This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

[No. L-400l2|101|98-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE Ex.W4 Xerox Copy of Rly. Board's letter No. E(D&A)|69 RG 6-48 dt. 5-9-1970 about treatment of the period of suspension in cases of acquittal by a Court of law.

Ex.W5 Letter No. 0|79|SC dt. 9-2-1982 of

V. Rama Rao,

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

Industrial Dispute No. 85|1999 Ex.\V6 Letter dt. 3-8-1934 of B.V. Padma- najbhan submitting Judgement copy of$44 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001/PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [P'ART II—SEC. 3(iQ] In the matter of dispute between :

Sri Rakcsh Kumar Dubey s|o Sri Shiv Nath Dubey c|o Sri R. M. Shukla, 119(30 Nasecmabad HimanehaJ Talkies, Kanpur

AND

The Chief General Manager Doorsanchar Vibhag Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-12012|101| 98-IR(DU) dated 23-4-99 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—•

Whether the action of the Dooishawchar Vibhag in terminating the services of Sri Rakish Kumar Dubey is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the work- man is entitled ?

satisfied from his work. He stated that no notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation was paid to him beiore termination ol his services. He stated that he has filed documents in support of his case. The certificates Ext. W-l to Ex. W-8 filed by him go to show that this workman continuously worked from 11-11-86 to 8-3-88 under SDO Tele- graph as jeep driver without any break. These certi- ficates were issued by SDO Telegraph, Mainpuri. The record shows that he was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 19.50 per day but that makes no diffe- rence so far as his status as employee of the tele- graph department is concerned. In Chairman-cum- Managing Director Orissa Road Transport Com- pany Limited and Ramesh Chandra Gauda' and another FLR 1995(70) 468," the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, has held that there is no distinction between ca)sual employee and regular employee and even a daily wage earner comes within the definition of workman. In view of law laid down in the case cited above 1 hold that the concerned workman come within the definition of workman as given under Industrial Disputes Act, and was entitled to get protection of the provisions of Sec- tion 25F of the Act.

7. From the unrebutted evidence of W.W. 1 and the documentary evidence which supports his case it is established beyond doubt that the con- cerned workman worked for more than 240 days before the date of termination of his service. Thus he was entitled to get protection of Section 25F of I.D. Act before his services were terminated by an oial order. The workman has stated that no notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation as re- quired under Section 25F of the Act was given to him before the termination of his services. I am, therefore, inclined to believe the testimony which goes uniebutted. I therefore, hold that termination of the service of the concerned workman is viola- tive of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and is therefore illegal and void. J, therefore, hold that the concerned workman shall be deemed to be in continuing in service and shall be entitled to get back wagqs.

2. The concerned workman Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, has stated in his statement of cla'im that be was appointed on the post of driver pi a Jeep on. 11-11-96 and he worked continuously up to S-3-88 without break in service under SDO Doorcanchax, Mainpuri. His work and conduct was always found satisfactory. The workman Was appointed on a post of jeep driver which was ttill in existence and the workman was appointed against a regular post. The workman was refuused work] sijnce 9-3-88 without any rhyme and reason and termination of his service w.c f. 9-3-88 without any written order or without giving him notice, notice pay or retren- chment compensation was illegal. He was appointed on casual basis and was paid Rs. 19.50 paisa per day as wages and he completed for more than 240 days in a calendar year before the date of his termination. Thus his termination from service is violative of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and is therefore, illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

3. The management of Doorsanchar did not file written statement and none appeared from the side of the management heuce the case proceeded ex- parte against the management.

4. The workman examined himself as WW1 and filed 10 documents marked Ext. W-l to W-10 in support of his case.

5. I have heard the representative for the work-

man and have gone through the record of the case.

8. In view of findings recorded above, I hold that the action of the management of Doorsanchar in tciminating the services of Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey is illegal and unjustified. I further hold that the concerned workman is entitled to be rein- stated im service with full back wages on the post of Jeep Driver. The management is, therefore, directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service aind to pay him full back wages within a period of three months from the date of publication of the award.

9. The reference made to this tribuunal is ans-

wered accordingly.

Datdc 25ih Jan. 2001

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 6. Sri Raikcsh Kumar Duhey W.W1 stated on oath that he was appointed on the post of driver on J1-] 1 -86 and he continuously worked on that post till S-3-8S He clcaily stated ill at no charce sheet was ever served on him and his superiors were 945-

"Whether the action of the Director, Telecom Project, Jaipur in terminating the services of Sh Rakesh Kumalr, Safai Karamchari w e f 3-10-97 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entiil- ed?"

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2001

S.O. 449.—.In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tnbunal|Labour Court, Jaipur, as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Depute between the employers in relation to the management of Director, Telecom Project and their workman, which was received by tha Centra] Government on 5-2-2001.

[No. L-40012|345|99-1R(DU)]

KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001 /PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(il)] "25.F Condition;, precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous ser- vice for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—•

(b) the wprkmaln has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation ' which shall be equivalent to fifteen day's aver- age pay (for every complete J year of continuous service) dr any pari thereof in excess of six months; and" w.

New Delhi, the 5th February,-2001

S.O. 450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, ^ 47 (14 qM947), (he Central Covc r m nent !lf ?b ytpli*l l**s [ l ic o w a rd of ^e Cential Gavernmcnt In- dustrial TribttiW/Labbui Court, Knnpur u ,how" in the Aiinexwe *n tho, InUuitrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kendriya Hindi Inititute

[No. L-42012/69/97-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

WRRC" were enhanced from Rs. 28 to¹ Rs. 34 per day w.c.f. 1-11-94. On the d<"mur.d made by the workman the mnn.ijte- m^nt of Sanstlian made payment of the arrears of wni;es at the enhanced rate vnder 'ts order dated 2-7-9*, a copy of Which is enclosed w*th the statement of claim, Tile services of the workaian v.nc terminaicd w.e.f. 12-9-96 iliojally with- out giving any notke or notice pay and retrenchment com- pensation, hence termination of his services made by the management of the Samihttn in illegal and is liable to be quothect. The management allowed junior employees to con- tinue in the work and the services of the workman were teanirrated hence his termination from service is illeRf.1 on this Kround ulso. When on the oral request the workman was not taken in soivice he finve a written notice dated 22-10-96 to tho management. Gnjendia Sinch and Rajesh who vvero juniors to the workman are working in the Sansthan . and the "ervices of the concerned workman have been terminated illegally. On Ihe baiis of these allegations he prayed that he be rein-itateo" in sarvicc with back waifts.

3. The management of the sansthan has filed written state- ment with the conl.ntion that Miikesh Kumar Sharmo was for the flrtt time ensaged as a daily wage/- in April, 1994 and he was not employed in the- Sansthan before that date. In the year 1994 the workman was getting Rs. 18 per day and his daily wanes were increased from Rs. 18 to Rs. 28 per day w.e.f. November, 1994. When the wages were further enhanced the workman was p"id arrears amounting to Rs. 22R6 vide order 1ated 2-7-96 for the period 1-11-94 to 31-12-95. The concerned workman wot. kept as temporary hand from time to time in the Jcavc vacancy of pcrmaaent peons. There are about 17 permanent peons ar.d when there was any leave vneanev the concerned workman vas engaged as a diily wajer to meet tho tempoiary, need of the Sansthan. The management never appointed the concerned workman against any substantive po^t or sanctioned post. He was a daily wage earner and his services automatically came to an end. He WIM engaged for c"nnin casual and urgent work and was paid accoidingjy the daily wages foi the ensual- work according to the rate fixed by the Government of India. The case of the concerm-d workman falls under clause (bb) of Sectiori 2(oo) of the Act, because the savkes of the workman came to an end due to non renewal of contract of employment between tho employers and the concerted workmnn. Even otherwise according to the latest view of Hon'b'e Supreme Court of India a ternporni-y daily wajje earner has no rifiht SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR

I.D. No, 231 of 1997

In the matter of. Dispute between:

Sri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, S'o Srf'B'-fiu I,al Shirma, (Judge &bjb Ki Gali), House No. 1/3S, NWa Pipal Mandl, Agra.U.p.

AND

The Director, KendTivft Hindi Institute, Hindi Sangthan Marc, Agra, U.P.

AWARD

Whether th; action of the management of Director, Cen- rfftil'r?!? AgrH^lD t ^ ^ ^E the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, casual daily wajffs to the post i s —— his appointment wtw not ngainst any substantive post. Oajendra Singh and Rajesh who'e names were mentioned by workman in his statement of claim were temporary daily wage earner .sweepers, hence they ctrnnot be treated junior to the concerned workman who was n peon. Their services weie also dispensed with at the same time when the concerned workman was not engaged and Rajesh was working in the Cariara Bank within the' -premises of Sansthan. It has toen alleged that the Sansthan d'oes not come within the definition of Industry and benefit of Industrial Dispute Act, cannot lie- extended to-the. concerned workman. It has heen prayed that the reference m*de to this tribunal be decided ORuinst the workman and in favour of the management.

4. The concerned workman has filed rejoinder in which be has reiterniej thr facts alleged by him in the statement of claim. He has further alleged that it is for the manage- ment to prove th I the concerned workman was engaged in ths lcaV3 vacancies of other peons and was not posted against a <-ub"tnnt;ve pci;.

5. The workman has examined himself a" W-W.l and fi'ed 3 documents marked ext. W-l to W-3 in support of his case. The management examined Sri Ram Beharl Lai Srivastava, M.W.I in support of its case.

Is not entitled'to get- 'priiteotiotf 4f 4hef prtvisions of Section 25F of tho Act.

according to the rules and he was engaged only as a casual ' daily wager in the leave vacancies or peons, hence his dis- engagement for wbnt of work cannot be held to b" ilicflpl arid he is nut entitled to be reinstated ill seivjce, Aftei¹ going through the record of the case I find force in the contention, of the management.

8. The authorised lepresentutive for the management has argued that the Sansthan is not an Industry, hence the provi- sions of I.D. Act, do not apply to its employees, After gomft through the record of the case, I do not find any force in this contention. Management witness admitted in htt"ro§" examination that Sans than was att Educational- Institution end it had employed more than 17 peons. Ifl Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board versus AMftjfopf* 1*?* (2) SCC 213 the Hon'bl* Supreme Court has hold that an Uni- versity, College or Research Institute of Teaching Institution will be Industry and it* employees other than teachers shall' be entitled to get protection of the I.D. Act.' I, trieTefore, hold that the Sansthan cornels within the definition of Industry as defined under the I.D. Act.

9. The authorised representative'for the worktnan has argu- ed that junior to the concerned workman have been retained in service, henee the tenriihation of the service of the con- cerned workman i? illegal being in violation of the prcv sions of Section 25O of the Act. After going through the recojtf of the case, I do not fuld "any force in this-contention. Mukesh Kumar Sharrua W.W.I stated that Rajesh and Gajcmlr* were junior to him and hdVe bteft-retained'in sorvicev The caie of the management is that <3ajendra and Rajesh' were i sweep- ers arid they could not be treated 'as junior to'the CQiKtnied •workman who wr engaged in th"r; leave' vacancy. The state- ment of the workman that -Gajendra and Rajesh were- not sweepers appears to be false *aild baseless. Evpn-'in.^he joint inspection report Gajendra and Rajesh hart been'shown-as sweepers and they Vorked a* sweepers on: daily rate basis- and were paid accordingly. Hence the concerned workman could not get any benefit of the engagement of Rajesh and Gajendra as sweeper in the Sansthftn-becaufc* they belong to u separate class and are not comparable to the concerned workman.

10. The case o[ iht concerned workman is that he worked for 240 days before the date of his 'termination- The case of the management as pleaded in it* wfitWfy "MtemeiM and as has beeri mentioned in the statement' of M.W.I 'is that the concerned workman worked only for 112 days in the year 1996. The workman has not adduced any evidence to show that he worked 240 days in the year 1996. The authorised repreceMntive for the management has argued that even if a daily wage casual wofter has completed 240 days in the feivico he cannot' get tfic benefit'of Sectiofl' 256F of the A:t. He has drawn*ray attention towards law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Zakir Hussain versus Irrigation Department' 1993 Lab. \.C. 836 which is as under—

A pei-son v,ho is appointed on daily waees on ad hoc busis does not have any right to the post and his services can be terminated at any time. He cannot claim regulnrisation of his services merely because he hai completed 240 days in service Hi Hhis con- nection reference may be made'to the' d^ision $ the Supreme Court in the 'cftse 61rDe/hT Development Hoiticulturc Employees Union v, Delhi Administra- tion 1992(1)JT 394.

7. The reference order itself ihuws that the concemo* work- man was acasuul daily waga employee. Sri Ram Behnri Lai SrivastftVa, Incharge of the Sansth&n • clearly stated on oath that the concerned workman was dngttgcd in the leave vacan- cies of the peons on daily \*age- basis 'and when there was no work lie was disengaged from the work. He staled that hij attendance was marked in the attendance register and the wages' were paid to him as casual worker on the basis of his attendance in the attendance register. Ho stated that there were 17 regular peons in theSansthao and whenever any peon went on leave the concerned worfc*flan was engaged in leave vacancy of that pfcort: The concerned 'workman did not stated in his statement on oath thai he was not engaged In the ieave vacf.ni.-y- He has "not stated that he was ever selected for the p6st of peori after appearing for selection along with other eligible candidates. Hie.stated in his cross examination that he was ni>t a daily wager, ffirt his statement on this prt'nt appears to-be falfrtt arid-baseless. He lies filed document which is marked Ext. W.2, wherein his- name is mentioned at serial NO. 1. Thii order shows that it contains the names of dally wagers. This document support the case of the management that Sri Mukesh Kumar Snarma was u daily wager and was not a regular employee of the Sansthan. This shows that the concerned workman has no respect for the truth and he can tell lie to save his purposes.' If is notable that a joint inspection of the records "of the Saiisthan was made by the autboiiscd representatives of both the sides and that joint inspection report Ext. M.I is on record. In the end of this repot t it is clearly mentioned that the concerned workman Muke*h 'Kumar Sharma" was eiga^ed whenever any employee went on leave. This joint Inspection report further shows that ths concerned workman did not work as a regular employee but- he wu3 a daily wuce earner and he worked for 21 days in February 1996, and for 10 days in the month of March 1996 and few one day in April, 1996* He had worked tor 5 days in the month of July, 1996. This report akr" suppo-is the contention of the management that the concerned workman was ensued In the leave vacancies of the peons any Whenever there Was no work he was not engaged by the officers pf the Sansthan to serve the Sansthan, The con- cerned workman hai aefmitted that nd appointment letter was ever issued to him and no order of termination wSs passed against hiin. It has come in evidence -of M.W.I that the Sangthan was Central Government undertaking. Thus it is evident that the Sunsthan comes within the definition of STATE as defined under Article 12 tif the Constitution of India and" if any appointment is made against a frost ill this Sansthan than all eligible candidates who apply for the post should be considered before any appointment is made anainst any post in tbe Sangthan. There is nothing on record to show that any sucli post was ever advertised by the Sansthan and the concerned workman was ever selected for such post from amongst other eligible candidates. Thus his alleged appointment dots not appear to have been made according to the rules and he could not get the status of an employee of Saustfian by beln^ engaged as daily wager in the casual vacancies and was not entitled to get protection of the pro- visions of Section 25F of the Act. In a similar case of Himanshu Knn"ir and another versus State of Bihar 1997 (76) FLR 237 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under—

R. P. PANDEY. Priding Officer950 . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 20O1/PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [FA*T II—SEC J(ii)} New Delhi, the 5th February, 2001

S.O 451.—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 employer:, in relation to the management of Bhartiya Furatntvja, Sarvekshan Vibhag, and their workman, which was jeeeived by the Central Government on 5-2-2001.

[No. L-42012/140/96-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officei

- ANNEXURE

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

Industrial Dispute No. 186 of 1997

In the matter of dispute:

BETWEEN

Sri Ganesh Bahadur Singh, Village & Post Gorndand, District Pratapgarh.

AND

Adhftshak, Bhartiya Puratatva Snrvekshan Vibhag, Mandal Lucknow, Golaganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vidi its notification No. L^2O12/I4O/96-IR(DU) d"?ed 18-9-97, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—

"Kya Bhartiya Puratatva Sarvekshan Ke Prabbandhan Ke Dwara Sri Ganesh Bahadur Singh Ko Dinank 1-8-95 Se Naukari Se Nikala Tana Uchit Avam Valdhanik Hai ? Yadi Nahi To SambtmdMt Kamkar Kis Anutosh Ka Haqdar Hai 7"

2. In the claim statement the workman has strtted tMt he was appointed as Beldar|Chowkidar In Archaeolog'cal Survey of India (hereinafter referred to as ASI for fhe snko of brevity) on 1-2-89 in the Kallnirer Fort situated in Difrict Banda. He. worked at several places under ASr He worked continuously from I-2-R9 upto 31-7-95. His service were terminated abruntly without any valid reason w.e.f. 1-8-85. He worked at different places and hh wages were paid after " " * "{ n" attendance in muster roll. The no°t aoalnit wmch he was workina was T>ermanent one. He Moninvfih Otncr persons was engaged as casual worker. Although" the work on which, he was engaged was of a permanent nature. As the complince of mandatory provisions of section 25F of I.D. Act was not done at the ttrae of termination of his services, his termination of service was illegal void and he was entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages. It has *een alleged that his juniors were retained in service and some new hands have been appointed after termination of his service but no opportunity wag given to him for em- ployment under ASI. On the basis of these allegation* he has prayed for reinstatement in service witli full back wages.

3. The management ASI has filed written statement in which it has been alleged that the concerned workman Ganesh Bahadur Singh was engaged on 8-3-71 for 8 days only at Garha Fort within Allahabad Sub Div7sion. He was always careless and did not discharge hia duties properly. He did not continuously worked under ASI for moie than 240 days. It has been alleged that when there was temporary need of work, the concerned labourer as well as other casual labourers were engaged and as soon an work came to Ml end their engagement also came to an end. They were never appointed against any post at any place under ASI. It has been alleged that ASI has been declared a" Scientific Department by the Government of India, hence it does not come within the definition of Industry and iti employee could not claim the benefit of provisions of I.p. Act. It has been alleged that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

4. The workman has filed rejoinder in which ha has reiterated the allegatiosn made in the claim statement.

5. The workman has examined himself as W.W. 1, whereas the management of ASI has examined Sri D. B. Yadav as M.W. 1 and Sri H. S. Pandey as M.W. 2 tnd filed a number of documents in support of Its casp.

6. I have heard the authorised representative for both the sides and have gone through the- record of the case.

7. The authorised representative for the management has argued that ASI has been declared as Scientific Department by the Government of Ind'a and does not come within the defnfiticNi of Industry and its employee") are not covered by Industrial Disputes Act. After going,through the record of the case, I do not find any force in this contention. In J. Raja versus State,of Kerala 1994<69)FLR 78 Kerala High Court has held that Kerala State Scientific and Technical Museum is an Industry as defined in section 2(j) of the T.D. Act, Similarly ASI which is also alleged to be a Scientific Depart- ment shall also be held to be an Industry. I, therefore, reject tho aforesaid contention of the representative for the management.

8. Ganesh Bahadur Sinph W.W. 1 stated on oath that he worked a? Chowkidar in ASI from 1-2-89 to 31-7-95 conti- nuously and his 'ervices were terminated on 1-8-95. His oral evidence on this point ii not supported bv any documentary evidence. Ho has not filed any annolntmcnt drder to show that he was ever appointed as Bcldar/chowkidar in ASI by a comnctent authority He has not filed any order indicating that his services were terminated bv any coinnetent authority. Thus the workman han not be;n able to nrove by any cogent and reliable evid"nce fbnt he was aDpointed naain^t any post In ASI by comnetent authority and he. continuously worked on any such cost in that department. On the other hand the contention of the management that Ganesh Bahadur wan a ctwual worker and ho Vvnrked when there WHS a n^rd in the denartm^nt as a casual worker and is noon as the work cam? to nn fnd his mmiwm'-nt was aho cami" to on nnd prrieBM to be correct nnd is borne out from the materials and from the" record. Ganesh Bahadur has himself stated in nnratrranh 9 of his statement of clsi'm thct he wm nnh of fhe caiunl WOTVTS. He admitted in his evidence ni well ai in earn T of his stPtemcnt of diilm thnt hr worVed at diff-ren' nlsr"ri urdfr the moniR-m^t of AST. H<- nho flrtmiff-d fhnt his nffendmee wa" mirkfd nn mmicr roll nnd w p a rs W IT s U r, n n fd to Vm o c c o r d f r if to h is - •lf " r i t t r " ce on t l -e mnsW rolls. Tbr mmwrrmen* hns nl"d mnv of mister roll for Tunr 9i wi^ch indtrnt^ tW Sri Gwpesh Bahadur worl'-d it Kflltniwr Fort for 15 davn only In the month of Ti"ie 01. He was nV'l wnm>s accordintrlv Th" mu'tcr roll for the month of TWv <)-> ha-tf,nj ,P PnflM hv t h ). r i a^P P n,n^t which show that Ganesh Bahadur worked for six days only931 Of all rules cannot be allowed to enter government service through the back door and th" labour court cannot be allowed to be used as a legal means for buch back door entry.

12. In similar case of Himonshu Kumar Vidyarthi versut State of Dihar and other* 1997(76) FLR 237, the hon'ble .Supicme Court of India has held at under—

Admittedly they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on 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 re- trenchment, therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. Since they arc only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts and their disengagement it not arbitrary.

The law laid down in the cas"* cited abovs fully applies to the facts of the present case. The concerned workman was engaged on the basis cS need of the work as a casual wor- ker and hi? disengagement cannot be treated to be retrench- mf.nt under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. In Khusrobagh Gate Allahabad and was paid wages accord- ingly. Muster rolls for the month of October and November 93 have also been filed which indicates that the workman worked for 5 days only in the month of November at Khusrobagh Allahabad and was paid wages accordingly. The muster roll for the period from 30-7-94- to 10-8-94 has been filed which shows that the workman worked for 12 days only at Khusrobagh in the month of July and August, 1994. The muster roll for the month of September 94 shows that work- man worked continuously for 20 days only in that month at Kaiiniger Port. The muster roll for the month of October, November and December 1994 shows that the workman worked for 17 days in October, for 19 days in November) and for 23 days in December 1994 at Kalinger Fort Banda. Muster rolls for the years 1995 from January to July have been filed which indicate that Ganesh Bahadur worked for 24 daya in January, for 26 days in February, for 25 days in June and for 27 days in July, 1995 at Kaliager Fort. These documents go to show that the concerned workman was engaged according to the need of the department as casual labour and he never worked continuously at any place under the control of A Sl He had worked at different placws according to temporary need of work at different places and the wage* were paid to him according to his attendance marked m the attendance sheet. These documents go to support the contention of the management that he was a casual worker engaged due to temporary need of the work and as soon as the work came to an end he was disengaged from the work. In these circumstances I fully agree with the contention of the management that the concerned work- man was a casual worker and was casually engaged for work according to the temporary need in the department. Such a casual worker could not get the status of an employee of ASI and was not entitled to get any protection oE the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

13.. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited above I hold that the concerned work- man is not entitled to get the protection of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. Admittedly ASI is an Deportment working under Government of India, The posts in this department, come within the definition of public service and the employment on those post could be made after making selection i>f suitable candidates from amongst the eligible candidate after inviting applications from tjbe general public. There is nolhinn on record to show that any such selection wir, ever made by the appointing/competent authority for any post of llcfdar and the concerned workman was ever selec- ted for being appointed on such post. From this point of view also, tto engagement of the concerned workman could not be held to be legal because it was never made accord- ing to the rules and after making compliance of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

10. In a similar case of Manager State Bank of Indore verstis Presid'ng Officer, Cential vjOvernment Industrial Tri- bunal and ethers 1990 (60) FLR 672 Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad nas held as under—

14. The authorised reprecentative for the workman has drawn my attention towards the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Samishtha Dubey versus City Board Ettwah 1999(81) FLR 746. In that case Samishtha Dubey was appointed by the competent authority against a post of clerk on daily wages and her seryices were termina- ted by the competent authority by order in writing. She got "tatus of an employee of the City Board and protection of the provisions of law was extended to her by the Labour Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The laid down in the cose cited above cannot be made applicable in the present case because the concerned workman was a casual labourer and wad engaged only temporarily to meet the temporary need of the department and was never appoin- ted by competent authority against any post. He has fur- ther drawn my attention towards the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of American Express versus Mnnajpnient J 986, Lab I.C. 98. That judgment is of no help to the concerned workman because in that case the workman had continuously worked and was paid¹ wages even for holidays although he did not work on those. days. That shows that he was a regular employee. On the other hand in the present case, the concerned workman was a casual labourer and he worked for a few days in every month and was paid wages accordingly. The law laid down in the case cited above is of no help to the concerned work- man.

In the absence of any appointment order there cannot bo kny termination, nor it can be alleged, that fevmiuatjon is bad. Para 495 of the Shasta Award' clearly indicates the terms in which the appoint- n

11. Tn ano'her case of State of U.P; versus Labour Oonrt,

Haldwwl 1993 (8i) FLR 319 Hon'ble Court of Allahabad hua held as under—

15. tn view of above discussions, I hold that the dis- engagement of the concerned workman w.e.f. 1-8-95 by the management of A.S.I, was Justified. I do not find any ille- gality in the action taken by the management against the workman who could not get a status of an employee of the management. I, therefore, hold that the encerned workman it not entitled to get any relief In pursuance of the reference made to this Tribunal,

16. The reference is answered accordingly,

S

8-1-2001

R. P. PANDEY, Preridiag Officer For engaging a person, casually on day to day basi* the statutory rules are not required to be followed under which the posts have to be advertised and only the best from the market have to be picked up keeping in view reservation provided for certain clawes. Thus every eligible person has an opportu- nity to participate in tie recruitment process. This is not fo In the case of daily wager in whose case even regulations regarding age medical fitness, character etc., arc not observed. Therefore, dally and casual workers who are engaged in disregard 9$i ffrE GAZETTE m&-Si imimiM&mA it, m2 I?A*.T tt^&c. Hfr)l New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001

S.O. 452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Arbitrator-—Shri Braja Ksihore M^hra as shown in the Annttture in the Industrial Dispute between the employers In relati6n to the management of National Aluminium Company Ltd , Captive Power Plant, AnguJ and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 09-02-2001.

[No. L-29013/1/ 99 IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Industrial Dispute

BETWEEN

The Management of National Aluminium Company Limited, Captive Power Plant, Angul

AND

Their workmen, represented by thfc Nalco Non Executive Employees Union, CPP, Angul

(Arbitration Uncter Section 10A of the Irdusttial Diiputes Act, 1947)

AWARD

1.1 An Industrial Dispute between the Management of Captive Power Plant of the National Aluminium Company Limited, Angul (hereinafter referred as NALCO CPP) and their workmen ieprc:cnted through the Nalco Non-executive Employees Union. Captive Power Plant, Angtil (hereinafter referred as NNEU) was taken up for conciliation by the Conciliation Officei (Central), Angul under the T.D. Act, 1947,

1.2 Consequent upon the failure of the conciliation, the parties agreed to refer the said dispute for arbitration u/s-10A of the I.D. Act, 1947, accepting the undersigned as Arbitrator. This was- flotified in the Official Gazette of the dovernment of India, T^W Delhi, dated 20th January, 2000 \icle Ministry of Labour Notification No. S.O. 218, dated 10th January, 2000.

1.3 The parties to the dispute subsequently ngreed in writing to extend the stipulated time- limit" (ill 31st January, 2001 to fncilitate the Arbitrator to conduct the pioceedings and give his award

1.4 The specific matter of the Industrial Dispute as "notified in the above stated official Gazette is as under :

"At present the Operation Depflrtme"' nf CPP is having tha 3-wouos Trwnmnij pattern in shift-system for the purpose of round the clock operation of the PJant.

On the ground of inadequate rest in between shift change from 'C shift to lB' sbiftf the employees of Operation Department including Unions have demanded for implementation of 4jgroup shift system. Management could not agree to the above proposal for the reason that the same will need additional manpower. Alternatively, 7-group man- ning pattern was proposed by the Management whereby the grievance of inadequate rest can be wiped out. But the said proposal was also declined by the employees and they insisted for the 4-fcroup shift system. Considering the gravity of the situation a suggestion was made to have the 4 group system with reduction in duty post/existing manning loca- tion so as to make available the required leave reserve for each group out of existing manpower as available in the present system. But this again was disputed by the employees/Union. Hence, this reference was made to ascertain the appiopriate Shift system to be followed in Operation Department of CPP and if will be 4-group shift system, then how to generate the required leave reserve from fcxisting manpower earmarked for Operation Department."

1.5 Following Trade Unions of the Workmen of the NALCO CPP and the Operators of the CPP impleadid them- selves as concerned parties to the dispute and were fcllowcd by the undersigned to participate in the proceedings and present their case before the Arbitrator.

(i) Nalco Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh

(ii) Nalco Shramifc Congress Union

(iii) Representatives of three groups of Operators 1.6 All the parties .submitted their written statements, tendered oral and documentary evidence and their final argu- ment in support of their case, They ^lsp visited with me four Power Plants in Orissa viz. The N t PC Tlacher Unit and Kaniha Unit Ib Thermal Power Station, Banahnrpalli and Captive Power Plant of the Indian Aluminium Company, Hiratud. They hud intpractipn with the representatives of those Plants to understand the operations, manning pattern, Unit locations, group, shift system and other rcldtod matteis relevant to the instant dispute.

1.7 The General Secretary of ( the Nalco Officers'* Association, Smelter & Power Complex, Angul mnde a written submission, to the Arbitrator attaching written view's and opinion of the Engineers of the Opmation Department. This was duly forwarded by the Management, This submission waa not given any cognisaiice since the Industrial Dispute was between th,e Management of NALCO and their Workmen which was being processed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Management Representative (M.W. 1) in his statement befoie the Arbitrator, catejroiically stated that neither the Engineers were woikmen under the Act nor their views and opinion were to be treated as those of the Management. The Unions and the Operators' representatives did not offer any commcit or opposition on the ebove contention of the Management representative. Thus, the Officers' Association and the Engineers were neither enter- tained as party to the Industrial Dispute nor their submission was given any congnisance.

2.0 Following issues were framed at the outset:

2.1.1 Is the rest in between shift change from ⁴C to 'B' inadequate for workmen of operation department under the present 3-gronp system 7

2.1.2 Does the 7-woup system proposed by the Management provide adequate rest to the workmen ?

2.1.3 Will the 4-sroup system ensure adequate rest during shift changes from 'C to 'B' tyiA provide leave reserve within the existing manpower strength by reducing duty locations ?

2.1.4 If not what should be the appropriate shift svstem and allocation of leave reserve from the existing man power ?

3.0 Gist of contentions of the Manapoment ^nd the workmen :

3.1 The contentions of the Management:

3.1.1 The p-group svstem (s universally followed in con- tinuous running Plants and the same i-j in vogue In NALCO CPP since production started fifteen years back and also in practice in the nearby Smelter Plant of NALCO.

3.1.2 The complain regarding lack of adequate rest and consequential health problem can be removed by introducing 7-group shift system propo"ed by the Management in 1991. A Notice of Change U/S-9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was given for this purpose. This was opposed by the Workmen.

4.3 It appears that the 7-group system us opposed to tho 4-group, system was worked out by the Management on tho assumption that the laUer system would require additional man power over the sanctioned 168 at present, to accom- modate leave and off reserve, keeping the present number of duty locations 42 intact.

4.4 The Workmen have, however, conceded at their final submission that the 4-group system could be introduced without increasing manpower and over time work find nlso without restrictions on manning the duty locutions (i.e. no fixed location manning). They, were however, not in favour of reducing duty locations. They also suggested Operators working in Boiler area should have required certificate from the legal authorities.

3.1.3 The 7-group system would not require additional manpower for leave and off reserve. The 4-group shift system would require more operators than the present 168 to-pro- vide for leave and off reserve. In case such provision is not made, this would lead to high over lime engagement to man, the duty locations during leave and off. Besides, the Operators coming in General shift would be under utilized and will not be utilized for production purposes.

This changed position calls for a relook at the approach

to the 4-group shift system.

3.1.4 The 7-group shift system would allow shift changes every 2-days as against the present 6-days continuous shift work before weekly off. This ensures adequate rest to the Operators.

4.5 It was observed during the,visits to the four Power Plants of NTPC (Talcher & Kaniha) that they have been following 4-group shift pattern. The same is also followed In most of the other NTPC Plants in the country. The Ib Thermal Power Plant also follows a 4-group shift system while the Captive Power Plant of INDAL, Hirakud follows 3-group system.

3.1.5 The present six Units of the Captive Power Plant, Angul are being developed for automatic process control system and the two new Units being set-up soon, would be fully automated. Thus, there would be considerable^ reduction in the manpower since the requirement would not be related to duty locations. The Management therefore could not agree to the proposed 4-group shift system.

3.2.0 The main contentions of the workmen were that:

4.6 The work locations very from Plant to Plant depend- ing upon their Plant lay out ar|d technology. Besides, all the Units visited have a high flexibility in deployment of Operators. In the process, the Management decides Which duty locations are to be manned, clubbed or to be left un- manned if so needed. The over time duly engagement is! absolutely minimal and need based^Tho major duty locations are more or less same in all Plants including NALCO CPP.

3.2.1 The 3-group shift system does not provide adequate rest neither between the shifts nor during \vc;kly off. Tho continuous 6-day work in shifts pose health problem end speaks upon their functional efficiency.

1.2.2 They had been complaining about this since 1991 without any positive response from the Management. They also threatened self immolation in protest to the apathv of the Management. However, the latter assured to consider the 4-aroup shift system proposed by the workmen iiuid the agitation was stalled.

4.7 On perusal of the documentary evidence adduced and the statements of the witnesses it ia abundantly clear that out of 42 manning locations, in NALCO CPP, tome are left unmanned on several occasions, some are managed on over time duty and some are looked after by the duty. Engineers and shift Supervisors a" and when there was heavy absenteeism. This decision on manning and otherwise is¹, taken by the shift management M Ex-X indicates tho, important and less important duty Iocationi, 3.2.3 The 7-group system i"r not an appropriate substitute to the 4-groun system which is in vogue in NTPC Power Units and which gives sufficient rest to the Operators during shift, changes and on weekly off.

4,a Thus It can be rsfely concluded that the i\Iarta."rnvTit can locate some lcra important duty positions which cm be either withdrawn or combined with other locations withii.it adversely affecting tho Plant operations or cimsing hardshin to the concerned Operators,

5.0 On the basis of the above observations and uttnreciption

of the evidence, following conclusions are drawn '.

3.2.4 The 7-group system involves frequent shift changes and the Operators have to work with different sets of colleagues &*\d different duty locations every f'me Ihe shift change takes place. This affects group cohesion and lead to bad work culture. Besides, there would be more wastage of time for a larger number since two groups have to be present In each shift and also to be assigned- duty every day.

5.1 The present 3-group shift sy;.tem in NALCO CPP does not provide adequate rest to the Operators leading to faticuo and having adverse effect on their health and efficiency.

3.2.5 The 4-group shift pattern is already in practice in, certain departments of the CPP as also in Smelter Plant, Angul without posing any difficulty.

5.2 The 7-group system although allows adequate rest, is combursome In actual implementation. Furiher, with the change in the stand of the workmen before arbitration pro- ceedings and keeping in view of their strong objection to tMo system proposed by the Management, a lelook is called for in favour of the 4-group shift system, 3.2.6 The workmen did not press the Industrial Dispute before Adjudication in 1991 because of the positive a"suranco of the Management, to settle the dispute amicably. The present Arbitration is in continuance of the nbove dispute BS persued by the workmen.

4.0 Appreciation of the contentions :

5.3 Authorised, unauthorised and forced absence of Operators from duty is inescapnble as evident from the data submitted by the Management on daily deployment of Operators and over time duty engagement etc. h\ such a situation, unless there is some provision for leave reserve in the man power plan, over-time engagement in certain loca- tions becomes a compulsion. Therefore, lenvc rescue has to be provided.

4.1 It is clear from the evidence adduced by both parties that adequate rest is not available to the Operators, parti- cularly after performing duty continuously for six nichts under the present shift system. Eight hour rest available between end of 'C shift and beginning of next 'R' shift is further curtailed bv more than 15—20 minutes before the Operator of the "C shift is relieved from. duty. This is *n Inherent problem in the present system of duty allocation and needs to be looked into. The Chief Manager (Operation) MW2 admitted that the health of the Operators is affected due to lack of rest under continuous 6-days night shifts.

5.4 It is to be noted In the present content that increase in the existing strenirth of 168 is undesirable (in the face of introduction of autornPtic control system! Therefore, to provide kavc rererve. adjustment of present mirin'nj locations should be appropriate.,

4.2 The 7-group shift system wouW no doubt provide longer hours of rest because of shift change every 2 divs and consequently reduce fatigue. This is. however, observed as ," combursome system where two groups of Operators would be required on duty at a time in each shift nnd (ire to bo allocated duty. The time taken in relieving at the end of the shift would invariably continue to cause delay.

5.1 A 4-fTouri ihift sy^em n* PT'"ts i'n c'he- P o vv Plants like NTPC should also be appreciate for NALCO CPP, considering t'mt NTPC has fathered wide experience from their several Units over a Ioig per;nd on the conveniences and othonvise of this shift system followed in their Units.

6.0 On tbe basis of Uw abcvc conclusion, I surest tbt following 4 6.1 2 12 1 4 6 11 15 Dr.te 5 & 3 7 10 13 14 16 9 17 A B B A C C O G C G i o u p- 1 B C

G

13

B C

C

0

E

Group—2

C

C

A

o

A B

O

A

B

G

Group --3 Group—4

G A

A n c u

21

19 20

22

18

Dkte

11

G A

1

0

A Gioup

B

C

B

A A

1

Group—

C 0

C

B B

-3

Group-

A

G

C C O

4

Group—

A -Morninr; shift

B — Fveninj ^bift

C — Night shift

G — General shift

0 — Weekly off

C A B

A B

A

O

C 0 A D

C

A

A B B

O A A O

C

C G

C O A

C

C

R R

C G A

R

29

26

28

25

27

30 31 23 24

C

G

A

A

B B C

0

A

G

B

O

A A

B B C C

A

C

A

B B

0 G

C C R

G

G

0 O A

R

C

A

6.2 The opciation duty locations to be cdjustcd/combincd as suggested below :

6.2A Work loeatiens (Existing per shift)

01

03

01 Boiler— Bowl Mill-

01 Air pre-heatcr

01

01 01 ESP BFP MOT

Total 6 x 5Umls-3O

5 2B

02

01 01 Common locations : CT AWPH

01 CWPH

01

03

01

02

01

01

01

, 01 FOPH ASPH New compressor House (NCH) CH-I CH-n CH-HI Ryect Conveyor (R/C)

12 Total

Adjust ment/combinaticn suggested (per shift)

02

Considering the locational proximity of Air pro-heater & jobs involved, responsibilities can be shared by the Boiler & Bowl Mill Operators or as decided by the Management.

01

01

01

T o t al 5 x5 Units = 25

01

01

01

03

01

01

01

Nil

(to be combined wilh Bowl Mill)

09955 6.3 Thus the locations reduced are :

(A)OJ + (B)O3-O8 per rfuft

Bastar Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (HMS) 2'B, New Colony, P.O. Kirandul, Distt. Bastaf.

/ Applicant

Versus The total duty l<>:itloni will now be 42—08™ 34. Tho Operators engase&oigainsf the OS location* arc thus available AS iprfe for leave reserve. No oft rtierve h required under the 4-group "ysUm. The deployment of Operators will be det'dtd by he Management on the ciitJcnlity of the shift operations.

J6.4 The Management should ensure that no more than 15 minutes is spent in the normlo courte, for allocating relieving Operators dyring shift changes.

The General Manager, Bailadila Iron Ore Project, Dep. No. 14, P.O. Kirandul, Distt. Bastar. Non-applicant AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of January, 2001.

1. Ihe Government of India, Ministry of Labour \)dz OKIU No. J.-26012!13|86-D.in dated 25-6-87 Ins referred the follovving dispute for adjudication by this tribunal.

6'.5'Under the 4-group shift sy&tem the Opeintorq coming In the" General shift duty are to be fully utilized for their •kill ami. sacral development fit least on two such shifts in H month. Th^ remaining General *hifta Irj the month should Jbe, utilized for maintenance. House keeping and other ancillhry and related activities to keep r ^ Operatros act;-wc ftnfl gatafWly utilized. An appropriately d cumented plan on General nhift functions should be drawn up by the Manap*- merit and communicated to the concerned workmen and Engineers in the Operation Department.

"7.0 Speedy and smooth implementation of thfo A'vM ".hp'1 Bo the Joint responsibility of the Management, the Workmen •nd their Unions who are parties to thia Tndu'4rinl Dispute.

BRAJA KISHORE MISRA, Arbitrator

Bhubtneswar

29-01-2001

"Whether the dtmand Of the Workman Shri S. R. Yadiiv Ex. Light VehJc^.Dnver now maintenance asstt. that the suspension order dated 1-5-84 and punishment . im- posed vide order dated 24-8-84 oa "him should be withdrawn b$ tie management of Bailadila Iron Ore Project, Kirandul is fair and justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled ?" New Delhi, the Nth February 2001

2. Tho case for the workman is that on 11-7-70, he was appointed as light vehicle driver by the General Manager, Bailadila Iron, Ore Project, Distt. Bastar (MP) and jofned his services on 10-8-70. Tlnoughout his service record was unblemished and tc the rntiifaction of the superiors of the manage- ment. On 1-5-84, he was placed under suspension by the General Manager, Bailadila (expansion) for the charge of driving, the management's, jeep rashly and negligently and thereby damaging the same by dashing against the ambulance coming from -the oppo- site side. The jeep was completely damaged and the workman and other passengers w,ere_ also injured in {lie accident. The chaigcs of misconduct were framed against the workman and the regular Depart- mental Enquiry was conducted against him, • The Enquiry Officer held him guilty of the. charge Of the Disciplinary Authority removed him from service by accepting the report of Enquiry Officer. The En- quiry was nor conducted properly as he was not Riven any defence Assistant to defend his case.

S.O, 453.^-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabal- pur as shown in the Annexvre in the Industrial De- pute between the employers in relation to the mana- ment Bailadila Iron Ore Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2001.

[No. L-260l2|13|86-D.III]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Catee No. CGIT|LC|R|9&|87 Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

3. The workman further alleges that the suspen- sion order oassed b> the G. M. Bailadila (Expen- sion) was illegal as he was not his disciplinary autho- rity. The charges were vague and therefore it was not possible to put up the explanation, properly. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry and relied upon the alleged acceptance of the guilt by the workman. The Enquiry, Officer should have examin- ed the witnesses of the prosecution and than he should have given his finding in respect to the charges levelled against the workman. Tho appellate authority aho did not apply its mind and maintained the order of Disciplinary Authority. The alleged occurance was also reported to police and the challan was put against the workman and the court acquitted him of the charge. In this way the en- quiry conducted by the management is not just and Shri S. R. Yadav, Through Secretary, 494 Oi|2001—15

^956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001/PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(il)] proper and the order of removal passed by the Disci- plinary Authority deservies to be set aside. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

4. The case for the management is that the work- man was driving jeep No. MPS-2084, belonging to the management, rashly and negligently and there- fore by driving the said vehicle on the road he dash- ed against ambulance coming from the opposite side causing total loss of the jeep. The matter was also reported to the police regarding the occurence and the case was registered against him. The workman was suspended for his said misconduct and the chargesheet was issued to him. He submitted his explanation which was not found satisfactory and accordingly the DE was conducted against him. The Enquiry Officer gave him ample opportunity to de- fend his case. Several adjournments were given on his' reqwst in order to enable him to defend himself properly. During the course of enquiry, he volun- tarily accepted the charges in writing and prayed for lesser punishment. On his voluntary admission, the Enquiry Officer did not think it proper to examine the prosecution witnesses. He submitted his enquiry report and held the charges proved against the work- man The Disciplinary Authority accepted the en- quiry report and passed the dismissal order dated 24-8-84. The workman preferred the appeal against this order before the proper authority who rejected the same after due consideration. Thereafter the workman lfiled a mercy appeal and taking the human consideration, the management gave the fresh ap- pointment to him. He accepted this fresh appoint- ment pnd his continuing in the employment.

5. The management further alleges that the enquiry was properly held and the admission of the workman was not obtained by the management by exer- cising any inducement Or threat on him. The ad- mission of the workman was perfectly legal and there- fore the enquiry officer had accepted the same :>nd aded on it in a legal manner. The defence of tiic workman js an after thought which cannot afford any benefit to him. In view of all these reasons, the order of suspension and rtmoval from service are peifecdy legal and proper which do not require any intciference by this tribunal.

6. The following issues have been framed in this case and my findings therein are noted below :—

1. Whether the domestic|departmental en- quiry is proper and legal.

2. Whether the punishment awarded is pro- per and legal.

3. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribunal?

4. Whether the tcrmination| action taken against the working is justified on the facts of the case?

5. Relief and costs ?

7 t^ue No 1 2 : My learned predecessor has held on 10-11-98 the DE conducted by the management as just and proper In view of this finding these issues need no further consideration at all.

R. Issues No. 2 & 4.—It is an admitted fact that on 3G-4-S4, the woikman wab driving jeep No. MPS~ 2084, belonging to ihe management which had daslv ed against the ambulance coming from the opposite side. The jeep was badly damaged and could not be repaired. The workman was charged viith miscon- duct for driving vehicle dashly and negligently and causing total loss to the jeep by dashing it against the ambulance coming from the opposite side. Du- ring the course of enquiry, the workman had volun- tarily admitted the commission of alleged guilt. He filed an application praying for lesser punishment. On his voluntary admission, the Enquiry Officer did not think it just and proper to examine the witnesses for prosecution during the enquiry proceeding. The workman never objected to it. From the record, it appears that the workman was neither induced by the management to admit his guilt nor any threat was given tc him to obtain his admission in respect to the commission of misconduct. The Enquiry Offi- cer rightly accepted his confession and acted on it properly. On this very admission, the charges were held to be proved against the workman.

9. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of DE after carefully examining the materials available on record. I do not find any legal infirmity in con- curring with the findings of the enquiry officer by the Disciplinary Authority. His conclusion is based on sound and cogent reasons and therefore does not require any interference. The workman had also preferred an appeal against this order and the Ap- pellate Authority rejected his appeal after due con- sideration on the facts and evidence on record. The findings of both these authorities are perfectly legal and do not suffer from any lacuna. The workman had voluntarily confessed his guilt and therefore the enquiry officer rightly held the charges proved against him and the award of punishment of removal from service is perfectly legal and justified. Issues No. 2 & 4 are answered accordingly.

m 10. Issue No. 5 : On the reasons stated above the award of punishment of removal from service as well as the order of suspension passed during the Department enquiry proceedings against the workman by the management are perfectly" le

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

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 14tb February, 2001 S.O. 454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihe In- dustrial disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 194/), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in the Aruiexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2001.

[No. L-42012|l!91-IR(Misc.>] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Caw No. CGIT|LC|R|128|91

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

Shri Ravi Kumar Mattiur, Chowkidar, Central Ware House Corporation Quarters, Phafacih, Raipur —Applicant.

Versus

The Regional Manager, Central Ware Housing Corporation, 52-53, Amar Niwas, New Market, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. ' -^Non-applicant.;

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of January, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide cider No. L-420l2|l|91-IR(Misc) dated 26-6-91 has referred¹ the, following dispute for adjudication by tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Cen- tral Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Bhopal in imposing a penalty of dis- missal of srvices-w.e.f. 30-11-89 on Shri Ravi KumaT Mathur chokidar, C.W.C. Raipur II is legal and justified 7 If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that he was posted as chowkidar in Central Ware Housing Corporation, Raipur. The duties of the chowkidar arc enumerated in the Corporation's directives as under :—

2. To attend to watch and ward duty at points assigned including counting ot Dujis Demg loauea|unloaded at the Warehouse.

3. To attend to gatepoint| weighbridge points and to keep an account oi mcoroing|ou>£pmg consignment alter rallying with uuefc-cruv- gate pass aind maintenance of gate register.

4. To assist in disinfestation work whenever re- quired.

5. To carry official dak whenever required.

6. To perform such other work as may be assigned.

J. inc Ware nousc Ivianaya' Sim i*. t_. Vcrma was iu^iiux^v Lu iMt- "y a i t i u u u^ uV A J - A V J - O /. O UC riuulr uinuiiiw-i i m a i, i i u iv AAUiiiv oioiaiaUi. U i a u c - j, Wai liiSO uifcwfc. iuiu vtiuy me ICVCILH wei&umcjui utuvtiy tic. CMIU xian ojjtUiKtr r'liim uas i x tu ui^cuaigcu ou me mie&uj liL^ayjjio^iiuuun ox rauiioicui wii tuis iluxn- m-iiUg QOU. me wuiKmau nas uwen uupucjued raiswy ior me miegca uus^unuuci cum puiuwita Dy me oilier ot Ojsnnbt>ai nom service waicn is ntitacr legai nor uuseu on .ne luCts tuia ciicuniiLimcu^ or me Citsc. tie Qua never couuoeo wiin uie wtue nousie iviaimger 6im r. C Vernia in misappiopnaung bOO tins ot pairnoiem oil on 23-10-87 and causing loss to the Management, iherc was no mistake m counting of paimoicin oil tins in loaded or unloaded in the Waie- nousc L>y tne workman. He had properly maintained the gale register and made the entries properly attci lallying wun truck chit and gate passes. He was never entrusted with the 660 tins of palmoleui oil as alleged by the management. In the absence of such cptrust- ment, the charge of misappropriation cannot be levelled against him.

4. The workman further alleges that he and Ware- house Manager Shri P. C. Verma were charged together tor the alleged misconduct. The enquiry was never conducted jointly against him by the management. The charges were not properly explained to him. The En- quiry Officer was based and therefore he held Hari Shanker Fillai as not guilty who was responsible lor the actual maintenance of the stock by virtue of being godown incharge. The workman has been wrongly held guilty for the alleged misappropriation of 660 tins of palmolein oil. On 25-10-87, a trucks having 660 tins of oil in each arrived in the Warehouse and were entered in the gate register by the workman. It was also duly verified and certified by the surveyor. The godown incharge also did not report against the work- man regarding the misappropriation of 660 tins of palmolein oil. On 2-11-87, the verification was done and the charge regarding empty tins alleged to be brought on 25-10-87 was framed against him. The finding of the enquiry officer is based on suspension only. He is not liable for the goods kept in the go- doNvn. The charge has not been proved against him on the evidence adduced by the management. Hence tlic. punishment of dismissal atwarded by the manage- ment deserves to be set aside. He is entitled to re- instatement with other consequential benefits attached to this post.

Enquiry Repeat does pot disclose that the Enquiry Ouicer had given his findings-on the charges on no evidence on iccord. It is also not disclosed that the con- clusions ot the Enquiry Officer arg based on hypo- hesis only and not on the basis, ot evidence available on record. In such a circumstance, it will not be pro- per for this tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence adduced during the Departmental Enquiry proceedings. I do not find that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is purverse.

9. This tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over the finding of the Enquiry. Officer. The appellate Autho- rity had adso agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Ouicer and accordingly workman's appeal was rejected by him. The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer u fully based on the material available on record. Hence no interference is required by this court. This view is suppoited by Supreme Court cases (7) 11996 Page-509, State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramaniam, AIR- 1988-SC-37-Christian Medical College Hospital Em- ployees Unions case.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions it is held that the charges of misconduct had been properly proved on the facts of the case during the Enquiry Proceedings, Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly^ 5. The cesefar the management i&that the workman, while runcuqnmj as cnowiuuar at the Central Wore Housing coipoiufuon, Raipur in tue year 1987 wuh tne Waic House Managei aim Jf. C. Vexma andH&T contractor ana nusappiopriated 660 uns ot palnaoiein oil lit 2D-1O-S7. We made ialse entry in uie gate register showing receipt ot this tins in the gale at 2j.lb hours on 2o-li>-87 and clindestmely Drought 653 empty tins, 10 ot which were not ot SIC Panno- lein ou and concealed in the stock no. 213 by shitting the some or stock in stock no. 8 & 9 of gotlown M-3iJ in the early hours of 20-10-87 to make up the shortage By the said act of the workman the Corporation was put to a loss of Rs. 2,97,000. On receiving the in- tonnation trom SIC, Bombay their surveyor had in- formed that 655 tins of pahnoiein oil were found com- pletely empty on 31-10-87 in the sadd godown at Kaipur. lhe matter was enquired into and 655 empty palmblein oil tins were found without caps in godown M.3B> On this basis chargesheet dated 10-5-86 was issued. The statement of allegations and other docu- ments were also issued to the workman to explain bis defence. The explanation of workman was not found satisfactory audvtherefore the DE was conducted against him. The enquiry was properly conducted and the sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to put up his defence. After examining the evidence and other materials on record, the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The show cause iioticc was issued to the workman and after considering his explanation, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal which is per- fectly just aQd proper. His appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority. In this way, the award of punishment given to the workman does not require any interference; The workmafn is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

6, Following issues have been framed in this case

and my findings thereof are noted hereinafter: —

1. Whether the enquiry is just, propar and legal?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead

evidence before this tribunal?

3. Whether the charges of misconduct are proved

11. Issue No. 4 : The Workman had voluntarily con- fessed that the shortage of 660 tins of pahnoiein oil was detected during his duty hours. He could not ex- plain the shortage satisfactorily before the Enquiry Officer and therefore his defence plea was rejected by him. This shortage has necessarily caused substantial financial loss to the management. The workman waa holding rt sensitive post of chowfcidar and his duty was to protect the property of the Corporation. He failed to discharge his duty with sincerity and deligence. His action wa^ in a manner which is unbecoming of an em- ployee. The management has accordingly lost confi- dence in him. In view of this fact, no management cadi employ such Employee whose action is detrimental to its interest. In the circumstance of the present case, the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman does not appear to be disproportionate or excessive hence the finding on this point also docs not require any interference.

on the facts of the case.?

4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and

legal?

12. Issue No. 4 : The punishment of dismissal is accordingly held to be proper and legal. Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.

5. Relief and costs?

7, Issues No. 1 & 2 : On 17-1-96, my learned pre- decessor has held the Departmental enquiry conducted against the workman as just and proper. In view of this finding, they need no further consideration.

13. Issue No, 5 : On the reasons stated above, the workman is not entiled to reinstatement with all back wages and other financial benefits as claimed by him. The reference JS accordingly answered¹ in the favour of the manageiocnet and against the workman.

14. Copy ot the award be sent to the Govt, of

India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O. 455.—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 Govt. Industiral Tribunal-cum-vLabour Court, Jaipur (Rajasthan) us shown in the Annexure, in the indust- rial dispute between the employers in relation to the Hindustan Copper Ltd. and their workman which" wWs received by the Central Government on 2-2-2001.

[No. L-43012/8/99-IR(M)]

i • B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

"Whether the action of the management of Khetri Copper Complex, Khetri Nagar, in terminating the services of Shri Jagat Singh vide order dated 8-2-93 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"WO J f'tttfi GAZETTE OF INt"A : "MARCH 3, 2001/PHAI^UNA 12,1922 (J"AIIT 1 1 ^ 3^ 3{il)i 961 New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O. 456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (U of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure in ihc Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 12-2-2001.

fNo, L-22012|357|97-IR(C-rl)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Sri Syed Abdullah B.Sc., B.L, Industrial Tribunal-I.

Dated, 19th day of December, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 4 of 1999

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, S.C., tillers As^clation (SAAJAC), 19-1-112/1, Markandey Colony, Godavaiikhani-505 209.

.. Petitioner.

AND

The General Manager f P), Slngareni Collieries Company, limited, Kothagudem-507 101.

., Respondent.

APPEARANCES :

Sn K. Vasudev Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner.

M/s. J. Partha Sarathy, V. Hariharan and A. Chandrasekhar, Advocates for the Respondent962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001/PHALGUNA 12,1922 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Govwnmwit of India, Ministry ol1 Labour, New Delhi

fcr its order No. L-22012|337|97-IR (C-U) dt 18-11-99

referred th"-foUp.wing,. Industrial Dispute under Section

10(l)(d) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether,the action of the management of SC.C Ltd.,

Kothajudem in not ptying HRA/CCA at the rate

of 10 per cent of the basic pay to the eligible em.

ployeu working in Ctaq C towns tuch as

Kothagudem, Rajnagundara and Bellampalll and in

not giving 5 metora cloth .onco fa every si* monthi

to coal fillers for using ai Head Gear below the

Bamboo Banket are justified? It not, what relief

the workmen are entitled 7"

Both parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings.

2. The Prettdent of Slngarenl CoUieii"" Company Fillers

Association (SAAJAC) Oodavarikhanl filed claims state-

ment. The averments made in it are as follows : The

association approached the management for redressal of

their grievance. A* there was no response, a strike notice

was limed. Thereafter conciliation was made which ended

in failure. 16 Demands were raised by the petitioner-union

out of which 2 demands were referred.

required foi coal fillers for using us Head- gears lift the coal Ex. W4 is the proceedings Issued by Western Coal Held for payment of 10 per cent of basic pay rus HRA. lix. W5 is tlic implemcnlation instruction No. 46 dated 2h-8-l>3 issued by JBCCl nnd hx. W6 ]!> the pflice i.i.moundum d.ited J 4-^-93 issued by Government of India and as per Annexure, 'C Class Cities, arc noted. Hx. W7 is the cht.pter V of memorandum of agreement of NCWA 5 agreeing to pay 10 per cent of HRA/CCA as compensa- tion. E\. WS is the chapter 8 of NCWA 5. Ex. W9 is the circular dated 11-11-89 prescribing 10 per cent ot basic pay to the employees wpiking in 'C Class Cities. The workeis bre being p.iid Rs. 60 us consolidated HRA/CCA which is hot sufficient. 'I he employees woikinjj at Hyderabad and New D"lhi .ire being paid HRA/CCA eis per agreement.

8. A-. ug'iinst the above evidence of the union, the manage- ment was examined its Sr. Peisonnei Officer who deposed that the management has entered into ajjieemcnt with the recognised union on 21-2-2000 covered bj^ Ex. Ml agreeing to pay HRA and CCA with effect from 1-1-2000 which is beinif implemented as per Ex. M2 circular dated 1-6-2000. So (his issue need not be adjudicated at all. Regarding Demand No. 2 the safety helmets, footwear, caplamp and briskets for loading the coal are provided to the workers which tare compulsory. Supply of 5 Meters headgear cloth is not ttwde in any rule. Wearing of turban or headgear U ;>n option and individual convenience which lms nothing to do with the safety metimre';. Ex. M3 is the DGM's Instructions about providing safety helmets. As on 31-3-2000 the coin- puny has accumulated loss of Rs. 637 crores. In the said pircuniFtarces, the demand is not justified.

9. The dispute covered¹ by the refeience relates to two demands: (h for payment of HRA/CCA at the rate of 10 per cenf of basic pay to the eligible employees woikinp in 'C Class towns namely Kothagudem, RamJgundam and Bellampalli nnd (2) not providing 5 Meters cloth once in levciy fi months to the coal fillers for using as Head Gcur ibelow the Bumboc Basket

the head or on their sholudors by protecting with cloth. On the other hand the management's advocate strong objection is that throughout India there arc several coal mines and in lespect of pioviding safety measures etc., statutory iules and ciicLihirs are issued fiom Lime to lime at the National Level utter taking into consideration of the grievance of the unions and in respect of this demand no such issue was raised by any of the unions except the petitioner-union of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and in the absence of any specific provision for in the rules and circulars, the management cannot be compelled to yield to the demand.

13. Ex. M3 D.G.M.S. Circulars are relied to show that considering the hazards in the work, safety measures are provided to the coal fillers for carriyng the load on their heads. So also some alternatives are provided which are to be followed and other than the instructions given in Ex. M3, the management cannot be compelled to do so. In Ex. M3 under heading 'CMR 191A/MMR 182A of item 2 : in respect of use of safety helmets by loaders, the following guide lines are given :

2. Use of safety helmets by loaders :—Some difficulty has been experienced to enforce the statutory requirements in case of tho loaders, who carry loaded baskets on heads. The loaders seem to find it difficult to adopt themselves to (he helmets with the head loads.

There appear to be following three alternatives to solve the problem of loaders.

(1) The loaders should be provided with helmets fitted with adjustable chin straps. They should put on the helmet when actually not carrying a head load, but while they arc engaged in carrying such loads, they may remove the helmet from the head and throw it over on to their backs.

(2) The loadeis change tho mode of carrying the load by the putting it on their shoulders, and wear the helmet with a chin strap to permif it from falling off their head while carrying the shoulder loads, (3) The head load to be carried over the top of the head with a ring type of padding perimnently fixed to the helmet ("by means of soft wire like used detonator loads) serving to provide a 'seat' for the basket. Tn this cns" a band of cloth may bo tied around the forehead to provide a cushion between the helmet and the forehead.

hv n^ -^ ?;v en u n, ^r mv ^f l n^ p n r) ( 1 i <- ^^ nf 1 f i.r Tribunal OT thk the 19th day of D u m b er ?HO0.

Documents marked for the Petitirr.ici- : *

PRRSENT :

Sri P. Gurunudha Rao, B.Sc., B.L.,

Chairman-cum-Prcbiding Oflker IX WI Certificate of refistmtiun of Tiad- Union of Singaieni Coliiciics r jllcrs. A suel.itton, Mand.ini:nii dt. 30-4-Jyy4.

Ex. W2 Strike NofiLe issued by the union on 18-4-97.

Tuesday, the 16th Day of January, 2001 Lv WI Minutes of Conciliation held on 18-5-97.

Industrial Dispute No. 53 of 1998 h,x. W4- Piocecdmns issued on 15-3-HI4 foi grant of 1-1KA

BETWEEN :

and CCA.

Ex. W5 Tmplemcnltaion Instruction No 4(i in ciicuLu dt. 26-8-91 uhout giant of house icnt nllowancc and C CA to 'C Class towns.

l\. W6 Office Mi-moranilum dt. 14-5-93 issued by the Govei-nmfnt o. Indij it'giirding cUissilicalion of cities in Tndia.

Fx W7 Chaplci 5 of NCWA-V (xeiox copy).

Nakka Satyanairayana, S|o Rarnulu, Age 48 years, Occ : Mining Sardar in RK-5 Incline, S.C. Co. Ltd., Ramakrishnapur Division-Ill, R[o. Or. No, Spl. C-90, R.K. Colony, C.C.C. Naspur, R|m Mancherial, Dist. Adilabad.

. .. Petitioner Ex. WK Chapter 8 of NC WA

AND

1. The General Manager,

Ex. W9 Circular of implementation instructio'i issued on 11-11-K9 ;ibout implemenlation of the wuge slructuic and other provisions of NCWA-1V dt. 27-7-N9.

Documents rrurkrd for the Respondent :

Rumakrishnapur, S. C. Co. Ltd., Ramakrishnapur, Dist. Adilabad.

2. The Colony Manager,

Kx. Ml Circular dt 24-2-20W) enclo-ing Memorandum of settlement dt. 2l-2-20ft0 about 44 demands.

Ex M2 Circular dt. 1-6-2000 .ibout payment of HRA at 10 per cent basic pav to the employees posted to work in 'C Class Towns as per NCWA-V dt 21-2-2000.

RK-5 Incline, S. C. Co. Ltd., Ramakrishnapur Division-Ill, Post: C.C.C. Naspur-504208, Dist. Adilabad. . .. Respondents V,\. Ml D.G.M CiicuLrs leparding me of safety helmets

by loaders etc.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C.S.N. Reddy, Advo- " c:rte for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date the court passed the fol- lowing :— j,

AWARD

J. This is a reference by the Central Govern- ment; The claimant was suspended for the periods (' I) 20-9-93 to 29-9-93, (2) 19-12-93 to 28-12-93, and (3) 26-8-96 to 4-9-96. The claimant filed state- ment stating that the chargesheet dt. 18-9-93 was issued imposing punishment of suspension from 20-9-93 to 29-9-93 for violation of coal mines regu- kiti'ons 441 (b), 443(a) and 44 (8). New Delhi, the J 4th February, 2001

S.O. 457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

It is further stated that in the reference dated 17-12-93 it was alleged that he did not handover charge to his successor on 11-12-93 and imposed punishment of suspension from 19-12-93 to 28-12-93.

It is further stated that in another reference

dated 24-8-96, the claimant was imposed punish- ment oj suspension from 26-8-96 to 4-9-96.

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes Ihe Award of (he Indusfial TribunaljLabour Ccurt, Godavari-, khani as shown in the Annrvure in th. Tiriist '."• 'H's- pute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of SC.C.L. and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 13-2-2001,

N. P KOSAVAN, Desk Officer

The claimant was not paid wages for the said periods of suspension. The misconduct alleged against the claimant was not established. The clai- mant was not given opportunity to defend himself.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIPMAN. TNDUSTRTAT TRTBTTVAl-CDM-LABOUR COURT GODAVARTKH \NT

2. Respondents filed counter stating that the claimant was suspended from 20-9-93 to 29-9-93 because he allowed fillers to fill the coal tubs under965 unsupported roof and violated coal mines regula- tions 441 (b), 443(a) and 44(8). Thej claimant was suspended for 10 days according, to the regu- lation 41(10).

It is further stated that the claimant was sus- pended from 19-12-93 to 28-12-93 beause lie left the mine on 11-12-93 without handing over charge ^o the reliever.

It is further stated that the claimant was suspen- ded from 26-8-96 to 4-9-96 because the claimant neglected his duties of inspection.

It is further stated that the claimant was sus- pended for 10 days each on three occasions when he violated the coal mines regulations, 1957. The claimant was working as Mining Sardar. He was responsible for the safety of the workmen. He did not care for the safety of the workmen in the first occasion. Coalfillers luckly escapped. On the second occasion, there was a fatal diccident in¹ the next shift of the claimant and the claimant did not handover charge to his successor. On the third occasion, the shift overman was se- riously injured in an accident when the claimant worked as Mining Sardar. The accident took place flue to negligence of the claimant, On all the three occasions, the Manager and Mining Inspector ap- bointed by the Government of India inspected the mine, made through enquiry and found the claimant guilty of violation of Coail Mines regulations. The manager in accordance with the powers conferred on him took action against the claimant to deter him not to jepeat such incidents,,

3. Ex.W-1 to Ex.Wll and Ex.M-1 to Ex.MJO arc marked.

4. Heard both sides.

i

5. The point for consideration is whether the suspension of the claimant for 10 days each on three occasions is illegal.

6. Point : Ex.WI is charge-sheet dt. 18-9-93. It shows that on 16-9-93 the claimant allowed fiUlers to fill under unsupported roof. A roof layer collapsed. Luckily coal-fillers escaped. The claimant was not available in his work place at that time. This amounts to violation of coal mines regulations 441 (b) and 443(a). He was suspended for 10 days- pending enquiry.

Ex.W-2 is order dt. 17-12-93. It shows that on 11-12-93 after the first shift, the claimant did not give charge to his successor. There was a fatal acci- dent in the second jshift. Enquiry was conduc- ted. The claimant was suspended for a period of ten days.

Ex.W-3 is order dt. 24-8-96. It shows that on 16-8-96, in the second shift, there was roof collapse in which one overman suffered injuries. On en- quiry, it was found that the claimant did not test the roof conditions properly and failed to arrange for re-erection of dislodged props. Therefore, the claimant was suspended for ten days.

There was enquiry preceding the orders dt. 17-12-93 and 24-8-96 and the claimant was found guiity. Therefore, trie punishment of suspension was in accordance with coal mines regulations 44(10).

There was stipulation for enquiry in the charge- sheet dt. 18-9-93. The claimant was suspended prior to the enquiry.

In the counter, it is stated that the Manager and Mining Inspector appointed by the Government inspected the mine, made through enquiry and found the claimant guilty of violation of coal mines regulations.

, The claimant hns not controverted this state- ment.

7. Ex.W-4 is letter dt. 3-10-96 from the Singa- reni Collieries workers union. The union represen- ted the case of the claimant because some other workers were paid wages even-though they were suspended for 10 days for similar mistakes.

The union represented against the suspension periods in 1993 and 1996. As far as the suspension periods 19-12-93 to 28-12-93 and 26-8-96 to 4-9-96, the punishment of suspension was preceded by enquiry, But the suspension from 20-9-93 to 29-9-93, was given pending enquiry and before enquiry. If there was no enquiry conducted, the union ought to nave ra'ised the dispute as early as possible, but not certainty three years after the punishment.

8. Ex.W9 is legal notice dt. 5-6-97. The claim- ant questioned his suspension for ten days each on three occasions two occurred in the, year, 1993 and one occurred in the year, 1996.

9. Ex.M-2 is enquiry proceedings with regard to the accident occured on 1J-J 2-93.

Ex.M-3 is enquiry report finding the claimant guilty.

Ex.M-7 is enquiry proceedings with regard to the incident occured on 16-8-96,

Ex.M~8 is enquiry report finding the claimant guilty.

Enquiry proceedings and enquiry report in res- pect of the charge-sheet dt. 18-9-93 are not filed by the management.

Counsel for the respondents represented that they are not traced.

10. The respondents were authorised to impose punishment of suspension for ton days each for the three incidents and it appears that the respondents966 THE GAZETTE 6F INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001 /PHALGUNA 12,1922 [PART It—SEC. 3jn)] imposed punishment of suspension of ten days each on three occasions after due enquiry. The first sus- pension was followed by enquiry.

I, therefore, consider that the suspension of the claimant on the three occosions was not illegal. Hence, 1 answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the reference i,s answered against the claimant holding that the suspension of the claimant for the period^ 20-9-93 to 29-9-93, 19-12-93 io 28-12-93 and 26-8-96 to 4-9-96 was not illegal. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to \v:igf s for the said peiod. No costs.

Type to my dictatioon, corrected and pronoun- ced by me in the open court on this, J 6th days of ju'nuaiy 2001.

P. GURUNDHA RAO, Chaiirman-cum-

Presiding Officer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses-examined

For Workman : Nil. For Management : Nil.

Exhibits :

For Workman :

Ex.W-1 dt. 18-9-93 Charge-sheet.

Ex.W2 dt., 17-12-93. Suspension Lr. No. RK5|7|93J3336 of the petitioner.

E.x.W-3 dt. 24-8-96 Suspension Lr. No. RK5| 719612245 of the petitioner.

Ex.W-4 dt. 3-10-96 Representation submitted to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) Mancherial by D.S. Rao, Viee-Presidcnt, Central Council.

Hx.W-5 dt. 15-2-97 Representation submitted to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C), Mimcherial by D. S. Rao, Vice-President, Central Council (xer. copy).

Ex.W-6 dt. 4-5-94 Warning letter issued to the petitioner by D.K. Saxena, Dy. Direc- * tor of Mines Safety, Hyderabad No. II.

Ex.W-7 dt. 28-8-96 Duty allowing letter of M. Posham, Mining Sardar, RK-5 Inc. SCCL (jeer. copy).

Ex.W-8 dt. 24-8-96 Suspension letter of M. Posham.

Ex.W-9 dt. 6-6-97 Legal notice issued by M. Narayana Reddy, Advocate, Mancherial (x. copy).

Ex. W-10 dt. 6-6-97 : Reference letter (xer.

copy).

Ex.W-11 dt. 4-J 2-98 Charge-sheet.

For Management :

Ex.M-1 dt. 17-12-93 Suspension letter of peti- tioner.

Ex.M-2 dt. 18-12-93 Enquiry proceedings held by the Mines Safety Officer.

Ex. M-3 dt. 18-12-93 : Enquiry report.

Ex.M-4 dt. 22-2-94 Lr. issued to the peti- tioner by D. K. Saxena, Dy. Director of Mines Safety, Hyderabad Region No. II with ack.

Ex.M-5 dt. 14-5-94 Warning letter issued to the petitioner by Colliery Manager, RK-5 Incline.

Ex.M-6 dt. 24-8-96 Suspension letter issued to the petitioner by Colliery Manager, RK-5 Incline.

Ex. M-7 dt. 24-8-96 : Enquiry proceedings held by the Sr. Under Manager of the Mine.

Ex. M-8 dt. 24-8-96 : Enquiry report.

Ex.M-9 dt. 18-9-93 Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-10 dt. 18-9-93 : Coal Mines Regulations 1957 fx-copy) Regulation No. 41(10).

New Delhi, the l-lih Febiuaiy, 2001

S.O, 458.—In puismmcc of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (,14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby .publisher the ^ward of the Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court, Godavarikhani, as shown in the Anncxure m the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L, and their workman, which was icceived by the Central Government on 13-2-2001.

iMo. L-22025[25[2000-IR(C-1I)]

N. P. KASAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, O0DAVAR1KHANI PRESENT :

Sii P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc,, B.L,,Chairman-cum- PresidinR Officer.

Tuesday, the 16th day of Tnnimry, 2001 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60 OP 1998 HI BETWEEN

The petitioner has not controverted this statement.

1, therefore, consider that this is not a case of termination

of the service of the petitioner.

ThalldpalliMogili, Slo. Mallaiah, Ex-Badli Filler, Kalyanlkhani 1-Incline, Emp. Code No. 2327898. C|o Sri K. Ramakiishna Rao, Woiking President, Andhra Pradesh Collieiy Mazdoor Sangh, (INTUC), PO: Godavarikhani, Distt. Karimnagar-505209.

. Petitioner.

The petitioner worked for 25 days in three months period, He has no right to demand the respondent for re-ftistate- ment since it is not illegal termination or retrenchment, Hence, 1 answer the point accordingly.

AND

In the result, the reference is answered against the claim- ant. The dis-empanellent of the claimant w.e.f. 1-10-93 is not illegal termination, Therefore, the claimant is not entit- led to iv reinstated into service. No costs.

llie General Manager, M|s. Singaicni Collieries Co. ltd,, Mandnmairi Area-504231. Distt. Adilabad.

. . Respondent.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 16th day of taiuary, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-PrcMding Officer

Appendix of Evidence This petition coining before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Chakrapani, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent ami having stood over for consideration till this date, the cuujt passed the following :—

AWARD

Witnesses Examined

Foi workman:— For Management: —Nil— —Nil—

EXHIBITS

1. This is a reference by the Central Government, The claimant was appointed as badli-filler, in the year, 1992, he fell ill. He underwent treatment m the respondent's hospital and also in private hospital. He was dis-empanelled w.e.f. J -3-93 without any enquiry,

For woikman:—

Ex. W-l dt, 3-7-97 Application of petitioner addressixl to the Asst. Labour Commissibner (Central^, Govt, of India, Luxettipct Road, Mancherial (xor copy).

For Management:—

Fx. M-1 dated 25-6-93 Copy of appointment order as

badli-filler on temporary basis.

Ex. M-2 dated Application of petitioner (xer.

copy).

Ex. M-3 dt 28-2-93 Copy of dis-empanelled order.

Ex, M-4 dated 28-2-93 Notice (xer, copy). 2, Respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner did not fllo any document to show that he was admitted in the company hospital in the year, 1992. He was very irre- gular in his duties. He was often absconding from duties. He had put-in 128 muster in 1980, nill musters in 1990, 56 musteis in 1991 and only 14 musters in 1992. It shows that the petitioner was not interested in doing job, as such he was dis-empanelled w.e.f. 1-3-93. The petitioner request- ed for re-cmpanelmcnt and the management considered the request of the petitioner and re-empanelled him for a period of 3 months from 1-7-9J to 30-9-93. The petitioner hart put-in only 25 musters in the said three months period. It ii further stated that the petitioner did not put-in 190 musters in any calendar years further stated since the em- panellment was temporary for a period of three months, ro notice was required to be given to the petitioner. It is fur- ther stated that since the petitioner was empanelled for a pericd of three months, there is no question of issuing charge-sheet and conducting domestic enquiry.

3. Ex. W-l and Ex. M-l to Ex, M-4 are marked.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point foi consideration is whether the disempanel- xnent of the claimant-petitioner w..cf., 1-10-93 amounts to illegal termination.

6. POINT : Ex. W-l is letter to the Assistant Laoour Commissioner. It shows that the petitioner was empaneleeld as badli filler from 1-7-93 to 30-9-93, The petitioner worfced for three months, but due to his health condition, he was under treatment in the Company Hospital. After that, he was not taken on duty.

It shows that the petitioner did not work even for three months, i.e., 90 days before he was discmpanelled from the service.

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001 7. Ex. M-l is office order dated 25-6-93. It -shows In at the petitioner was empanelled as badli-ffllcr for a period of three months fiom J-7-03 to 30-9-93.

S O. 459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Ex. M-2 is application of the.petitioner for re-empunell- menl as Brdli-nHer. The cndoisernent on the application shows that the petitioner had put-in 128 musters in 1989. •uil- musters in 1990, 56 musters in 1991 and 14 musters in 1992.

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Godavarikhani, as shown in the Annexure in tho Industrial Dispute between the ernploycrs in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2001.

[No. L-22025/25/2000-IR(C-II)l N. P, KESAVAN, Desk Officer Ex, M-3 is order dated 28-2-93, It shows that the peti- tioner had nut-in 14 musters in 1992 and therefore, ho was dis-empanelled w.e.f., 1-3-93,

ANNEXURE 8. The petitioner has not filed any document to shew

that he fell ill in the year, 1992 or in the year, 1993,

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

PRESENT:

9. Tt is stated in the counter that the petitioner had p'i-in only 25 musters from 1-7-93 to 30-9-93. Hence, the pet:- tioner was not re-empanelled after 30-9-93.

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.ScB.L., Chnirmnn-cum-Presiding Officer.

The petitioner has not controverted this statement.

It i" stated in th<" counter that the petitioner did not put in

190 musters in any calendar year.

Wednesday, the 10th day of Jannary, 2001 Industrial Dispute No, 84 of 2000968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001/PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [ I VT H—Sfic. 3(ii)l BETWEEN

K. Durcaiah, Coal Filler, ' Relay-A of Indaram Khan, I Incline, Sreerampur Projects Area, Rep. by D. S. Rao, Vice Picsident, Central Council, S.C. Workers Union (AITUC)/. Post Coal Chemical Complex, Sreerampur Area.

. - Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/b. S.C. Co. Ltd., Siecrampur Projects Area,

Adilabad Dist,

, . Respondent This petition coming before me for claim statement in the piescnce of Sri C.S.N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following:—

AWARD

Claim statement not filed. Claimant absent. Reference closed.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 10th day of January, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cnm-Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 14th Februaiy, 2001 S.O. 460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 19471, the Central Government hereby publishes the awaid of the Industiral Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikbani, as shown in the Anncxure ivi the Industrial Dispute between the cmeployers, in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and tbeir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2001.

[No. L-22O25/25/200O-lR(C-U)]

N, P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BFFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI PRESENT:

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

Wednesday, the 10th day of January, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 87 of 2000

BETWEEN

Thota Prasad, Radii Coal Filler, K. K. 5 Incline,

Mandamarri Division, Rep. by V. Seetharamaiah, Dy. General Secretary, SingXcni Collieries Woikers Union, Ramakrishnapur, Dist. 'Adilabad.

.. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. S.C. Co. Ltd., Mandamarri Division, Aililabad District.

. , Respondent This petition coming before me for claim statement in the piesence of Sri C. S, N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, the couit passed (he following:—

AWARD

Claim statement not filed. Claimant absent. Referenda closed.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this, the lOthi day of January, 2001.

P, GURUNADHA RAO, Chahman-cum-PrcDiding Officer New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001 S.O, 461.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court', Goduvarikhani, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government un 13-2-2001.

[No. L-22O25/25/2OOO-lR(C-II)l

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT :

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

" Friday, the l?th day nf January, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 100 of 1999969 BETWEEN

D. Subhash Babu, S/o Haiiumanlh Rao, Age 41 years, R /o Near Vani Vidysvihar, Telugu Medium, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani, District Karimnngar.

—Petitioner.

AND

1. The Colliery Manager.

GDK-3 Incline, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Godavarikhani,

It is further stated that two separate charge-sheets* were issued and two separate enquiries were con- ducted againsi¹ the petitioner. The petitioner partici- pated in both the enquiries. The petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer on 12-10-98 and also on 27-10-98. Then enquiry was conducted cx- parte. The petitioner mis-appropriated an amount of Rs. 44,542-96 paise.

Respondent No. 3 adopted the counter filed by R-l and R-2.

3. Ex. W-l to Ex. W-10 and Ex. M-l to Ex. M-35 2. Chief General Manager,

RG-I Area, Godavarikhani, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Godavarikhani, District! Karimnagar.

3. Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Dist. Khammani.

—Respondents.

This petition coming before me for final bearing in the presence of Sri S. Bhagavantlia Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consi- deration till this date, the court passed (tie following:

AWARD

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

Facts, of the case briefly are as follows :—

The petitioner was appointed as badli-filler in 1978. '

He was promoted as Fitfer-helper and further promot- ed as Fitter. He was entrusted with the canteen work. Charge-sheet was issued on 2-9-% alleging that he did not update the canteen registers and did not remit the sale proceeds from 1-4-98 onwards and shortage of an amount of Rs. 44,542-96 paise. Domestic en- quiry was conducted. The petitioner remained exparte. The petitioner was dismissed from the service on 23-2-99.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter stating that the petitioner was promoted as Fitter w.e.f. 1-8-00. The petitioner was entrusted with clerical duties. The petitioner and some others filed writ petition to absorb them as Clerical, Grade-II. Tihe petitioner was engaged as clerk in Welfare sect:on. Canteen was starred on 3-10-98 in GDK. No. 3 and entrusted the canteen to the petitioner. The petitions* maintained accounts for a few months and, thereafter, did riot maintain records properly. S.O.M.. asked the peti- tioner to handover the canteen and records to some other clerk, but the petitioner did nr* do sn. Charge- sheet was issued on 2-7-98. Explanation of fhe peti- tioner was not satisfactory. Domestic enquirv wa* conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and cross examined rhe management witnesses, Shnw- causc notice was issued to the petitioner. He submit- ted explanation to thp show-cause n'otrrv. The peti- tioner wns dismissed from tfhc service on 23-2-90,

T_ 4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is whether the charges against the petitioner are proved, if so, whe- ther the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from tlhe service is in proportion to the charges.

6. POINT.—Ex. M-6 is charge-sheet dated 2-7-98. First charge is that during the surprise spot check conducted by the internal audif department on 1-7-98, the petitioner did not show the records of the can- teen.

Second charge is that fhe petitioner took the re- cords of the canteen to bis house without permission.

Ex. M-l 5 is charge-sheet dated 2-9-98. First charge is that the petitioner did not update the canteen re- gisters and records.

Second charge is that he did not remit sale pro- ceeds from 1-4-98 onwards.

Third charge is that an amount of Rs. 44,542-96 paise was found short towards value of canteen pro- visions, cash and sale proceeds.

7. Ex. W-4 is explanation to the charge-sheet dated 2-9-98. The petitioner stated that! he was not work- ing as canteen clerk, but (he was looking after the works of the canteen partly in addition to his routine work in welfare office section. He further stated that he was entrusted with fhe canteen work additionally without proper guidance. He could not maintain re- cords upto-date. He could not maintain ledger and stock register up-to-date, but he continued to remit the sale proceeds regularly. In April, 98, he did not remit cash in time. It was lost. Audit check was con- ducted on 1-7-98. The records of the canteen were with him at his residence. He remitted cash of Rs. 19,445 and Rs. 5,752-40 paise on 2-7-98 and 6-7-98. He updated the records in the presence of audit staff. Shortage of material worth Rs. 41,598-86 paise occurred due to his negligence only.

Ex. M-10 is explanation to dharge-sheet*, dated 2-7-98, The petitioner stated that he was instructed to look-after the works of the canteen w.e.f. 3-10-97 in addition to his normail duties in welfare section. He failed to maintain the canteen records up-to-date and could nof produce the same before the internal audit staff as he took the records fe> fn's douse.

The petitioner admitted the Iwo charges levelled in fhe charge-sheet dated 2-7-98.

The petitioner admitted shortage of material worth Rs. 41,598-86 paise.

Tlhc petitioner stated fhat he lost Rs. 3,000.

Thus the petitioner admitted shortage of material worth Rs, 44,542.96 paise als mentioned in chaige No. 3 levelled in the charge-sheoi*, tinted 2-9-98.

8. Ex. M-ll is enquiry proceedings relating to the charge-sheet dated 2-7-1998.

Ex. M-12 is enquiry report.

Ex. M-2(S is enquiry proceedings relating to the charge-sheet dated 2-9-98.

Ex. M-27 is enquiry report.

9. The petitioner admitted that he did not main- tain the records up-to-date and he did not show the records to the internal audit party. The petitioner also admitted that he took the records to his house. The petitioner also admitted shortage of Rs. 44,542-96 paise.

The petitioner put-forth his defence; that he was looking after the canteen as additional charge and the shortage occurred due to his negligence.

I, therefore, consider that the charges against the petitioner are proved and fhe punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charges. Hence, T answer the point accordingly.

In the result, fhis petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is con- firmed. Each party do bear'their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in fhe open court on this, 12th day of January, 2001.

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

For workman—-Nil. For Management—Nil,

Exhibits

For workman :

Ex. W-l dt —Affidavit. Ex. W2 dt. 21-8-90—Copy of office-order.

Ex. W-3 dt. 7-12-98—-Reply to show-cause notice. \

Ex. W-4 dt. 14-9-98—Reply to charge-sheet* (xerox copy).

Ex. W-5 dt. 21-12-98—Letter addressed to ihe petitioner by General Manager, RG-T.

Fx. W-6 dt —Leave particulars of peti- tioner.

Ex. W-7_dC. 27-10-98—Request application of petitioner (xerox copy).

Ex. W-8 dt. 24-9-99—Application of petitioner.

Ex. W-9 dt. 9-11-99—Legal notice.

Ex. W-10 dt. —Applicatioi U/s. 12 Chanter IV of legal services authorities Act*, 1987 of petitioner,

For Management :

Ex, M-l dt. 31-3-91—Copy of affidavit in W.P. No. 4757/91.

Ex M-2

Ex. M-3 dt, 30-9-97—^Dismissal order copy in W.P. No, 4757/91.

Ex. M-4dt. 13-5-98—Regularisafion acting clerk call letter (xerox copy).

Ex. M-5 dt, 20-5-98—Attendance particulars of petitioner.

Ex. M-6 dt. 2-7-98-^Copy of 1st charge-sheet. Ex. M-7 dt. 2-7-98—Application of petitioner. Ex. M-S dt. 2-7-98—Copy of cash receipt. Ex. M-9 dt. 6-7-98—Copy of cash receipt.

Ex. M-10 dt. 9-7-98—Copy of reply to charge- sheet.

Ex. M-ll dt. 16-7-98—Enquiry proceedings (xerox copy).

Ex. M-12 dt. 17-7-98—Enquiiy report (xerox copy).

Ex, M-l3 dt, 23-7-98—Confidential infernal audit report (xerox copy).

Ex. M-14 dt. 18-9-98—Lr. issued to the peti- tioner for less cash remittance of sale pro- ceeds • (xerox copy).

Ex. M-l 5 dt, 2-9-98—2nd charge-sheet. Ex. M-l6 dt. 8-9-98—Lr. issued to the petitio- ner regarding shortage of provisions and sale proceeds of canteen.

Ex. M-l7 dt. 14-9-98—Reply to charge-sheet. Ex. M-l 8 dt. 18-9-98—Office-memo!

Ex. M-l9 dt. 16-9-98—Enquiry notice. Ex. M-20 dt. 22-9-98—Enquiry notice.

Ex. M-21 dt. 24-9-98—Application of petitio- ner.

Ex. M-22 dt. 25-9-98—Enquiiy notice. Ex. M-23 dt. 5-10-98—Enquiry notice. Ex. M-24 dt. 18-10-98—Enquiry notice, Ex, M-25 dt. 11-10-98—Application of petion- er requesting to implcad necessary parties.

Ex. M-26 dt. 5-10-98—Enquiry proceedings. Ex. M-27 dt. 29-10-98—Enquiry report. Ex. M-28 dt, 22-11-98—2nd show-cause notice. Ex. M-29 dt. 29-11-98—Acknowledgement. Ex. M-30 dt, 7-12-98—Representation of peti- tioner.

Ex. M-31 dt 21-12-98—Lr. issued to the peti- tioner by General Manager, RG Area-I.

Ex. M-32 dt. 23-12-98—Acknowledgement. Ex. M-33 dt. 25-12-98—Application of petitio- ner.

Ex. M-34 dt. 8-1-99—Representation to show- ' cause notice.

Ex. M-35 df. 23-3-99—Dismissal order.

Facts of the case briefly are as follows :—The petitioner was appointed as badli-filler on 1-10-1976. On 23-8-96, the petitioner met with accident on duty. He was mine sick from 23-8-96 to 19-12-96. On 11-4-97, he attended to work and expressed his inability to attend¹ to underground work. Two charges were framed against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from the service.

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O. 462.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Indus- Irial Tribunal, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annex- lire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their Workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 13-2-2001.

[No. L-22O25|25|20O0-IR(C-JI)] N. P. KliSHVAN, Desk Officer

The petitioner stated that the workmen were very kind enough that they simply afeked the workmen of fheir mine to protest against, the attitude of the management I'he petrkmcr went on to state that ac- tually he h.id not punr-'.i.d any workman to go on strike, but the workman i>,i hered their nnH discussed the issue.

It shows th.it the s'nlc v,n 11-4-97 was on account of the pei'itionei only, hut not on any otiiLi" issue.

Tf the strike was on any other issue, the petitioner would have mentioned it in his reply to charge-sheet on 18-4-97 itself and nothing; prevented him fjom putting h's det"jnce at the earliest opportunity.

I consider that the defence put foiwaid by the petitioner that the strike was not in his issue cannot be believed.

8. Ex. M-4 is enquiry proceedings. The petitioner abstained Kim the enquiry on 26-9-97. Sri K. Rajam, Sr. Under Manager, was examined. He stated that the petitioner met vwJi accident on 23-8-96 while on duty and suffered crush injuiy to his left ankle. He under- went treatment upto 27-12-96. The petitioner was provided surface job upto 31-3-97. The petitioner was given surface job for ten more days from 2-4-97 to 12-4-97, On 11-4-97, the petitioner attended to duty in first shift. He was informed that from 14-4-97 onwards, he had¹ to go for underground duties. Then the petitioner went to the office of S.O.M., General Manager along with other Trammers and requested to provide him surface job permanently. The petitioner instigated all the Trimmer" ind other Workman not to go down the mine in support of his demand till his, case was settled permpnen'iv bv rivinr him General Mazdoor iob. Accordirt'fly, the petitioner and other workmen struck vork from th? first rhift on 11-4-97.

Statement of Sri Hi. Narsainh, Head Overman was 1 consider that the punishment of removal of the petitioner fjom the service is in proportion to the charges. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

In the lesult, this petition is dismissed. The order of removal of the petitioner from the service is con- finned. Each party to bear their own costs.

Typed to ray dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 1J th day of January, 2001,

P. GURUNAOHA RAO, Chamnan-curn- Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence Witnesses-examined

For Workman : For Management:

_ N i l— — N i l-

Exhibits

For workman: —

Ex. WI dt. 22-8-77 : Office-order.

Ex, W-2 dt. 25-10-78 : Appointment order.

E\. W-3 dt. 30-5-87 : Office-order (xerox copy).

Ex. W-4 dt, : Salary pay slip for the month of February, 1997.

Ex. W-5 dt. 10-2-96 : Lr. issued by Medical Bellampally to the C.M.O., Kothacudam, Superintendent, (xerox copy).

Ex. W-6 dt. 16-12-96 : Reply to Ex. M-5 (xerox copy).

Ex. W-7 dt, —do— : Confidential letter issued by C.M.O. (xerox copy).

Ex. W-8 dt. 20-12-96 : Lr. addressed to the Superintendent, Area Hospital, Beliampali by the Superintendent of Mines, MVK, 5 Tncline, (xerox copy).

woikman Sh. Bra|jesh Kumar Sharina w.c.f. 18-10-95, who W3J employed as a daily lated class-IV employee and completed more than 240 days of service in a year prior to the date of termination (18-10-95) as lie was not paid notice pay in lieu of notice of one month and retrenchment compensation ? If not, what relief he is entitled t o ?"

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O, 463.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Regional Research Institute (Ayurved) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-200.1.

[No. L-42012|12|97-IR(DU)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

"Whether the action of management of Region- al Research Institute (Ayurveda), Jaipur is justified in termination the services of$74 THE GAZETTE OB INDIA : iviARCH 3, 2001 /PHALGUNA J2, 1922 [I*ART II- SEC. 3(ii)] 075 076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001 /PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [FART I I — S E C. 3(ii)1 New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O. 404.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes AcL, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central 'Government Industrial Tnbunal|Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Indnstiitil Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Aichaeoiogical Survey of India and their workman, which was received by fhe.- Ccntral Government en 13-02-2001.

[No. L-42012l39|99-IR(DU)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Picsenting Officer

, Refeience No. CGIT-2[99

Empioyen in relation to the management of

Aichaeological Survey of India.

AND

Their woikman Shri Sampatkumar Duvedi.

AWARD

The Centra] Government, Ministry of Labour, Ntw Delhi by exercising the powers confened by clause (d) or sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 ( A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has lefened this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-42012|39|99]TR(DU) dated 22-07-1999 on the following schedule,

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the management of Aiehaeological Sirrvcy of India througli it's Superintendent, prehistory Branch, Old High Court Building, Nagpur-I in termi- nating the services of Shri Sampat Kumar Indralal Duvedi is legal and. justified. ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed V

Sampat Kumar Duvfdi has submitted Statement of Claim on 6-12-99 that he was appointed as a labour $77

200 days in a calendar year would need approval of the D'rector General.

It is argued Unit the woikman was not doing the reguL'i work hence, no approval of Director General of Archaeological Department was obtained as men- tioned in Appendix XV page 233 of the above code. from 22-2-1906 in Archaeological Survey of India, Old High Conn Building. He was continuously woiking tiom 22-2-1996 to 31-10-1997. His services hus bcui Uimmatcd w.cl. 31-10-1997. He was being prid Rs. 47 per chy us Flit, wages. He has worki-d for 11101c than 240 days. Besides working as a labour he wrs ulto ptrforrning the duty of watchni'in.

He was again provided work from 25-3-1998 to

14-4-1998. He may be reinstated.

The counsel for the workman has agreed that the workman was given artificial breaks thus it is admitted to the workman's counsel that he (work- man ) did not work continuously for more than 240 day* and there were breaks ir> his period of employ- ment.

The coun\el for the workman has cited ruling Bhikku Rain Vs. /.The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, 1995 Lab. I.C 2448. This ailing is not applicable in this case. Tt is concerned with contractual employment. In this case the workman did not work for three years continuously.

The Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India contested the case on the ground that the workman was a casual labour and was not file emp- loyee of the management. He was called for work and when the work was available. He did not work continuously for 240 days in anycalander year. He was given chance to work as casual nature on 25-9-1998, but he did not turn up for work. He had worked from 25-3-1998 to 14-4-1998 and thereafter he absented without prior permission and authorisation. He is not entitled for any compensation or reinstatement.

Both the parties have filed documents and have also produced oral evidence. Sampatkumar Duvedi examined himself. For management the statement of S K. Mitra was recorded,

I have herrd the arguments of the advocate of the workman and the representative of the manage- ment and have considered the enfire oral and docu- mentary evidence on record.

1998 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 170 Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India and Another. The service of the workman was not terminated in the present case bur he himself absented and did not turn up for work. Hence this ruling is not applicable. Ano- ther ailing, Karnal Kant Guutam & others Vs. D i tt Magistrate, Mu77nffarnagar & others, 1996 (74) FLR 2136 is also not applicable in this case. In the case cited in the ruling Karnal Kant Gautam had woiked for about 11 years on the temporary post of Registration clerk. This ruling is not applicable in this case.

The statement of Shri S. K. Mitra shows that the workman bnd worked from 22-2-1996, but he did not .work continuously. He did not work from 26-5-1996 to 29-5-1996 (4 days), from 25-7-1996 to 04-8-1996 (7 days), from 03-3-1997 to 31-3-1997 (29 days), from 28-7-1997 to 4-8-1997 (8 dajs) and from 4-11-1997 to 24-3-1998" (for about 4-1/2 months).

Other ruling 2000 I CLR 542 shows that there was agreement between the employer and the emp- loyee to make the workman permanent. This is not the case of workman Sampat Kumar Duvedi. The other ruling 199 SCC (L&S) 592, 190(2) Mhs" L.J. 876 are also not applicable in this case because the workman d;d not work continuously for 240 days. There were long gaps during the period he worked He was not employed for any permanent job.

Am in he work from 28-4-1998 to 7-7-1998. From 15-4-1 OQs he did not work. The statement of this witness furfher shows that the workman did not work continuously for 240 days in 1996 or 1997. There were gaps dining the peiiod of his work. Ai he W3s casual labour, there was no necessity of giv- ing him any notice or conveying* order for termina- tion.

In view of the evidence and circumstances dis- cussed above the action of management of Archaeo- 'og'cal Survey of India in terminating the services of Siimoot Kuirur Duvedi is legal and justified.

ORDER

The statement of Sampalkumar Duvedi also shows that no appointment Hter was issued to him by Archaeological Department. He says that he was emploved for 5 months. He was getting wages Rs. 47 p;r day. His statement therefore shows that he wis working on doily wages and was not appoint- ed for any regular work.

The action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India through its Superintendent!, prehis- tory Branch, Old High Court Building, Nagpur 1 in terminating the services of Shri Sampatkumar Duvedi is 1egnl and justified.

The Superintendent of Archaeological Survey of Tndia hit. submitted book "Arenas(logical Works O d i" Containing n^es fo regulate the execution and accounting of Archaeological works.

The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Tine i -!:r;nce is answered accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer Rule 14.7.1 of Archaeological Woik Code slbnvs that the persons employed on jobs of purely casual nature ?nd fir short duration's are- not regular emr> l e w- and come under the category of diy to- day crrf* \yees. Appointment of labour for more than978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3,^001/PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [FAR* II—SEC. 3 New Delhi, the 14 th February, 2001 S.O 465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Awdrd of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Couri, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2001.

[No. L-42012/70/97-IRfDU) I

N. P. KESHVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRT- BUNAUCUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. B-49|98

Reference No. L-420l2|70|97iIR(DU) dt. 10-12-97 Manak Chand Solanki, S/o Bhiya Ram by caste Sen. resident of Sen Colony, Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur.

VJS.

1. Director,.

Doordarshan Kendra, Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur.

2. Secretary,

Ministry of Information & Broad Casting, Government of India, New Delhi.

ATTENDENCE :

For the applicant : Shri Himanshu Kumar Agnihotri.

For the non-applicant : Shri Tej Prakash Sharma.

Date of Award : 10-11-2000.

AWARD

The Central Government has referred the follow- ing dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1947) for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Door- darshan Kendra, Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of the workman Shri Manak Chand Solanki (Sen), Floor Assistant w.e.f. 1-5-94 7 if not, to what relief to the workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating I'hat he applied tor the post of Flooi Assistant and after interview he was asked to join from 12-1-88 vide ap- pointment letter dt. 13-1-88. He joined duty on 12-1-88. His appointment was upto 20-1-88 which was renewed upto 30-4-88 vide which he was cm- ployed for 10 days atleast in a month. He was paid Rs. 70 per day on completion of work. His services were terminated by the non-applicants w.e.f. 1-5-94 without giving any notice although he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Musfer rolls were prepared on Kendra basis and not on All India basis which is illegal. The principle of "first come last go" was also violated by non-applicants while terminating his services. Other Kendras continued to recruit the workmen on the post!, the applicant was working. It was also contended that the policy of reservation did not obstruct reinstatement and he was¹ at Sr. No. 1 in merit* list. Tt was prayed that the applicant may be reinstated in service with back wages.

The non-applicants in reply have stated that the applicant was. booked as casual artist td work as Floor Assistant from 12-1-88 to 20-1-88 except 17-1-88 for 8 days only and paid Rs. 70 per day. It was denied that the period of casual engagement was renewed upto 30-4-88. It was stated that his engagement was purely. on casual basis and for atetual days of Wdrk as per requirement and not for continuous period on month to month basis. Tt was denied that muster- roll was prepared. It was stated that Index card in the prescribed format wals maintained showing the days of the workman, dates of their booking,, pur- pose of booking and the amount of payment. As. regards roster reservation it was stated that it was followed properly as per the Government instructions. It was further stated that the applicant was governed by the Scheme of regularisation dt. 9-6-92 and modified Scheme dt, 17-3-94 which were framed on the direc- tion of the CAT principal bench, New Delhi and upheld by the Apex Court. It was stated that the applicant is eligible for repuiarisation as per the modi- fied Scheme dt. 17-3-94 as he is at Sr, No. 15 in the eligible list.

Applicant filed rejoinder to the reply stating that he was temporary employee and not a casual workman and he is at SrvNo. 1 in the list of Floor Assistant. The applicant in support of his claim filed his own affidavit. The learned counsel for the non-atpplicants was given opportunity to cross examine him an his affidavit. On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri Laxmichand Sharma Senior Administrative Officer was filed. The learned counsel for the applicant was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affi- davit. On behalf of both the parties copies of CLTtain documents wore filed which will be referred at (he appropriate place.

Heard arguments of the learned counsels fcfr the parties and perused the record. The fallowing points require consideration :~

1. Whether the applicant has worked under the establishment of non-applicants from 12-1-88 to 30-4-94 continuously?

2. Whether the non-applicants have violated pro- I visions of sections 25F and G of the ActT 1947 ?

3. To what relief the applicant is entitled ?

POINT NO. 1 : It is not disputed that the applicant Was given appointment vide letter dt. 13-1-88 (Ex. W-2) for a period of 7 days. Although it has teen denied by Shri Laxmichand Sharma that Hie applicant was called for interview but the interview letter dt 9-12-87 has been admitted¹ by him. Therefore, •St does not remain disputed that thfe applicant was {given appointment after interview. The applicant has admitted that accordingly to the roster, work was given him for 10 days in a month. Although in the appoint- ment letter it has been stated that the appoints Iment is temporary but it has also been stated that he was given appointment for a fixed period. The state- ment regarding actual working days of the applicant (R~2) has been filed by the non-applicants. The appli- cant has not stated that the statement is not correct. As per the statement the applicant has v/orked as follows:—

PERTOD

YEAR 19911

10 Days 10-1-91 to 19-1-91

10 Days 3 J-3-91 to 09-4-91

10 Days 01-7-91 to 10-7-91 *

10 Days

10 Days 01-8-91 to 10-8-91 01-9-51 to 10-9-91

10 Days 01-10-91 to 10-10-91

10 Days 01-11-91 to 10-11-91

10 Days 1-12-91 to 10-12-91

Total:—80 Days

10 Days YEAR 1992 1-01-92 to 10-1-92

10 Days 10 Days 1-02-92 to 10-02-92 1-03-92 to 10-03-92

10 Days 10 Days 1-04-92 to 10-04-92 J-05-92 to 10-05-92

1-06-92 to 10-06-92

10 Days 10 Days 1-07-92 to 10-07-92

10 Days 1-08-92 to 10-08-92

10 Days 1-09-92 to 10-09-92

NO. OF DAYS

YEAR 1988 12-1-88 to 20-1-88

r 8 Days 10 Days 8-10-92 to 15-10-92 1-11-92 o 10-11-92

8 Days

(except 17-1-88) ,

21-6-88- to 30-6-88

9 Days

9 Days (except 26-6-88) 21-11-88 to 30-11-88 (except 27-11-88)

10 Days 11-12-92 to 20-12-92

Total :—113 Days "494^01^001—18.

As per the above statement the applicants has work- ed luora 12-1-88 to 104-94 only for the period mentioned above It is not proved that the appli- cant ha-, worked from 12-1-SS to 30-4-94 continu- ously. As regards nature of tht employment simp- ly because in the appointment letter temporary ap- pointment has been mentioned b cannot be held that the appointment was of the said nature. As per the statement the applicant worked not more than 10 days in a month and even during certain months he. did not work. The Ftatement of Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma that the appointment was casual in nature as per the requirement is believable. The applicant thus worked during above period on casual and on rotational basis.

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2001

S.O. 466.—-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Tiidusliial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes th© Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labtmc Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Indnstri'il Dispute between '.he employers in relation t:i the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2001.

[No. L-42012[163|99-TR(DU)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Point No. 2.—As per the appointment letter the appointment ol the applicant was for a fixed period of 7 days and thereafter on rotational basis ranging from 8 to 10 days in a month. There is no evidence that before the termination of the service of the applicant the- applicant has worked continuously from 13-1-88 to 30-4-94 or has worked for 240 days in any year or in the year preceding to the date of termination of service. The violation of section 25-F. therefore, is not proved. As regards violation of section 25-G the applicant has stated that Vijay Singh Jasoria junior to him was retained in service. It was admitted by him that Jasoria was given per- manent appointment. Thus provisions of section 25-G also are not attracted.

" Point No. 3.—On the basis of the above discus- sion the termination of the service of the applicant cannot be held to be illegal ?nd unjustified.

As regards seniority of the applicant it has been stared by Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma that he is at Sr. No. 15. In the failure report it has been ad- mitted by the management that in the list of OBC he is at S. N. 1 in. the seniority list.

The learned counsel lor the non-applicants has suTxnifted that the applicant is entitled for regulari- sation as per the Regularisation Scheme dated 17-3-94 and the non-applicants are willing to consider the applicant for regularisation as pei the above Scheme and according to the.senio- rity as per the pronouncement of the Apex Court imported in 1998 (8) SCO 760 case of Director General Doordarshan House and Anothers v|s. Lalit Vikram. In the above case it was held by the Apex Court iti a similar case that the applicant was entitl- ed to be considered for regularisation as Floor Assistant as per the revised Scheme dated 17-3-94 treating that the applicant was eligible for regularisa- tion on 9-6-92. In view of the submission of the learned counsel of the non applicants similar direc- tim is issued to the non-applicants to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation treating him to be eligible for i egularisation as on 9-6-92.

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

Sd/-

Prcsiding Officer981 "Whether the afction of the Director, Doordar- shan Kencfra Jaipur of not giving work to Smt. Veena Shukla, Makeup Assistant and Discriminating her in coinpurision to junior employees namely Smt. Hazarzob and Smt. Chandra Vanjani and violating the provi- sions of equality, natural justice and con- ditions laid down by the management for providing atleast 10 days work in a month is justified ? If not, to what relief to flie workman is entitled and from what date ?"

4!|M GII2001—19.

New Delhi, tHie 14th February, 200 L

S O 467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the [ndustuHl Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government¹ Industrial Tribmi.il/Labour983 Court, Nagpur, as shown in the AnneXure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur and L'heir workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 13-2-2001.

[No. L-42012/182/yS-JR(.DU)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Oiliccr

ANNEXURE

CENIRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRT- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. B-47/98

Reference No. L-42012/132/98/TR(DU> Dated : 9-12-1993

Shri Nanak Chand, S/o Shri Nand Ram, 1/916. Bhim Basil, Jhajjar Road, Rtwari (Haryana)-123401

V/s.

Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Near Jhalana Dungari, .laipur-302001.

ATTENDENCE:

For tlhe applicant—Shri Kunal Rawat. For the non-applicants—Shri Tej Prakash Shanna. Dated of Award—10-11-2000.

AWARD

The Central Government has referred fhe follow- ing industrial dispute under clause fd) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudica^ , . viV" fion :

"Whether uhe action of the Director, jJooidar- shan Kendra, Jaipur in terminating the ser- vices of workman Shri Nanak Chand. Floor Assistant is legal and justified 7 If not, to what? relief the workman is entitled ?" The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was appointed as temporary Floor Assistant in flhc establishment of non-appl'cants on 23-5-1988. He worked continuously there upto September, 1994. He was entitled for regularisation on the above p-st However, his- services were terminated in the month of September, 1994 without assigning; any reason and in violation of provisions of section 25(F> of the Act, 1947. It was also stated that seniority list prepared by the non-npplicant required correction by striking off the names of unnecessary persons. It was prayed that order of termination of his services be set-aside and Ibe may be regularised on the post of Floor Assis- tant wifh full back wages.

In the reply the non-applicants stated that ihe appli- cant was engaged as casual artist ss per requirement ; on 10 days in a month on rotational basis, After fill- ing up all the posts of Floor Assistants there was nn necessity of engaging casual Floor Assistant hence that applicant was not engaged. There was not bad, mala tide intention in discontinuing thi; services of the applicant. It was furtlher .tatai that casual artists of DoorUarshun are governed by the regularisation scheme dated 14-6-92 as well :u modihed Scheme dated 17-3-94 which was framed on the directions of CAT principal bench Nfcw Ddhi ;uv.l upheld by the Supreme O wt of india. The applicant is eligible foi regularisation as Floor Assistant on his seniority at Serial No. 13 in the eligibility list,

Thy applicant filed rejoinder to the reply slating that if the name of the persons who Ir.tvc left th.¹ service are excluded from-the seniority list his senio- rity comes ut Sr. Nn. 7 but tlhe non-applicants havp not made correction in the seniority list.

On the bar-is of the pleadings of the parties the following points of disputes were framed :—

The applicant filed his own affidavit in support of his claim. The learned counsel for the non-applicants Was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affidavit. G,i bttlialf oi the lion-L'pplieant the affidavit of Shri Laxmi Chand Shanna, Senior Administrative Ofticer was li'od. The learned coLmsel for vlie appli- cant Wdt given opportunity t\i cros, examine him on his affidavit. Copies of cerium documents wore also filed on behaif of both the parf^s \Vbicli will be re- ferred at the appropriate place.

Heard argument of the kaiir-d counsel lor both the parties and perused the recoril. The points ar?- decided as follows :—

Point No. 1.—Shri Laxmi d aM Slarma has ad- mitted that ihe applicant was appointed vide letter dated 23-5-KS marked Ex. W-lf. Although it has been denied by Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma that flic applicant'was inleniewcd but the letter for interview (Ex. W-14) lias been admitted by him. 1c is, there- fore, p "ved I'iiat the applicant was given appoint- ment on tHii; ubrwe post after inieiVcw. Although in the apfwnirnenl letter '1 h-js been mentioned that the applicant has been given appointment for a period of 9 dpys on temporary basis. Howe^-cr, the appoint ment cann'it be said to be temporary ;:s the appli- cant hinisdf ha^ admittckl thai he vvis uivrn job for 10 days in a l'hdiilh only. He has' filed copy of flmWA THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2001/PHALGUNA 12, 1922 [P'ART TI--SEC. 3(ii)] 1992 statement of actual working days (Ex. W-20) which was admitted by Shri Uixmi Clmnd Shurma to be correct. As per the statement fine applicant has work- ed from 21-5-88 to 30-7-94 as follows:—

Period

No. of Days

1988

09 day* 21-05-88 to 31-05-88 (except 22, 29-5-88) 21-12-88 to 30-12-88

10 days

19 days

1989

10 days 10 days

10 days 10 days 11-02-89 to 20-02-89 21-03-89 to 31-03-89 (except 22-03-89) 21-06-89 to 30-06-89 01-10-89 to 1040-89

40 days

1990

10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 09 days

08 days 11-02-90 to 20-02-90 22-03-90 to 31-03-90 11-05-90 to 20-5-90 21-06-90 to 30-06-90 11-10-90 to 20-10-90 (except 14-10-90) 11-11-90 to 20-11-90 (except 11, 18-11-90) 31-12-90

01 day*

58 days

1991

01-01-91 to 09-01-91 19-02-91 to 28-02-91 21-04-91 to 30-04-91 02-05-91 to 10-05-91 01-06-91 to 10-06-91 01-07-91 to 10-07-91 01-08-91 to 10-08-91 01-09-91 to 10-09-91 01-10-91 to 10-10-91 01-11-91 to 10-11-91 01-12-91 to 10-12-91

09 days 10 days 10 days 09 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days. 10 days 10 days

10S days 01-01-92 to 10-01-92 01-02-92 to 10-02-92 01-03-92 to 10-03-92 01-04-92 to 10-04-92 01-05-92 fc> 10-05-92 01-06-92 to 10-06-92 01-07-92 to 10-07-92 01-08-92 to 10-08-92 01-09-92 to 10-09-92 08-10-92 to 15-10-92 OJ-H-92 to 10-11-92 01-12-92 to 10-12-92

10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 08 days W days 10 days

118 days

1993

01-01-93 to 10-01-93 01-02-93 to 10-02-93 01-03-93 to 10-03-93 01-05-93 to 10-05-93 21-06-93 to 30-06-93 01-07-93 to 10-07-93 21-09-93 to 30-09-93 01-10-93 to 10-10-93 21-11-93 (to 30-11-93

10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days

90 days.

1994

01-04-94 to 10-04-94 21-07-94 to 30-07-94

10 days 10 days

20 days Thus as per the statement the applicant has worked in the cstablishmcnf of non-applicants during tfie period mentioned above. It is thus not proved that the applicant has worked from 21-5-88 to 30-7-94 conti- nuously as stafed by him in his affidavit. It in proved that Ihe worked during the above period on casual and rotational basis as stated by Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma. It? may also be stated that the applicant has himseilf admitted in his application Ex. W-10 that he has worked on casual and contract basis.

Point No. 2.—The applicant worked in the estab- lishment of the- non-applicant's on casual and rota- fional basis for the period mentioned above. The statement of working days submitted by the applicant does not show fhat he has worked continuously dur- ing the period from 21-5-88 to August, 1994. It is also not proved that he lias workedfor 240 days in any year preceding to the date of termination. In these circumstances section 25-F of the Act, 1947 is not attracted. Thus it is not proved that the ser- vices of the applicant were terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act, 1947.

Point No. 3.—Shri Laxmi Chand Slhaimn has stated that the Scheme of regularisafion dated985 New Delhi, the 14t,h February, 2001 9-6-92 and modified Scheme dated 19-3-94 were framed on the direction of the CAT principal bench New Delhi and upheld by tlhc Apex Court. There is no denial to fhe same. It is, therefore, proved that the above schemes were framed on the directions of the CAT and the regularisation of the casual worker is to bo regulated as per the above Sdhemes.,

Point No. 4.—On the basis of fhe above discussion.,

S.O. 468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, B.B.M.B., as shown in fhe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chandigarh and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-2001

the termination of the services of the applicant cannot be held to be illegal and unjustified.

[No. L-42012/196/90-IR(DU)1

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

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

Case No. ID 70/91

Harjindcr Kumar, C/o General Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh, Nangal Township, District Ropar.

Workman.

Versus The learned counsel for the non-applicants lias submitted that the applicant is entitled for regularisa- tion as per the Regularisation Scheme dated 17-3-94 and thii rion-applicanfs are willing to consider the applicant for regularisation as per the above Scheme and according to the seniority as per the pronounce- ment of tlhe Apex Court reported in 1998 (8) SCC 760—Director General Doordarshan House and An- others vs. Lalit Vikram. In the above case it was held by the Apex Court in a similar case thai the applicant was entitled to be considered for regulari- sation as Floor Assistant as per the revised Scheme dated 17-3-94 treating that the applicant w;is eligible for regularisation on 9-6-92. In view of the submis- sion of tlhe learned counsel of the non-applicants similar direction is issued to the non-applicants to consider the case of the applicant for regularisafion treating him to be eligible for regularisation as on 9-6-92.

Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, ;• Nangal Township, District Ropar, Punjab.

.. .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman—R. K. Singh. For the management—C. L. Sareen.

AWARD (Passed on 20th December, 2000) As regards seniority the learned counsel for the applicant has contended thaf seniority list has not been filed by the non-applicants and therefore the statement of tlhc applicant that¹ he is at Sr. No. 7 should be believed and the statement of Laxmi Chand Shartna that the applicant's seniority is at S. No. 30 should not be relied upon. Tt cannot be considered on merits for the reason that the persons at Sr. No. 7 to 29 are not parties before the Tribunal. The appli- cant may agitate the issue of Ihis seniority at the appro- priate stage.

The Central Government vide gazette- notification No. L-42012/196/90/TR-(DU) dated 13th June, 1991 has referred the following dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudication :

The copies of the award may be sent to fhe Cen- tral Government under section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd/-

Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of Che management of Chief Engineer BBMB Nangal Township, District Ropar (Punjab) in terminating the services of Shri Harjinder Kumar son of Shri Gian Chand, driver Fire Appliance w.e.f. 30-10-89 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman is that he was selected and appointed on the post of fire appliances driver after having been selected by selection committee constituted by tlhe management! for interview and trade test. Out of seven candidates for the same post, he was selected out of them and he was allowed fo join after undergoing medical examination. He waf appointed as regular driver ffile appliances) w.e.f. 10-3-1989 to 30-10-1989. The management arbitra- rily terminated his services w.e.f. 30-10-89. The man- agement hnd requested the State -of Punjab for send- ing a driver (Fire Appliances) frr.tn their establishment986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, ,uOl/PHALGUNA 1?, 1922 [P'ART II—SEC! 3(ii)l to the establishment oi BBMB but the Siate of Punjab failed to send a driver from its establishment. There- fore, the inquisition was sent to employment* ex- change. The employment exchange s p o i l ed his namtr for the same post and inteiview was held by the management. The selection committee rejected the candidature of the workman and selected another person namely Shri Kamaljit Singh who was appoint- ed on the posi* of driv:r (fire appliances).

ful in uUng so. The selection committee selected the best Laleiu available out of the candidate:; and regu- lar oiler oi appointment was issued to the selected ciniL.i^ate. Thus the Karnaljit Singh, was appointed on the; post of driver (lHire appliances). After ins appoint- ment any other driver has not been recruited by the management after iiie month of October, 1989. The workman have not completed 240 diys, therefore, he is noi entitled to get any relief under I.D. Act, 1947. His claim is the vfore, liable to be rejected with no relief.

3. The workman submitted a representation against the appointment of Kamaljit Singh to the Superin- tending Engineer, Bhakra Dam Cirde Nangal but his request was net considered by him. The work- man's Union also requested the management to con- sider his case but it was not considered and the in t- ter was agitated before ALC(C), Chandigarh. The conciliation proceedings were lesulted in failure. Therefore, industrial dispute was raised and the appro- priate Government has referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman has alleged that the other persons ihave been appointed on the past of driver fire appliances ignoring the seniority of the workman. Therefore, he is entitled fo be re- instated on the post of driver fire appliaaces wilh full back wages.

' m

amongst them. Thus it can not be slid mat Che man- agement had exercised unfair labour practice. There- fore, tiiiL, Tribunal is not justified 10 issue directions to the management for the re-employment of the wvul.inan. under the provisions of Section 25-H of the J.D. Act, 1947.

case of Karnal Central Cooperative Bank l t d. Vs. Presiding Oihcer, Industrial Tiibunal-CLim-T.abour Court, Kohtil- and oher ( l ' W — I) H.L.R.. 310, that the workiii-n who do not complete 2-10 days of ser- vice has no industrial right under the provisions of Industrial Disputes A?f, Is* 17. Untie* Ihi^e circum- sr mrcs the management was not u.¹dei obligation to give notice ^f termination of his ,ervir-ps and to make the paymtni' of competition The'efore, it can not be held liiat the leirnination >f the services of ihe workman was m?dc illegally.

9. 1 lie workman Ivs taken the plea OE re-employ-

10, In para 12 of claim statement, il has been alleged by the workman that the. management had recorded number of drivers in their establishment but he has nut b^cn given a chance for re-employment. But the workman has not deposed in this regard in his affidavit. The witness of the management Malkit Singlh has deposed in his affidavit thaf no fire ap- pliarces driver in regular or in work charged capa- cit" has been deployed after the recruitment 'of Kamaljit Shgh. Therefore, it can not be said that the management had recruited other persons except workman cm the said post. The case- of the workman under Section 25-H of Hie I D. Act has not been made out in his favour.

11. On considering the evidence of both flii parties in ptecedmg pnraenphs, it is held thht tae termina- tion 'of the workman was not illegal and the action of the management was not unjustified. Therefore, tlhe leference :s answered agairLst the workman holding thaf the action of the management in terminating the services nf Shri Hariinder Kumar was justified. He is not entitled to any relief. Both parties are left to bear their own cost of proceedings. Appropriate Gov- ernmenf" be informed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer ment under the provisions of Section 25-H of I.D. A ct 1947. But the terms of thr reference do not include the dispute relating to re-employment. Be- sides this it is pertinent tr> discuss the circumstances under which Sfhri Kamaljit Singh was appointed on the said post, instead of the petitioner worknum. Iti is evident from the record of the case that flic said post wai to be filled up by ;m employee "f Pii"jub State. Cut the Punjab State did not tVansfcr the ^srvic^E of its employee to BBMB. Therefore, Hie procedure for tlhe recruilment of fire appliance drive'- was to be fol- hwed bv the management The irani'p?ment sent the requisition to employment exchange. On perusal of Ex. M5 it is dear that the narpe of the workman alongwith Kamaljit Singh and Omkesh Singh was sponsored by the employment exchange. The trade test and interview were held bv the management and the selection committee selected Kamaljit Singh for fhe said post. The selection comrrji'fee could not be compelled to select the workman. It was the duty of the selection committee to select b;tfcr candidate