. 31, the following entries shall be substituted, namely :—

"Dr. (Mrs-)MaltiJ. Baad, Executive Director, Vndodara Employers' Organisation, Federation Building, R. C. Dutt Road, Baroda-390005.

- [No. U-16012|l|98-SSI] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

Printed by iho Manager, Govt, of India Pros, Ring Roa.l, New Delhl-110*64 and Published by ihe Controller o* Publications, Delhi-110054, 2001