This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

13. Therefore, now what wo have IJ see U whether the termination in oui case is a mere dischuige on the ground of unsatisfactory service of the piobatiouer, as contemplated under Rule 13(1) of the Service Regulations (Ex. MJO) in which case no enquiry is necessary; ur whether the Order of Termination is actually a penalty foi any misconduct. If the case pertains to the secend category then enquiry be- comes very much essential.

14. Now on a careful perusal of Order of termination made through Ex M7 (Ex, W4) it is not a mere unsatisfactory of services of tho probationer that made the management lo pass an Order of discharge; on the contrary on verification by the Vigilance officer of the management, as the school certificate produced by the petitioner duiing the time of appointment was found as a bogus one. They passed the Order of dischaige of the petitioner. Thus it is made clear that for the misconduct of production of bo^us certificate the petitioner was found to have been terminated. This situation has not been covered under Rule 13(1) of the Service Regulations. What actually it covers is ths discharge of a probationer while his services were found unsatisfactoiy. But in a case where termination was found on a particular kind of misconduct as in the instant one, what is required is an enquiry.

15. It may be argued that the production of an alleged bogus certificate was prior to tho Order of appointment and therefore the misconduct prior to the appointment may not be subject of termination, Even though the production of alleged bogus certificate was prior to appointment, such irregularity or illegality continues even while the person was )n service. It does not pertain to exact nature of service (hat w.is rendered bv the individual" in order to attracts rule 13(1) of (he Service Regulations. On the ground it would only tell open the conduct of the workman. Therefore, viewed in any angle the Order of termination was only for the misconduct of the workman, in which case, there should have bten on enquiry. Thus the termination without enquiry is vitiated.

16. Any way it is open for the minasement, to again conduct an enquiry, on this aspect by following procedure Jfid to take appropriate decision.

17. Thus the Order of termination is not justified. He is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of -crvice and backwascs. Any way the management has got right to take appropriate action according to law with due procedure. Award passed accordingly. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this 9th day of Tamiaiv, 2001, S, R. SFNOHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner/Workman: None

For Respondent: MW. 1 Thiru T. Subha Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner/Workman :

Ex. Wl 20-9-88: Intimation for Medical Examination (All xerox).

Ex. W2 27-9-88 : Enrolment order as Casual M indoor.

Ex. W3 12-2-90: 'Appointment order as Mazdoor.

FT W4 33-12-90: Order of discharge.

E<- W5 27-10-93: Representation to Regl. Labour Commissioner

Ex, W6 31-5-94: Reply by the Management to ilic Regl. Labour Commissioner, Madras

t x. W7 18-11-94: Representation to the Regl. Labour Commissioner, Madras.

Ex. W8 21-6-95: Conciliation Failure report.

Ex. W9 20-10-95 : Reference by tne Government. For Management:

Ex. Ml 16-9-88: Declaration loim given by the. petitioner.

„ Ex. M2 27-9-88 : Memo for enrolment of Casual' Labour.

fcx. M3 12-2-90 : Appointment older.

Ex. M4 .. : Acceptance letter by the petitioner.

Ex. M5 6-3-90: Declaration given by the petitioner. Ex. M6 .. : School Record sheet.

Ex. M7 31-12-90: Termination order.

Ex. MB 31-5-94: Counter filed before Regl. Labour Commissioner.

Ex. M9 11-3-95: Counter filed before Regl. Labour Commissioner.

Ex. M10 , . : Madras Port Trust Employees Regula- tions.

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2001

S,O. 563-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947;, the Central Government heicby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Lahour Court, Lucknow as !>hown in the Annextnc in the Industrial Dispute between the employets in ldation to the management of Officer Incrwrtje, Milit-uy Dairy Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-2-2001.

[No. L-14012/14/99/TR(DU)]

KULD[P RAT VERMA, Desk Office!

ANNEXURE

BfcFORE THF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT! INDUSTRIAL TRIRUNAJ -CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW fiesidina Officer: Rudresh Kumar.

ADIUDICATION

I.D. No. 138/2000 (Old No. 232/99)

BETWEEN

\ inod Kumar. C/o B.M.S. 32. Chakrata Road, Dehradun-

AND

Officer Incharge. Military Dairy Farm, Dehradun,

11'47

AWARD

By reference No. L-14012/14/99/IR(DU) dated 21-7-1999, the Central Government the Ministry of Labour in exercise of poweis conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 I.D. Act, 1947 made over this industrial dispute between Viniul Kumnr and Officer Incharge, Military Dairy Farm, Dehiadun to the CGIT-ctim-Labouf Court, Kanpur for adju- dication. Later, this idsputc was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

P.cfeience reads as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Military Dairy Farm, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Vinod Kumar Ex-temp, status casual labour is legal and justified ? Tf not, to what relief the wprkman is entitled ?"

2. Registered notices were sent to the workman on 29-9-2000, 23-10-2000, 14-1-2000, 21-12-2000 and 22-1-2001 but the workman did not appear. The management informed thi= Tribunal at camp court Dehradun, by letter dt. 17-1-2001 that the woikman Vinod Kumar had filed an application with the management, not to pursue this dispute further. A photo i-opy of the letter signed by the Vinod Kumar, is attached with the management's kttet dated 17-1-2001.

3. Despite number of registered notices sent to the work- man, he did not appear which indicates his unwillingness tor pursue this industrial dispute. This fact may be also gauged from his letter to the management. In absence of claim tta'crnent of the woikman, it is not feasible to adjudicate this reference on merit, ?o It is ordered to be returned without "iny adjudication.

4. Awmd according.

LiuknOw.

9-2-200J

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2001

S.O. 564—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awaid of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal/l.abour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Tndustnal Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Daily Farm. Dehradun and their workman, which was received by the Cential Government on 23-2-2001.

LNo. L-14012/31/99f/IR(DU)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer114$ THE GAZETTE OF IKDIA : MARCH 17, 2001/PHALGUNA 26, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(il)] ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

T.D. No. 143/2000 (Old No. 237/99)

BETWEEN

Bal Yogeshwar, C|o B.M.S. 32. Chakrata Road, Dehradun-248881.

AND

Officer Incbarfie, Military Dairy Farm. Dchradun.

AWARD

By reference No. L-148l2/31/99/IR(DUj dated 3-8-1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by ckiuse (d) of sub-section (1) of Section, 10 I.D. Act, 1947 made over this industrial dispute between Bal Yoijeshwar and Officer Incharge, Militaiy Dairy Faun, Dehradun to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur tor adju- dication. Later, this dispute was transferred to this Tubunal Tor adjudication.

Reference reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Miliiary Dairy Farm, Dehradun in terminating the services of Sri Bal Yogeshwar, ex-temp stats casual labour i% legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the workman. Manage- ment also filed written statement, a copy of which was fur- nished to the workman on 12-7-2000. Singe then the work- man did not appear. The workman, Bal Yogeshwar, gave in writing to the management showing his unwillingness to pursue this dispute. This fact Is brought to notice by the management through its letter dated 17-1-2001.

3. Registered notices were sent also, to the workman from this Tribunal on 29-9-2000, 23-10-2000, 14-11-2000, 21-12-2000 and 22-1-2001, but no response came from him. In view of the said facts, it is not passible to adjudicate the case on m;rit and the reference is letumed unadjudicated.

4. Award accordingly.

Lucknow,

9-2-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2001 S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government lieieby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tnbunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in lelation to the management of Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-2-2001.

[No. L-14012/43/98/IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

H1..ORR THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2001 PRESENT:

Thini S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tiibunal.

Indiutiial Dispute No. 40 of 1999

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1 Kd) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workmun and the Management of Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi.)

BETWEEN

SH M. Ramanathan, No. ], Bhujanga Rao Lane, Radha Nagar, Chiompet, Cheunai-600044.

AND

rlhe General Manager, Heay Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chcnnaf-600054.

INFERENCE :

O-der No. L-14012/43/y8/IR(DU) dated 16-2-99 Minis- try of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

1 his dispute coming on lor final heaiing on Wednesday, the 17th day of January, 2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter Statements and all other material papers tin leconl and upon hearing the arguments of TV1. S. R. Rajagopal, S. K. Ragunathan and V. Vishunuvijayan, advo- cates appearing for the woikman and of Thiru M. K. Taya- kiiKin, Addi. Cential Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Management aud this dispute having stood over tiG this dr.y for consideration, this Tribunal made the following:

AWARD

The Government of India has referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal;

"Whether the Management of Heavy Vehicles Factory. Avadi, Chennai is legal and justified in removing Sri M. Ramanathan, Machinist 'B' from his seivices and If not, to what lelicf the workman is entitled 7" 2. 'I he main, averments found in the Claim Statement of the petitioner are as follows:

The petitioner was a Machinist 'B' in the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. He joined the Factory on 27-12-1965. He was elected as a member of the Works Committee and was also elected us a Loans Committee Member in 1966. The petitioner was the Trea^rrec of the Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees¹ Union from 1966. The petitioner was suspended from 11-12-1970, pending certain disciplinary action. A Chirfie memo was issued to him, listing out ccitain chaiges. '/he charges were as follows : (\) committed acts amounting ia continued and habitual negligence of work; (ii) committed net- amounting to habitual absence fiom woik spot without Jeavc and habitual late attendance ; (ili) committed acts vio-

1149

lative of secunty standing instiuctioiis which prohibit inter alia meeting and /or gioup discussions within factory premises; (iv) committed acts amounting to inciting othcis to dcsiU fiom doinv: i Mr duties and Jv) committed acts unbecoming of a Government seivaut amounting to gross misconduct. The main duuges ayainst the petitioner is that of irequent absentation fiom workspot, late attendance, gioup meetings/ discussions within factoiy premises and inciting workers to desist tiorn doing (heir duties. An enquiry officer was np- pointed. It was an Assistant Manager, who was fax inferior to (he Gencial Manager of (he Heavy Vehicles FaUory who is the Disclplinuiy Authority. The Enquiiy Officer was alto subordinate to the General Managci (Light Machine Shcpj who was a witness in the case. The enquiiy ofllcer cannot be said to hive been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The petitionei made a request to examine (he General Mana- ger of the faaoiy as a defence witness. But the request to examine him V.JS tinned down bv the enquiiy officer. The respondent was in n position of witness in respect of ccitain charge^. Being in a position of a witness, he is not compe- tent to pars the final outer of removal from service. The findings o[ the d'sciplinary authority vitiated as he conaus with the f ndinj; of the enquiry officer. Thr petitioner prays to pass an award holding that the removal of the petitioner from service by (he respondent is not justified.

3. The main aveiments found in the Counter Statement of the respondent aic as fol'ows :

At the outset the respondent considers il fit to reiterate thot He;vy Vehicles Factory, Avadi is one among the T.O.Fs. and it has been decided in a case that the activities of OFs. cannot be considered, ns 'industry' under the I.D. Act. la the ca^c of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Boaid Vs. A. J. Rajappu (AIR 1978 SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the establishments performinK sovereign functions shall be excluded from the provisions of the term 'Industry' as given in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was again afTlim- ed in its judgement in (he case of G M. Telecom Vs. Srinivasa Rao and othcis reported in 1997 V o[ 8 See pnee 767. Also Section 13R of the I D. (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provision" Act, 1956 ("Act No. 36] 1956). In view of the above, the propei forum to agitate any matter pertaining to service condition is (he Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitionei is governed undci the provisions of FR&SR, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and CSR. Hence it is prayed that the dispute referred by the petitioner is not within the iurrdic- tion of the Industiial Tribunal. Tt is submitted that the peti- tioner is an ex-Central Government servant covered under CCS (CCA) Pules and as per the provisions of (he rule, the petitioner was issued Charge sheet and Riven reasonable np- portUTiity of defending his case d'innt; the course of Court of Tnquiru proceedings as laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As a matter of procedure, the petitioner was given a Show Cause Notice The petitioner was given reasonable opportunity and na'ural justice in dealing- with his ease and cannot term Ihe order of removal from service as victimisa- fi m The remedy available to this petitioner was to approach the High Court and that too within a reasonable period of time. Even if (he d.ilc of application to the Regional 1 abour Commissioner dur'ng 1989 is tiken, the application is hope- lessly barred by limitation because 18 years have lapsed. The petitioner has to abid; by the Security Slandinn Instruction, CCS (),ea"p) Rules etc and cannot claim exemption from rules on the pretext of being so-called union representative of un-recognised union. The respondent pinvs to dismiss the peti- tion on (he gr°und of beyord the iurisdicrion of the Hon'ble Tribunal and further pass that the petitioner has exhausted nil official remedies available to him, way back during 1972 and cannot agitate aft^r 25 years in "ny Tribunal or any other appropriate judicial nuthoritv bein? time barred.

4. On behalf of petitioner, WW1 Thiru M. Ramanathun L.ts been examined .ind Ex. W1 to W13 were marked On behalf of respondent, MW1 Thiru P. Surcndran hi"-- hern examined and Ex, Ml to M5 were marked,

5. The Point for con side ra( ion is whether thr- Manage- ment of Heavy Vehicles Ffclory, Avadi, Ch*"ntii(i is l^pal and justified in removing Sr; M. Piimwnathan, Machinist 'B' from his seivices and if not to wh^t relief the workman i? entitled?

6. The Point : The netitioner was employed as Machinist 'B' with the respondent. He was appointed in December 1965. He WHS subsequently elected as Works Committee Member and Sccretniy Loans Cmomittee. He happened to be the treasurer of Heavy Vehicle Factory Employees Union. He was also a Loans Committee Secretary to sanction loan to the employees of the factory,

7. On 11-12-1970 J Charge Memo was issued to him through Ex, W3 (Ex. W2). On 21-12-70, he had given an explanation through Ex. W4, Not satisfied with the expin- nation, an enquiry was ordered. The proceedings of the Enquiry Authority was marked as EJC. W5. It was made oe per Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. There was an Order of dismissal dated 27-2-71 through Ex. W7 (Ex. M4). Subsequently on 8-3-71, the petiticrer had made an appeal Memorandum through Ex. W9 which was also rejected by the Under Sccretaiy lo Government of India through Ex. W10 dated 21-2-72. Thus the petitioner was removed. The charges arc : CD that the said Ramanathan while function- ing as Machinist 'B' committed acts .imountins to continued and habitual negligence of work; (ii) that ho has committed act amounting to habitual absence fiom work spot without leave and habitual later attendance; (iii) that the petitioner had committed acts violative of Security Standing Instruc- tions which prohibit meetings or group discussion within the factory premises¹; (iv) that the petitioner committed acts amounting to inciting others to desist from doins their dutlc and (v) that he committed acts unbecoming of a Gm'in- ment servant amounting \-o gross misconduct. Annexure-H ot Ex. M3 contained derails of the alleged misconducts. The said Charge sheet was issued by Major General K. M, Kini, General Manager. The enquiiy was conducted by Mr. W. I. Wlilington, Asslt. Manager.

8. Befoie going into the alleged irregularities in thp en- quiry against the misconduct, both the counsels argued mu-h upon (he question of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the Management contended Section 13(B) of the T.D. (Amend- ment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1956 (Act No. 36/ 1916) exempts certain industries, from its jurisdiction acc- tion 1J(B) of the said Act read as follows :

"H-B—Act not to apply to certain Industrial Establish- ments :

Motbirg in this Act shall apply (o an industrial establ^h- ment in so far as the workmen employed therein are persons (o whom the Fundamental and Supple- mentary Rubs, Civil Services (Classification, Cont- rol and Arjpeal) Rules, Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Service (Classifica- tion, Control and Appeal) Rules, Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations or that may be notified in this behalf by the appro- priate Government in the Official Ga/ertc apply." 9. Reliance was also placet! upon AIR 1978 Supreme Court (Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa), whsrein it was held treat the establishment performing *ovir- eira functions shall be excluded from the provisions of the term 'industry' as tfven jn J JJ Ad 1947. But the learned Counsel fov the Woikmen, relied upon 1994 IT TXJ

"Fven in a department discharging sovereign function if there are units, which are industries and the/ nrn snbsrnnthliv severablo. then thev should be consi- dered to come within the fold of Section 2fi) of the Industrial Deputes Act. The Central Ordr.anc^ Depot, being a seyerable unit of Defence Derail- ment and is carrving on a systematic activity wifh the cooperation of employees and emoioyer. thus it is an Tndustiy within the meaning of Sec, 25-J." Thus it is settled law that even in departments discharginn Sovcr iri functions f there are units which are sevrrnbli they ~n be considered within Section 2(j) Tn the later jiidi-e nicnt Cential Ordnance Dept, of Union of India itself was e party and it was held the employees thereunder would bell$O THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2001/FIMLGUNA 26, 1922 [PART I I - , S EC 3(ii)] coveicd under Section 2(j) and Ihai the management would be CI'IILI as an 'lujustry'. The Central Ordnance PBDOI Union o\ India Usclf was held as un Industry. This lesppndem nlpo oi tl^at category So this Respondent can as well be c^lca (is an industry for the purpose of this issue, Ihti-- tore, the contention fiat this Coml has no jurisdiction I-, nut acceptable

10. Tho next point that wa, urged on the side of the manaycrticnt is that for iht conduct of petitioner which occur- red on 11-12-70 the penalty was passed on 27-2-71 and that it wdi some wheie in 1989 that the Regional Labour Com- missioner has enquired this matter. Therefore, it was ngued that the cause cannpt be agitated aftei 18 long yens, i-or tnii purpose, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner leliwl upon AIR 1999 Supierac Couit "J351 Wherein (he follow ng was heU •

"The provisions of Art. 137 of the Schedule to Limit! tion Act, 1963 pie not aopHcublt: lo the proceedings lender the AU and that the relief undpi it c a i na be denied to thv showing the real prejudice and npt as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to tho Laboui Court can be generally questioned on tho ground cf deley "lon;, Rven in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court oi Board, dealing with the case can appro n.ate'v mould the relief by declining Jo giant baekwages to Ihe workman nil the dale he raised the dinned regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination oi di".- missal. The Court may also in appropiiak- cases direct the payment of paif r,f (he back-wapes n.&tccM Cf full backvnges.'¹

fn that case thf rp1'ef was held Ihnt could he moulded a* deenud fit bv the TVbunal. Bv relying upon MR 1994 Supreme Court 112, iK' learned Counsel foi the Pensioner uTpiiad that in view of leinstiitemcnt which could not he pKcn now foi the petitioner, since he h,is attained or goi;n' lo attain ?oon the age or superannuation, (he relief nn he moulded by awy of grant of lumpsum compensation.

In fact, in that case it was held as follows .

" l ie lespondent was dismissed way back on 17th K.v ember, 1967 and wo are now in March 1992. We thought it would be proper If the respondent is p.iid a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement That was also the suggestion which came from counsel for the respondent but sh'- stated th it the respondent should be paid 75 per cent of the hack- wages by way of compensation That sugprstion was not ac"->t;b.]e lo the Teamed Counsel for the appellant. \ye, however, thought that a sump sum payment is the most suitable solution to this dispute between the patties. Unfortunately, the coun'cl for Ihe parties u it not in nrvscssion of the relevant material concerning thf >ahuv (if lh" lesnoident and its revision from tinv lo tinv. Wi>. thcicfore. have to do v.ime amount of . work Keer'nir in mind whit ve the ial.-mes in 1%7 Hnd the lev si- ons that took place theri after in Sun- Service-., * n.iiar revises also tooK place in the servirrs nt the public sector corporations, we worked out ih." compensation kerning in '•• the rival cont.nn ns of the nartifs. We supijest^d that on n\]y v'iik thf rompfnsa('on rnmes tf Rs 75000 Botn ihc learned counsel have aprsed to tho Mi

T h is i he ( ' ' • l av a K < "> \ ' ll n o( i >n i r - . i i n st t hr w o r k m an N OM lefl ITS com" 'o the miVi 'soup tm whether 1^" n i H i c i er b M( Tniic^rdiiclffi himself ,ind

Q. How was his attendance wth regard to being punc- tual and with regard to presence on the work tpctV A. He was gcncrallj comin" lnfr and absence fwiv duty with permission (i.e.) when he JS going on leave with permission.

Q. Was he leaving the workshop always with your prior permission?

A. Some times h* used to go with permission and tomo times without peirnissjon also.

Q. After the OM'i, warning dated 25-9-70 had you been keeping a record of the output he was giving ?

' A. 1 used to senJ the record of output on day to Jiv basis to the Manager (LMS) through Asst. Mnnager (LMS) and I used to have a copy of the same also.

*.' Weie those figures of outputf Sri Ramanathan was giving, receoided after asking him how much he had produced?

A I used to record the same in one of the copies to be sent to Manager fLMS) through Asst. Mannger (LMS). Thert was definite instruction from Mana- ger (IMS) stating that I have to give the job to Sri Ramanathan in the morning and find out how many he has done by the closing hours ot the fac- tory in the tvening. The uxsliuction was alao there, r'urinu any absence Group in charge Sri Naga-oj.in, A/F will be doting the work as said in the above manner.

Q. Does it not then mean that Mr. Ramanathan was fully aware of the out turn he was actually giving and the out turn he was expected to give?

A, IT' was aware of the actual piojuction he has to give as he was applied with process sheet, wheix the- timc is recorded.

0. Did Mr. Ramoiiathan lepoit for duty on 1-I2-1970 at the light time?

A, He reported for duty at 9 00 A.M. on 11-12-70 Q Did you allot him work as usual on that day?

A. 1 called him to allot the work hut he went out of the Capstan Group and he came ut ;tbout 10.45 A M. to the Section speaking with operators till 10.55 A.M. He reported at 1.45 p.m. and started his w^rk and he had done 2 components before the rioiing hours. He has taken permission at 12.45 p.m. to see the Chaiman, Works Committee.

Q. D^d he address any fuoup of WJikers in the section on 11-12-70?

A He was speaking with a gr^up of people from 10 45 A.M. to 10 55 A.M. in the Capstan Group.

Q. Did the work come to a stop in the section or pnrt of the section n" a result of Mr. Ramanathan upc.ik- inptothe wnikers?

\, I he Stoppago of work was there from 10.45 A.M. to 10.55 A M. When Mr. Ramanathan was preen* and stoppago of work was also there from 12 45 P.M. to 1.15 P M, when Mr R'unanathan was n.->t there in the Capstan Group.

' f IT) aware -at ;t

Q. Did Mr. Ramunathan show any improvement in his performance Etter the OM'a warning doted 2^-()-70' The witnesses managed to say the sami; in the course t>f Cross-examination also. Witness No. 4 also had maintained the same as against the petitioner Seeing through the cojw of assessment of evidence contained in the proceeding ot enquiry, we are able lo see that (tv* Enquiiy Officer has well considered the various aspects put in the evidence and Pape Nos. 1 and 11 (as mentioned at page No. 84 of the typed set) of the Pioceedings of the enquiry, which will <*o a lot tn show against the petitioner. A careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence would only t,o to justify the findings (riven at pajie No. 91 of the Tvpni set which Is contained in (he last pagf of the report of the Enquiry Officer. S.i

1151

\lx. Wll 2-5-72 • PART-II ORDER rog. Termini tion o

Screvice un-Jer General Civil Service.

h\. WI2 .. : Utscusslon and Subsequent orJer i&

latinK to Labour situation in HVF (Minute* of Meeting).

^ition should not be c, abutted. A collective reading of the entire t\ idenco of individual witnesses shall have to be Iveished. If this is done the misconduct is found proved Whether the Charge Nos, 3 to 5 speak to the same set of facts if> n°t the question; but the question is whether the Allegations aie true. A perusal of the entire evidence would inly no to show that the allegations have been proved, doi itc (he fact that Charge Nos. 3 to 5 uie interlinked.

v W13 23-8-74 : Letter by A.I.D.F, to the General Manager, H.V.F. regarding Harrawment in HVF

DOCUMENTS OF MANAGEMENT

Ex. Ml Chapter 21 : Establishment mid Functions of

central Adminisliative Tribunal. The Ad*n'nistra live Tribunal Act, 1985 (No. 13 of 1985).

fcjf. M2 1-12-/0 . Lharge sheet to Mr. M. Ramanathan. Ex. M3 6-2-71 : Disciplinary proc.JI¹dinp9 under rule 14

of Centra] Civil Service.

Ex. M4 27-2-71 • Imposition ot penalty.

Ex. M/ 4-3-71 : Appeal made by Mr. Ramanathan/

•Workman.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Woikman contended ihdt Mi, Wellington, the Enquiry Officer was only Subordi- nate to Mi. Kini, the General Manager who actually issued the Chaige Sheet, The rule is that any officer Superior to the Workman has to conduct the enquiiy There is no rule that Chaige Sheet should not be issued by the General Manager oi that Asst. Manager should" not be Fnquiiy Officer. No such piovkion Jn the Standing order of Service Rules was pointed out and again the non-examination of the Manager may not matter much because the Manager himself has issued a Chai/ff" Sheet and he is the Head of Ibe office who even if examined may only endorse the view of arlual witnesses of the occurrence Further the General Manager hud not witnessed anything so as to speak against trie charges So the non-examination of the General Mana- ger is not fatal.

13. By evaluating the entire evidence. I am of the vi^w that us ctcjpier of the so many office bearcrihip in the Union ciin fcvei be'exempted fiom adherence to the Crmilua Rules and he <;an never be taken exemption from co-emp- loyees Since the misconducts aie found proved f do not wlinl to mterfeie in the punishment also as chcunistances justify the same. Strict discipline shall have to be adhced ml places of defence workshops and in default it may endan- ger the sauilty of the nation itself

14 Therefore, the Manasement

Awnid rassed arcoicllngiy. No costs

riated jt Chennai, this 31s( day of Januaiy, 2001

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2001 S. R SI \GHARAVIXU, Industiial Triliin.il

Witnesses Examined

For Pttituim-rlWoikmon

WW! (Proof affidavit)—Chief Cross M. RamaPHthan.

For FespondcntlManitti-rient

MW1 : Th. P. Surendran (Proof affidavit).

A ND

The DirectOl, Kalakshelra Foundation, Thiruvamnlyur, Chennai. Mnnwficmcnt/II Party APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant: Unrepresented.

For the Management : M/s. RHm.iMibKimaniam & Associales, Advocates.

REFERENCli

' " ' Order No. I. 42011 /49/200(kIK(DU) dt. 30-10 2000 Ministrv of Laboui, Government of India, New Delhi.

AWARD

SCHEDULE OI' REFERENCE :

"Whether the wilhdrawnl of lree food iiipply to the workmen working in the kitchen department of B.C.C. Hostel in Kalakshetn Foundation is legal and justified 7 Tf not, to what lelief the workman are entitled ?"

The Central Goveinment by its order referred above has referred the Schedule mentioned dispute between the panics for adjudxatlon by this Tribunal.

On receipt oi this reference, this dispute has been taken on file of this Tribunal on 20-11-2000 a* Industrial Dispute No S3 of 2000 and notice to both the parties were ordered to be sent by Repistered Post with acknowledgement due for the hearing on O^-lJ-2000. The notices sent accordingly to both the parties were seived and poslnl acknowledgements were received. Hut the 1 Party /Claimant WHS not present for the hearing and there was no repi contrition for the I Party Union. Counsel appealing for the II Pirty M/a. Rr.masubra- maniam & Associates filed Vakalat. So Ihc case was ddjomn- ed to 15-12-2000 foi Ihe I Partv Union to appear and to flic the Claim Statement. When the matter was taken up on the adjourned date 15-12-2000, ths counsel on record for the 'II Party alone was present. Neither the I Party/Claimant noi any of their representative present and file the Claim State- ment of the I Party. Theie was no representation for I Parly. So the matter wai adjourned to 29-12-2000 for Ihe appearance of I Party and for filing their Claim Statement. When, on 29-12-2000, the matter was taken up I Party Union, remain unrepresented and tho Claim Statement of the I Party was not filed. Counsel for the II Party alone was present. So the matter was adjourned to 17-01-2001 ordering fresh notice 10' the I Party Uniou by Registered Post with ucknowledegemenf due. On that day also, when the matter was taken up II Party counsel alone appeared. No one appeared for I Party/ Claimant and the Claim Statement of the r Partv was not filed. There waj no representation al all for the I Pmtv. Then it waa ordered to issue final notice to T Partv UIIOT. by Registered Post w'th acknowledgement due for the hearing on this day the 30th January, 200t. Accordingly, the final rotice Wfls sent bv R e v e r ed Post vith acknowledgement due for the I Ptrty for to-dny's hearing Whe^i the matter was taken up to-day, there is no representation for T Party Union. No one is appeared inspite or the final notice sent by Registered Posl was served on them as it is seen from the postal acknowledgement received There k no renresen- tation. Claim Statement for f.he I Part\ is not filed. Counsel representing (he Management/IT Parry present. Having received the notices sent bv Registered Post including tho final notice for to-day's hearing, the Pnrtv Union's represen- tative has not choyjn to appear befoie (bis foium and file the Claim Sfatem-nt espousing tin- cause ot the concerned workmen There is absolutely no reprfsmt^ioT for thr I Party Union all these various hcjring. The absence of the I Partv union for all the hearings consistently, shows thnt the union which espousing the cau" of the concerned work- men by rHisini; thin industrial disntitc nnil the concerned workmen nav.- absolutely no interest on inclination to prosecute this oVpute before this Trilmn.il for adjudication foi the reVef houq'it. ns mentioned In (h- SchrdnTi- of reference. Undei Mich ciirumstanccs. fhis Tifbnmil Ins 1.1 conrliije that no drpule exists between the parties.

In the result, iho Tribunal paw an award, holding, th.it the dispute under leferenoe does not exist and dismiss the claim referred to for non-prosecution. No cost.

Dictated to the typist, typed by her direct, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this day ther 30th Januaiy, 2001.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2001

S.O. 567.—Fn purscuancc of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1*347), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Puno as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between- the einployeis ini relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Goveinment on 20-2-2001.

[No. H2011/92/98-IR(B-ll)| AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. G. HARTALKAR, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE

Refeience (IT) No. 13 of 1999

TV-. N^. 0-5.

BETWEEN

Ilie Bank of India, Pime Regional Office. 1162/6, Shivajinagar, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune (Mahnrashtra)-411005.

First Party,

AND

Their Workmen.

Second Party.

In the matter of:

For adjudication of an industrial dispute pertaining to "Whether the action of tho management of Bank of India, Pune, is not assigning the Cashier's duties to Shn Bam at Vafgaon branch from 22-2-1996 to November 1997 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the worl.man is entitled to ?"

APPEARANCES :

Shri A. V. Joshi, Zonal Secretary, Bank of India Workers' Organisation, for the second party workman.

Shri Lancy T . D'Souza, for the first party Bunk.

AWARD

12th February, 2001

Schedule to the Order of the Reference dated 11-6-1999. which is as under:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Pune, in not assigning the Cashier's duties to Shri Batn at Vafgaon bradch from 22-2-1996 to November, 1997 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2- The second party the staernent of claim at L.xh. U-2.

3. The first party Bank filed its written statement at Exh. C-5.

4. As per purshis filed at EAII, U-7, the seconj Party Union has submitted a Puishis to the eu'tct that ihe second party does not-desire to proceed with the dispute leferred for adjudication under the present Reference proceeding becauso the concerned employee has applied for voluntary retirement.

5. In view of the withdrawal Purshis filed by the second pjrty at Exh. U-7, the demand in question is not pressed and tfle present Reference is therefore, liable to be disposed of accordingly. Hence I pass the following Award.

AWARD

As per withdrawal purshis filed by the second party at Exh. U-7, the demand in question Is not pressed for the reason that the concerned' workman has applied for voluntary retire- ment. The Reference is therefore, hereby disposed of as not pressed, vide Exh. U-7. No orders as to the costs. Award is made accordantly,

12th February, 2001.

S. G. HARTALKAR, Industrial Tribunal New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2001

S.O. 568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2001.

fNo. L-17012|36|98-IR(B-II)J AIAV KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CtJM-LABQIJR COURT. LUCKNOW Presiding Officer : Rudre&h Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No.: 3212000 (Old No. 114|99)

1153

AND

Branch Manager, LIC of India, 313 Civil Lines, Faizabad Road, Barabanki.

AWARD

Initially, by reference No. : L-17012|36|98|IR(B-Il) dated 25-5-iyyy, the Central Government m the Ministry of Lab- our, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) of¹ section 10 I.D. Act., 1947 made over this industrial dispute between pradcep Kumar Gupta and Branch- Manager, LIC of India. Barabanki to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kunpur for adjudication. Later, by order dated 24-3-2000 this dispute was transferied to this Tribunal.

The reference is re-produced as under :

"Whether the action of Management of HC of India in terminating the service of Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta from 1-8-94 was legal and justified? If not, what relief is workman is entitled to7" 2. The workman, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, admittedly, was engaged as daily wager, in the month of Sept. 1992 at Barabanki branch of the LIC of India. He was under the working control of Lhe Branch Manager. As alleged by the workman, he continuously worked frqrn September 19j?2 till 31-7-94 and was terminated from l-8-i>4. He worked, for 279 days continuously but the management, instead of taking recourse to section 25 F. stuck his, name from the roll and terminated him front the service. Unfair labour practices were ndopted by the management, in retaining juniors since he woiked for more than 240 days continuously. The manage- ment's action being illegal in terminating his services, the workman, has claimed reinstatement with back wages, 3. The management has denied claim of the workman, stating that the workman was never appointed, as per rules against the post of class IV employee. He- was engaged occasionally, when cxgencies arose. He worked on contract and also on daily wage as per requirements. His total work- ing days were much less than 240 days for which payments were made to him. ft is also alleged that the original paid vouchers and other relevant documents were removed in clandestine manner with interior purpose. On verification from the budget control register, the workman actually work- ed for 137 day.. In any manner the total working days in a calendar year was le?s than 240 days and benefit under section 25F I.D. Act is not tvnilablc to sustain clairn of the workman.

4. A photo copy ot ceilificute dated 25-7-96,. allegedly signed by the Branch Manager, LIC| of India is on record. This ceilificate • is not admitted by the management, In addition, the work- man filed papers claiming wages and orders even passed, over them to show actual payments. Genuineness of these docu- ments are admitted which would be discussed later. The woikman has also filed photo copv of 2 leafs of Attendance Register for the mon*h of Apr'l a"d May 1994 showing his signatures and attendance. These photo copies are also not admitted by the management. In addition to it, the work- man examined himself on affidavit to prove continuity of service for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

possesw;i of the woiiiman, were filed without explaining UK¹ source and manner as how these documents, came m the possession or. tne workman, l'nc management alleged tiiut the original paper relating lo payments and other allied documents rciatiDg to payment, woiw removed by some one from the office. In this context, it is necessary for the workman to explain as how he came in possession of these documents. Placing reliance on such documents whose ori- ginal are not ilaceable with the management and workman tailing to show souice of receipt would encourage tendency to lemove relevant papers from file. Genuineness of these papers musl bo proved by direct evidence, before these are admitted and relied. However, with view to judge the guilty of evidence filed by the management, reference may be had as and when needed.

7- The onus to prove continuous engagement for 240 days liea on the workman. He filed a certificate dated 25-7-1990, reportedly, signed by the Branch Manager. Original certifi- cate has not been produced in tins case, This certificate is not proved by calling the Brunch Manager and getting his signature proved. Period mentioned in tho said certificate, is not corroborated by the payments itceivetl by the workman ti om the management. Whether the workman continuously worked, or in between the dates mention'd in the certifi- cate, there were interruptions, is not shown. Number of days counted for payment contradicts the period shown in the certificate.

8. The workman nas filed one application on 23-9-1992, claiming payment from 14-9-92 to 17-9-92 with the rate of Rs. 20 per day and me payment was made to him. Recom- mendation for payment by office mentions that Pradeep Kumar Gupta worked 'on contract ou those days and ac- cordingly Rs. 80 was paid to him. This endorsement indica- tes that he worked on contract and was not a casual labour or daily wager us claimed by him. No documents showu-.g engagement from 17-9-92 to 27-8-93 is on record, On appli- cations dated 1-2-94 and 1-3-94 theie are no endorsements showing payments to the workman. These documents can net be relied. Likewise, on applications cl the workman dated .1-7-1994 and 1-8-1994, the mode of payment seems to br different and cast doubt whethci payments were cowards wages or otherwise. Two photo copies, days for April and May 1994, allegedly from the Attendance Register, is tiled by the workman. Management has clarified that no attend- ance register is prescribed for casual workers. Those fabrica- tions were made by the workman himscl£ These leafs are not part of the records, maintained in the establishment.

9. FiOm August 1993 onwards, the management has Hied photo copies of the 'Budget Control Register', which show payments made to many persons including the workman at several occasions. On the basis of payments maJe to tne workman during the period, his working days were not 240 days. Even few days working period in 1992 be considered, even then, tho workman did not work for 240 days conti- nuous service, disentitling him to get benefit of scciton 25-F I.D. Act, 1947.

10. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to iclief of reinstatement, as claimed,

11. Award accordingly.

8-2-2001

LUCKNOW

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001 S.O. 569.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 45-1 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1943 (34 of 1945) read with notifi- cation of Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour published in Part-II, Section 3 Sub-Section (li) of the Gazette of India, extraordinary vide S.O. 769(E) dated the 15th October, 1992, the Central Govt, con- sequent upon creation of State of Jharkhand authori- rises the officer mentioned in Column (2) of the sche- dule below to exercise the powers of Authorised Offi- cer under the said Act on and from the date of con- stitution of the State concerned for the area mentioned in column 3 of the said schedule, in relation td all factories and esaHishments covered under the provi- sions of the said act, namely:—

Area in relation to SI. No. Designation of the Officer

which to be exercised 1, Joint Director/

The State of Jharkhand.

Deputy Director/ Assistant Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, PATNA (BIHAR).

TNo. S-38025/2/2001-SS-Il L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

1155 New Delhi, the 28th Febraury, 2001

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001 Designation of the Officer Area in relation to

SI. No.

which to be

exercised

Area in relation to

SI. No. Designation of the Officer

1.

which to be exercised

The State of Jharkhand.

1. Deputy Director,

Depeuty Director, Employees State insurance Corporation, Regional Office, PATNA (BIHAR).

The State of Uttaranchal.

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Kanpur (U.P<).

2. Deeputy Director,

The State of Chhatlsgarh,

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, W o re (M.P.).

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001 S.O. 572.—In CACICISC oh the powers conferred by clause (t>) of Section 45-1 of Employees State Insu- rance Act 1943 (34 of 1945) read with notification of Govt. of India in the Ministiy of Labour published in Part-II, Section 3 Sub-Section (ii) of the Gazette of India, extra ordinary vide S.O. 554(E) dated the 28th August 1991, the Central Govt. consequent upon creation of State of Uttaranclul and Chhatisgarh autho- rises the officers mentioned in Column (2) of the schedule below to c\eicisc the powers of Authorised Officer under the said Act on and from the date of constitution of the State concerned for the area men- tioned in column 3 of the said schedule, in relation to all factories and establishments covered under the provisions* of the said Act, namely :—

Area in relation to SI. No. Designation of the Officer

Which to be

exeicised 1. Joint Director/

The State of Uttaranchal.

Deputy Director/ Assistant Director, Employees State In'iiiance Corporation, Reglonu] Offlcee, Kanpur (U.P.). 2. Jpint Director/

The State of Chhatisgirh Deeputy Director/ Assistant Director, Employees State Inwiance Corporation, Regional Office, Indore (M P.).

[No. S-38O25|2|2OO1-SS-1] L. TJ. RUOLNGUL, Under Sec.y. New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001 S.O. 573.—In pursuance of Section 17 ot the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ontral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. I, Dnunbad as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M|s. BCC Ltd. and their work- man, which was received, by the Central Govern- ment On 27-2-2001.

[No. L-20012|(33)|90-IR(C-T)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

HEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under Section 10(1) (d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference No. 132 of 1990

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Kachhi Ba-Iihari Colliery of MJs. BCCL,

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri Sarjii Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate. For the Workmen : Shri B. N. Singh, Secre- tary, Rashtriya Coolliery Mazdoor Sangh., STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coal ~" Dated, "tfie" 15th February, 2001

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012(33)|90-I.R. (Caal-I) dated the 4th June, 1990 the Centrpi Government in the Ministry of I abour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dis- pute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whethor the action of the management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery of M[s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in not giving employ- 1157 employment to Shri Nayimuddin and 17 others (shown in tile amnexure) is justi- fied ? If not, to what relief are the work- men entitled ?"

2. This industrial dispute has been refeired by the Central Government in the Department of Labour to adjudicate if the action of the manage- mention of Kuchhi Balihari Coliery of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. in not living employment to Shri Nuyimuddin and 17 others, whose names find place in the an- nexure to be reference order, is justified. The fur- ther question to be adjudicated is the action of the management is not justified then to what relief are they entitled ?

management of Kachhi Baliliari Colliery and the concerned workmen who arc only the contractor workers working under a contractor, Jagdibh Mishra. According to them the management has been engaging them by issuing work order to Jagdish Mishra for doing some temporary nature of job and it was Jagdish Mishra who used to en- gage his Workers and complete the job assigned to him. Since the works were of temporary and petty in nature and the management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery hais no direct control over the workers of the contractor, therefore there is no relationship of employer-employee between the management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery and workers of the con- tractor, Jagdish Mishra. However, they have admit- ted that as per requirement under the provision of Section 18 of the Mines Act, 1952 the manage- ment's officers are duty bound'to supervise the safety aspect of the work done by the contractor's workers also. Further according to the management, all the concerned workmen have not worked under the contractor, Jagdish Mishra nor they have worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Further according to them M|s. B.C.C.Ltd. is having surplus work- men, therefore it is not possible for them to give employment to the concerned persons, therefore ac- cording to them the action of the management in not regularising the concerned persons is justified and they are not entitled to any relief.

5. From the pleadings of the parties it is ap- parent that the management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery has admitted that Nayimuddin and 17 others are the contractor's workers working under a contactor, Ja'gdish Mishra. But according to them Jagdish Mishra was awarded contract in the temporary nature of job whenever there was any re- quirement to do so and all the concerned persons have not worked under such contractor and the concerned persons have never put in 190|240 days work in a calendar year.

6. In course of evidence management's witnesses have admitted that whoever goes into underground mine may be a contractor's workman or workman of the colliery he is issued cap lamp and safety boot and the name of such person is entered in Form 'C register. The management's witnesses have admitted that the Cap Lasnp Issue Register and Form 'C Register will prove as to how many days a contractor's worker has worked into the under ground mine. A petition was filed on behalf of the sponsoring union colling for the Attendance Regis- ter in Form 'C and Cap Lamp Tssue Register, but the management has not filed the iajme nor they have given any explanation for not filing the same, 3. The case of the sponsoring union, namely, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh is that Nayimuddin and 17 others whose names find place in the annexure to the reference order were em- ployed as Tyndals continuously by the manage- ment of Kachhi Balihnri Colliery through interme- diary at Nos. 5f 6 and 10 pits of the said colliery from January 1987 to 3-12-1988 who have been continuously working under the direct control and supervision of the management of the said colliery and their attendance in each calendar year was more than 240 days. According to them although they were working on the job of tyndals and mis- cellaneous job as per direction of the management but they were being pi'id less wages than the wages prescribed under the NCWA and in order to camouflage they are being shown as contractor's labour but in fact they are the workmen of the management of B.C.C. Ltd. The concerned per- sons have been stopped work on and from 14-12-1988. They requested the management of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. to take them back in employ- ment on their permanent roll but they did not listen such request. Since they were working conti- nuously from January 1987 to 3-12-1988 and their attendance in each calendar year was more than 240 days they are entitled for their being placed on permanent post of the management from January, 1988 itself. The sponsoring union has raised the dispute and before the Conciliation Officer the management has admitted that the concerned per- sons have been working as contractor workers under one Jagdish Mishra. Since the concerned persons were working on permanent nature of job, therefore they are entitled for absorption as perma- nent employees of M[s. B.C.C. Ltd. from January. 1988, therefore they have made a praver for pas- sing an fiward holding the action of the manage- ment not justified and for making order to reinstate th"m a^ nermanent workmen of the mn'nni>ement fiom January 1988 with back wages.

4. The case of the management of Kachhi Baii- hari Colliery of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. is that the re- ference is bad and not maintainable as there is no relationship of employer and employee betveen \hc

7. During the cbucse of cross-examination of the witness's of the management questions have been put whether the management of Kachhi Bali- hari Colliery has been registered under the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the so-called contractor, Jagdish Mishra1158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2001/PHALGUNA 26, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Amarendia f houdhary is [he Joint Secretary of the sponsor- ing union who lus supported its case and WW-4, Krishnandan Prusad is H Mining Sirdar of the management and he too has said that these p'-*rson& were working as Tyndul in Kachhi Balihari colliery. The management has examined MW-1, PiiiLishotuin Das Shaitna who is a Surveyor, He has proved 1(1 work orders Kxti. M-l to M-l/9 and al°o 10 bills, Exts, M-2 to M-2/9 and a letter addressed to Rendering Officer under ConttaU Labour Act by the Dy. C.M.E. which has been marked T\t. M-3. He has clearly stated that Nayimnd- din and 17 otheis were the contractor's workers. Fiom the work oldeis Ext. M-1 scries it is clear that the woik orders relate to various jobs including the job of tyndal, cleaning of the debrics into the underground mine, dressing side in coal, making duggis, loading and unloading and carrying oJ heavy mateiials which are the job of tyndal. This witness 1ms said that he is concerned¹ with only one pit of mine al- though thcie are four pits and the work order of all the piN hiv: not been produced. The management has not shown any tender notice nor they have shown any quotation oi the agreement between the management and the contractor On the other hand, since neither the principal employer is a regiilercd establishment for engagement of contractor nor the contractor is having any licence under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, therefore it can be safely said that the arrangement regarding contract is nothing but a camouflage. Therefore the topl of contiact being real is not fulfilled in the present case.

9. The manaut-ment tins further examined MW-2, Abinash Piasad who has come to say that at Ealihari colliery the management used to get executed some job of petty nature through contractor. The modalities of engagement of con- tractor is that (he intending contractor has to apply for being engaged as such with necessary documents to the Headquarters of BCCT. at Koyla Bhawan. A'fter approval of the name of the contractor, a list is sent to the General Man.ijiei of Area Office and the General Manager of the Aic:i Office passes the list to (he colliery giving approval for cnjM(_''.'roent of lontiactoi fiom the list. For some specific conl rnctnai work there are some approved rates approved hv the Ileadqumteis of BCCL at Kovla Bhawan and¹ the con- nector is engaged upon the approved rate. The management has nol filed any such list approved by the Headqunrtei (i of BCCL at Koyla Bhawan showing thai Jagdish Mishra was an approved contractor. He has come to say that out of the coiiLeined peisons some of them have worked only for 10 to 12 days during (he period 1987 to 3-12-1989, but he Ins admitted that (he attendance of even contractor's workei is marked in Form 'C r e n t er and Cap Lamp Issue Register These registers aie available in the colliery. But the manage- ment has not filed these registers nor they have offered any explanation for not filing the'e registers, although it was. directed to the management to file those registers. The man- agement has also examined MW-3, Krishna Mohan Prasad, who was Peisonnel Officer at Balihari Colliery till June 19HK He has come to say that Jagdish Mishra was engaged in the colliery as Contractor and the conti actor used to engage his own workei s. He has further come to say that the concerned workmen have never worked¹ for more than¹ 240 day;i in a calendar year. He has admitted that he is awn re of the fact (hat a contractor engages 20 or" more wciikmen is lequired to gnt licence under the Contract Labour (Rcaulslion and Abolition) Act and the principal employer is also requited to be registered for engagement of contrac- tor, bul he could not say if the principal employer is a reglstfied establishment for engagement of contractor and the con/ractou. fattdish Mi"hia i" a licencee contractor. He has further stated¹ that Contract Labour Register and Form 'C Rrsisipr will prove the attendance of the workmen. The MW 4. Badri Alnm Khan who is Register Keeper has pro- duced the (egiatcr of contractor's workers and photo copies of six leRisteis, but the original cap lamp issue register o Form 'C rcgis'cr have not been produced.

10 Thus, from th*; ev'denc^ available on record, I fln<1 (hp( the ronccned persons have been continuously work inn) duiiiic the pfi-iorl 10R7 to 1-12-19R8 and¹ the itiBnnpenii'nt Ti')-Ver therefore ndversc inference will have to be drawn fiW'iT-t the mmi'ieement and it must be deemed that (hey Inwe Mipnrr<;=ed these dominants because if produce^ the same would have proved that (he concerned persons have yoiked for 240 days or more in a calendar year. Therefore, it is apparent that the work in which the concerned persons were engaged arc of permanent natme. Furthermore the icgister of the contractor Itself goes to show that during one yenr approximately 200 contractor's workers were working con- tinuously, therefore such work ntust be deemed to be permanent and perennial m naluie because explanation lo Section 5(b) clearly indicates, that a woilc performed for more than 120¹ (Jays, in a preceding 12 monthi or in case of sessional v/otk performed for more than 60 day? in a year is to be decreed to be of an intermittant nature. Thus, it is apparent th ' the concerned persons were engaged by the management of Kachhi Balihan colliery of M/fc. BCCL in permanent elf, bill in view of the fact that M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. is running in loss and there is no evidence that the concerned persons were not gainfully employed during the idle period, therefore they arc not entitled for beck wagei*.

11 In the result, I render—

'

AWARD

That the action of the management of Kachhi Bniihan Colliery in not regularising the concerned workmen it, not justified and the concerned persons as mentioned in the sche- dule to the reference, order aic entitled to be regularised as permanent woikmcn of Kachhi Balihari Colliery of M/s. U C.C. I td. The management must regularise them as General Mazdoor Category-I within 30 days from the date of publi- cation of the award failing which the concerned persons ihull be entitled for wages of General Mazdoor Category 1 Wilh effect from the date of publication of the award,

SAKJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer S.O, 574.—la pursuance of Section 17 of the New Delhi, the 1st March, 20O1 Industrial Disputes; Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cert- fral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial "Dispute between the employers in relation to the management* of M/sT B.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-2-2001.

[No. L-200i2/I02/96-lR(C-I}] S. S. .GUPTA, Under Secy.

687 G 1/2001—7

1159

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I AT DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under Section l()(l)(d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 REFERENCE NO. 112 OF 1997 PARTIES:

Employers in relation fo the management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL,

AND

Thdr Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Sfon H. Natb, Advocate. For the Workman—Shri S. C. Gour, Advocate. STATE: Jharkhand. INDUSTRY: coal.

Dated, the 12lh February, 2001

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/l()2/96-lR(C-I) dated, the 14th May, 1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers con- • ferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management in deny- ing td refer the workman Sh. B. Bhagtu Rajwar to Apex Medical Board for assess- ment of his age and fitness for job is justi- fied ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled.7"

2. In this case Shri H. Nath, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the management on 8-2-2001 filed docu- ments and submitted that the other side even on 8-2-2001 did not file rejoinder, hence he prayed for passing a 'No Dispute' Award in this case.

3. Shri S. C. Gour, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that inspite- of • sending letter to the workman he Tia6 not taken any interest in contesting his case.

4. In such circumstances T render a "No Dispute" award in the present industrial dispute.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer1160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2001/PHALGUNA 26, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001 S.O. 575.—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, New Delhi as shuwn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. B.P.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-2-2001.

[No. L-30012/(17)/96-IR(C-I).l S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 102|97

In the matter of dispute between:

The General Secretary, B. P. Technician's Union, RZ-G-140|2, Raj Nagar, Part-Il, D.D.A. Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45.

Versus

The Chief General

Delhi the standing orders certified by the Labour Com- missioner in 1981 were applicable alike on each of the employee of the management but the General Manager of the management has shown discriminatory attitude in respect of the making of the attendance of the employees. Some of the employees of the management were directed to make their attendance only by putting their signatures when some of the employees were required to mark their attendance by punching the time card given to him. It is further staled that the employees who were required to mark their attendance by punching their attendance had to punch their time card at different three places and minutes to minutes detail of their attendance was noted there when it was not the case with respect to the employees directed¹ to mark their attendance by putting then: signature only. According to the work- man there should be uniformity in the system of marking attendance by all the employees of the management.

3. The Management has contested the workman's case.

4. In the written statement filed by the management at the first stage preliminary objections have been taken and it is stated that there is no proper espousal of the cause by the workmen for raising the industrial dispute. Secondly that the issue related with respect to the applicability of the certified standing order to the Shakur Basti installation of the management is not covered under schedule 3 of the Act, and reference thus is not legal. Thirdly that since the standing order in question were issued ate per understanding reached bet- ween the workman! and the management represented by Petroleum Workers Union in terms of the settle- ment dated 4-9-81 and the standing orders were certi- fied in the month of March, 83 by the Regional La- bour Commissioner (Central) Delhi. It is being en- forced without being any ambiquity and the workman has no cause of action against the management, only through Time Card only, and in this manner there was no prejudice to the workmen who were re- quired to mark attendance through punching the time card. It is further stated that the said system of marking attendance by punching time card was invoked in the Shakur Basti Installation even prior to the certification of the- standing order. 11 is again i stated that since Workmen were operating in different shifts hence it was convenient to nia!rk their attendance through the time cards.

6. In the rejoinder the workmen have reiterated their stand taken earlier in the case.

7. It appears that vide order dated 11 -1-91 work- men were directed to be proceeded against exparte.

8. On behalf of the management though an affidavit of Shri V, R. Nayak was filed in the case but Shi i V. R Nayak railed¹ to appear in for his cross-examination and vide order dated 20-t 1-2000 the management's evi- dence was closed.

1161 as shown in the Annexurc \o the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relaiion to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by thu Central Government on 28-2-2001.

[No. L-22025|25|2O01-IR(C-II)] N. V. KESAVAN, Desk Officei

ANNEXURE

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

PRKSE-NT :

Sri P. Guruni'dha Rao. B.Sc., B.L., Chairman- cum-Prcsiding Oificct.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of January, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 1999.

BETWEEN

M. Srinivasa Reddy, S|o. Chandraiah, E.C. No. 1228465, Ex-Coal Filler, GDK, 8A Inc. Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani, presently lcsiding at Maredupalli (village), Peddapalli Mand, Karimnagar District.

. .Petitioner.

AND

L The General Manager, RG-I1 Area,

Singarcni Collieries Co, Ltd., Godavarikliani, Karimnagar District 2. The Superintendent of Mines,

GDK.-8A Incline, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., GcdavariLhani. . .Respondents.

Appendix of FvJdence

Witnesses-examined

5. The point for considcrarion is whether the punishment of lenroval of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the iharge.

For Workman :— Nil,

For Management :—Nil.

6. Poinf,—The pelitionu admitted that he was absent from duties in Ihe year- 1996-97 due to sick- ness.

EXHIBITS

For Workman :—

Lx. W-l dt. 19-10-97.- litness certificate (xer.

Ex. W-l is copy ot' medicaJ certificates. For in-A certificate shows ihut the petitioner was examined on 19-10-97 and Hie period from 1-1-96 to 19-10-97 • was recommended for leave.

copy).

Another certificate called Mnc.ss certificate shows For Management : —

that the petitioner was fit for duty from 20-10-97.

E \. M-l dt. —Pay slips of petitioner from January, 1997 to October, 1997. Ex, M-2 dt. —Attendance particu- hr- of petitioner for the period from Ipiiuwry, 1997 to October; 1997.

Ex. M-3 dt. 21-10-07.--Charge-sheet,

Ex. M-4 dt, 3-11-07.—Reply to charge-sheet.

FA. M-5 dt. 7-11-97—Enquiry notice.

V\. M-6 dt. 9-11-^7. —Enquiry officer nomina-

tion letter.

Ex M-7 dt. —-Enquiry proceed-

ings.

Ex M'8 dt. —Enquiry report.

Ex. M-9 dt. 15117-12-97.—Notice.

7. Ex. M-l consist-; of jxiy particular of the peti- tioner from Jnnunry. 1997 In October, 1997. The petitioner was on casual leave foi 11 days and sick lca\c for 15 day.\ in Janiury, 1997, February, 1997, March, 1997, April, 1997, May, 1997 and June, 1997. The petitioner was on casual leave for 11 days and sick leave for 13 days in July, 1997, August, 1997, September, 1'197, and October, 1997. It sho"": fiat rhe Medical certificate obtained by the petitioner in Ex. W-l to the effect that the petitioner ws not doing well from 1-1-1996 to 19-10-1997 was not true. If the petitioner was- not doing well from 1-1-1996 to 10-10-1997, he would not have applied for casual leave and would not have attend- ed to duty for some days in February, March, June, July and October, 1997.

Ex. M-10 dt. I:-1-08.— Representation of peti-

tioner.

Ex. M-ll dt. 20-3-0R.—Dismissal order.

8. Ex. M-3 is char"e-sheet. Tt shows that the petitioner was totally absent in January, 1997, February, 1997, March, 1997, April, 1997 and May, 1097. August, 1997, 1- further stated that the petitioner was present for 12 days in the year, 1996.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Svi P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc.B.L., Chairman- cum-Prcsiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of January, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 1998.

BETWEEN

Singathi Kishan, S|o. Mallaiali, 38 years., Ex-Coal Filler, E. C. No. 2282771, R|o. Patha Bcllampally village, Post : Akenapalli, District Adilabad. . .Petitioner.

AND

1. The General Manager,

M|s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Mandamarri Area, P. O. Mandamarri, District Adilabad.

2. The Superintendent! of Minos, Somagudem No. 1 Incline, M|s. S.C. Co. Ltd., Somagudem, District Adilabad,

. .Respondents.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Amarendar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Roddy, Advo- cate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following :

AWARD

1. This is a petition filed U|s. 2-A (22 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, -1947, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act, 1987.

Facts of the case briefly arc as follows :—

The petitioner was appointed as batili-nlier in the year, 1986. He was promoted as coal-filler in the year, 1989. On 9-1-98, charge-sheet was issued against him for his absence from duty in the year, 1997. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from the service on 19-8-98.

2. Respondents filed counter stating that tlic peti- tioner worked for 42 days in the year, 1997. The attendance of the petitioner in the years 1994 to 1996 was very poor.

3. Ex. W-l and Ex. W-2 are marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-12 are marked on behalf of the respondents.

4. Heard both sides.

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

6. Point.—Ex. M-t is charge-sheet. It shows that the petitioner was absent from 3-1-1997 to 214-1997, 1-2-1997 to 4-2-1997, 16.2.1997 to 18-2-1997 and 24-2-1997 to 28-2-1997, for the entire 687 OIJ2001—8.

1I"1 March, 1997, from I-4rl997 to &4-19&7 aqd 14-4-1997 to 30-4-1997, for the entire May, 1997, June, 1997, entire September, 1997 and many days in July, 1997, August, 1997, October, 1997, Novem- ber, 1997 and December, 1997.

Ex. M-2 is explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner' stated that he was suffering with General weekness. He took treatment in Bellampally and Area Hospital. He was unable to work in the year, 1997.

There is no whisper that the petitioner submitted Medical certificate for his absence in the year, 1997.

7. Ex. M-6 is enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M-7 is enquiry report.

Ex. M-10 is representation of the petitioner stating that he received enquiry report. He further stated that in the year, 1997, he could not attend to duty due to his iU-hcalth.

8. Counsel for the respondents represented that the petitioner worked for 42 days only in 1997.

The petitioner did not submit any medical certifi- cate for his absence.

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

In the result, this 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 pronounc- ed by me in the cpan court on this, 23rd day of January, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer.

Appendix of Evidence

WitnesseB<.examiiied

For Workman :—Nil, For Management :—Nil.

EXHIBITS

For Workman :—

Ex. W-l dt. .—Photostat copies of medical certificates issued by the company authorities.

Ex. W-2 dt. 19-8-98.—Dismissal order.

For Management :—

Ex. M-l dt. 9-1-98.—Charge-sheet.

Ex, M-2 dt. -do- .—Explanation to the charge-sheet,

Ex. M-3 dt. 13-6-98.—Enquiry call letter.

Ex. M-4 dt. -do- .—Undelivered return- ed postal cover with Ack.,

Ex. M-5 dt. 29-6-98,—Enquiry call letter.

Ex M-6 dt. .—Enquiry proceedings. "Ex. M-7 dt. —Enquiry report of the

enquiry officer.

Ex. M-8 dt. 19-7-98.—Letter atfdre&scd to the petitioner by the General Manager, Manda- marri Area, SCCL.

Ex, M-9 dt. 30-7-98.—Acknowledgement.

Ex. M-10 dt. 29-7-98.—Application of the peti- tioner.

Ex, M-ll dt. .—Service particulars and attendance particulars of the petitioner.

Ex. M-12 dt. 19-8-98.—Dismissal order.

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001 S.O. 578.—In purulent of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Godavarikhani as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial t Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-2-2001.

[No. L-22025|25|2001-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

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

Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2001. Industrial Dispute No. 97 of 1999.

BETWEEN

Gunda Satyam, Slo Param, Age 35 yrs., Rio, Kalyani Khani, C|o. 16-9-749|41|l, Race Course Road, Malikpet, Hyderabad, Godavarikliani, Karinmagar. .. Petitioner.

JKND

The Colliery Manager, ^'tin^r^tii Collieries Co. Ltd., TOl\Mn Khini No. 5 Bcllampolly, Ad'labad District. " . . Respondent.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ravi Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consi- deration till this date, the court passed the follow- ing :-~

AWARD

1. This is tt 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 arc as follows :—

The petitioner was working as coal-filler. He fell sick in the year, 1995. He attended to duties in May and June, 1996. After that, he could not attend to duty till December 1996. Charge-sheet was issued against him stating that he had put-in only three days of Lttendance in the year, 1996. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dis- missed from the service on 7-4-98.

2. Respondent filed counter stating that the peti- tioner never informed about his sickness and never submitted any leave application. The petitioner did not disclose about his ill-health during the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was a chronic absentee. It is further stated that the petitioner had put-in 13 days of attendance in 1994 and 28 days of attend- ance in 1995.

3. Petitioner and his advocate are absent. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-l3 are marked.

Heard respondent.

4. The point for consideration is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so, whether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is in proi>ortion to the charge.

5. Point :—Ex. M-l is charge-sheet. It shows that the petitioner attended to duty for three days only in the year, 1996.

Ex. M-3 is explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitidner stated that he was not keeping good health. He was taking treatment in the company hospital as well as in the private hospitals. He was suffering from Gas trouble and General weakness. Now he was cured. He might be exonerated from the charge.

It shows that the petitioner admitted the charge, but pleaded ill-health at the reasons for his absence.

He did not state that he submitted any sick certifi- cate or applied for any kind of leave.

6. Ex. M-5 is enquiiy proceedings.

Ex. M-6 is enquiry report.

Ex. M-7 is show-cause notice,

Ex. M-8 is reply to show-cause notice: The petitioner stated that he was rbsent from duty from Januarv, 1996 to December, 1096. He worked for three days only during that period. He received chargt-sbeet. He attended to the enquiry.

7. The petitioner worked for three davs in the year, 1996. He did not submit any medical certifi- cate. He did not apply for any kind of leave.

I, therefore, consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved and the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

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

Typed to my dictatipn, corrected and pronounc- ed by me in the open court on this, 31st day of January, 2001.

P. QURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cun> Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses-examined

For Workman.-—Nil.

For Management.—Nil.

EXHIBITS

For Workman.—Nil.

For Management.— Ex. M-l dt. 28-4-97.—Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-2 dt. 12-5-97.—Acknowledgement Ex. M3 dt. 16-5-97.—Reply to charge-sheet. Ex, M-4 dt. 19-5-97.—Enquiry notice.

Ex, M-5 dt. 26-5-97.—Enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M-6 dt. 19-3-97.—Enquiry report.

Ex. M-7 dt. 31-8-97.—First show-cause notice.

Ex. M-8 dt. 17-9-97.—Representation of peti- tioner.

Ex. M-9 dt. 10-12-97.—Verification report along-with medical certificate*.

Ex. M-10 dt. 27-12-97.—Corrigendum to en- quiry report.

Ex. M-l 1 dt. 10-2-98,—Second show-cause notice.

Ex. M-l2 dt. 18-3-98.—Vartha Telugu press notification.

Ex. M-l3 dt. 7-4-98.—Dismissal order.

H"5 New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Section 17 erf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal j Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the AnnexuTc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-2-2001.

[No. L-22025|25|200l-IR(C-II)j

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc., B.L., Chainnan- cum-Prcsiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of January, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 112 of 1998.

BETWEEN

Potharo Mallaiah, S|o. Late Ramaiah, Age 46 yrs., Occ : Coal Filler in MVK-V Incline, R|o. Pedda Dubba of Akenapally G.P., Post : Akenapally, Mand. Bcllampalli, Adilabad District.

. Petitioner.

AND

The General Manager (P), Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., BelTampally. —Respondent.

This petition coming before me for final hearing In the presence of Sri J. Rujuiafc, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for conside- ration Ull this date, (he court passed the 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 working as coal-filler. On 29-4-97, charge-sheet was served against him for hi" irregular attendance in the year, 1996. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dis- missed from the service w.e.f. 29-11-97.

2. Respondent filed counter stating that the peti- tioner vfouj appointed on 1-10-1982. He was ab- sent foi a number of days from January, 1996 to December, 1996.

3. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-9 are marked. 4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so, whether the punishment of removal of the petitioner frqp" the service is in proportion to the charge1166 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA : MARCH 17, 2001/PHALGUNA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 6. Point.—Ex. M-2 is chdrg3-shcet. It shows that the petitioner worked for 99 days in 1996 and he was absent for 174 days in the year, 1996.

Ex, M-3 is explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner stated that he could not attend to duty regularly in the year, 1996 due to his ill-health.

There is no whisper that the petitioner submitted any medical certificate for his absence In the year, 1996.

7. Ex. M-5 is enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M-6 is enquiry report.

Ex. M-S is explanation of the petitioner after receiving enquiry report. The petitioner stated that he was not doing well and therefore, he could not attend to duty regularly. He was enclosing hospital cbits.

The petitioner did not state thnr be submitted any medical certificate for his absence in Che year, 1996. 1, therefore, consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved Jnd fhi* punishment of dismissal of (he petitioner from the seincc is in proportion to the charge. Hence, I answer the point accord- ingly.

In the result, this petition "s dismissed. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is con- firmed. Each party do bear trteir own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronouccd by me in the open court on this, 23rd day of January, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses-examined

For Workman.—Nil.

For Management.—Nil.

EXHIBITS

For Workman.—Nil. For Management.—•

Ex M-l dt. 6-8-93.—Enquiry Officer nomina- tion letter, (xerox copy),

Ex. M-2 dt. 29-4-97.—Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-3 dt. 20-6-97.—Explanation to charge-

s sheet.

Ex. M-4 dt. 16-6-97—Enquiry notice.

Ex. M-5 dt. 20-6-97—Enquiry proceedings.

- Ex. M-6 dt. 21-6-97.—Enquiry report.

Ex. M-7 dt 21|23-10-97.-Letter addressed to the petitioner by G.M., B.A.A.(P) EJ' t i i r '³-I ¹-^{9 7}-A p i"k a l iM <* *> &. M-9 dt lSIZO-ll-ST.-Disotai ordtr.

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001 S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Ac<*, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.CL. and their workman, which was received bv tho Central Government on 28-2-2001.

TNo. L-22025/25/2001-IR (C-II)] 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., Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 6th day of December, 2000 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 138 OF 1997 BETWEEN:

Macherla Komuraiah, S/o Mallaiah, Aged 55 yrs., Ex-Shot Firer of GDK-5 Incline, R/o Ashok Nagar, Near Old Ashok Talkies, P.O. Godavarikhani-505 209, Dist. Karimnagar.

— Petitioner

AND

1. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

R/p. by its General Manager, Ramagundam Area-I, Distf. Karimnagar- 505 209.

2. The Colliery Manager,

GDK. No. 5 and 5-A Incline, Ramagundam, P O: Godavarikhanl- 505 209, Dist. Karimnagar.

3. The Chairman & Managing Director, S.C. Co. Ltd., P O: Kothagudcm, Dist. Khammam-507 101.

4. The Chief Medical Officer,

S.C. Co. Ltd., PO: Kothagudem, Dist. Khamman>507 101. — Respondents.

11)61

to raise the question of legality of his removal made on medical grounds.

This petition coming before m" for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondnts and having stood over for considera- tion till this date, the court passed the following:—

In the present case, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on medical grounds. His wife was provided employment. Terminal benefits were, given to him.

AWARD

There is no material on record to show that the decision of the medical board declaring the petitioner as unfit for underground work was illegal.

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

Facts of the case briefly are as follows •

I, therefore, consider that the retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds was not illegal and th© petitioner cannot be reinstated into service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

la the result,, this petition is dismissed. Each

party do bear their own costs.

The petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on 27-2-1963. He was retired from service on medical grounds w.e.f. 11-7-79. The petitioner questions his retirement on medical grounds as it was illegal and un- just.

2. Respondents filed counter.

3. Ex. W-l to Ex. W-6 and Ex. M-l to Ex. M-12

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in th" open court on this, 6th day of Decem- ber, 2000.

are marked.

4. Heard both sides.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 5. The point for consideration is whether the retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds was illegal, if so, whether the petitioner can b© reinstated into service,

WITNESSES-EXAMINED 6. POINT: Ex. W-3 is order dt. 17-7-79. It

For workman ; For Management:

-Nil-

-Nil-

EXJffBrrs shows that Che name of the petitioner was removed from the rolls w.e.f., 11-7-79 in. pursuance of the petitioner being found unfit for underground service by a medical board.

For workman;

Ex. W-l dt. 27-2-63 Appointment order.

The petitioner was examined by a Medical Board and found unfit for underground service. So, be was removed from the service. It amounts to compulsory retirement on medical grounds.

Ex. W-2 dt. 9-12-77 Letter addressed to Colliery Manager, GDK No. 5 Incline by Sr. Medical Officer, Ramagundam Division.

Ex. W-3 dt. 17-7-79 Underground unfit letter of

petitioner.

Ex. W-6 is letter dt. 24-10-91. It shows that the wife of the petitioner was given employment when the petitioner was declared unfit for underground! job.

Ex. W-4 dt. 3-8-91 First aid certificate of petitioner

(xerox copy).

Ex. W~5 dt. 13-2-79 Underground unfit letter.

7. Ex, M-3 is letter dt. 15-6-79. It shows that the petitioner requested the General Manager to provide employment to his wife because he was declared un- fit for underground job.

Ex. W-6 dt. 24-10-91 Appeal rejection order.

For Management:

Ex. M-4 is letter dt. 1-7-79 appoint the wife of the petitioner as Clay Catridge Mazdoor for two months.

Ex. M-5 is letter dt. 4-9-79 appoint the- wife of the petitioner as Clay Catridge Mazdoor for three months.

Ex. M-l dt. 27-6-63 Temporary appointment "of petitioner as Tunnel Mazdoor (xerox copy). Ex. M-2 dt. 13-2-79 Underground unfit letter of

petitioner.

Ex. M-3 dt. 15-6-79 Application of petitioner.

8. The petitioner was removed from the service on medical grounds. It amounts to compulsory retire- ment. It was nof illegal. The wife of the petitioner was provided employment. The petitioner kept quiet for 18 years.

Ex. M-4 dt. 1-7-79 Officejorder.

Ex. M-5 dt. 4/5-9-79 -do-

The petitioner now wants reinstatement.

Ex. M-6 dt. 12-9-79 Letter No. GDK 9/79/1756

issued by SME. GDK. 9 Incline.

Ex. M-7 dt. 7/9-12-79 Office order.

Once an employee is removed or retired on medi- cal grounds, he shall question' his removal or retirement as soon as possible, if it is illegnl. After a long lapse of time, an employee cannot be permittedlltffc THE GAZETTE OF INDJA " MARCH-17, 2001/PHALGIJNA 26, 1£22 IFAKJ tt~$Bq. tyl)] Ex. M-8 dt. 28-1-81 Quarter allotment letter to wife of petitioner (xerox copy).

Ex. M-9 dt. 11-4-91 Application of petitioner (xerox copy).

Ex. M-10 dt. 2-5-91 Lr. No. P. 10/4202/1R/824 issued by corporate personnel department (xerox copy).

Ex. M-ll dt. 9-9-91 Lr. addressed to the G.M., (Personnel), Kotbagudern by General Manager, RG-I, (xerox copy).

Ex. M-12 dt. 24-10-91 Lr. addressed to the peti- tioner by the General Manager, Personnel.

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001 S.O. 581.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes ths Award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-2-2001.

[No. L-22025/25/2001-IR (C-ll)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL : CUM : LABOUR COURT, GODAVARI- KHANI

PRESENT:

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc.,B.L., Chajrman- cum-Prcsiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 31st day i>f January, 2001 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 159 OF 1997 BETWEEN:

1. B. Ramulu,

2. B. Lingaiah,

3. M. Sugendcr Rao,

4. K. Anjaiali,

5. Ch. Niranjan Reddy,

6. L. Mahender Reddy, 7. K. Bheemaiah, 8. M. Sanimaiah,

9. V, Safyanarayana,

10. J. S. Somaraju,

11. A. Chandramouli, 12. P. Jagan Mohan Rao - Petitioners.

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. S.C.C.L., Ramagundam-lU,

Division, Godavarikhani-505 209.

2. The General Manager,

M/s. S.C.C.L., Open Cast-II &

Open Cast-in, Godavarikhani. — Respon- dents.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sudfiakar Reddy, 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 the following:—

AWARD

1. This is a reference by the Government of India dt. 12-11-97. The reference is whether the twelve Welders (claimants) are required to work for 8 hours per day shift or whether they are required to work only for 6 hours per day in a shift.

The claimants filed claim statement stating that since welding is hazardous and highly skilled nature bf work, welders of the respondent company were asked to discharge duties for 6 hours a day. As per the existing practice, the claimants, are working for 6 hours pcr shift from the date of their appoint- ment.

As per the settlement dt. 12-3-90, the management agreed to limit the working hours of the existing wel- ders on rolls to 6 hours per shift w.e.f., 15-3-90. But the management insisted the claimants to woric for 8 hours per day.

2. Respondents filed counter vtafing that the clai- mants were appointed after 12-3-90. The settlement dt. 12-3-90 applies only to the welders existing as on that date, but not to the welder^ appointed after that date.

3. WW-1 and WW-2 are examined.

Ex. W-l to Ex. W-9 are. marked.

MW-1 is examined and Ex M-l and Ex. M-2 are marked.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is whether the benefit under the settlement dt 12-3 90 applies to the claimants.

6, POINT: WW-1 is Sri J. S. Somaraju, claimant No. 10. He deposes that he was appointed in the yean 1987 as Trainee. He was made permanent in 1990.

Counsel for the respondents argued that the clai- mants were appointed after 12-3-90 only. Prior to that, some of the claimants hart undergone Appren- tice Training for one year underA Apprenticeship Act, Ex. W-6 is office order dt. 29-7-87, Claimants 11 and 12 were appointed as Apprentice Trainees for a ^period of one year from 2-8-87.

Ex. W-7 and Ex. W-8 We office orders dt. 6-12-87, claimants 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 were appointed as Apprentice Trainees for a period of one year from 8-12-87.

The claimants have not filed their appointment or- ders Iftr their regular posts of Wejdcrs.

Respondents filed appointment orders of the clai- mants. Respondents in their counter gave the date of appointment of the claimants. AH tihe claimants were appointed after 12-3-90, though they tnd under- gone Apprenticeship training previously.

The claimants cannot claim their appointment as Apprentice trainee as their date of appointment for the post of Welders.

By the date of settlement dt, 12-3-90, the claimants were not on the rolls of the corporation,

7. Ex. W-4 is settlement dt. 12-3-90. Item No. 20 of the settlement is working hours for welders. The management agreed to limit the working hours of the eTlsiinff welders on rolls to 6 hours per shift w.e.f., 15-3-90.

The claimants are claiming the benefit of 6 hours per shift on par willh the welders who were pprt'cs to thz settlement.

Counsel for the claimants argued that it is discrimi- nation on the part' of the management between welders appointed prior to 12-3-90 snd after 12-3-90.

MM 8. WW-1 dcjwses In his cross examinttion that in Singareni Company, a shift is 8 hours duty. He fur- ther deposes that he was appointed as trainee in. 1987. He further dcpo&es that¹ he was made perma- nent after 12-3-90. It is not correct. He was appoin- ted after 12-3-90. Prior to that he had undergone apprentice framing in 1987 lor on^ year.

He admits that other claimants were appointed after 12-3-90.

9. WW-2 is Sri L, Shankaraiah. He deposes thai all the claimants are working 6 hours a day.

He deposes in his cross examination that he was regularised in September, 1988.

10. The reference is whether the claimants are required to work for 6 hours a day or 8 hours a day as per the settlement dt. 12-3-90. Therefore, even if the claimants are working for 8 hours a day at present is not material.

According to MW-1, the clahnanK are working 8 hours a day.

Ex. M-2 is circular dt, 27-3-90. It was issued as per the settlement dt. 12-3-90. It shows tha all the welders appointed after 12-3-90 were required to work for 8 hours a day in a shift. The settlement dt. 12-3-90 was net made applicable to the weldm appointed after 12-3-90.

^

U TO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA;: H£J*O* V, 2#ft/PHAXQUNA 28, 1922 (B*$ ltJ®§Q. ${$)} ABP3BNPK OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES-EXAMINED

For workmen:—

WW-1 — J. S. Soma Raju, E. P. Welder, OCP- III, Petitioner No. 10.

WW-2 — L. Shankaraiah, E. P. Welder, OCP- III, 8 Incline colony.

For Management:—

MW-1 — L. V. Nageswara Sfoanna, Dy. Person- nel Manager, S.C. Co. Ltd., Ramagundam.

EXHIBITS

For workmen:—

Ex. W-l dt. 22-10-62 Memorandum of settle- ment.

Ex. W-2 dt 29-10-62 Circular No. P. 24/112/ 5226 (xer. copy).

Ex. W-3 dt. 5-5-79 Circular Ref. No. P4/561/. 1853 issued by G.M., S.C.C.L., (xer. copy).

Ex. W-4 dt. 10/11 and 12-3-90 Memorandum] of settlement (xer. copy).

Ex. W-5 dt. 26/27-5-85 Office-order. Ex. W-6 dt. 29-7-87 Office-order (xerox copy). Ex. W-7 dt. 6-12-87 Office-order (xerox copy). Ex. W-8 dt. 6-12-87 Office-order (xerox copy).

Ex. W-9 dt. 19-3-90 Circular issued by General Manager (P), Bellampalli (xerox copy).

For Management:—

Ex. M-l dt. 18-6-93 Notification with Award in I.D. 6/87 of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, (xerox copy).

Ex. M-2 dt. 27-3-90 Circular No. P. 40/4833/ IR/598 issued by Director, (P.A. & W) S.C.C.L., (xerox copy).

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2001 S.O. 582.^-Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so re- quired had, in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clause (vi) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. 2179 dated 13th September, 2000 the services in Banking Industry to be a publio utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 19th September, 2000.

And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that pubjic interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of sec- tion 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Cen- tral Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 19th March, 2001.

[No. S-11017!5|97-IR(PL)] H. C GUPTA, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Go\t. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, DelhM 10054, 2001