Ml7i"

;i W& GAZETtE OFINDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/ CHAJTRA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Tripura for

investigation of offences punishable under section 302

of Indian Fenal Code, I860 and section 27 of the Arms

Actf,

1959

case

FIR

No.

39/2001

dated

20-2-2001

Police

Station

East

Agartala,

West Tripura, District, Tripura State and

attempt,

abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connec-

tion vi ith the offences and any other offence commit-

ted in course of same transaction or arising out of

the same facts.

.,» -

[No. 228|18|2OO1-AVD. II]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2001,

S.O. 584.—-In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central

Government hereby appoints Sh. C. S. Sharma, Advo-

cate and Deputy Legal Advisor (Retired) CBI, Delhi

as Special Public Prosecutor (Junior) for conducting

the trial of the case in the Court of the Special Judi-

cial Magistrate|Spl. Judge tor CBI Cases,

Ambala

(Haryana) and in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana

High Court at Chandigarh in case RC-1 (S) 12000-SIU

I|CBI|SIC, I|New

Delhi (Case

against

S. P. S.

Rathore, IPS, Ex-DGP) and any other matter con-

nected therewith and incidental thereto.

[No. 225|3I2OO1-AVD.II]

HARI STNGH, Under Secy.

lift

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2000

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 585.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (23) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act,

19t>l (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby

notifies the "Panjim Gymkhana, Goa" for the purpose

pf the said clause for assessment years 1996-97

1998-99 subject to the following conditions namely:—.

(i) the assesse© will apply its income, or accu-

mulate it fof application,-in consonance with

the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3)

of Section¹11' as modified by the said clause

(23) for such accumulation wholly and ex-

clusively to the objects for

which

established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit

its

funds- (other than voluntary

contributions

received

and

maintained in the form of

jewellery, furniture or any other article as

maty be notified, by the Board

under the

third provision to the aforesaid clause (23)

for any period during the previous

years

relevant to the assessment years mentioned

above otherwise than in any one or more

of the forms or modes specified in sub-sec-

tion (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any pan of

its income in- any manner to its members,

except als grants to any association or insti-

tution affiliated to it. and

(iv) this notification will-not apply in relation to

any income, being profits and gains of busi-

ness, unless the business is incidental to the

attainments

the

objectives of the

assessee and

separate

books of accounts

are maintained in respect of such

busi-

ness.

[Notification No. 11568|F. No. 196|16|98-ITA-H

SAMAR BMADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2000

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 586.—In exercise of the. powers conferred by

the sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of section 10 of

the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central

Government hereby notifies the "South

Point High

School, Calcutta' for the purpose of the said sub-clause

for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 sub-

ject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accu-

mulate for application, wholly and exclusi-

vely to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds

(other than voluntary contributions received

and maintained

in thc form of jewellery,

furniture etc.) for any

period during the

previous years relevant

to the assessment

years mentioned above otherwise than

any one or more of the forms or

modes

specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to

any income bcinp profits and gaints of busi-

ness, unless the business is incidental to the

.1174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/ CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PAR: It—SEC. 3(ii)]

attainment of the objectives of the assessee

and separate

books of accouK are main-

tained iii. inspect of such business.

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return ol in-

come before the income-tax authority

accordance with the provisions of the

in^

come-tax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and

the afcsets will be given to a charitable orga-

nisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 11569|F. No. 197|3O|2000-ITA-I]

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 3Cth November, 2000

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 587.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

the sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of section 10 of

the Income-tax 1961 043 oi 19bl/, tlhe Central Go-

vernment hereby notifies the "Sefli Sagarmal Bagrodia

Charitable Trust, Delhi" for the puropse of the said

sub-clause for the assessment years 1999-2000

2001-2002, subject to the

following

conditions,

namely :—

(i) the assessee Mill apply its income, or accu-

mulate for application, wholly and exclusi-

vely to the objects for which its established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds

(other than voluntaiy contributions received

and maintained in the

form of jewellery,

furniture etc.) for any period during

the

pievious years

relevant to the assessment

years mentioned above otherwise than

any one or more of the

forms or modes

specified in sub-section (5) of Section Jl;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to

any income being profits and gains of busi-

ness, unless the business is incidental to the

attainment of the objectives of the assessee

and separate books of accounts are main-

tained¹ in respect of such business.

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return

income before the income-tax authority

accordance with

the provisions of the in-

come-tax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus

and the alssets will be given to a charitable

organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification 1157O|F. No. 197|109|2000-ITA-H

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

: h-K

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

(Income Tax)

S.O. 588.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (23) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby

notifies the "Archerty Association of India,

New

•Delhi" for the purpose of the said clause for assess-

ment years 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 subject to the

following conditions, namely :—

,(i) the dssessce will apply its income, or accu-

' mulate it for application, in consonance with

the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3)

of Section 11 as modified by the said clause

(23) for such accumulation wholly and

exclusively to the objects for which it is

established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its

funds (other than voluntary contributions

received and maintained in the form

jewellery, furniture or any other article as

may be notified by the Board under the

third provision to (he aforesaid clause (23)

for any period during the previous years

relevant to the assessment years mentioned

above otherwise than in any one or more

of the forms or modes specified in sub-

section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of

of its income in any manner to its mem-

bers except as grants to any association or

institution affiliated to it; and

(iv) this notification will not apply in relation to

any income, being profits and gains of busi-

ness, unless the business is incidental to the

attainments of thb objectives of the assessee

and separate books of accoonts are main-

tained in respect of such business.

[Notification No. 46|2001|F. No. 196|3|2001-ITA-I]

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 589.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the

Central

Government hereby

permits

State Batak of India,

Mumbai to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees

twenty five crore only chargeable on account of the

stamp duty on bonds described as 11.55%-SBI

TIER-II CAPITAL BONDS (2000-2001)

bearing

distinctive numbers from

IOOOOL to 108248

and

11.90% SBI TIER-II CAPITAL BONDS

(2000-

2001) bearing distinctive numbers from 108249 to

125000 in the nature of promissory notes aggregating

to rupees two thousand five hundred crore only allotted

on 01-01-2001 by. the said Bank.

[No. 14/2001-STAMPS/F. No. 33/5|2001-ST]

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

1177

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Sec. and Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2001

S.O. 591.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) Af Rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby

notifies of the following Kendriya Vidyalayas under the

Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt. of

Sec. and Higher Education) more than 80% staff of

which has working knowledge of Hindi:—

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya

Air Force Institute.

Baxi Ka Talab,

Lucknow-227202.

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya

Basti, (U.P.)-272001.

3. Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Jhabua (M.P.).

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya No\ 1

Sagar (M.F.),

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya

Mehsana,

Gujarat-384002.

6. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan

Regional Office, Ahinedttbad,

See. 30, 'Gandhinagar,

Gujarat,

7. Kendriya Vidyalaya

Andrews Ganj,

New Delhi-24.

[No. 11011-912001-O.L.U]

D. P. BANDOONI, Director (01,)

MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health)

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2001

S.O. 592.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consulting the Drntal Council of Tndia, hereby makes (he following

further amendment in Part-T of the Schedule to the Said Act, namely:

2. In Part-I of the said Schedule against serial number 50 and the entries relating thereto, the following entries

shall be added, namely:

50. Himachal Pradesh

University, Shimla

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery.

B.D.S. Himachal Pradesh

This qualification shall be a recognized

Dental qualification in respect of BDS students

of Himachal Pradesh Government Dental

College and Hospital, Shimla when granted

on or after 28th and 29th February, 2000.

[No. V. 12017/12/94-PMS]

S.K. RAO, Director

11S0

%ffi GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24; 2001/CfIAITRA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEG. 3(il)]

The plan bearing No. C-I(E)/III/HR/667-0200 dated the 1st February, 2000 of the area covered by thh

notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate

Civil Lines, Nagpui—40001 (Man irashl ra) or in (he office of the Collector, Chhindtfttra (Madhya Pradesh)

or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all map^ charts and other

documents referred to in jub-scction (7) of seciion 13 of the said Act to the Officer-b-Chargc/Hcad of the Depait-

ment (Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashrta) within

ninety days from the date of publication of this notification,

SCHEDULE

TANDSI

III

BLOCK

Kajihan Area

DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

(Plan No C-l (E)/III/HR/667-0200 dated the 1st February, 2000)

Serial

Number

Name of

village

Dodramau

Bakodi

Danwa

Name of

forest

Protected

Forest

Damua

Range

Rampur

Block

Patwari

Circle

Number

—.

Compart-

ment

Number

—-

P-41I

P-412

P-413

P-424

P-425

Tahsil

Junnardeo

Juunardeo

Junnardeo

District

Chhindwara

Area in

hectares

33.350

139.325

8.200

32.070

271.056

10.000

173.930

245.250

Remarks

Full

Part

Total area : 913.181 hectares

(appioiimatcly)

22 56-47 acres

(approximately)

BOUNDRY DESCRIPTION —

A—B

B-C—D

D—E

E - F

F—A

Line starts from point 'A' and passes through protected forest compartment number P-41T

and meets at point^UB'.

Line passes through protected forest compartment numbers P-411, P-412, P-424, then

proceeds through protected forest compartment number P-413 and meets at point 'D'.

Line passes through protected forest compartment numbers P-413, P-424 and proceeds

through village Danwa and meets at point 'E\

Line passes along the common boundary of protected forest compartment number P-425

and village Danwa, then passes through protected forest compartment tfumber P-425

ajnd passes along the common boundary of protected forest compartment number P-425

and village Bakodi and at point *F\

Line passes along

the

eastern

bank

of Baradhar River ajid western boundary

protected forest compartment number P-425, Bakodi village, protected forest compart-

ment number P-412, village Dodramau,

protected forest compartment number P-411

and meets at starting point

'A'.

[No. 43015/1/2001-PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

1152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, lOQl/CHAlTRA 3, 1923' '" [PART I W S E C : Ha)]

New Delhi

the 8th March, 2001

S. O. 5?5

.—Whereas it appears

to the Central Government that coal U likely to be obatincd

from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore,

in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of seciion 4 of the Coul

Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said

Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan bearing Number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/240 dated the 25th May, 2000, of the area

covered by this notification can be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Korba (Madhya Pradesh) or in the

Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House, Street, Kolkata-700 001 or in the Office of the South

Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Secf-on), Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 (Madhya Pradesh).

All person;, interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and

other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Head of

the) DeFarlmerit (Pt\er,Le), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495 006 (Madhya Pradesh

within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

POND1 BLOCK

KORBA COALFIELDS

GEVRA AREA

DISTRICT-KORBA (MADHYA PRADESH)

Plan No. : SECL/BSP/GM (Plg)/Land/240 Dated 25th May, 2000 (showing the land for prospecting)

Serial

Number

Village

Pondi

Ralia

Murianar

Patwari

halka

number

Chhindpur

Bahanpat

Bhathora

Bhelai-

bazar

Amgaon

Khewat

number

Tahsil

Katghora

Katghota

Katghora

District

Korba

Area in

hetares

186.559

385.000

97.912

40.000

108.551

121.866

200.000

109.843

Remarks

Pajt

Part

Full

Part

Full

Part

TOTAL : 1249.731 Hectares (Approximately)

OR 3088.09 Acres (Approximately)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

A-B

B—C

C—D

D—A

Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Ralia-Saraisingar and passes

along the Western boundary of Ralia village, then through Amgaon Village and meets at

point 'B'.

Line passes partly along the Northern boundary of Amgaon village, then through Pondi

village, proceeds along the Northern boundary of Bahanpat, Bhathora village then through

Bhathora village and meets at point 'C\

Line passes partly along the Eastern boundary of Bhathora village, then through village

Bhelaibazar and meets at point "D\

Line passes through villages Bhelaibazar, Chhindpur, Ralia and meets at the starting

point at 'A'.

[No. 43015/18/20O0-PR1WJ

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

il&t

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24,2001/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2001

S. O.

596.—Whereas it appears to the Central

Government that coal is likely to be obtained

from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing

Areas (Acquisition and Development), Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein ;

The plan bearing No. MCL/SAMB/CGM (Coal Project and Planning)/Baitarani/00/22 dated 28th April,

2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (Coal

Project and Planning), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur - 768018 (Orissa) or at

the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Counci

House Street, Kolkata.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other

documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the officer-in-charge/Hcad of the Depart-

ment (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768018 (Orissa) within

ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

BAITARANI

BLOCK

TALCHER

COALFIELDS

DISTRICT ANGUL (ORISSA)

Alt

rights

(Plan bearing No. MCL/SAMB/CGM (Coal Project and Planning)/Baitarani/00/22 dated the 28th April, 2000)

SI.

No.

Village

Podapada

Chhcndipada

Jungle

Chhendlpada P.F.

Chliendipada

Machhakuta Jungle

Tentuloi

Gopinathpur

Tentuloi

Podapada Jungle

Machhakuta

Police Station &

Chhendipada/42

Chhendipada/75

Chhendipada/

Chhendipada/73

Chhendipada/77

Chhendipada/94

Chhendipada/93

Chhendipada/41

Chhendipada/40

Tahsil/

Sub Div.

Angul

District/ /State

Angul/Orissa

Total

Area in Acres

511.00

2206.36

3993.60

470.21

256.00

516.02

438.45

350.84

550.00

Remarks

Part

Full

9292.48

Approximately or

3760.615 Hactares

(Approximately)

•

[

{

)

]

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2001

S. O.

597.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained

from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore, in OTefCise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing,

Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)

the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for c oal therein ;

The plan bearing No. CGM/IBV/SURV/4/2000, dated the 8th May, 2000 of the area covered by

this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (Coal Project and Planning),

Mahanadi Coalfieids Limited, Jagriti Vibar, Buda, Sambalpur-768018 (Orissa) or at the office of the Collector

and District Magistrate, Sombalpur, Orissa or at the office of the Coal Controller, \, Council House Street,

Kolkata.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and othej

documents refetred to in sub-section (6) of section 13 of the said Act to the officer-in charge/Head of the

D«p*rterie*it (Revenue/Estate), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sarnbalpur- 768018 (Orissa)

within ninety days¹ from tJw date of "the publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

Schedule

Block-Xm

IB Valley Coalfield

District Jharsuguda (Orissa)

All rights

(Plan bearing No. CGM/IBV/SURV/4/2000 dated 08-05^2000)

SI.

No.

Village

Talabira

Khinda

Police Station and

number

Tahsil/Sub

Division

Rengali.

Rengali

District/State

Sambalpur/Orissa

Total

Area in Acres

1325.35

1450.00

2775.35

(Approx.) or

1123.16 Ha.

(Approx.)

Remarks

Part

1188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24,2001/CHATTRA 3, 1923

[PART il—Sftc, 3(u*)]

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2001

S.O. 598.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands

mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now* therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing

Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 195)7 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central

Government hereby give notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan bearing Number: SECL/USP/GM(PLG)/LAND/229 dated 6th August, 1999 of the area covered b

this notification can be inspected in the Office of the Collector. Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) or in the Office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Cakutla-700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Section;, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents

referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Offlcer-in-Charge/Head of the Department (Revenue)

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh), within ninety days from the date

of publication of thi •. notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Karkati Block Extension

Sohagpur Area

District—Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh)

(Plan No. SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/229

Dated 6th August, 1999, showing the land for

prospecting)

Serial

Name of Village

Number

1. Siromija

2, Deogawan

3. Deogai

Patwan

Halka

Number

Tahsrl

Sohagpur

District

Shahdol

Area in

hectares

311.004

136.000

036.000

Remarks

Part

TOTAL : 483.004 Hectares (approximately OR 1193.50 Acres (Approximately)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2001

S.O. 599.—Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, Number S.O.

898 dated 17th April, 2000, issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in Part-II, Section 3,

Sub-Section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 29th April, 2000, the Central Government gave notice of its inten-

tion to prospect for coal in 943.582 hectares (approximately) or 2331.60 acres (approximately) in the lands in

the locality specified in the schedule annexed to that notification;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the following lands:—

(a) The lands measuring 239.591 hectares (approximately) or 592.03 acres (approximately) described in

Schedule 'A' appended hereto;

(b) The rights to mine quarry, bore, dig and search for, win work and carry away minerals in the lands

measuring 163-966 hectares (approximately) or 405.16 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule

'B' appended hereto-

Note: 1. The plan bearing No. SECL/BSP/GM (Plg)/Land/241 dated the 19th July, 2000 of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the Office of ihe Collector, Umaria (Madhya Pradesh) or in the Office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkatta 700 001 or in the Offlce of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note: 2. Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act, which provides as follows:—

Objection to Acquisition

"8(1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under Section 7 has been issued

may within thirty days of the issue of the Notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land

or of any rights in or over such land.

Explanation. It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he

himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should

be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the compe-

tent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and

shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any as he thinks necessary, cither,

makes a report in respect of the land which has been notifietl under sub-section (1) or Section 7 or of rights in or

over such land, or rr>ake different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such

land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendation on the objections together with the record of the

proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government.

(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled

to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act".

Note: 3. The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkatta-700 001 has been appointed by the Central

Government, as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vjde Notification undex S.O. No. 905, dated

the 20th March, 1987 published in ParMI, Section-3, Sub-Section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4th April,

1987 at pages 1397 to 1400.

J194

ITH£ GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/CftAITRA 3, 1923

[ P A R T ' I I ^ S E C / ^ U ) ]

SCHEDULE-'A'

KANCHAN BLOCK

JO1JILLA AREA

DISTRICT—UMARTA (MADHYA PRADESH)

ALL RIGHTS

Serial

Name of village

Number

1. Lahangi Kothar

2. Karanpura

3. Chhuihai

4. Dhanbahi

General

Number

658

246

351

Tahsil

Bandhogarli

Bandhogarh

District

Urn aria

Umaria

LJmaria

Area in

Hectares

62.528

1.059

73.238

J02.766

Remark

Part

TOTAL : 239.591 hectares (approximately) OR 592.03 acres (approximately)

1.. Plot Numbers to be acquired in' the Village Lahangi Kother (Part)

13 (Part), 14, 1.5, 16, 17 (Part), IS to 39, 40 (Part), 41 (Part), 42(Part), 43 (Part), 44 (Part), 45 (Part),.46 (Part),

47, 48,-49 (Part), 50, 51 (Part), 52, 57 (Part). 458 to 63, 161 (Part), 162 (Part), 176 (Part), 179 (Part), 180 (Part)

181 (Part), 182(Part), 183 (Part), 196(Part), 211 (Part),212 to216, 218, 219 (Part), 221, 222, 223, 238 239

(Part), 240 (Part), 241 (Part), 242 (Part), 244 (Part), 276 (Part), 4/279 (Part).

2. ' Plot Numbers to be acquired in Village Karanpura (Part)

I (Part). 2 (Part) 4 (Part), 5 (Part)

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in Village Chh uihai (Part)

1, 2 (Part), 11 (Part), 12 (Part), 13 (Part), 14 (Part), 17 (Part), 18 (Part), 19 to 62, 63 (Part), 65 (Part), 66 (Part).

67, 68 (Part), 69 (Part), 70 (Part), 71, 72, 73 (Part), 74, 75 (Part), 76 to 82 83 (Part), 84 to 88, 89/303 (Part).

• 4.: Plot Numbers' to be acquired in Village Dhanbahi (Part)

17 (Part), 18, 19 (Part), 28 (Part), 29 to 33, 34 (Part); 35, 36, 37, 38 (Part), 39 (Part), 40 to 70, 71 (Part),,72, 73

(Part), 74 (Part), 155 (Part), 156 to 161, 157/162, 159/163, 155/170, 155/171, 60/172.

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

A-B

B—C—D

D-E

E-F

Line starts from point 'A' on the junction of Village Ghiilghuli and Dhanbahi and passes

• in Village Dhanbahi through plot numbers 28, 14, 19, 17, 38, 39, 73, 74, 71, 155, then enter

in Village Chhuihai and passes through plot No. 65, 63, 66; 68; 69, 70, 73, then passes in

Village Lahangikohar and passes through plot numbers 17, 4/279, 13 and meets at point

'B'.

Line passes in Village Lahangi Kothar along the Northern boundary of Plot number

59, Eastern boundary of Plot No. 59, 62, 52, then through plot numbers 51, 49, 44, 45

46, 43, 42, 41, 40, 211 then Eastern boundary of 212, 216, Northern boundary of plot

number 218' and meets'at point 'D\

Line passes along Northern boundary of Plot Numbers 218, 239, through Plot Numbers

240,241, 242, 196, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 162, 161, 276 of Village LaJrongi Rattan: then

' enter in Village. Kararpura passes through Plot Numbers 4, 2, 1,-and meets at point"'E'

Line passes partly along the Eastern boundary of Nalla and meets at point 'F\

1W5

P-G

G—H

H—1

T-A

Line parses in ViBage Karanpura through Plot Numbers 1, 2, 5, 2, 4 then enter In Village

Lahangi Kothar and passes through Plot Numbers 276, 161, 162, 183, 182, 181, Southern

boundry of Plot number 180, through plot number 179, 196, 176, 244, 242, 241, 240, 239

Southern boun Jary of Plot numbers 238, 218, through plot number 219 Southern boundary

of Plot numbers 216, 221, 223, Western boundary of Plot No. 223 and meets on the com-

mon boundary of village Lahangi Kothar-Chhuihai at point 'G'.

Line passes in Village Chhuihai through Plot Number

75, Southern boundary of Plot

Numbers 88, 87,85 through Plot Numbers 89/303, 83, 17, 18, 14, 13, 12,11, 2 and meets

at point 'H'.

Line passes along the partly common boundary of Village Chhuihai—Nausemar, Dhan

bljai—Nausemar and meets at point T.

Line passes along the common boundary of Village Dhanbahi and Ghulghuli and meets

at the starting point 'A'.

SCHEDULE—B

KANCHAN BLOCK

JOHTLLA AREA

DISTRICT - U MARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

BLOCK—1

MINING RIGHTS

Serial

N ame o f Village

Number

1. Ghulghuli

2. Nausemar

General

Number

201

380

Tahsil

Bandhogarh

District

Ujnaria

Umaria

TOTAL

Area in

Hectares

35.541

31.483

67.024

Remarks

•

Part

Hectares

1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in Village Ghulgbuli (Part)

9 (Part), 10 (Part), 11 (Part), 12 (Part), 13 to 18, 19 (Part), 20 (Part), 28 (Part), 29, 30 (Part), 33 (Part) 34 to

102,28/103,42/104,43/105,43/106,16/107.

2. Plot Numbers to be acquired in Village Nausemar (Part)

. . .

1 (Part), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 (Part), 14 (Part), 15 (Part), 26 (Part), 29, 30, 31 (Part), .50 (Part), 51 (Part), 52. 53

(Part), 55 (Part)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION (BLOCK-I)

H—1

Line starts from, point *fr on the common boundary of CHhuihai—Nausemar Village

and passes as described as All Right area boundary and meets at point T.

I—A .

. . , , , . ,

Line P^ses as described as All Right area boundary and meets at point 'A'

1196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/CHAITRA 3, 1923

{FART II~-SEC. 3fii)]

A—A1

Al—A2

A2- H

Line passes partly along the common buundary of Dhaubhai—Ghulghuii villages then

passes throuuh Plot Numbers 28, 30, 33, 20, 19, 12, 11, 10, 9 of Village Ghulghuli and

meets at point "AT.

Line passes along the nalU and meets at point 'A2\

Line passes through village Nausemar through plot numbers 15, 13, 14, Southern boundary

of Plot Numbers 3, 5, through Plots 14, Southern boundary of Plot Numbers 6, 29, then

through Plot Numbers 26, 31, 50, 51, 53, 55 and meets at the starting point 'H\

SCHEDULE B' CONTINUED

BLOCK 11

MINING RIGHTS

Serial

Name of Village

Number

1. Lahangi-Kothar

Karatrpura

Village

Number

658

Tahsil

Bandhogarh

District

Umaria

Umana

TOTAL:

Area in

Hectares

95.452

1.490

96.942

Remarks

Part

Hectares

GRAND TOTAL : BLOCK I &. II = 163.966 Hectares (Approximately)

OR 405.16 Acres (Approximately)

1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in Village Lahangi Kothar (Part)

41 (Part), 42 (Part), 43 (Part), 44 (Part), 45 (Part), 49 (Part), 51 (Part), 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 (Part), 64, 65, 66, 67,

68 (Part), 75 (Part), 80 (Pan), 81 (Part), 82 (Part), 83, 84, 85, 86 (Part), 87 (Part), 88 to 98 , 99 (Part), 100 to 160

161 (Part), 162 (Part), 179 (Part), 180 (Part), 181 (Part), 182 (Part), 183 (Part), 184 to 195, 196 (Part), 197 to 210

211 (Part), 217, 240 (Part), 241 (Part), 242 (Part), 276 (Part), 277.

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in Village Karanpura (Part).

1 (Part), 2 (Part), 3, 4 (Part).

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

B—C—D

D—E

E -B1

Bl—B

Line starts from point 'B' in village Lahangi Kothar and passes as described in All Rights

area boundary and meets at point 'D\

Line passes as described in All Rights area boundary and meets at point "E\

Line passes along Lahangi Nalla which is a{so common boundary of Village Lahnngi

Kothar and Dagdowa and meets at point *BT.

Unc passes through Village Lahangi Kothar and passes through Plot Numbers 99, 87,

86, 81, 80, 82, 75, 68 and meets at the starting point *B\

[No. 43015/I/2000-PR1W]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy

1198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24,2001/CHATTRA 3,1923

[PART (t—SHC. 3 (ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2001

S.O. 600.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures

(Approval of Models) Rules. 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and

to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating non-automatic, (Multi-

load cell type weighbridge) v\ eighing instrument with digital indication of "TMD" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy

class III) anu with brand name 'Truck Master Digit (TMD)" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by

M/s. Mettler-Toledco India Private Limited, Amar Hills, S.V Road, Powai, Mumbai-400 072 and which is assigned the

approval mark IND/09/2000/198,

The said model (see figure) is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 40,000kg and minimum

capacity of 200kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive

retained tare effect The load receptor is of rectangular section of side 9 •* 3 meter. The vacuum fluorescent display indicates

the weighing result The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-HerU alternate current power supply;

JAGUAR harsh environment enclosure

And Further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section ^6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make accuracy and performance of same accuracy class and of same series having maximum capacity more

than 5 tonne and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10.000 for V value of 5g or more

and with 'e¹ value 1 * 10^l 2 * 10^k 5 - 10^v. being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by

the same manufacturer with the same pannciplc, design and with the same materials which, the approved model has

been manufactured.

IF No WM-21(141)/991

P A KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology

1202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24,2001/CHAITRA 3,1923

[PARTl^-SBC.3(ti)]

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2001

S.O.

.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures

(Approval of Models) Rules. 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and

to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic weighing instrument

(Table top) with digital indication (hereinafter referred to as the model) belonging to Medium accuracy class (Accuracy

Class III) and of SW-1 series with brand name *CAS\ manufactured by M/s. CAS Weighing India Pvt. Ltd., 568, Udyog

Vihar, Phase V, Ourgoan-122 016, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/00/288;

The said model (see the figure given below ) is a non-automatic Instrument of table top type with digital

indication of maximum capacity is 10 kg. minimum capacity is 100 g. and belonging to Medium accuracy class (Accuracy

Class HI). The value of verification scale interval (e) is 5 g. The display unit is of light emitting diode type. The instrument

operates on 230 Volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instruments .of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with having maximum capacity upto 50 kg. and with maximum

number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 100 mg to 2g and with number of

verification scale interval (n) in the range 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5g or more and with V value 1*10*, 2X10"¹,

5* 10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance

with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[F No. WM.-21(123)/99]

P A KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director. Legal Metrology

1204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24,2001/CHATTRA 3,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th March, 4001

S.O. 603.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures

(Approval of Models) Rules. 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and

to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic, weighing instrument

(Table top) with digital indication (hereinafter referred to as the model) belonging to Medium accuracy class (Accuracy

Class III) and of AP-1 series with brand name 'CAS', manufactured by M/s. CAS Weighing India Pvt. Ltd., 568, Udyog

Vihar, Phase V, Gurgoan-122 016, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/00/289;

The said Model (see the figure given below) is a Non-automatic weighing instrument of table top type with

digital indication of maximum capacity is 15 kg. minimum capacity is 40 g. and belonging to Medium accuracy class

(Accuracy Class III). The value of verification scale interval (e) is 2 g./5g. The display unit is of light emitting diode.

The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act. the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg. and with maximum

number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 10,000 for 'e⁷ value of 100 mg to 2g had with number of

verification scale interval (n) in the range 500 tolO.000 for 'e'value of 5g. or more and with V value of l^x10S 2*10",

5* 10*. where k is a positive or negative whole number or zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance

with the same parinciple, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(123)/99]

P, A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director. Legal Metrology

120*

THE GAZETTE OFINPIA: MARCH 24,2001/eHArrRA3 1923

{PART H—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the ]4th March, 2001

S.O. 605.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 end the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and »o render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and {8) of section 36 of the said Act,

the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic, weighing instrument

(Table top type) with digital indication (hereinafter referred to as the model) of 'EET' series belonging to Medium

accuracy class (Accuracy Class III) and with brand name 'LAK.SHMT, manufactured by M/s. Electro Equipments 30/

37 B, 1st Floor, Adarshnagar, Before Greemvays School, Roorki-247 667 and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/OO/250:

The model is a non-automatic weighing instrument of table top type with digital indication of maximum

capacity is 15 kg. minimum capacity is 100 g and belonging to Medium accuracy class (Accuracy Class III). The value

of verification scale interval (e) is 5 g. The display unit is of light emitting diode. The instrument operates on 230 V,

50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of

verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 10,000 for V value of 100 mg, to 2g and wit number of verification scale

interval (n) in the range 500 to 10.000 for e' value of 5g or more and with V value to 1 * 10\ 2* 10^k and 5* 10\ k being

a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the

same parinciple. design and with the same materials which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. W.M.-21(26)/99]

P. A KRTSHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology

1218

THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:MARdt24,2001/CHArntA3,1923

[PART H—SEC. 3 (ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2001

S.0.610.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas Through Kandla-Jamnagar-Loni Pipeline Project in Rajasthan State, a pipeline should

be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in

the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent

Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited, D-143/B, Koshalya Marg, Basant Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

Distt.

Jaipur

Tehsil

Amer

Ullage

Bilochi

BilpurBilla

Sunder ka bas

Survey No.

404

407/1760

Total

548

567/912

550

567

565

563

555/963

376/959

376/961

377/958

377/962

Total

637/697

Total

Land to be acquired

for R.O.U. (in Hectares)

0.0080

0.0220

0.0300

0.0020

0.0120

0.0240

0.0880

0.1780

0.0600

0.0480

0.0180

0.0160

0.0480

0.0240

0.5180

0,0400

0.0400

[No. L-14014/3/2000-G.P. (Part-H)]

I.S.N. PRASAD. Director (NG)

1223

New Delhi, the 16th March 2001

S.O. 613 - Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas Through Kandla-Jamnagar-Lom Pipeline Project in Rajatthan State, ,t pipeline should

be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited,

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline, it is necessan

to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be iaid, and which is desenbed in

the Schedule annexed to this notification.

Now therefore, in evercisc of the powers conferred b\ Sub-section (1) of Si enow 1 of the Pelioltuiti and MiiirrpK

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. 1062 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereto dedans us

intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Am person, interesled in the land described in the said Schedule maj, wiihin h\2iu> o ic da^ iront the date

on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India aie mads duui&blc In the genera! publh.

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or la\ing of the pipeline under the land to she Competent

Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited D-143/B. Koshalva Marg Basan: Marg. Bam Park, Jaipur (Rjijastlwn'i

SCHEDULE

Distt

Jaipur

Tchsil

Dudu

Vil'agc

KliatWtjra

Gangati Kakm

Surrey No

708

698

415/1259

414

451

Total

Land to bo accjiniTu

rorROU imH^iai:s)

0 01%

0 015K

()(»! £0

oinio

0 1205

00079

1)110/9

1224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24,2001/CHAITRA 3,1923

[PART H~Sue. 3 (ii)]

Jaipur

Dudu

Manpura

Mahcshpura

Chak Mahcshpura

Rahlana

Harsoli

Guda Saipura

Total

329

Total

1/3

3/2

3/1/2

3/3

3/1/1

Total

1282

1854/4

Total

981

Total

207

201/455

2017467

Total

0.0792

0.0158

0.0316

0.1266

0.0237

0.0316

0.0633

0,1186

0.0238

0.0158

0.0712

0.4393

0.1505

0.0030

0.3327

0.2376

0.1584

0.2218

0.1)990

0.1080

0.3643

2.2254

0.0079

0.1419

0.1498

0.0792

0.(871

0.0040

0.1108

0.2019

[No. L-140I4/3/20OO-G.P (Parl-Il)l

1. S. N. PRASAD. Director (NG)

1227

New Delhi, the 16th March. 2001

S.O. 615.— Whcrcis il appears to the Ccnual Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas Through Kandla—Jamnagar -Loni Pipeline Project in Rajasthdn State, a pipeline should

be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited,

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government ihat for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user m the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described m the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the light of user therein,

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent

Authority. Gas Authority of India Limited, D-143/B, Koshalya Marg, Basant Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

Distt.

<Mwar

Tehsil

Bansur

Village

Khera Shayampura

Harsora

Motuka

Survey No

1911

Total

187

Total

8X8

Total

Land to be acquired

forR.OU (in Hectares)

0.0180

00180

0(XM()

O.(X)4O

O.(X)6O

OOOfaO

[No L-14O14/3/2(XX)-G.P. (Part-ID]

I.S.N. PRASAD. Director (NG)

1229

New Delhi, the 19th March. 2001

S.O. 616.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas Through Kandla—Jamnagar—Loni Pipeline Project in Rajasthan State, a Pipeline

should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline, it is neces-

sary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Min-

erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of T Jser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962). the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent

Authority. Gas Authority of India Limited. D-143/B. Koshalya Marg, Basant Marg, Bani Park. Jaipur (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

Distt.

Pali

Tehsil

Bali

Village

Mundara

Scawadi

Sesali

Virampura

Bhitwara

Sadlwa

Bcra

Survey No.

Total

219

323

175

Total

945

857

859

861

Total

1948

1965

1966

Total

759

Total

239/315

Total

1926/4993

Total

Land to be acquired

for R.O U (in Hectares)

E •

O.(X)6O

0.0060

0.0020

0.0240

0.0180

0.(440

0.0720

0.0%O

0.0160

0.0240

0.2080

0.0060

0.0100

0.0240

(MWOO

0.0010

0.0020

0.0920

771 GI/?001—9

1232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24,2001/CHATTRA 3,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2001

S.O. 618 .—Whereas il appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public intctcs! that for the

transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas through Kandla—Jamnagar—Loni Pipeline Project in Rajasthan State, a pipeline should

be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline, it is neces-

sary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described

in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Min-

erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962). the Central Government hereby declares iis

intention to acquire the right of user therein,

„

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may. within twenty one da\s from the date

on w hich the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, arc made available lo the general public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent

Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited, D-J43/B, Koshalya Marg Basant Marg. Barn Park. Jaipur (Rajaslhan).

SCHEDULE

Distt.

Palli

Tchsil

Dcsun

Village

Undcrthal

Dhalop

Survey No

T43

340

335

142

141

Total

424

Total

Land to be acquired

forROU (in Hectares)

0 2230

0 0120

0 1160

0 1020

0 0940

0.5670

0 0400

00400

1234

THEGA2ETTEOFINDIA:MARCH24.2001/CHAITRA311923

[PART II—SEC.3(ii)]

New Delhi, the l^l>1h March. 2001

S.O. 619.—Whereas it appears to the Centra! Government thai it is necessary in lh^ public inicrcJ that for the

iraasport of Liquid Petroleum Gas through KandJa—Jamnagar—Loni Pipeline Prqjact in Rajiislhnn Stale a pipeline should

be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited:

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laving the ^iid Pipcimc. it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the (and under �iiUi the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed IO this notification.

Now. therefore, in cveruse of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section i of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Aci. 1%2 (50 of 1962). the Cent nil Government herein dccljrcs

Us intention to acquire the right oi user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may- within twenty one davs fioiu the dale

on which the copies of this nolificalioa. as published in the Ga/clte of India, arc made available to the general public,

object in writing to the acquisition cf the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the laud to (he Competent

Authority. Gas Authority of India Limned. D-143/B. KoshaUa Marg. Basant Marg. Bani P.irk. Jaipur (RirjaMhnn)

SCHEDULE

Disll

PfUli

Telisil

Marwar Junction

Village

Ban

Gadana

Hamirwas

Rajola Khurd

Jatiyo ki Dhani

Survey No,

266

ToUil

288

194

Total

218

Total

272

344

Total

1255

Total

Land to be acquired

forR.O.U (n Hectares)

0.0120

0 0010

0.0130

0.0 ISO

00512

00692

0,(K)60

O.lXkSO

00720

0.0640

01360

00416

0.0416

|F. No. L-I4014/3/2000-G P |

I.SN PRASAD. Director (NG)

1237

New Delhi, the 19th March. 2001

S.O. 621.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

tmnport of Liquid Petroleum Gas through Kandla-Jamnagar-Loni Pipeline Project in Rajasthan Suite, a pipeline should

be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right if Users in Land) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962). the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may. within twenty one da> s from the date on

which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, arc made available to the general public, object

in writing to the acqusition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent

Authority. Gas Authority of India Limited. D-143/B, Koshalaya Marg. Basant Marg. Bani Park. Jaipur (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

District

Pali

Tehsil

Raipur

Village

Sumel

Nargarh

Megarda

Survey No.

1057

1042

Total

Land to be acquired for

R.O.U. (in hnctarcs)

(»6282 '

0.6282

0.3648

0 3648

0.0020

0.0507

0 0760

0.0634

0.0760

0 0507

0 3188

[File No. L-14014/3/2000-G.P]

I.S.N. PRASAD. Director (NG)

771 GI/2001—10

New Delhi, the 21 st March, 2001

S.O. 622.—Whereas, tn a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas. number S. O 895(K) and 896(E) dated the 28th September. 2000. issued under sub-section U) of section J of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962). (hereinafter referred

lo as the said act/, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the

Schedule appended lo that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of natural gas from Kesanapalli to

kadah in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Gas Authority of India Limited:

And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public from 23rd day of

November. 2000 to lBlh da> of December. 2000,

And whereas, the competent authority has under sub-sec!ion (1) of section 6 of the said Act, lias submitted

icport lo the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user

in the lands specified in the Schedule.

Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Go\ eminent herein declares, (hat the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying

the pipeline.

And. further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Go\ eminent directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead pfvesting in the Central Government, vest, on,.

this date of the publication of this declaration in the Gas Authority of India Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Distiict

East Goda\ an

Tehsil

Razole

Village

Ponnamanda

Survey No.

184/Pt

183/5

183/SAPt

183/8BPt

185 Pt

241/1 Pi

241/2 Pt

243/10 Pt

243/11 Pt

243/12 Pt

247 Pt

249/1 Pt

249/5 Pt

249/6 Pt

249/7 Pt

249/8 Pt

250/9 Pt

250/10 Pt

250/11 Pt

Area in Hectares

0 0450 GP

0.0375

0,1550

0 1425

0.0300 GP

0.1500

0.1450

0.0716

0.0800

0.0175

0.0200

0 0225

0.0075

0.0300

0 0150

0.0050

0.0300

0.0100

0 0162

1244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24. 2001/CHAITRA 3'. 1923

[PAKT II—inc. 3 (if)]

District

East Godavari

Tehsil

Razolc

Village

Ponnainnnda

Survey No

250/12 PL

250/13 pt

250/15 Pt

250/14 Pt

251 Pt

499 Pt

4% PI

495/1 PI

495/2 Pt

495/3 Pi

494/9 Pi

494/K)Pt

489 Pi

488 Pi

486/3 Pi

486/4 Pt

486/5 Pt

486/6 Pt

485 Pt

484/6 Pt

484/7 Pt

484/8 Pt

483 Pi

482/1 Pt

481/2 Pt

449/9b

449/9c

449/12

449/14

448 Pt

432/11 Pt

446/5 Pt

446/6 Pi

436 Pt

Area m Hectares

0(1775

0.0025

0.0.(00

0.0600

0.0150

0.3875

0.0475 GP

0.0050

0.3125

0.0060

0.0975

0.0150

0.0125 GP

O.I55O

0.0375

0 1975

0 0175

0.0275

0.0250 GP

0.1225

0.0012

0.0036

0 0325 GP

0.0950

0.1700

0.1)100

0.0866

0.0316

0.0636

0 0450 GP

0.2100

0.0X50

0.0066

0 0250

1245

District

East Godavari

Tehsil

Razole

Village

Ponnamanda

Katrcnipadu

Survey No.

435/1 Pt

435/2 Pt

435/3 Pt

435/5 Pt

435/6 Pt

434/2 Pt

437/5 Pt

437/6 Pt

438 Pt

370/3 Pt

370/4 Pt

371/1 Pt

371/2 Pt

371/3 Pt

372/2

389/1

388 Pt

387/1 Pt

386 Pt

379 Pt

TOTAL

32/1 Pt

32/2 Pt

33/1

33/2

33/3

33/4

34/4

34/5 B

34/6

35/4

35/3

35/7

39 Pt

Area in Hectares

0.0350

0.0012

0.1000

0.0525

0.0375

0,0010

0.0036

0.1036

0.0100 GP

0.0950

0.0325

0.0836

0.1000

0.1875

0.1650

0.1150

0.1966

0.1482

0.0950

0.0936

5.1840

0.1350

0.0600

0.0675

0.0450

0.0125

0.0612

0.0525

0.1425

0.0100

0.0900

0.0050

0.1025

0 0225 GP

771GI/2001—11

1246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001 /CHAITRA 3, 1923

IPART II—SEC 3 (ii)]

District

East Goda\an

Tehi.il

Razolc

Village

Katrenipadu

Survey No.

40/1 Pt

40/2 Pt

40/3 Pt

41/5 Pt

41/6 Pt

41/8 Pt

43 Pt

106/3

106/5

106/11

107/1

107/2

107/3

107/6 PI

107/10

107/15

153/1

153/2

154/

156/1

155 Pt

157/3

157/5

158/1

158/3

159/1

159/2

159/3

!()()/!

161/1

161/2

173/1

173/2

173/4

Area in Hectares

0.1500

0.0525

0.1625

0 0250

0 0375

0 0150

0.0225

0 0500

0 0975

0.0100

0.0450

0 0525

0 0100

0 0350

0 0600

0 0950

0 0600

0 1125

0 0600

0 1025

0 2275

0 OK75

0 0400

0 1100

0 1825

0 0200

0 0400

0 0900

0 1)700

0 2425

0 0X00

0 0162

0 1700

0 0100

1247

District

East Godavari

East Godavan

Tehsil

Ra/.olc

Razole

Village

Kairenipadu

Kadali

Survey No

173/6

173/7

168 Pt

172/3

172/2

194/1

194/2

TOTAL

749 Pt

750 Pt

798/1A Pt

798/2 Pt

797/2 Pt

797/3 Pt

803/2 Pt

805/1 Pt

805/2 Pt

807 Pt

808 Pt

810 Pt

811/1 Pt

811/2 Pt

811/5 Pt

811/6 Pt

812/2 Pt

812/3 Pt

812/4 Pt

819/2 Pt

818 Pt

824 Pt

823 Pt

833/4 Pt

833/5 Pt

833/6 Pt

Area in Hectares

0.0062

0 0050

0.0225 GP

0 0150

0 3225

0 2225

0 0725

4.1536

0.0075

0.0100

0.1150

0.1100

0.0600

0.3300

0.0125

0.0050

0 0750

0.0100

0.0950

0.0012

0.1250

0.0050

0.0075

0.0150

0.1400

0.2650

0.0700

0.0375

0.0450

0.0625

0 1250

0.0750

1248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 24, 2001/CHAITRA 3. 1923

TPARI 11—SEC 3 drtl

District

East Godavan

Tehsil

Ra/olc

Mahkipuram

Village

Kadali

Kesanapalh

Survey No

832/1 Pt

832/2 Pt

832/3 Pi

831/1 Pt

KT 1/2 Pt

843/2 Pt

842 Pt

844 Pt

TOTAL

495 Pt

485 PI

484/8 Pt

484/9 Pt

484/10 Pt

484/11 Pt

484/12 Pt

483/2A Pi

483/2B Pt

483/3A4 Pi

483/7 Pt

483/8APt

483/8B1 Pt

483/8B2 Pt

483/9 Pt

483/10 Pt

478/5 Pt

478/6 Pi

479/4A Pi

479/4B Pt

479/3 Pt

480/1 Pt

480/2 Pt

TOTAL

Area in Hectares

0 2550

0 0600

0 2100

0 1400

0 1000

0 2400

0 0200

0 1350

3 0337

0 4300

0 1900

0 0050

0 0350

0 0450

0 0150

0 0800

0 0500

0 0550 GP

0 0012

0 0500

0 0200

0 0125

0 0100

0 0250

0 0300

0 1250

0 0125

0 0600

0 0800

0 0950

0 0750

0 1150

1 6162

[File No L-14O14/8/2OOO-GP]

I S N PRASAD. Director (NG)

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2001

S,O. 623.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndLrstrial

Dilute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the awaul of the Central Government In-

dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the

Aunt-sure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Director, K.ilak hetia Foun-

dation and their worlcmun, which was received by the Central

Govcii'irient on 26-2-2001.

[No, L-42011/49/2000-lR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VFRMA, Desk Officer

ANNFXURE

BI'l'ORt- THE ChNTRAL GOVERNMhNT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 30th January, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Kartbikeyan, B.A., B.L., Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 83/2000

(In i he matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section

lOUXd) and hub section 2(A) of Ihe Industrial Deputes Act.

1947 between the Claimant and the Management, the Director,

KilakMittj A Foundation, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai)

BETWEEN

The President,

The Kalakshitra Foundation

Employee!! Congress.

NaneamUIur, Chennai

. .Claimant/I Paity.

AND

The Director,

Kalakshetra Foundation,

Thiruvanmiyur, Cliennai,

,, Management/TI Party.

APPEARANCES :

For the Claimant: Unrepresented,

For the Management : M/s, Ramasubramaniam and Asso-

ciates, Advocates.

tl'FERENCE :

Older No. L-420il/49/2000/IR(DU) dated

30-10-^000

Ministry of labour,

Govr, ,,ment of India.

New

AWARD

Schedule of Reference •

"Whether the withdrawal of free food supply to the

workmen working in the kitchen

department of

Ji.C.C. Hostel m Kalakshetra Foundation is legal and

justified?

If not, to whit relief the workmen are

The Central Government by its Order referred above ha

referred tho Schedule mentioned¹ dispute between the partie

for adjudication by this Tribunal.

On receipt of this reference, this dispute has been takei

on file of this Tribunal on 20-11-2000 as Industrial Disput

No, 83 ol 2000 and notice to both the parties were orderei

to be sent by Registered Po°t with acknowledgement due fo

the hearing on 5-12-2000. The notices sent accordingly to botl

the parties wcie served¹, and the postal acknowledgement

were received.

But the I Party /Claimant was not presen

for the hearing and there was no representation for the •

Party Union.

Counsel appearing for the JI Party M/a

Ramasubramaniam and Associates filed Vakalat. So the casi

was adjourned to 15-12-2000 for the I Party Union to appea:

and to file the Claim Statement, When the matter was takei

up on the adjourned date 15-12-2000, the counsel on recorc

for the It Party alone was present.

Neither the T Party/

Claimant nor any of their representative present and file th<

Claim Sta+emcnt of the I Party.

There was no representa

tion for I Party, So the matter was adjourned¹ to 29-12-2001

for the appearance of I Party and for filing their Clairj.

Statement.

When, on 29-12-2000, the matter was taken ur

1 Party Union remain unrepresented and the

Claim State

ment of the I Party was not filed. Counsel for the I) Party

alone was present. So the matter wag adjourned to 17-1-2001

onlr-rjng fresh notice to the I Party Union by Registered

Post with acknowledgement due. On that day also, when

the matter was taken up II Party counsel alone appeared.

No one appeared¹ foi I Paity/Claimant and the Claim State-

ment of the I Party was not filed, There was no representa.

tlon at all for the I Party. Then it was oideied to issue final

notiru to I Party Union by Registered Post with acknowledge-

ment due for the hearing on this day the 30th January, 2001.

Accordingly, the final notice was sent by Registered Pont with

jutnowledpement due for the T Party for today's hearing.

When the matter was taken up today, there is no representa-

tion for 1 Party Union. No one is appeared' in spite of the

Jinal notice sent by Registered Post was served on them.

r>s it is seen from the postal acknowledgement received. There

is no represen'ation. Claim Statement for th« I Party is not

hlrd

Coun-el representing the Management fit Party present

Having received the notices sent by Registered Post including

the final notice for today's hearing, the Party Union's repre-

sentative has not chosen to appear before this forum and file

trie Claim Statement espousing the cuuse of Ihe concerned

workman.

There is absolutely no representation for the I

I artv Union all these various hearing. The absence of tho

I I arty union for all the hearings consistently shows that tho

imion which cspon-inj! the cause of tho concerned workman

hv Mimnp this industrial dispute and the concerned workmen

tnve absolutely no interest on inc'ination to n-osecute this

dispute before this Tribunal for ndindirntion for the relief

soih-M ,,s mentioned in the Schedule of reference.

Under

such circumstances, this Tribunal has to conclude that no

dispute exists between the parties.

in the result, the Tribunal pass an award, holding that

the dispute under reference d'oes not exist and dismiss the

cipim referred to for non-profecuiion.

No cost.

Dictated to the typist, typed by her direct, corrected and

r renounced by me in open court this day the 30th Januajy,

K. KARTH1KEYAN. Presiding Officer

771 GI/2001—12

%&••

i«$temf & r ^ m fttiftm ¥t-^ft%ti&&$;⁷fflte

#ARf *^»&;'3{tft]:

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2001

S.O 62-J—In imis'iance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Papule Act, [947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government

hereby puhlislies the .ward of the Central Government In-

dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknaw a¹! hhown in the

Armtxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in LelaLou to the management of Mihtaiy Dairy Farm and

their workman, which was icceivcd by the Central Govern-

ment on 26-2-200 J.

[No. L-14012/14/y9-IR(DUj|

KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFOTJK THK .CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TKIBUNAI.-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

I'rru'dint Offlar : Rudieili Kumar,

ADJUDirATION

I.D. No. MB/2000 (OKI Nj. 23?/99)

BETWEEN

Vinod Kumar,

C/o BM.S. 32,

Chckrata Road,

Debradun

AND

Officei Indioicc,

Military Dairy / arm,

Ddiradun,

AWARD

By reference No. L-] 1012/H/^lJ9/IR(DU) dated 21-7-1999,

the Central Government the Ministry of Labour in exercise

oi poivtrj conffiied by clause (d) of sub-section (I) of Section

10 of l.]j, Act, 1947 Made over tbn industrial dispute between

Vinod Kumar and Officer Incharge, Military Daily Form,

Deh radian to the CGJT-curn-Labour Court, Kanpur ior adju-

dication.

Later, this dispute was tiairferred to this Tribunal

tor adjudication.

Reference reads 's under:

''VVhsthe; the net on of the management of Military Dairy

Farm, Dehradim in terminating the services of Shji

VinoJ Kumar, IJx-Tcniji status cn.sua) labour is legal

and jnsl/flcd ' If no^f, to what relief the workman

is. entitled ?"

2. Repistcred

notices w^re^rcnt

to the workman oo

24-1--J000. 23-10-2000, 14-11-2000, 21-12-2000 and 22-1-2001

but the workman d^:d nor njipear. Tho management informed

fhi<s lijbunal flt Camp Court, Dehradmi by letter dt. 17-1-2001

thtit the workman Vinocf Kumar had filed an application with

the management, not to puisue this dispute fmther. A rfioto

copy of ihf letter

sirneJ by Vinod Kumar, is attached

With the management's" letter dated 17-1-2001.

i. Despite number of jej?istcred notices sent to the work-

man, he did-not appear which indicates his unwillingness to

pursue thif industrial dispute. This fact may be also gauged

from his letter to the management.

In absence of claim

statement of the workman, it is not feasible to adjudicate

this referenc" on merit, fo it is ordered to be returned without

,anv adjudication.

4- A'VUKI arcordinfily.

9-2-2001.

LucVnovv,

RTJDRFSH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2001

S.O. 625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

f.'ii^utti Act, 1947 (14 of 1947-), the Central Government

nireby publishes the .\ward of the Central Goveimnient Iti-

dusliial Trihunu) /Labour Court, Luckuow, HB shown in the

A ii exure in the InduJtiml Dispute between the employers in

icla+ifi ti the management of Military Dairy Farm and

tiic'r v>r! man, which wus received by the Central Govetn-

• n.-nt on 26-2-2001.

[No. L-l40l2|31|^ljq-rR(DTO]

XOLDtP RAI VERMA, DCSK Olli.fr

/NNEXUPE

m-fORE THE CENTRAL GOVl'l-NMENT INDUS TRIAL

rRinUNAL-CUM-i-\BOUR C . URT, LUCKNOW

Ti'" '.1 ng Officer . Kudresh Kumar.

ADIUDICATIQN

I.C No.; 143120 -0 (Old No. 237)99)

BETWEEN

Bal Vogeshwar

r'o n.M.s., 32,

C hakr.ita Road,

DcInaOun-24888.'.

AND

Officer Incharge,

Mih'ti-y Dairy l^^irm

Hehradun.

AWARD

T5y

reference

No.

L-14012|31|99-TR(DU)

dated

3-H-19^c*^tJ, the Cential Government in the Ministry of Labour,

in fxctcise of powers conferred¹ by clause (d) of sub-section

O> of Section 10 of T.D. Act, 1947 made over this industrial

iVi-pute between Bal Yogeshwar and Officer Tnchargr-, Military

Dairy Faira, Dehradun to the CGIT-cum-Labour

Court,

Kanpur lor adjudication. Later, this dispute was transferred

to tliii Trihunai lor adjudication.

Ri*(crcPi.e read? as under:

'•\Vheiher the act'on of the Mnnagement of Mil'tarv

Daiiv Farm, Dehradim in terminating the services

of Sri Bal Yogeshwar ex Temp. Status

Casual

Labour is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he

is entitled 7"

Claim statement was filed by the workman. lUanacc-

rnent also filed written statement, a copy of which was fur-

nished tii the workman •on 12-7-2000. Since then the work-

man did not appear. The workman, Bal Yoceshwar, gave in

writing to the management showing hfs unwillingness to pui-

sne this disiwt<*. This fact h brought to notice by the man-

agement Ihiough Jts letter dated 17-1-2001.

3, Registered notice were ^ent also, to the workman frorr>

this

Tribunal

29-9-2000, 23-10-2000.

14-11-2000,

1251

21-12-2000 and 22-1-2001, but no response came from him.

In view of the said facts, it is not possible to adjudicn'e- the

case on merit and the reference is returned unadjudi;ated,

4. Awaid accordingly.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

1UCKNOW

9-2-2001.

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2001

S.O. 626.—In pursuance

of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of

the

Ccntial

Government

Indusrtial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lircknow as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employcis

in relation to the management of Military Dairy taim and

their woikman, which was received by the Central Government¹

on 26-2-2001.

[No. L-14012/33/99-IR(DU)j

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Piesiding Officer ; Rudrcsh Kumar.

ADIUD1CATION

J.D. No. 145/2000 (Old No. 239/99)

BETWEEN

Ram Nareih,

C/o B.M.S., 32,

Cnakrata Road,

Dehiadun.

AND

Officer Intharge,

Military Dairy Farm.

Dehradun

AWARD

By reierencc No. L-14012/33/99/fR(DU) dated 3-8-1999,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exer-

cise of powcis conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 10 LD. Act, 1947 made over this industrial dispute

between Ram Naresh and Officer Incharge, Military Farm,

Dehradun to the COlT-cum-Laboiir Court, Kanpur for adju-

dication. Later, this dispute was transferred¹ to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

Reference reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Military Dairy

Farm, Debradun in terminating the services of Shri

Rnm. Naresh. Ex-Temp. Rtntu«; casual labour is lecal

and justified^

If not, to what relief the woilflniuu

u entitled ?"

2. Despite issuance of leyistcrcd notices, on

29-9-2000,

23-10-2000 and 14-11-2000, the workman failed to appear

unct fili; claim statement. On 15-12-2000, this case was taken

up at camp court. Dehradun. The management filed an ap-

plication annexed with signed application of Ram Naresh.

His unwillingness to contest the case is mentioned in the

application. A notice Was ordered to be sent, intimating the

slid iactL, to the workman and in compliance of the otder,

notice was issued on 21-12-2000 and again on 22-1-2001.

However, the workman, despite registered notices, failed to

appear and file claim statement.

Adjudication of reference,

m absence of claim application, is not feasible. Accordingly,

the reference is returned without adjudicating on merit.

3. Award accordingly.

9-2-2001.

Lucknow,

RUDRESH KUMAR,-Pre¹ iding Officer

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2001

S,O, 627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industry

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governme.n

heruty publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal|Labour

Court. Chennai, as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the mnnaj?e-

ment of Heavy Vehicles Factoiy and their workman, which

was lfteived by the Lcntra] Government on 26-2-2001.

,TMo. L-14012|43|98-IRfDU.

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Ofiio

ANNEXDRE

I.FFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAM'L

NADU CHENNAf

Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2001

PRESENT :

rhiru S. R. Sinfahaiavclu, B.Sc. BJL, Industrial Iri-

bunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 40 of 1999

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section

!G(l)(d) of the Induattial Disputes Act, 1947 between ihe

Workman ^r.d the Management of Heavy Vehicles Factory,

AvJdi.)

BETWFFN

Sii M. Ramanathan

No 1 Bhujangu Rao Lane,

Radha Nagar,

• Chirmpet, Chenn:ii-600044.

AND

Thf General ManjRtT,

lienvv Vehick'R Factcrv,

Avadi.

Chennai-600054.

12^

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/ CHAlTRA'3, 1?23

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REl ERENCE :

Order No. L-14012|-t3[98[IR(DU) dated lb-2-99 Ministry

of l u t o u , Uovt. uf Jndia, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on {or linai hearing on Wednesday,

the I7rh day of January, 2001, upon perusing the lott'itnLt,

Claim and Counter statements and hli otjier rnaten.il papeis

on u'coid and upon hearing the aiguments of Tvl. t>. It.

Eajagupal. S. K. Raghunathan aud V. Vishunuvijayan, advo-

cates appearing for me workman and of Thii'u M. K. Jaya-

karan, Addi. Central Government Standing Counsel appear

ing for tne Management and this dispute having stood over

tut this day tor consideration the Tribunal made the follow-

ing

AWARD

The Oovt. of India lias refcrercd the following issue for

ndiiidicaiion by this Tribunal:

"Whether Iho Management of Heavy Vehicles Factory,

Avadi, Chennai is legal uud justified in removing

Sri M. Ramanathan. Machinist 'B' from his services

and if not to what relief the workman la entnted/'

2. The main averments found in the Claim statement of

the petitioner are as follows ;

The petitioner was a Machinlst-6 in the Heavy Vehicles

Factory, Avadi. He joined the Factory on 27-12-1905. He

was elected as a member of the Works Committee and was

also elected as a, Loans Committee Member in 19b(S. The

petitioner was the Treasurer of the Heavy Vehicles Factory

Employes' Union from 1966. The petitioner was suspended

from J1-12-1970, pending certain disciplinary action.

Charge memo was issued to him, listing out certain cnaig;i,.

The charges were as follows

:(i) Committed acts amount-

ing to continued and habitaual negligence of work : (ii) com-

mitted

acts amountng to habitual absence from work spot

without leave and habitual late attendance; (iii) committed

actj \ioiative of security standing instructions which prohibit

inter alia meetings and|or group discussions within factory

premises; (iv) committed nets amounting to inciting others

to desist from doing their duties and (v) committed acts un-

becoming of a Government servant amounting to gross mis-

conduct.

The main charges against the petitioner is that of

frequent absentation from workspot, late attendance, group

meetings|discussions

within

factoiy premises and¹ inciting

woikcrs to desist from doing their duties. An enquiry ofika

was appointed. It was an Assistant Manager, who was far

infereior to the General Manager of the Heavy Vehicles

Factory vho is the Disciplinary Authority. The

Enquiry

Officer was also subordinate to the General Manager fLifilit

Machine Shop) who was a witness in the case. The enquiiy

officer c;<nnot be said to hav* been conducted in a fair and

proper manner. The petitioner made a request to uxarrlne

the Gfneibl Manager oi the factory as. a defence witness.

But the request to examine him was tinned down by the

enquiry officer. The respondent was in a position of witnesj

in respect of certain charges. Being in a position of a wit-

ness, he is not

competent

pass the final order

removal from service.

The findings of the disciplinary

authority vitiated as he concurs with the finding of the en-

quiry officer.

Tho petitioner prays to pass an award hold-

ing that the lemoval of the petitioner from seivice by the res-

pondent is not justified.

3. Tha main averments wound in the Counter statement

of tho respondent are as follows :

At the outset the respondent considers it fit to reiterate

that Heavu Vehicles Frctoiy, Avad) is one among the I.O.

Fa find it has been decided in a case that the activities of

O.Fs cannot be considered as 'industry' under the t.D. Act.

In the ensp of Rangfilore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Vs, AJ. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SO), Hon'hle Supreme Court

held that the establishment performing sovereign functions

shall be c> eluded from the provisions of the term 'Industry'

as jiiven an Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, This was apain

affirmed in its judgement in the case nf G.M. Telecom Vs.

SWnivosa Rao and otheis reported iu 1997 V of 8 See paw

767. Also Sec. 13 B of the ID. (Amendment) and Miscel-

laneous Provisions (Act 195(5, Act No. 3fi'l956). In view

of the above, the prnpcr forum to agitate any matter pei-

talning to service condition is- I he Central Administrative

Tribunal. The petitioner is governed under the provisions of

FR & SR, CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and CSR. Hence it is pray-

ed that the dispute referred by the petitioner is not within

Lhe jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. It Is submitted

that the petitioner is an ex-Ceulral Government seivanL

covered under CCS (CCA) flules and as per the piovisions

of the rule, the petitioner was issued Charge sheet and given

reasonable opportunity of detetiding his case during the coutse

of Court of Inquiry proceedings as laid down in CCS (CCA)

Ruies 1965. As a matter of proceduie, the petitioner was

given a Sh\>w cause noticee. The petitioner was given reason-

able opportunity and natural justice in dealing with his case

and cannot term the order ol removal from service as victi-

misntion.

The remedy available fo this petitioner was lo

approach the High Court and that too within a reasonable

period of time. Even if the date of application to the Re-

gional Labour Commissioner during 19K9 is taken, the appli-

cation is hopelessly

barred by limitation because 18 years

have lapsed. The petitioner has to abide by the Security

Standing Instruction. CCS (Leave) Rules etc. and cannot

claim exemption from rules on tho pretext of being so called

union representative of unrecognised union. The respondent

prays to dismiss the petition on the ground of beyond the

jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Tribunal and further pass that the

petitioner has exhausted all official lemedies available tJ

him, way back during 1972 and cannot agitate after 25 years

in any Tiibunal or any other apptopriate judicial authority

being time barred.

4. On behalf of petitioner, WWl Thiru M, Ramanathan

has been examined and Ex. Wl to W13 were marked.

behalf of respondent, MW1 Thiru P. Surendran has been

examined and Ex. Ml to MS were marked.

5. The Point for consideration is whether the Management

of Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai is legal

and

juMified in temoving Sri M. Ramanathan, Machinist 'B' from

his services and if not to what relief the workman is en-

titled?

6. The Point : The petitioner was employed as Machinist

'B' with the respondent. He was appointed in December 1965.

He wus subsequently elected as Works Committee Member

and Secretary Loans Committee. He happened to be the

treasurer of Heavy Vehicle Factory Employees Union. He

was also a Loans Committee Secretary to sanction loan to

tho employees of the factory.

7. On 11-12-1970 a Charge. Memo was issued to

him

through Ex. W3 (Ex. M2), On 21-12-70. he had given an

explanation through Ex. M4, Not satisfied with the explana-

tion a enquiry was ordeicd. The proceedings of the En-

quny authority was marked as Ex. W5. It was made as per

Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. There was an Order

of dismissal dated 27-2-71 through Ex. W7 (Ex. M4). Sub-

sequently on 8-3-71, the petitioner had made an appeal Me-

morandum through Ex. W9 which was also rejected by the

Under Secy, of Govl. of India thiough hx. W10 dt. 21-2-72

Thus the petitioner was removed. The charges are : (1) that

the said Ramanathan while functioning as Machinist 'B' com-

mitted acts amounting to continued and abitaual negligence

of work; (ii) that he has committed act amounting to habi-

tual absence from work spot without leave and habitaual ln*o

.itrcndjuie; (iii) that the petitioner had committed acts viola-

tive of Security Standing Instructions which prohibit meetings

or group discussion within the factory premises (iv) that the

petitioner committed acts amounting to inciting others lo

desist from doing their duties and (v) that he

committed

acts unbecoming of a Government Servant amounting to gross

misconduct. Annexure-IT of Ex. M3 contained details of the

alleged misconducts, TT19 said Charge sheet was issued by

Major General K. M. Kini. General Manager.

The enquiry

was conducted by Mr. W.I. Willington, Asst. Manager.

8. Before going into the alleged irregularities in the enquiry

against the misconduct, both tne counsels argued much upon

the question of jurisdiction.

The learned counsel for the

Management contended Section 13(B) of the ID. (Amend-

ment) and Miscellaneous Provisions (Act 1956 Act No. 36/

1956) exempts certain Industries, from its jurisdiction. Sec-

tion 13(B) of the said Act read as follows :

"13-B—Act not to apply to certain Industrial Establish-

ments :

Nothing in this Act shall ipply to nn industrial estnbliih-

nient in so far as the workmen employed therein

1253

me persons to whom the Fundamental and Supple-

meutaiy Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Cont-

rol and Appeal) Rules. Civil Service (Temporary

Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service

Regulations, Civilians in Defence Service (Classifi-

cation, 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 Gazette apply."

9. Keliance was also placed upon AIR 1978 Supreme Court

(Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa,

wherein it was held that the establishment performinn sover-

eign Junctions shall be excluded from the provisions of the

term 'industry' as given in I.D. Act, 1.947. But the learned

Counsel for tho Workmen, relied upon 1994 II LU &65

which had followed the verdict IU 1986 Calcutta I.C. page

1269. Reliance was also placed upon 1995 I LLJ

994,

wherein it was held as follows:

"Even in a department discharge sovereign function

if there are units, which are industries and

they

are substantially severable, then they should be

considered to come within the fold of Section 2(j)

of tho Industrial Disputes Act. The Central Ordi-

nance Depot, being a severable unit of Defence De-

partment Hnd is carrying on a systematic activity with

the cooperation of employees and employer, thus it is

an Industry within the meaning of Sfc 25-J."

Thus it is settled law that even hi departments discharging

Sovereign functions if there are units which are severable they

can be considered within Section 2(j). In the later judgement

Central Ordnance Dept. of Union of India itself was a party

and it was held the employees thereunder would be covered

under Section 2(j) and that the management would be called

as an 'Industry'. The Central Ordnance Depot Union of India

itself was held as an Industry. This respondent also uf that

category. So this Respondent can as well be called as an

Industry for the purposes of this issue. Therefore, the conten-

tion that this Court has no jurisdiction is uot acceptable.

10. The next point that was urged on the side of the mana-

gement is that for the conduct of petitioner which ocurred on

11-12-70 the penalty was passed on 21-2-11 and that it was

some where in 19B9 that the Regional Labour Commissioner

has enquired this matter. Therefore, it was argued that the

cause cannot be agitated after 18 long years. For this purpose,

the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon AIR 1999

Supreme Court 1351 wherein the following was held :

"Tho provisions of Art. 137 of the Schedule to Limita-

tion Act. 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings

under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be

denied to the workmen merely on the ground of

delay. The pica of delay if raised by tho employer

is required to be proved as a matter of fact by

showing the real prejudice and not as a merely

hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour

Court

can be generally questioned on the giound

of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay

is shown to be existing, the

Tribunal,

Labour

Court or Board, dealing with the case can appro-

priately mould the relief by declining to grant bact

wages to -the workman till the date he raised the

demand

regarding his illegal retrenchment/termi-

nation or dismissal. The Court may also in appro-

priate cases direct the payment of part of the back-

wages instead of full bsckwages."

tn that case the relief was held that could be moulded

as cTeemed fit bv the Tribunal. Bv relying upon AIR 1994

Supreme Court 112, ihe learned Counsel for the Petitioner

arpued that in view of reinstatement which could not be

given now for the petitioner, since he has attained or going

to attain soon the ngc of superannuation, the relief can lie

moulded by way of grant of lumpsum comrensation.

•

In ^fact, in that case it was held as follows:

''The respondent wns dismissed way back on 17th Nov-

ember, 1967 and we me now in March 1992. We

though it would bo proper if the respondent is

paid a lump sum compensation in ncu ui icm»i"t-

ment. That was also the suggestion which came

from counsel for the respondent, but she suited

that the respondent should be paid 75 per cent of

tho backwages by Way of compensation.

That

suggestion was not acceptable to the Learned Coun-

sel lor the appellant. We, however, thought that a

lump sum payment is the most suitable solution

this dispute between the parties. Unfortunately, the

counsel for the parties were not in possess;-- . of

the relevant material concerning the salary 6t the

respondent and its revision from time to time. We,

therefore, have to do some amount of guess work.

Keeping in mind what were the salaiies in 19&7

and the revisions that

took place

thereafter in

State

Services,

similar

revision

also

took

place in the services, of the public sector corpo-

rations, we worked out the compensation keeping

in view the rival contentions of the parties.

suggested that on our working the compensation

comes to Rs. 75,000.

Both the

learned counsel

have agreed to the suggestion that the matter may

be closed on payment of

Rs. 75,000

by way of

compensation."

Thus, the delay also will not flo against the workman.

Now let us come to the main issue as to whether the peti-

tioner had misconducted himself Qnd that it was proved

properly.

11. The evidence of MW3 culled out hercunder will go

to ehow the infallibilities of the petitioner.

Q. Are you aware of the two letters dated 25-9-70 and

27-11-1970 issued by the G.M. to Mr. Ramana-

than?

A. I am aware of it.

Q. Did Mr. Ramanathan show any improvement in his

performance af'.er the GM's warning dated 25-9-70?

A. He did not show any improvement in his produc-

tion.

Q. How was his attendance with regard to

being

punctual and with regard to presence on the work

spot?

A. He was generally coming late and absence from duty

with permission (i.e.) when he is going on leave

with permission.

Q. Was he leaving the workspot always with your prior

permission?

A. Some times he used to go with permission

and

some times without permission also.

Q. After tho GM's warning dated 25-9-70 had you

been keeping a record of the output he was giv-

ing?

A. I used to send the record of output on day to day

basis to the Manager (LMS) through Asst. Mana-

ger (LMS) wd I used to have a copy of the same

also.

Q. Were these figures of output, Sri Ramanathan was

giving, recorded after asking him how much he

had produced?

A. I used to record tho same in one of the copies to be

sent to Manager (LMS) through Asst. Manager

(IMS). There

was

definite

instruction

from

Manager (IMS) slating lhat I have to give the job

to Sri

Ramanathan

in the morning and find out

how many he was done by the closing hours of

the factory ip the evening. The instruction

was

also there, during any absence Group in charge

Sri Nagarajan, A/F will be alloting the work as

said m the above manner.

Q- Does it not then mean that Mr. Ramanathan was

fully aware of the out turn he was actually grvint?

and the out turn he was expected to give?

A. He wai nware of the actual production he has tv>

give as he was supplied with process sheet, where

the time is recorded.

ilU

fHE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAfyCH 24, 2001/ CHAlTRA 3, 1923

[PART H—SEC. 3(ii)]

0. Did Mr. Ramunathan report

for duty on 11-12-70

at the right time?

A. He reported for duty .it 900 A.M. on 11-12-70.

Q. Did you allot him work as usual on that day ?

fi. 1 called him to allot the work but he went out of the

Capstan group and he came at about 10.45 A.M.

to the Section speaking with operators till 10.55

A.M. Ho lepoited at 1.45 p.m. and started his

wor> and he had done 2 components before the

closing hours. He has taken permission at 12.45

p.m. to see the Chairman, Works Committee.

Q. Did he address any group of workers in the section

on 11-12-70?

A. He was speaking with a gioup of people

from

10.45 A.M. to 10.55 A.M. in the Capstan group.

Q. Did the work ccm© to a stop in the section of part

of the section as a result of

Mr.

Ramanath.in

speaking to the woikers?

A. The Stopppjje of work WHS there from 10.45 P.M

to 10.55 A.M.

when Mr.

Ramanathan

was

present and stoppage of woik was also there fiom

12.45 P.M. to 1.15 P.M. when Mr.

Ramanathan

was not thcie in the Capstan Group,

The witnesses managed to say the same in the course of

Cross-examination also. Witness No, 4 also had maintained

the same as against thp petitioner. Seeing through the copv

of Kssessment of evidence contained in the proceedings ai

enquiry, we are able to see that the Enquiry Officer has well

considered the various aspects put in the evidence

and

Page Nos. 1 and 11 (as mentioned at pajje No, 84 of the

typed set) of the Proceedings of the enquiry, which will go

a lot to show against the petitioner. A careful perusal and

analysis of the entire evidence would o.lly go to justify the

findings given at page No. 91 of the typed set which is con-

tained on tht- last page of the repoit of the Enquiry Officer.

So, the learned Counsels argument that some of the wit-

nesses like D.A. Pardasani, Mr. V. M Gopalakiishnan, the

5th Witness do not speak accurately is incorrect

Stray

lines

of deposition should not be evaluated.

A collective

rending of the entire evidence of individual witnesses shall

have to be weighed. If this is done the misconduct is found

proved Whelhet the Charge Nos. 3 to 5 speak to the same

ret of facts is not the question; but the question is whether

the allegations aie true.

A perusal of tho entire evidence

would only go to show that the allegations have, been proved,

despite the fact thol Chcnge Nos. 3 to 5 are interlinked

'2, Tho Learned Counsel for the Workman contended Ilirit

Mr. WlHingtoti, the Enquiry Officer was onlv Subordinate

to Mr. Kini, the General Manager who actually issued ire

Charge Sheet. The rule is that any Officer Superior to ihe

workman has to conduct the enquiry- There is no rule that

Charge Sheet should not be issued bv the General Manager

or that AssU. Mumger shoirld not be Enquiry Officer, No

such provision in the Standing Ord^r or Service Rules was

pointed out and again the non-examination of the Mana";r

may not

matter much because the Managci

himself has

issued n Charge Sheet and he is the Head of the Office who

even if examined mi\>; only endore the view of aclr.il

witnesses of the occurrence Furthei the General Manager

had not

witnessed f.rything so as to speak against the

charges So the non-tx.imination of the Geneial Manago

is not fatal.

13. By evaluating tlie entno evidence, I am of the vieu

lhat an occupier of the so many office bearership in the

Union can never be exempted from adherence to the Con-

duct Rules and he can never be taken exemption fiom c.">-

ciip'oyccs. Since the misconducts are found proved I di

not want to interfere in the punishment also as circumstance--

justifv the same. Strict discipline shall have t-> be adhered

in places of defence workshops and in default it may endan-

ger the security of the nation itself.

U. Therefore, the Management of Heavy Vehicles Far

toiy, Avadi, Cbennai is legal and justified in removing Sii

M. Rnmanathan, Machinist 'B' from his servicei. Awaid

passed accordingly. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, : this 31st day of Januaiy, 2001.

S. R. SINOHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal.

l.D. No, 40/99

Witnesses Examined

For PelitioDer|WorkmiLii

V\WJ (Pioof affidavit)—Chief Ooss M. Ramanathau.

For Rfspondent|Maaagemtnt

MVV1 : Th. P. Surendran (Proof affidavit)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For PetitionerlWoikmati

Ex. Wl : Govt. of India Order No. L-14012I43I98 1R

(DU) dt 16-2-99 (i.e. Reference).

Ex, W2

: The Supersedes Part I older 691 dt.

21-10-70.

Fx. W3

: (ChiTge Sheet) Meraoianduin dt. 1-12-70.

Ex. W<1 31-12-70 : Letter oi M. Ramanathan, Machinist

(under

suspension)

Explanation

General

Manager, H V.F.

Avadi.

E\ W5

; Pioccedings of the Enquiiy Authority.

Ex. W6 29-7-71 : Letter of M Ramanathan to

the

Secretary, Mm stry

Defence—Reinstatement

appeal submitted.

E\. W7 27-2-71 : Letter issued by Geneial Manager.

HVF regarding Imposition of the penalty of re-

moval.

Ex W8 18-2-71 . Letter of M. Ramanathan to

the

General Manner HVF, Madras-54 regarding Ap-

peal representation.

Ex. W9 8-3-71 : Ldter to M. Rnmanathan by General

Manager H'. I- regarding Appeal.

Ex W10 21-2-72 : Appeal dated 29-7-7] rejected by

Under Secret ny to Govt. oi India.

T;,. Wll 2-5-72 PART-II ORDfR reg Termination of

Service under General Civil Service.

Ex. W12

Discussion and Subsequent order

Ielating to Labour situation in HVF (Minutes

Meeting).

Fx. W13 23-8-74 : letter by A.I.D.F. to the Ge'eral

Manager, H A' I", regardinc Harrassment in H.V.F.

Documents of Management

Ex. Ml Chapter 21 : Establishment and Functions of

Central Administrative Tiibunal,

The Ad'ministra-

tlvo Tribunal Act, 1985 (No 13 of 1985).

L\\. M2 1-12-70

Charge sheet <o Mr M. RamanaLfnn

Ex M3 6-2-71 • Disciplinary rroceedings under rule

14 of Central C:vil Service

E\- M4 27-2-7.' : Imposition of penalty.

Ex- M5 4-3-71

Appeal mads by Mr.

Ramanathnnl

Workman.

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

628

In puisudiice of Section 17 of the Indiislual

Dispute Act, 1947 IH of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the awurd of the Central Government

Industrial Tnbunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, ns jhown in the

Annexuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices

1 and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1-3-2001.

[No. L-40011/22 99-IR(DU)l

KULDIP KAl VI-RMA, Desk Offlcei

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THF CENTRAL GOVERNMrNT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT: 47/2000

Employers in relation to the Management of

Sr. Superintendent of Post Office

AND

Shri Suresh K. Mute

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,

by exercising the powers conferred bv clause (d) of sub

section (1) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 has referred this disputa for adjudication

vide Order No. L-400H/22/99-IR(DU) ditod 18-02-2000 on

the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whefhei the action of the management of Senior Supdt.

of Post Offices, Nagpur City Division, Npgpnr in

not renularisins the services of Sh. Suresh K. Mute.

Daily Wages Postman is legal r.nd juitificd? If not.

from what date he is to be regularised as Postman

or Gr. 'D' official?"

The workman, Shri Suresh K. Mute had submitted his

statement of claim that he was woiking as daily waj/es post-

man on 01-05-8) His services were terminated en 06-07-83

bv the management of Post Office. He removed to C G I T

Court at Jabalpur and be wav n,-instated with full back waees

vide Award dated 25-09-86. The mand«crn"^lnt c'^llenwd the

lAward in Writ Petition No 122 of 87 Tho Writ Petition

of the management was dismissed on 27-2-87.

The workman again made representation for reguiariMnr

his services, but hk request wni not considered He rroved

the Central Administrative Tribunal end on 20-09-94 the

Central Administrative Tribunal passed the order that the

workman Sh Surrsb K. Mute he (riven two rh^nccs for

appearing in the qual^;fying examination bv relpvinjn his age.

His services shall not be dispensed with till he has avnlled

pf tho said two additional chances to qunlify in the prescribed

fcxamination in terms of f 6 8 Recruitment Rulrs

If ho

qualifies

the e-tarninnf/nn

he should

hf considered

for

trgularisation against the post of Postman and not otherwise.

The workman did not qualify the examination. He hns

prayed that he has completed more thrii 240¹ days service,

Iience he should be regularised. The marncement contested

the case that tho workman wis given opportunity to qualify

the examination two times, in comnlia"ce with thr nrdfr of

.tho Centrnl Administrative Tribunal in OA No 20/09/94.

As he did not qualify tho test, be was not rcr-ilirisfd. He

was a dn'lv wages postman.

not

entitled

for

jpSU¹arisstion.

Ttntb tho n-ni"; have si.runifted their WiifMp Aruntn'-its

Smd documents. The counsel fV the wrokman anmrd that

fn'O \

Mo ,181/00

Sh Snre«h K

MiHe V* Union

fif Tndin. (lip workman vis oivep »wo opportunities to malifv

the d^nartmentfll

examinntion. on TI-IO-P? r^^

O i t n ¹

Administrative Tiibunnl rnssM t^e nrc"i'r that tho ten-;™

6f the workman hns b^n frminntcd

rr( 3n-iao/i

jhr

workman has made representation to Competent Authority

on 04-11-96 that daily wages employees A. B. Gabhane,

P M Mohadikai, Shyam Kahile, who were junior to him

ai'e woiking on the post of postman, No ieply has been

given by the management.

The management was directed to consider the request

made by the applicant and pass a speaking order within

two months as tho workman who had made representation

that three juniors to him aie woiking on the post of postman.

1 have considered the affidavits and documentary cudence

pioduced in this case by both the parties.

It is admitted to the workman that he did not qualify the

examination though he was given two opportunities by. the

department. In the order dt. 20*-10-97 al<-o the Central

Administrative Tribunal did not pass any order that his

services should be regularised. The Central Administrative

Tribunal only gave opportunity to the management to pass

a speaking order within two months.

The representative of the management hat argued that the

services of the workman had been terminated as he was

not a regular employee. He was on daily wages. The manage-

ment has terminated his service on 28-08-2000. The work-

man is not in the service of the management, hence he

cannot be regularised.

It is argued that two chances weie given to the workman

and when he. failed to qualify the c^nminaiton, his services

were terminated on 31-10-96, This order dt. 31-10-96 was

not set aside by the Central AdminivtrafivR Tribunal. The

management was only directed to consider the repi esentation

of the workman. Duo to wrong interpretation of order dt.

20-10 97. the workman was agaiii engnged as a daily wages

potman w e.f. 20-11-97.

When the mistake came to the notice of the Superior

Authorities that the oider of the Central

Administrative

Tribunal has been misunderstood, the services of the work-

man were terminated vide letter dt, 28-08 2000.

In view of the above facts them is no illegality in the

ordei of the management. The serevices of the workman

Sh. Surosri K. Muto were not regulaiised as he could not

qujlify the written test though he w s given opportunity

twice according to the orders of the Central Administrative

Tribunal dt 20-09-94.

ORDER

The acfion of the management of Senior Supdt. of Post

Offices

Nagpur Citv Division, Nagpur in not regularising

tho services of Sh. Suresh K. Mute. Pnilv Wages Postman,

k legal and justified He is not entitled to any orhei relief.

Thr refeience is answered accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Fiesidmjt Officer

Date : O7-02-20O1

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

SO 6?9.—Tn rnrsnanci! of Set."ion 17 of the Industrial

Di.nnfc Act 7 947 (14 of 1<H7). the Central CoveraLn

herceby pubhshes the award of the Centnl GovernmTln

dustrml Tribunal/I ahow Court, Chennai as shown in the

1256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; MARCH 24, 2001/ CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Supdt. of Po>>t Offices and their

workman, which was received by the Centinl Government cm

1-3-2001.

[No. L-40011/24/99-lR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Dusk Officer

ANNHXURK

ISFFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday the 14th February, 2001

PRFSLNT :

K. Karthikcyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 41/2001

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section

10(1 l(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 between the Workman and the Management, the Super-

intendent of Post Offices, Mayiladuthurai Division, Mayila-

dulhurai.]

BETWEEN

Shri V. Thirufinanam,

Thiiuvellur.

Claimant/I Party

AND

The Superintendent of

Dost Offices,

Mayiladuthurai.

Manaeement/Il Parly.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Sri S. Raveendran, Advocate.

For the Management: Sri K. Sambasivam, Addl. Central

Government Standing Counsel.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-40011/24/99flR

(DU) da.tcd 17-2-2000,

Government of India,

Ministry of Labour,

New

Delhi.

This dispute orijtinally refened to Tamil Nadu State Indus-

trial Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication and was taken on file

in that Tiibunal as I.D. No. 34/2000 and subsequently trans-

ferred to this Tribunal by older of the Central Government,

Ministry of labour by its order No. G/21020/1 '99-CLS II

dated 28-11-2000 and on receipt of records from Tamil Nadu

StBte IndusiiiiJ Tribunal has been Uken on file as I.D No.

41/2001 on 11-1-2001.

AWARD

Schedule of reference reads as follows ;—

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri V. Thinjc-

nanam for employment as FDDA/EDMC is justifi-

ed ? If so, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled ?"

On taking this reference for the industrial dispute On file

on receipt of reqords from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial

Tribunal. Chennai and on perusal of the records, it is noticed

that the I Party woikman is being represented by the Addi-

tional Central Government Standing Counsel.

Notices by

Registered Post with acknowledgement card were sent from

this Tribunal to counsels on either sid; for the hearing dated¹

21-1-2001.

On 23 1-2001, the counsel for the I Party alone was present.

Both the Party and the Additional Central Government Stand-

ing Counsel for the IT Prrty were not present. The counsel

fo- tiv^T T>»rty represented to this Tribunal that the I Party

has fiot employment as per his demand made with the II Party

Munagement and he can say not pressed this dispute, on receipt

of his written communication from his client, the 1 Party

herein and he prayed time for the same. Hence, the matter

hus been adjourned to this day the 14th February, 2001.

When this case came up for hearing today, one Mr, Peryia-

swamy. Inspector of Post Offices representing the II Party

and the counsel for the I Party appeared and the II Party's

representative filed a memo with a copy of the letter addres-

sed to the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel

on tecord for the 11 Party's by the 11 Party himself dated

13-7-2001 and representing that I Party has been given emp-

loyment and joined duty on 13-10-2000 itself and' in that cir-

cumstances, it is requested that reference by this industrial

dispute may kindly be closed.

A copy of the memo was

given to the counsel for the I Party. He has aho represented

to this Court that in view of the fact the I Party, his client

has been provided with the employment by the II Party

Management, he has no objection for closing this industrial

dispute reference as no dispute exists now between the parties.

The memo filed by the TI Party and the enclosure of the

memo nrc duly perused.

Since the counsel for the I Party

and the lepresentative of the 11 Party have informed this

Tribunal that the reference can be closed in view of the

memo filed, the memo has been recorded after perusing the

same with its enclosure. Uncter such circumstances, this Tri-

bunal comes to the conclusion that there is nothing to be

adjudicated upon in respect of the industrial dispute refcin.

to in the reference of the Government referred to above.

In the result, an award is passed holding that there is no

dispute now exists between the I and II Party as referred

to in the Schedule of reference and hence the refeience is

closed as there is no dispute exists now between the parties

concerned. No coat.

Dictated to the stenographer taken down and transcribed

by him. corrected and pronounced by me in open court on

this day the Hlh Febnjaiy, 2001.

K. KARTHIKFVAN, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.o 630.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the- Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Chandigarh, as shown in

the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of BBMB, Sundernagar and

their

workman,

which was

received

by the

Centrali

Government on 1-3-2001.

[No. L-42011/16/86-D. 1KB)]

KULDIP RAI VfiRMA, Dc.t Officer

ANNEXURK

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. l.D. 2/90

1. ' The Gcntral Secretary,

BBMB Karamchari Sangh,

Office No. 1011/S-2,

BSL Colony,

i Sundernagar,

I Himachal Pradesh.

The General Secretary,

BBMB Workers Union,

Sundernagar Township,

Distt. Mandi.

3. [ The Genera] Secretary,

BSL/BBMB Transport Workers' Union,

Q No. 773/S-2, Sundernogar,

Distt. Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh.

4. ' The General Secretary,

I Beas Sutfej Link Workers' Union,

Sundernagar Township,

Distt. Mandi,

Himathal Pradesh.

. . .

Workmen/Union

Versus

The Chief Engineer

BSL Project,

BBMB Complex,

Sundernagar,

Himachal Piadesh,

. . . .

Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Sh. Dhani Ram

For the management: Sh. D. L. Sharma

AWARD

(Passed on 17th January, 2001)

Tfhe Central Government vide Gazette Notification No.

L-4201I/I6/8fi-D. IKB1 dated 27th of December 1989 has

referred

the

following

dispute

this

Tribunal

for

adjudication :

"Whether the following demands of BEMB K^aramdiarl

Sangh are justified ? If yes, what relief the work-

men concerned are entitled to ?

DEMANDS

Whether the work charged employees in BBMB at

Sundernagar

may be regularised

os permanent

workman and granted all such benefits which are

given to the permanent regular employees ?

Whether the duty hours of the fire fighting staff in

BBMB at SundernaRar mav he fixed as 8 hours 7"

2. The case of the workmen in brief is tiiat thev were

the employees of BBMB woiking at Sundernaflftr, Prior to

Joining the services in BBMB, fbev v/ere working in the

BSJL project under the control of Beas Construction Board,

prior to Beas Construction Board, they were working in the

project of Bhakra Dam which was und?r the control of

Central Government. After rhe comniotion nf Bhikrn Dram

thdse workmrn were retrenched ,ind rliev were taken in

serVice m Beas Sutlej Link P'oject. When the whole project

completed BBMB was constituted for thr maintainancc and

operation of the plants, canals, dams, and power houses

Therefore, senior persons from

BCB • (Bens Construction

Bc^ard) were taken in BBMB for maintenance and operation

of power housps and other establishments with continuity

of service.

Their mst services were considered for ()ie

purpose of pay protection and further ptomolion.

3. The unions of employees *nit .dennnds befcHe BBMB

that thev were working as workcharned workmen so they

771-GI/2001—13

should have been made permanent.

It was niso demanded

that all the work charged workmen

should have been

declared at par with the permanent employee's for pensionery

benelits w.e.f. 1-5-J979. Besides this demand 15 demands

were also made by the Unions which have been narrated at

page 6, 7 & 8 of the claim statement under the head

demand No. 1. The second demand relates to the fixation

of duty hours for the fire fighting staff. The staff member

of fire fighting wing were compelled to work for rnoro than

8 houis. The demand was that their duty hours he fixed

upto 8 hours. In the last paragraph of the claim statement

the workmen have made prayer that all the workmen be-

declared permanent workmen and the incidental benefits be

given to them at par with the permanent regular employees.

They should be given such benefits as are being given under

the Central Government rule* oi Punjab State Rules to their

workmen. Another prayer is that the overtime allowance for

48 hours in a month be allowed to Fire fighting staff w.e.f.

1-5-197? and the arrears of overtime allowance be paid as

per tfieir pay.

4. In this case, the written statement has been filed by

the management respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 and 3

have not filed thejr wiitten statement. Preliminary objection

has been raised in the written statement relating to the

maintainability of the reference and the misjoinder of the

parties. Tt has been alleged that the reference has been made

by appropriate Government without fiiving any opportunity

of being hoard to the management, therefore, the reference

is not binding on it in the eye of law. The jurisdiction of

this Tribunal has also been chailanged by Respondent No, I.

5. It has been alleged that BCB and BBMB nrr different

bodies. The BBMB is not the successor of BCB, therefore,

the respondent No. 2 (Chairman BBMB Chandigarh! is not

a necessaiy party. Union of India is also unnecessary party,

therefore, the defect of misjoinder has taken place in this

case.

6. Tt has also been alleged that the claim has not been

filed by the recognised union, The Jaim statement signed

by Dhani RLim who is not an authorised representative of

the workmen. The management gave option to the work-

charned workmen for their regularisation in regular establish-

ment under Section 9-A of l.D. Act 1947. Majority of tho

workmen opted for the scheme of rescular establishment

but some of the workmen did not opt for regularisation,

thus they filed this claim statement. The unions are not the

representative of majority of the workmen. Therefore, this

reference is not maintainable. The BBMB is not the successor

of BCB. BCB was conrtollod by the Central Government

BBMB has been constituted under Section 79 of Punjab Re-

organisation Act J966 Which is an independent statutory

body. Therefore, both authorities are of different nature. The

Award passed in T.D. 2/C of 1971 is- not binding on BBMB

because it was pot made a pirty to that proceeding.

Tho

management of the BBMB at it own volition took over the

requisite number of workmen

in different

categories in

accordance with the directions contained in the Award piven

in case No. 2C of 1971 read with the provisions of Section

25F of T.D. Act 1947. Thr^e workman were talc-n over from

the surplus workmen of BCB dnrins the period from 1-5-J979

to '0-3-1984 in workcharfted capacity for the operation and

maintainance of the completed component;! of BSL Project

transferred fo the BBMB. These workmen were Uken over

r>n specific terms find conditions which are givm at pa^e

No. 5 of the written statement. The! • services rendered in

BCB weie considered for the purnote of seniority and their

pav was protected. It fins hepn allecfrl bv tha management,

that the worVcha-fjed employees of RSL Project have "already

been mnverted from worlrharrfd fo eatcnorv of reiwfar

establishment after-civing them proper notice U/S9-A of the

J D Act. "^ose workmen who have arefpted the condition

of rcpularisption, they have bern irwif Tmnlnr and have

been taken on regular establishment of BBMB The petit^:oner

wnrVmfi have nrit onteri for tb" scheme of retr;iJari'sat''on

for their conversion from workcharsred category" to regular

cBfrporv of estflhl\i1rtie^lnl at tb^- o;"ii \nli>ion. Th; f w i ' e d

onportunitv was IWVPTI to the remaining wortrcharped em-

rr>/<•-•» to nti-'itc! Iheir option for their conversion from

wovkchnrred tn retr'ilnr establishment but thev did not submit

their option nn^riditiYmnllv, tWi-fnrf

fi1Oy ronM not be

made i-puular from workchamed cateporv to r-niW pstablish-

mppt Tl^ workmen broncbt on

-gnTir cs(ibl>shmfnt are

governed bv the Punjab Civil Service Regulation which an?

i25r

!tHE GA^ETtE OF INDIA : MAftCH 24, 20Q1//CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART H—SEC. 3 (if)]

applicable in the Bhakia Bens Management Board to its

regeular employee?.'Those who have not opted for legular

establishment arc governed by Certified Standing oidcis.. 1 hey

arc entitled to get the benefits under conliihiiiory piovidcnt

iund scheme wliere.is fhc workmen of feguhir establishment

are entitled to get thec benefit of pensionable schema. Thus

most of the woikchargcd employes^ have been taken on

regular

establishment.

Consequently the reference

not

maintainable.

7. With regard to the demand No. 2 it has b?i-n alleged

in the written statement that the requisite numler of fiic

fighting staff is being recruited to copy with the duties of

fire fighter, TJis fire righting s!a(T will be put in 8 hours shill

duty for-this puipo?e tffoils aie being nwde to recrivt tie

additional staff. No workman was compelled to work for

more than 8 hours ir a working day. The duty of file fighting

staff was intermittanLly fixed for 8 houn within a working

day.

8. In the concluding paragraph it has be;n prayed tint

in the light of the avcimcnts made in the written statement,

the reference be answered accordingly.

9. The workmen has filed replication cQnsisling of 2 1

pages. In the replication Ihe main cmtrovj-fy between the

parties has been narnucd, whereas the i-laim statement has

been diafted si dev.-'-ly that the rc.il object of 'filling Ihis

claim can •not be inferred. On going through the implication,

the miin controversy in brief is that there are two establish-

ments in BBMB. One establishment is tegular estahlMimml

which is governed by Civil Service Regulation of Punjab

State. Other establishment is industrial one which is govci ned

by Certified Standing Orders. Under the Certified Svpdhn

Orders the age of supernnuation foi class-[IT and IV empIoyiX"

is 60 years. Under the Civil Service R;eniitation of Punjab

State, the age of superrmi:a(ion is 5R yenis lint under thce

rules the services are pensionable. But vmd-.r the certified

Standing Order the services me non-pensionable and employees

get CPF with gratuity. The dennnd was raised by the

petitioner/union to tnkc the workmen on recular c-twb'i'h-

mrnt. The management cove offer of opsion for p^ isionablr

scheme under CSR of Punjab State, \fost of the employees

exerc'sed thnr oph'nn 'n favour of pension,-hie .schema and

they were taker) on regular establishment but winr of the

employees of the BBMB did not e\eici^d Iheir option because

they were of the oplnio.i thuf ihc age of Mirn-rnniindWi iboi'ld

not have been reduced from 60 years to 5H yi-ai . Under

these circumstances, the dispute come into being.

10. It has been contended by th" union that the <rr\icri

condition of the employees can not be chnnmvl by the

management without giving notice to the im>on. Thf- demand

for rceularisation was raised by Hie Un- <n hffore A T C T).

The Pioceedingp were pending. During the pondwey o[ the

proceedings, the

management, chanted

the conditions of

service without netting any approval from tl"- competent

authority U/S 33—of !.)"> Act Th^ verdict civen in th«-

Award of case No 2C of 1971 is bindimt on th» mannc-merit

and it is bound to nr>ke regular pll the cmnJovees of the

BBMB without makintr any chanac in certified

stanr'in^

orders -The action taken bv the management k wibnUfieJ

find illegal. Other averments lmde ih ihe claim stnt-mnit

hnvf b"cn reitornrcd^:"i tht- replicatio-! by the iuvin w^jch

need not to be mentioned here again

11. Both parties have led oral and docnmrnrinv H id-'iri-

In this case. The Union hf,ve exmnmed Suraj Kishan WW1

General Secretary Satbir Sarnd WW2, Ocnn-,,1 *!,-cr •ttrv

Chander Bhan WW3, President M M. llaque and 1 e.al

Advisor Dhani Ti;>m WW5. The affidavits of Cponmts ,-,id

documents have bten exhibited »s F\ Wl to F\h W',7 Th'

manuKenjent Iins otibmittrd the affidavit of Exrcnt.vV Enj-'irerv

MW2 and Fxccutive taonneer S M. Bhainnrnr Fx MW1

the wilnesses have been cro-s-examiin-d hv the'parties'

All the witnesses of the Union have dcoosed '(hat prior to

]o l n, n c

,ervires in BBMR they were "wotking in

Bens

Conrtniehcn Board, They were taken in s r X ", com-

pliance of the award Riven in <vse No *>r ,,f jg7i T'--v

were workcharRed emPlovrs of BCB In ti^ ^. m- c-Venry

thev were ttfw m BT3MH with conlinnUv of s,,v,c, %Ji

their pay was protected. They earned increment, cpn^'deii^

their period of previous service. They requested the manage-

ment for their rcgularisation find to put them at par with

regular staff membei s. But the management changed the age

of supcrnniiation from 60 years to 5H years.

Thus tho

management cr|mniitted illegality in this respect.

All the

witnesses hLive been cross-examined by the representatives of

the management. The witnesses of the management have

deposed that the employees of regular establishment arc

being go\erned by CSR of Punjab State. The Union demanded

that the woikchaiged employees should have been placed

at par with regular employees. Therefore, the offer WJS given

to all the wnrkcharged employees for their regularisation.

Option was given to them to accept the CSR of Punjab State

or to deny "the offer. The witnesses of thi? petitioner have

admitted in their cross-examinations that those employers

who had opted for CSR of Punjab State have been made

regular and have been taken on regular establishment of

BBMB. Under

State of

Punjab Rules,

the seivices are

pensionable. General Secretary BBMB Kaumchari

Sangh

Sundcrnagar Satbir Sarad WW2 has admitted in his cross-

examination th:il after raising the demand of rcguinrisation,

the management, had accepted the demand of lcjmlarisaiion

o/ services. All the witnesses of the petitioner/Union have

ndmiltcd that the noLicc undei Section 9-A of I O, Act 1947

was given lo all the employees called woiKcharced. Undrr

(he Rule 3 of Certified Standing Order (l-'x, W21), there is

ro catonoiy called worlcchargod employees There fire fhe

categories vi>. petminent, temporary, casual apprentics and

probationers. But the 'word' "workcharcrd" has bcr»i usoj

foi those employees who were retrenched bv Bea. Constrii^iion

Boar! and were taken in BBMB in wovkcharged category

but they arc not actually workcharged employees. They are

governed by certified standing orders under the category-

•permanent'. The witnesses of the union hive admitted tha?

all the workmen who were rctT.iebed from the service of

BCB have been working in BBMB >md some of them had

been retired fll attaining the age of M) years. Tho vvoul

'regular' has been uned in claim statement and replioati'jr¹

foi those employees who are working m the rej-ulftr ctablish-

ment and are governed hv CSR of Putvib State. Under these

circumstance, Ihc question of regulansation of the services

of workchareed emplo3'eei docs not arise All the employees

workinw in BBMB

yrc permanent

workmen under

the

definition given in rule 3(3(1 of CerUOd Starding ordeis

and they are cettin? benefit under the-,e Orders.

11, The first tcim of the reference rclat?, to the reguldn-

s.ition. (t does not rt-lnte to the dispute of the change in a"C

of superannuation. Theiefore, ihis Tribunal does not en' irpe

the scope of the term of the reference. Under the pro\ i'ions

of Emplayment Standing Orders, the competent authority is

Regional Labour Commissioner. Theicfoie, this- Tribun il is

not empowered to amend cetrffied standing orders.

1 hi*

whole rlaim of the imion circumcribe with the change in the

;-ge of superannuation. Therefore, this. Tribunal need not'

to difcuss th's disnuto elobratcly. But the appreciation of

evidence in brief is essential.

12, The management has submitted the copy of thr n¹-

orrwntat'on Kx.' M9 which was submitted bv Snthir S;iraJ

WW2 and E.x M10 submitted by ChandT Bhan WW3 indi-

(.•nte thnt some of the employees had not accepted ihe offer¹

of opting CSE of Punjab State Rule¹; because the age of

superannuation is 58 under those service mlos. Th*" notice

L'fven bv the management h the valid compliance of section

9-A of the I.D Act 1947. The notice untie- ViU seciiwii w n

Si'ven to afl the cmoloyecs to exercise their option, (t was

not ncc'^snry for the mnnacement to oive norice to the

repr'-sentitive of workers' unions. In the case of Tamilnarhi

Fiectricitv Fcdration Vs. Madras Flec^-ciity Board ClOfi-i)

7 r.LI 392 H C. Madras, it has heen held by their Lordship

of the Hon'bie Supreme Court, that notice givrn to th"

workmen direcflv for the chanee of service ormditfoi TJ/S 9-A

of the I.D Act 1147 is valid and there i-i ro „<•£$ t(> cfvc

notitc to the nn<ons. Keephf in view the Kiv I^fd d^wn

in thr- pforerrd ca-e law. this, TrihnTis? COHT-S to *br cin-

cinsion thnt the notice ijiven by (ho mnn.iffcment is not

iHre il

The reprcKentativc of the workme-i/union has re¹'^!

"n 'he lecomnr'ndntic-p of Puniab 3rd Pw Cornmis'iion F\.

W>2. But B', oer pilr-"! of notificntion dn^d 9-Q 19RS thrive

rTomrri'-iidRtions do not app'y to the worVchnrncd cnp]("'pes

These recommindations arc applicable to the" emplnvees o£

1259

I'unjab Suite. BBMB is a statutory and independent body.

It has been empowered under the Punjab State Rc-Organisa-

tion Act, 1966 to exercise its-discretion mdepi-.ndantly.

14. The rej.ii cseotative of the petitioner/Union has lefcned

ihe rules framed under Fundamental Rules and Central Civil

Seivices Tempoiary Service Rules. But these uiles are not

ilpplicable in the case of those workmen who aie governed

tyy Certified Standing Orders. The case of Ivesar Chand Vs.

State of Punjab & Others has been cited by the representative

iff the Union which relates to the rcgularisaljon of work-

charged employees but this case relates to ihc Public Woiks

Department (B & R) of Punjab State.

The employees of

BBMB are not governed by any of the department of Punjab

State, so this judgement does not apply in the case m hand.

15. The evidence adduced by the management reveals that

CSR of Punjab State were made applicable in the case of

regular establishment of BBMB. The management gave notices

to the permanent employees of the BBMB to exercise their

option for these rules. But the members of the petitioner

Union did not exercise their .option in its favoui. They weie

jtovcinctl by the Certified Standing Ordjis. Therefore, it is

evident that there ate two categories or employees work-

in? in tho BBMB. One set of employees is governed hv CSR

ot Punjab Slate wilh the benefit of pension, gratuity and

GPF. Other category of employees is governed by Collided

Standing Orders under which the services aie not pensionable

but they get the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund.

Both these categories are distinct in naurc. In the case of

State of Rajasthan Vs. Kunjiraman (1997(1) LLN 139), it

• Ijias been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the

persons employed, forms two separate distinctive clasps and

rjules arc framed separately for each class, it can not be

said that there is u discrimination among the employees.

Therefore, the employees of both the categories can not be

placed at par wriereas they are governed by different sets

of service rules.

16. The management has raised an objection that the

opportunity was not given to the management befoie making

reference by appropriate Government to this Tribunal,' there-

fore, the reference is not maintainable. But the reference has

been made by the appropriate

Government

i.e. Union

Ministry of Labour. The Chief Engineer of BBMB wa? made

4 party, therefore, it can not be said that the icference is

ijiot maintainable. On the persual of reference older it is

noticed that the Chief Engineer BSL Protect BBMB is A

jiarly to the dispute. The Chaiiman of BBMB and Ministry

<j)f Energy were not a party of the dispute before the

Appropriate Government.

Therefore, the reipotidcnt No, 2

and 3 are not the necessary partjt Therefore, the defect of

misjoinder of parties have taken place but it does not affect

tjhe claim on merits.

17. The second term of reference relates to the duty hours

of fire fighting staff. It has been admitted by both the parties

thnt the shift of 8 hours h we been made tor fire fighting

Staff w.e.f. 1-5-1991. Sufficient staff 1MS betn leciuitcd in

lire- fighting wing. E\. Ml7 has been submitted

by the

management which reveals that the members oi fire fighting

wing have been divided amongst three shifts. Prioi to 1-5-91

the employees of fire fighting wing weie called upon for

discharging emergency duties and they weie paid oil duty

allowance. The witness of the management B. M. ChauJhniy

MW1 'has deposed in this re' peel in his jffid^ivit and cross-

examination. The petitioner/Union has prayed for the relief

of overtime allowance for the duties performed by the fire

fighting staff beyond 8 hours prior to 1-5-1991. But the

terms of the reference relates to the fixation of dutv hour"!

ijvhich have already been fixed by the management. Therefore,

this Tribunal hat not to decide the controversy of overtime

Allowance.

18. On the basis of the discussion nnde in proceeding

paragraphs, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that all

Ihe workmen working in BBMB have already been made

permanent workman and they arc setting benefits uvder CSR

of Punjab Stale being a member of tegular csinblishmtnt

and the rest of the workmen rue petting benefits under the

Certified standing orders. Therefore, the reference is answered

that all the workmen working in BBMB ('who were prcviousiv

Working in BCB under the categoiy of workclwn?ed em-

ployees and WITC taken in service of BBMB in the tame

category) have been made permanent workmen "of BBMB.

Those workmen who have opted for CSR of Punjab State

Rules shall get beneilts undei those rules and those work-

men who haye not opted tor CSR of Punjab State shall not

t^ret benefit under these rules but shall get benefit under the

cettified standing order. In respect of demand No. 2, the

reference is answered that the duty hours of fire fighting¹

staff of BBMB at Sundernagar have ahctdy been fixed at

eight hours. The reference is answered accordingly. Both

tho pailies shall bear

theii own

cost of

proceedings.¹

Appropriate Government be informed.

B, L, JATAV, Presiding Office!

Chandigarh,

17-1-2001.

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.O. 631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dilute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hcieby publishes the au:ird of (he Central Government In-

dustrial Tiibunal/Labour Court, Lhafidigaih as shown in the

Annexlirc in the Industrial Dispute between the emp¹oyus

in relat.oii to the rnanagem:nt of B.fl.M.B. and their work-

man, which was received by the Central Government

M-2001,

[No. L-42012/4/90-lR»DU)]

UULD1P KA1 VliRMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURK

BEFORE SI1RI B. 1.. JATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRA1 GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR.COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 176/9U

S;mli Ram son of Dev Raj.

C/o

Geneial Secretary,

Nangul Bhakrj Workers Unio.i,

Kilan Area, Nangal.

. ..Woikman.

Vs.

Chief Engineer,

Water Regulation,

C.rSM.E, Nnngal 'loun-ihip.

Management.

APPEARANCES:

I-or the Workman : Shii jMekinaa Rjm.

For the rrumgement ; Shri. R. C. Atji.

AWARD

(1'as^ed on 22nd Januaiy, 2001)

Thⁿ Cetitu!

Ciovernment viJe

Gazette Notification No.

1-42012/4/00 1R(DU) dated 9th November, 1990 has refcrird

the filkwinc dijpuL Ki this 'liibunal foi Udjudicatioa :

"Whether 1he action of the management of the BBJvf.B

repiesenied thioii|>h (lie Chief Fngincer, Water Regu-

lation. BRMB Nanjial Township^:n lenninutinn the

service^; nf Shri Sjjjli Ram, GauT" Reader w.e.f.

29-9-1987 is justified 7 If not, In what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to ?"

1150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 200i/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART It—SEC. 3(ii)j

2. The case of the woikman in brief is that ho had worked

in Jxanyal uam

u,vision, LSBMb as gauge reader

w.e.f.

l-7-l%» to 3U-9-KM and itom 3-7-69 to JO-9-69.

He was

agajy J appointed a3 gauge reader in d^cnarge sub-division,

Nangal w.e.i. 5-7-86 10 29th September, lystj and Irom 7Lh

Jul}, iyS7 to 29-9-l9b/. His services weic terminated wrong-

fully and illegally on 29-9-1987. After his teimmation i>hri

Piitpai hingri and Kajentier Mohan weie lciained in service

while they vveie junior to the workman. After his termination

Shu KUL,bir Singii was appointed as gauge readei in Nangal

Darn Division and hi is continuing m service till aute. 'Hie

pust ot gauge reader/Daryai man (mteri-hangcubic pos.t/desijj-

nation) are still lying vacant in BBMB and tiesh hands arc

being recruited continuously witnouL giving any opponunity

of le-cmploymeni. io the v. oilman.

thus the management

has violated one provisions ot bixtion 25-H. The workman

has rt&uesled lor his reinstLiicm^nt in scivice with contmuily

ol seivice and fuil back wages w.e.t. 29-9-8/.

3. The

management has submitted its wnttqn

statement

laisiwg an objection that the reierence ol dispute made by

Cenlial ooveinment is not maintainable.

'Ine services of

the workman were teiminatcd on the expiry ol the specified

period tor which he was employed, in Nangal Dam Division,

in Monsoon season, staff for measurement ol the water level

in nvelets/khuds once in a day u> required to be employed

in the catchment area of the Nangal Dam. For thus puipose

additional seasonal staff H engaged tor specified period in

oruer to inlorm tne Suite Governments to take appropriate

remedial measures in case of Hoods. Theielore, the workman

was employed foi spcciJicd period and after, the expiry ol

that period hij services were automatically terminated.

4. The seniority list of the employees m BBMB has been,

maintained by the management. Shii Ranbir Singh was ap-

pointed as gauge reader in Nangal Dam Division on com-

pensate ground by the competent authority. Shri Rajcnder

Mohan and Pntipal Singh were senior to the workman.

Therefore, they were allowed to continue in service against

the regular vacancy. In view of the ciicumslances as explain-

ed in written statement the claim of the workman deserves

to be dismissed, v.ith no relief.

5. It has been ajirnitted in this case that the woikman had

wotked in Nangal Dam Division as gauge icadei w.c.i. 1-7-68

to 30-9-68 and 3-7-69 to 30-9-69. It has also been admitted

that the woikman had worked as gauge reader in dischaige

sub-division, Nangal w.e.t. 5^7-86 to 27-9-86 and 7-7-87 to

29-9-87.

(

. . ..

6. The workman has submitted his aflidavit and photocopies

of tbe documents which have been exhibited as Wl to W5.

These documents relates to his appointments in this case.

The period of his employment is not disputed and his work

was reported to bo satisfactory during that penod by the

officer incbarge ot the sub-division.

The defence of (h;

management is thai the workman was appointed during rainy

season tor specified period for measuring the water level m

riveluts/khuds. The management has submitted the aflidavit

of SDO Bakshish Srngh and photocopies of dcoument-s

which hav- been exhibited as Ml to M5.

7. The documents filed by the management relates (o the

appointment of the workman and joining of his sciv.ces as

offbred by the management,

These documents indicates that

tho workman was appointed during the month of July, August

and September in the years 1968, 1969, 1986 and 1987. The

nature of the period of his employment indicate that he was

employed in rainy season for emergent situation of watei level

in the riveluts in the catchment area of Nangal Dam.

The

contract of his employment wcie never renewed by the man-

agement beyond rainy season, Therefore, the termination of

the ficrvicC'j of the workman was automatic on the expiry

of the specific period mentioned in his appointment letter-

Therefore, the way in which his services were terminated

every year does not amount to 'retrenchment' as denned in

Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under these

circumstances the provisions of Sections 21-F, G a*id H do

not apply in this case, "Therefore, it can not be held that the

services of the workman were terminated in contravention of

the provisions of these Sections.

8. The witness ol the management Bakshish Singh MWt

has deposed in Jits affidavit that during the subsequent mon-

soon period after 1<W, the olher woikmcn work.ina in the

department of the management were deployed against the

spocihc wo/k of monsoon penod. He has also deposed that

no juniors to Lhe workman has been retained in service or

le-empioycd. in the seniority list fcx. VV5, Pntipal Singh has

jinned his services as gauge reader on 18-11-1988 on regular

Basis. Kajender Mohan has also joined his services as gauge

reader on 2y-6-1991 and Ranbir Singh haf. been appointed

as gauge reader on 1-4-J988. All these workmen are working

in regular establishment of the management.

Wheieas tho

petitioner workman was appointed for specific period in lainy

season.

The witness of the management Baksnish Singh has

deposed m his crots--examination that the petitioner workman

was called for interview but he was lound overage during

the year 1991-92.

I here is no reason to disbelieve his state-

ment. So, the appointment of Shu Ranbir Singh duung the

year 1991 does not confer any right in .favour of the peti-

tioner workman. Besides this it has been held¹ in the pieccd-

ing paragraph that the termination of the workman does not

amount to retrenchment, therefore, the provisions of Section

25-G and H do not apply in this case. Therefore, he can not

get any benefits under these projv.sions,

9. The rep, of the workman has cited the case of Narendcr

Kumar Vs. Stflie of Haryana (CWl No. 269/90 decided on

6-8-90) in which the case ot the "petitioner Narcnder Kumar

was considered keeping in view the provisions of Section

25G of ID. Act, 1947. But this' case law is not applicable

in this case because the services of the workman were termi-

nated¹ w.o.f. 29-9-1987.

He had not completed 240 days

within the 12 calendar months preceding to the date of his

termination i.e. 29-9-1987. His termination does not amount

to retrenchment, He has also cited the case of Balbir Singh

Vs. XiiTUkshetra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, and others

1989(1,) All India Services Law lournal page 53 Punjab and

Haiyana.

lit this case workman Balbir Singh had worked

for 240 days.

Theiefore, it was held by the Hon'ble Hijjh

Court of Punjab and¹ Haryana that the services of the work-

man were terminated illegally cdntravening the provisions

of Section 25-F of the LD. Act, 1947. But in this case the

workman had worked w.e.f. 7-7-87 to 29-9-1987 (84) days.

1 hcrefore, he can not get any support from this case law.

Coiii,:qu£ntly he can not get any relief from this Tribunal,

and the reference is to be answrred against the workman.

10. The iepi of the woikman has argued that the manage-

ment has exercised the unfair labour piactice terminating

the services of the workman every year. But this nrgument

has no basis considering the f-icts of this case. Jt is evident

fiom the evidence adduced by both the parties that the work-

man was employed every year during the rainy season. His

contract of service was not renewed by lhe management and

no other person was employed beyond rainy season in that

particular year. Therefore, it is evident that ho was employed

for specifit work and for specific period foi seasonal rflquire-

ment. Theiefore this act di the management Hoes not amount

to unfair labour practice.

On the contrary the action taken

by the mannjfement is justified, which negative the claim of

the workman.

11. On the basis of the reasons given in preceding para-

graph the reference is answered that the action of the man-

agement of BBMB in terminating the services of Shri Sagli

Ram. gi.uge reader w.c.f. 29-9-1987 is justified.

Consequently,

the workman is not entitled to get any relief from the man-

agement.

Both the parties shall bear their own cost of the

pioceedings.

Appropriate Go\ernmeiiL bo informed.

Chandigarh,

22-1 2001.

B. L. IATAV, Piesiding Officer

\26i

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.O. 632.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

. Industrial Tribunal ILabour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in

the Annexuie in. the Industrial Dispute between the emp-

loyers in relation to the management of Chief Engineer,

CP.W.D. (Elect.), New Delhi and Exe. Engineer (Elect.),

C.P.W.D. ' (Central), Srinagar and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 1-3-2001.

[No. L.42012/-J0/89-D.IKB)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B.I,. IATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL OOVT. INDUSTRIAL TUlBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 10/90 Abdul Mazid son of Shri Abdul

Rehman Resident of Kursoo

Rajbagh -Srinagar,

J & K.

Workman.

Versus

1. Chief Engineer,

CP.W.D. Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi.

2. Executive Engineer, (Elect)

CP.W.D. Central Electricity

Division, 42-A

Rajbagh(X)

Srinagar,.l&K.

Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the workman : Shri B. S. Prnbhakar.

For the management : Shri Aura Walia.

AWARD

(Passed on 15th January, 2001)

The Central Government vide gazette notification

No.

L-42012/40/89-D-2(B) dated 11th January, 1990 has referred

the- following dispute to this. Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer, CPWD

(Elect.) R. K- Puram, N. Delhi and the Executive

Engineer (Elect.) CPWD (Central) Division, Srina-

fear in terminating the services of Shri Abdul Mazid

•Seikh, Messenger is justified ? If not what other

relief the woikman is entitled to and with wlifit

effect?"

2. In view of the pleadings made in claim statement and

Tejoinder the case of the workman in brief is that he had

worked on daily wages from Navcmber 1986 till ending

year of 1987 on different jobs continuously without any

break till the order of the. termination. The termination nf

the workman was illegal and arbitrary. Consequently

the

workman has been rendered jobless and unemployed. Ho

has been facing suffe+inRS without any fault of his own. Me

approached to the higher authorities but

he was not t>er-

.mitted to work ki the 'office. The tennttnatlon of the services of

the workman is illegal

and

arbitrary. He is entitled to

be reinstated and to get the- backwages as well

as other

benefits to which he is entitled. H« has prayed for his rein-

Statement and backwages with cost of the proceedings.

3. fn view of the written statement, the case of the

management is that the workman

had

worked

from

19-11-19R6 to 26-3-1987 on contract bniin ns bhuknri ntten-

dant. After that he had

worked

messenger

from

27-3-1987 to 30-4rl987 .<#>Rs. 13.50 per, day and then from

1-5-1987 to . 19-10-19B7 (ai.SLa., 875 P.M. He had

then

worked as khalaailmcswnger from 20-1 (M 987 to 1.4-4-1988

(tf'Rs. 875 P.M. The .sejtvicesiof the. workman were pot ter-

minated by the- majjflflement but lie left tho jobt of. bis own

uocord. Tho wortman wanted tp apply for a tuitable post

and ho submitted nn application on 9-5-1988 for tho issuance

of experience certificate. The experience

certificate

wfl»

issued by the, management. After having got experience cer-

tificate, the rworkman -did not turn up on his duty. He left

the services pf hisqwfl, free will. Therefore, he is not en-

titled to get any fplief., His claim is liable to be dismissed

with cost.

4. In this case jt is on admitted fact that the

workman

had worked up to 14-4-19S8. He was .disengaged on 15-4-88.

It is also admitted that lie had worked continuously for 240

days^during tho 12 calendar,months- preceding the date of his

termination.

5. The main .point for consideration in this case i» that

whether the services of the workman were terminated arbi-

trarily and. illegally or he had. left the job- of his own accord.

6. The workman has submitted his affidavit

alongwith

copies of the documents which have been exhibited as Ex.

Wl to Ex. W10. He has been cross-examined by the manage-

ment. The .management has, submitted the affidavit

Head.Clerk Shri

S.P. Sharma, and Executive Engineer Shri

A. S. Arora. The documents, filed by the management hav.e

been exhibitede as fix. Ml to Ex. M15.

7. The workman has deposed* in his affidavit Ex. W), and

in supplementary affidavit Ex. Wl/A, that he had worked

from 12-11-1986 to 14-4-1988 continuously on daily wages.

Ihis fact has been admitted by A. S. Arora MW2 in his

cross-examination th^t the

workman was

engaged

19-11-1986 and he worked up to 14-44988 without any

break. Thus it is evident that the workman had worked

continuously for 240 days within 12 calendar months preced-

ing the .date of his termination i.e. 15-4-1988, It is also

evident from the record that the provisions of Section 25-F

of the I.D. Act were pot complied with by the management.

The contention of the management is that the workman had

left tho job- of his own accord.

8. P-xecutive Engineer A. S, Arorn , MW2 has admitted

in his cross-examination that the workman was engaged by

CP.W.D. on daily wages. He was not engaged through

contractor.

In the light of this admission it has been

proved that the workman was the employee of CP.W.D.

during the period of his continuous service,

9. The witness, of ihe mjinagempnt Shri A. S. Arpra MW2

has deposed in his affidavit Ex. M8, that the workman had

left the services at his own accord. He wanted, to apply for

better post, so he submitted an application for issue,of ex-

perience certificate on 9-5-1988. The another witness of

the management S. P, Sharma has also deposed in his

affi-

davit Ex. Ml that the workman had left the job of his own

aqgard.

The application submitted by the workman for

issue of experience certificate

is Ex. M6 and the experience

certificate is Ex. M7. This fact has not been controverted

by the workman. So it has been proved that the workman

submitted an application for.issue of experience certificate

which was.issued by ihe management.

10. Both the wi.tness of the manaspment have deposed that

the workman had left, the job of his own accord. The work-

man has deposed that he was not allowed to work

after

14-4-1988. In support *\f his statement he has submitted the

copies of the applications and acknowledgement receipt of

post efflces.

He has submitted the copy of the application

Ex. W5 which was sent 1o the Superintend inp Engineer, New

Delhi and the Director of CPWD New Delhi on the same

day which have been exhibited ns Ex. W6. He had also

submitted another application Ex. W7 addressed to superin-

tending Engineer, CPWD. New Delhi which was sent through

registered post on 9-6-T9S8 which 's Ex. M8. He nctnin sent

an application (Ex. W91 on 30-8-1BS8 to S.F. CPWD, New

Delhi under roistered cov?r. Thr conv of the acknowledge-

ment is Fx, W1O. fn these a~pnlicAtions the workman had

requested to. permit him to work in the sub-division hut h<?

was net allowed to work after 14-4-198S. If the wnrtmftn

|2&

THE GAZETTE OF ifojMA : MARCH 24, 2001/CHA1TRA 3, 1923

[PAUT JI-ISEC. 3(ji)]

had left the job on his own accord he would not have stnt

the applications to the higher authorities of CPWD. Th:

conduct of the workman shows that he was willing to woik

on daily wages but, he was not allowed by the authorities 01

CPWD. On appreciating the evidence adduced in this case

ir is prcved that the workman was not allowed to work by

the management.

11. The notice to terminate the services of the workman

was not given to hinressigning any reasons and compensation

was also not paid to him under the provisions of Section 25-F

of [he Industrial Dispute* Act. The maangement had not

complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act

1947.

This Act

of the management reveals that the sci-

yices of the worlcmdn wcie teiminatecf by the management

'in conti avention Of tho- provisions of the Section 25-F of the

I.D. Act 1047. Therefore, the workman deserves to

leinatated from the dute of his termination, with continuity

of service.

12. The workman has deposed in his supplementary aJR-

davit Ex, W1|A that he remained unemployed after his

termination and he had no source cf income for conducting

and attending his case at COIT? Chandigarh For prosecuting;

his case he had to sold his auous house fiold artiUcs. The

witness of the management have not controverted this fact

in their affidavits. In his cross-examination the

woikm.n

Abdul lUazid has deposed thnt he is unemployd since Ar> il

19BH, He is dependant on the income of his father who is ;in

agriculturist. He his admitted that he has been assisting his

father in cultivation of the land. Under these cucumslan-

ces he is" not entitled to get the full hackwages. In my opi-

nion it will be sufficient to grant him 50 per cent of the

back wages from the dale of his termination till the dale

of passing of thin awftri.

13. The management has made averment in written state-

ment that the workman had filed civil suit in the Court of

the

Sub Registrar Srinagar roHthiR to his disengagement.

Copy of the injunct.on application Ex, M3 and the copy

of the written

statement (Ex. M ^J) have been submitted bv

the management which reveals that the Civil Suit was¹ filed

by the workman in the Court of Sub Rcgisrar (Munsif), at

Srinnpar. The management challenged the

maintainability

and jurisdiction of the Civil Conrt in ^

written statement

Fx. M4. The workman in his supplement,try affidavit Ex

Wl /A has deposed that no proceedings are pending in any

Court of Civil jurisdiction regarding the termination of his

•ervices. He has admitted that the Civil Suit was filed which

had been dismissed by Civil Judge in default of his appear-

ance in the Court.

The Civil Court hns no

concurrent

jurisdiction to deckle the case of Laboui Dispute

Theic-

fore, the urincin'e of 'ie^udi>ala' docs not apply in this

ense. The jurisdiction 'of the civil court is barred expressly by

the provisions of thf Industrial Disputes Act 1947-

There-

fore, the claim of the workman is maintainable in this Tri-

bunal.

14. On the basis of the reoTOn* niven in the preeediⁿc;

paragraphs of this award, this Tribunal comes K> the conclu-

sion that the claim of the workman should be • llowrd Con-

srcmenilv it is held that the act'on of (be Chief Fngineer

CPWD, (Electrical) New Delhi and the Executive EneinoT

(Elect.) CPWD (Central) Division, Srmngar in tn-minatine

thr servi^'-s GI Shri Abdul Mazid Sheikh me^srnper h un-

justified. He is entitled to be reinstated we.f, J5-4-19R8 v-ilh

continnity of nervice He is also entitled to qct 50 ner ceni

of bad' wages w.e.f 15 4-1988 til] the date of pa'.sinrr of tb'i

award. The mftnagemrnt shnll beir the cost of this piwerd-

ings. Tlie woikmas shall be eniiflfd to eet the cost

Rs, 1000 from the nmtiaeemcnl TIK¹ reference is .inswerrd

accord'nclv. ApprcpriVe fiovt be informed

Chandiparh.

15-1-7001.

T), L. TATAV, PrclctinR Orfkci

New Delhi, the 27th Febiumy, 2001

S.O. 633.—In puihUunce of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Gavernment

hcicby publishes the Awaid of the Central

Government

Industrial Tribunal Kokata, as shown in the Anncxurc in the

Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the

management of HDFC Ban]; Ltd. and

their

workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 26-2-2001.

fN~o. L-12011|22|2000-TR(B-I)|

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLJCATA

Reference No. 35 Of 200(1

PARTIES :

, \'

,'' ;,*;j

Employers in iemtlon to the management of

Head —

Retail Operntiocs, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,

AND

rhcir woikmcn.

PRESENT;

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

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management . Mr. P.G. Das, Advocate

On behalf of Workmen ; None.

STATE : West Bengal.

INDUSTRY : Banking

AWARD

Ky Order No. L-12011]22|2000-lR (B-l) dated 29-8-2000

the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sec-

tion 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 ieferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for ao-

judicition :

'•Whether the action ol the management of HD1-'C Bank

In placing the services of Sri Sanjoy De Dhara,

Smt. Sharniilu Baneijee, Smt, Sudeshna Mitra, Smt.

Suparna. Bruttacharya, Sri Ardhcndu Biswas. Sii

Sushanta Kr, Guha and Sri Chandan Suhu under

some Agency after a few months of their engage-

ment without notice Hnd terminting their services

with effect from 1-ID-1999, 27-12-1999, 3O-1-200O,

5-9-1W, 15 11-1'/99, 1-10-1999 and 1-10-1999 res-

pectively is just and fair? If not, to what relief

these workmen (,re entitled.''

2, When the case is (.ailed out today, none appears for

the workmen, even fh.iugh (hfc management is represented

by its Advocate. It app^ar<i from tha record that no one ever

appeired on behalf of the workmen jn spite of service of

not'ee nnd did not tnke anv 11 cp for filing stntrment of

claim.

It is according clear that the" wort men have no

inter^t in the matter.

3. In the rirenmsinurf, fn the alispnce of nnv mn^'rhi'

^hat-so-evei,. this Trihnml his t>o other altcrnntivr but to

dispose of this reference by passing a "No Dispute" Awurd.

1263-

4 A "No "nispufe" Award is accordingly passed ^ind the

lffciciUc is disposed of

B P SHARMA. Pu'sidinfi Officer

Djtcd, Calcutta.

The 13th Febiuary, 2001

New Delhi, the 2Sth February, 2001

S.O. 634.—In pursuance

o* Section

of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

the

Central Government herebv publishes the Award of

the CcnfiJ

Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour

Court, .Chandigarh as shown, in the Annexure in the

Industrai Dispute between the employers in relation

to the rrEnlargement of Northern Railway and their

workman, which

was reaived by the Central Go-

v-rmrnt on 27-2-2001.

[No. T_-41012|120|95-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNFXURE

BFFORE

SHRI

B. L.

JAtAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER.

CENTRAL

GOVT,

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-7 .ABOL'U

COURT,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No. I. D. 7C,\96

^ewa Ram S|o Rfm Nath,

C[o B, R. Pnbhakar,

63-C, Kr'lash Nyyar, Model Town.

Ambiila Ctij.

. . Workman

Vs.

D. R. M , Northern Railway,

Ambala CantM 33001.

..Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman ' None

T^nr the Manaecmenl : N. K, Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 8th February

2001)

The Central Govt. vij e Gazette Notification No.

L-410P'i20|Q5-TR.(B)

dated

oth

Anpust, 1996

has refmed the following dispute

to this Tribunal

( i odjiniMc iion.

"Whether th: rctiun of thr

Management

Northern Railwiv. Ambn'j Cnrtf in tenni-

natinf

thi\

service

Sh Sewa Ram,

Vx S^T KMosi is iust

fair and legal ?

If not, whnt relief, he is entitled

to and

from what date ?"

2. None has put up appearance on behalf

of the

workman did despite several notices. No claim state-

ment has b..en hied. Case is pending since 1996. It'

appears that workman is not interested

pursue

with the present reference.

In view of the above,

the pie ent reference is letumed to the Appropriate

Govt. for

V^{vant of pio ecutlon. Appropriate Govt. be}

informed.

Chandigarh,

8-2-2001

B. L* JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th Februdiy, 2001

S.O. 635.—In pursuance

Section 17 of

the

LidustPdl Dispute Act, 1947

(14 of 1947),

the

Central Government hereby publishes

the

Award

"i the

CnUial

Government

Industrial

Tribunal/

Labour Coart, Chandigarh as shown

the

An-

IKXUJC in tlu Industrial D^pu^e between

the

em-

plov,is in relation to the management

of Northern

Railway iind their wor^nnn, which was received by

In* Ceiitial Government on 27-2-2001.

[No. L-410]2|50!9l JR(DU)|(B-I)]

A.TAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L.

TATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFKPT?,

CENTRAL

GOVT.,

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBirNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No I. D. 165|91

P.ajindi-r Singh Son of

Shri Dhani R.'un

V. Hcirnowali,

Post Office^Tian^r.uri,

Dktt

Eta (U.P.)

...Workman

Vs.

Senior Civil Engineer (Const.)

Northern Railway, Near Railway Colony,

Chandigarh

. .. Management

APPEARANCES ;

For the workman : None,

For the management : N K. Zakhmi,

1264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA i MARCH 24, 2001 /CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART n^-SEarttfj)]-

AWARD

Passed on 29th Jauary, 2001

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

L-42012]50|91-IR(DUi)

dated

29th of

October,

1991 Ms referred

the following- dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Senior Civil En-

gineer, Northern Railway,

Nangai Dam

at Chandigarh in terminating the services

of Shri Rajinder Singh son of Shri Dhani

Ram, w.e.f. 29-3-1*987 is legal and justi-

fied ? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from* what

date ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for appearance of the

workman. None has put up appearances on behalf

of the workman despite several notices. Tt appears

that workman is not interested to pursue with pre-

sent reference. In view of the above, the present

reference is returned to the Ministry for want of

prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh,

29-1-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 636.—In pursuant ot Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award of

the Central Government

Industrial

Tribunal|Lab-

our Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of State Bank of India

and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government pn 27-2-2001.

[No. L-12012|222|95-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L.

JATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.,

INDUSTRIAL

TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDTGARH.

Case No. I.D. 91|97

Smt. Krishna Devi

C|o General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Congress,

Chandigarh,

...Workman

. Vs.

Assistant Genera] Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region. TI, Shimla.

... Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : None,

For the management : Shri D. P. Garg.

AWARD

(Passed on 7th February, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

L-12012|222|95-IR.(B) dated 21st January, 1998

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether- Ihe action

of the

Management of

State Bank of India, Region-IT, Zonal

office Shimla in terminating the service of

Mrsj Krishna Devi a part time sweeper in

Patwanoo Branch of the Bank w.e.f.

31-1-87 is justified and legal. If not to

what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filling of claim

statement on behalf of the workman. Despite seve-

ral notices none has put up appearance on behalf of

the workman. Nor any claim statement

has been

filed. It appears that workman is not interested to

pursue with the present reference.

In view of the

above, since, no daim statement has been tiled, and

none has put up appearance- on behalf of the work-

roan, the present reference is returned to the Minis-

try for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be

informed.

Chandigarh,

7-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 637.—Tn 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, Chandigarh, a» shown in

the Annexure in the JndustriaJ DispHte between Ihe emp-

1265

loyers its Wlation, to the management of Bank of Rajasthan

(Ltd. and -their workman, which was received by the Central

(Government on 27-2-2001.

TNo. L-12011|01|89 IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B.L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I,D. 55|89

Yo« Raj

C|o Tek Chand Sharma,

25, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines,

Ludhiana.

Workman.

Vs.

Regional Manager,

The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

Regional Office, 2213, Gurdwara Road,

2nd Floor, Karol BaRh, New Delhi.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

T. C. Sharma.

For the management : V. K. Gupta,

AWARD

Passed on 18th January 2001

The Central Government vide Gazettee Notlficatlan No.

L-12011|l|89-iR(Bank-l) dated 6th April 1989, has referred

the followine dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Rajasthan Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri

Yog Raj w.e.f. 26-3-1986 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. As per statement ')f claim, the case of the workman in

brief is that he worked as a peon from 24-3-1984 to. 9-4-1984

(1? days), from 7-5-85 to 28-5-85 (22 days), from 13-11-85

to 30-11-1985 (18 days), from 1-12-85 to 7-12-85 (7 days),

and from 10-3-1986 t0 31-3-1986 (16 days). Thus bo hnd

woiked for 80 .days in the subordinate staff scale. His ap-

]i>qiBtjnent was of permanent nature. He was illegallv dis-

engaged from service._ His services were

terminated

26-3-1986 without giving any notice, notice pay, charge

(flieet and without holding enquiry.

I 3. After illegal termination of his services, large number

pf persona were employed by the management but the work-

man - was not reinstated. The opportunity of re-employment

wns also not given to him. Junior persons were retained in

service by the management at the time of his illegal termi-

nation from service. Thus the management has violated the

Jtrovisipns of Section 25-F. H*G of U>. Act 1947. The ter-

Mnatlon of the services of the workman be setnsMe and

the workman should be reinstated in service with full back-

pages and continuity of service.

4. The case of the management in brief Is thpt the worlr-

ttiaTi was employed fnlennittaritlv for specific period

the iravi* vacancy. Hft wus nnnointed temporarily for the fixed

wriod. Therefore, his services were terminated flufomaticaiiv

Notice for his termination was not necessarv. Departmental

enquiry was not required in his case. The contract of service

cpme to on end automatically.

Under these circumstances,

nb provision¹! of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 hrm been

violated. The, claim of the workman be dismissed with cost.

5. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the workmnn

hpd worked only for 80 days. The dote? of his service period

riven +n oaraeratih 1 of claim statement have also been

Bftmi'tr'd bv thr- manr\ee<ricnt

771 OT/2001—14

6. The workman Yog Raj (WWl) has submitted his affi-

davit in support of his claim as stated, in the claim state-

ment. He has deposed that his services were terminated

illegally by the management on 26-3-1986 without giving

him any notice, notice payments charge sheet. Departmental

enquiry was also not held, before his termination. After his

termination, large number of

persons were employed by

the management and junior persons were retained in service at

the time of termination of his services. The management has

submitted affidavit of Deputy Manager Ranbir Singh Yadav

MW1 alongwith office copy of the appointment letters given

to the workman, which have been marked

as annexure 'A'

to 'E'. He has deposed in his affidavit that

the workman

was appointed as temporary peon-cum-frash for

specified

pciiod as a temporary stop gap arrangement. In support of

his statement the office copy of the appointment letter has

been annexed with affidavit.

The appointment offered by

the management were accepted by the workman. No docu-

mentary evidence has been adduced by the workman.

7. In his cross-examination the workman has admitted

that the employment was given to him on account of leave

vacancy. He was -mployed at last from 10-3-19-86

ti>

25-3-1986

the leave vacancy of Laxmi Narain who was

working as daftri-cum-peon. Thus the workman has admit-

ted the fact that he was employed tatermittantly for specific

period. The period of his employment has been shown in

his F.ppointment letters which have been marked as annexure

'A' to 'E'. Therefore, his termination from service does not

fall within the scope of the definition

of "retrenchment".

Consequently the provisions of Section 25-F, G&H do nut

apply in this case. Under these circumstances it can not be

held that the termination of the services of the workman was

unjustified.

Therefore, the action taken by the manage-

ment is justified. The workman

is no! entitled to get relief

under the provisions ot I.D. Act 1947.

8. On the basis of the discussion* made In 'proceeding

paragraph, the reference is answered that the action of the

management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. in terminating the

services of Shri YOR Raj w.e.f. 26-3-1986 h justified. The

workman is not entitled to get any relief. The parties shall

befir their own cost. Appropriate Government be informed.

Chnndigarh.

1R-1-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th.February, 2001

S.O. 638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of State Bank of India and

their workman, which was received by the Central Govern-

ment on 27-02-2001,

[No. L-12011/36/95-IR(B-I)]

AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

1766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART

ft-*

S E C ; _ 3 ^

ANNEXUR1-

BEFORE SHRT B. L. JATAV, PRLSIDIN'J

OFI'ICTR,

CHNTR^L OOVI RNMLNT, INDUSTRIAL TR1BJNM--

CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

d i e No. I.D, 79/%

Hem Singh Rana,

C/o Regional Sccretaiy,

S.B.T. StafI Association

through J. B Gnrg,

Rohtak.

.. . Workman

Versus

Deputy General Manager,

Slate Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Haiyana, Sector-8C,

Chandigarh.

. Management

APPt ARANCFS :

For the Workman: None.

For the Management: None,

AWARD

(Passed on 8th Februaiy, 200H

The Cflntial Government, v'de Gazette Notification No.

L-12011/36/^glMR(B. T) dated 13th August, 1096 has ruencJ

the following dispute to llvi Tribunal Li adj'id'ration .

"Whether tile action oi the. Mu')Lv;ement of SB1 ropic¹-

sented through Deputy Gjival Manager, SBI, Zonal

Office, Hdryana. Sector 8C, Chandigarh

not

considering tl;e pnplir alion of Sh II:m Singh Ravu

ex-tempoiuiy mew^iger for rs-guljr appointment ns

messeng^i on the ba-tis of liis application dated

9-8-88 is Wai ard )v t > [f not U> wkil idief the

woikman is entitled 7"

2 None hru put up anpefliance on behalf of the parties

despite scvei.tl notice; No claim statement ha- be»" i fll^d

Cas; i, pcnd.lifi since 199a. It appeals that v-oikman ti ndt

interested to puisne ^vith the orcswt irfcrenc- In view of

the above, the present liifiirelire 15 returned to tbt- apnroprieti;

Government for want nf prcifcution. Appionr' ite Giⁱeiri-

m^nt be informed

B. L, JATAV, Presiding Offiocr

C^andiqarh,

8-2-2001.

New Delhi, tho 2Rth Fehruaiy, 20^1

SO, 6^9^—In rui"smnce of Section 17 of (ho Industihl

Dispute Art, 1947 (M of 1947), the CYnfial Government

heiebv piibhsheB the owai'l ' [ the Cpntrii Go*^srnmi" it

Tnduitrial Tribunal/Laboui Coirt, Chandiijath us shown in

the Anoexuva in the Industrial D ,nute hetween th • pmnloycjs

in telatton to the nionagem'-nt of State Bank of India and

their worr man. which wts irceiv I by the Ccntial Govern-

ment on 27-02-2001.

FNo l.-noi2/27^/95 TR'^-1)1

ATAY Ktir[\R

D-'k Officer

ANNEXURE

BLFORF &EIRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

' / y ™'

UN'IRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRU

CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No I.D. 59/96

Karam Singh,

C/o Asstt. Gencial Secretary,

State Bank of Jndia,

Staff Congress,

Near Panchi Tent House,

Prem Nagar,

Jail Road,

Rohtak

.. .Workman'

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

(Region-Ill,),

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Sector-8C. Chandigaih.

. ..Management

APPFARANCES :

For the woikman : None.

F01 the management: Shri Aiay Kohli.

AWARD

Dated 24th January, 2001

The Cential Government vide Gazette Notification No.

T 120l2|27|95-!R(B-t) daW 22nd July 1996 has referred the

following dispute to this Tdbunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the munafierrKnt of State Bank

of India in not promoting to Shri Karam Singh

workman and a Schedule Caste candidate fiom the

post of messenger to the post of cleik is just, fan

and legal ? If not to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filling of claim statement,

None has been putting appearance on behalf of the woikman

despite many notices. l\ appoois that v/oikman is rot interested

to puisue with tli- present reference. In view of the above,

the present rrfeionce is letumed to the Ministry for want

of prosecution Appromiatc Government b"¹ i-'foimfJ

B L. JATAV, Presiding P*r,;Sr

Chandigarh,

24-1-2001.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 640.— Tn nuHimnce of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

fineby publishes the award of the Cential Government

Jndnitiinl Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandiguih as shown in

the An»iexure in thi- Industrial Dispute bstween the employers

111 relation to the management of State Bank of Patiala and

their workman which was received by thf Central Govern-

ment on 27-02-200)

[No, L-12O12/|]7/95JR(R-1|]

AJAY KUMAR, De-k Olficer

P.67

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI B. L. TATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

I CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIUUNAL-

tUM-LABOUR CX)URT. CHANDIGARH

Case No. JD- 88/96

Chattar Singh Malik,

S/o Dharam Singh Malik,

VPO Buajna,

Disf. Panipat.

... .Worknun

Versus

General Managere,

Slate Bank of Patiala,

The Mall,

Patiala,

. . . .Management

APPEARANCES :

J-or the Workman: None.

For the Management: N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th February, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification No.

t-120t2/ll7/95-I,R.(B) dated 24th

September,

19% ha*

deferred

the

following

dispute

this

Tribunal

£or

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Patiala In terminating the services of Shri Chattnr

Singh is legal and justified ? II not, to what relief

is the Workman entitled 7"

2. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman

despite several notices. No claim statement ha-; been filed.

Case is pending since 1996. It appears that workman is rot

interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of

tjhe above, present reference is retunred to the Appropriate

Government for want of prosecution,

^rpror^r'?'e CiovcrnmEnt be informed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Offer

Chandigarh,

3-2-200 i,

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.O. C41

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

bejreby publishes the award of the Cential Government

Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the Annexuie in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in r';Mnju h\

tl\k management of State Bank of India un;l then woittoftt,

which was received by the Central QowomeiU oft 28-02-2001,

[No. L-12O12/25/:oO0-ir.!B-D]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

_ ^ ^

ANNEXURE

~H« CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

B E F O R E

•

N A G P O R

PRESLNT:

VttMm

Office,

Shi, B. G. Snxena,

"QU

1^/2000

Reference No. L.

^ M.uiagcmeut ol

1'mpjoyers iu relation to i..

State Bank Of India

AND

Shri Rajcih Shivraj Roddy

AWARD

The Cential Government, Ministry of Lcbour, Now Delhi,

by exercising the powers confsired by dnuse (d) ot sub

section (U and � section ?,(A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, J947 has referred this dispute for adjudication

v.de Order No. L-12O12/25/20OO-lR(B-i> dmed 27-06-2000

on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the Management namely Bian^h

Manager, Slate

Bank of India,

.fatpura

Gate,

Rnmnagar Branch, Chandrapur, tciraiiiating Shri

Rajesh Shivraj Redtly, Ex Peon is legal, proper and

justified ? If not, to whit relief, the vviokman is

entitled and from which date ?"

This reference was received on 14-08-2000 and notice were

isiiiod to parties for 06-10-2000, The workman did not appear

on this date, rhe counsel Shrf A. R. Mehra had submitted

Vakulntnama for the wcirkrnan, but Ml not. kibmit any State-

ment of Claim. The case ua-, adjourn to (7-11-2000. On

this date ako the counsel for workman did not submit way

Statement of Claim. The counsel for the management Shii SN.

Kumar is present, he tepresetrtod that on 14-11-2000 the

application \vas moved lor granting tune to file Statrmeni

of Claim, hut •neither en 17-11-2000 nor <in next date fixed

29-11*2000 ony Statement of Clniin wos Jilcd by the counsel

of the workman. The case- Wd? again adjourned im 29-11-2000

and 25-01-2001 was fixed for rhe Statement of Claim. On

29-11-2000' ai^o nobody turned up from t!ie side of workman.

7(.'day also the case iv;iS taksn up at 12.05 p.m., but neither

the workman turned up nor his counsel nppenrcd to file

Statement of Claim. Tt is dtsr that from 06-10-2000 the case

was adjourned for several times hut counsel for the work-

man did not file Statement of Claim, In this case the repre-

sentative of the Union of the woiknwn also did not appear

from the side of workman.

A' no St^t.merit of Claim Tins been fil^d bv the woikman

tlir pcoceodings can not contmur further

The reference

should therefore be disposed off for wrmt of prosecution,

ORDER

The workman did not submit any Statem:n1. of Claim cither

himself or through hit union. Thn counsel for the workman

Shri A. R. Mehra also did not fubrait Statement of Claim.

The reference is theiefore di/qsoj^d off the wont

prosecution.

' B. C. SAXENA, Presidifip Officer

Date: 25-01-2001

H 8

THE GAlfil-m OF INDlA : MARCH U, 2601/CHAITRA 3, 1923

p>ART I I ^ S E C 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.O. 642.—In pursuance or Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the" award of the Industrial Tribunal,

Cbcnnai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Southern Railway and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 28-02-2001.

[No. L-41012/44/96-IR(B-I)j

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU.

CHENNAI

Monday, 20th day of November, 2000

PRESENT:

_-~l' -7

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

Industrial Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 125 of 1997

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section

10<l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the

Workman and the Management ot Southern Railway,

Tiruchirappalli).

BETWEEN

Shri M. Kandan,

T. M. No. 2078,

Mechanical Diesel Shed,

No. 866A,

Railway Diesel Colony,

Ponmalai,

Trichirappalli-620004.

AND

The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer,

Southern Railway,

TrichirappaIli-620001.

The Divisional Railway Managei,

Southern Railway,

Trichy Division,

Trichy-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-41012/44/96-IR(B-l)

dated

10-12-1997,

Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New

Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Thrusday, the

9th day of November, 2000, upon perusing the reference.

Claim and Counter statements and all other material papers

on record and upon hearing the arguments of Tvl. Row &

Reddy, R. Vaigal, K. N. Ramesh, S. Valdyanathan and S.

Sathish Kumar, advocates appearing for the Workman and

of Thiru

G. Kalyanasundaram,

advocate appearing

for

Management Nos. 1 & 2 and this dispute having stood over

till this day for .consideration, this Tribunal made

the

following:

AWARD

The Government of India has referred ihe following issue

for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether- the action of the management of Senior

Divisional

Mechanical

Engineer,

Golden

Rock,

Southern Railway, Trichy in teriranating the services

of Sri M. Kandan, is justified 7 If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled '.'"

2. The main averments found in the Claim statement of

the petitioner are as follows :

The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He joined the respondent

us Khalasi on 9-9-1981 in the Office of the Loco Foreman,

Steam Loco, Trichy and in 1983 us Khalasi in Diesel Shed

Ponmalai, Trichy. The petitioner was caargc sheeted on

7-4-93 on the

ground that he, while on duty

on 23U-93

around 7.30 a.m. quarelied apd manhandled one Annadurai,

Diesel Khalasi near the blacksmith room in the Diesel shed.

His action was said to be violatjye of Rule 3(1), (II) and (.111)

oi the Railway Servants Conduct Rules li*66. The petitioner

states that ho was on casual leave on 22-1-93. He went to

the workspot for availing another days leave on 23-1-93.

On that day Annadurai assaulted. The respondent not satisfied

with the explanation conducted a force of an enquiry and

teiminated the service of the petitioner on 11-2^94. The

petitioner's appeal was rejected on 24-11-94. The Order of,

removal was not passed by the appointing authority. There

is no proof about disturbance of normal working in the

shed due to tiie alleged misconduct. The petitioner was nol

given reasonable opporruwty Jn the Departmental Enquiry

to defend his case. The enquiry officer examined S. Annadurai

behind the back of the petitioner and hence the same ought

not be taken into account while, finalising the findings.

Enquiry officer is not competent to conduct the enquiry

as the Enquiry officer and the petitioner are of the same

rank i.e. Group III employees. One Perumal has deposed

that he was not aware- of any incident that took place on

the said premises on 23-1-93. A criminal case was re>-

gistered against the petitioner and Annadurai.

Annadurni

hnd admitted that he assaulted the petitioner and paid the

fine amount. The petitioner was acquitted by Order dated

12-7-95 in STC No. 110193 by the Judicial Magistrate-lV.

Tiichy. It is really strange'that the department instead of

taking action against the person who involved in the inci-

dent has initiated the action against the petitioner.

The

petitioner prays to pass an Award holding that the termi-

nation of the petitioner

w.e.f.

10-2-94 as

modified

tho Reviewing Authority by his Order dated 29-9-97 as

one of Compulsory retirement fs not legal.

3. The main averments found in the counter statement

of the respondent are as follows.—The petitianer was ap-

pointed as Loco Khdlasi under Ex, Serviceman Quota on

9-9-1981 in the Tiruchirappalli Division of the Southern

Railway. He was further promoted a» Diesel Mechanic/

Grade III in the Diesel Shed, Ponmalai, Trichy. While he

was working as Diesel Mechanic, on 29-1-1993 he had

quarelled with his co-worker and manhandled him at the

duty spot and disturbed

the

normalcy at the workspot,

Diesel Shed, Ponmalai, Trichy. For his act of misconduct

in the duty spot

disciplinary

proceedings were initiated

against him under the provisions of tho Railway servants

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968,

After conducting

thorough and exhaustive departmental enquiry, the Discip-

linary Authority viz. The Senior

Divisional Mechanical

Engineer, Diesel Shed, Ponmalai, Trichv has imposed the

penalty of removal from service on the' applicant W.ft.f.

10-2-94. vide penalty advice

No. T|MD.P. 227lMKl2078

i dated 7-2-1994. His Revision, petition was carefully exa-

mined and considered by the Chief Mechanical Engineer.

Southern Railway, Chennai and the Revislonary Aulhoritv

I by no Order, dated 31-12-94 has modified the penalty of

lemnval from service as one

of Compulsory retirement

with pensionary benefits with effect from the date of re-

ntal fiom service,

Further,

the Disciplinary Authority

ha<i conducted a detailed and thorough enquiry and the

petition"*!- find nttended th« enquiry held on 6-8-93, 10-8-93

nnd 11-H-91. A copy of the enquiry report was served on

him under acknowledgement on 26-8-93. The petitioner

had submitted a representation dated 20-10-93 and after

careful consideration of his representation, the DiscioJfnary

Authority hns Imposed *he nenalty of

removal .frorn ser-

vice w.e f. 10r2-94. The petitioner's contention that in as

much as he has been acauitted bv a Court of Law on the

•?nme chm-p"¹*. h¹" ^hou'd be exonerated in thr rteppvtlfipfi-

tal rrrtceedinc; in unsound, In thU connection it h sub-

mitted that both rh¹" cises nre different. Tn fact he WHS

token up undrr DAR for thr Incident that took place On

23-1-93 at 7.30 a.m. at Diesel Shed/Golden RocS" anS~fi&~

police case is involved. Butt We petitioner Was acquitted to

the incident that toot place on 25-1-93 at 12.00 hrs at

Four Road, Scnthaneefpuram,

TirUchirnppalli 'and a*¹ Cri-

minal case was registered by the Police authorities based

on a complaint preferred

by the complainant, a private

party and not by any departmental official.'The respondent

prays to dismiss the petition.

4 On behalf of petitioner, Ex. Wl to W.I8 were marked

by consent. On behalf of respondent, Ex. Ml to M 21 were

marked by- <ionsent. }vlo witnesses were examined for' both

•ides.

5. The Point for consideration is : Whether the action of

the Management of Senior, Pivisionul Mechanical Engineer

Golden Rock, Southern Railway, Tnchy in terminating the

service* of Shii M. Kandan is testified? If not to what relief

the workman is entitled?

6 The Point : The petitioner by name Mr. M. Kandan

is an Ex-serviceman. On 9-9-81, he joined the icsp«>ndent as

Khalasi. His service was terminated on 11-2-94 for cer-

tain alleged misconduct. On revision <it was modified

ccmpulsory retirement It is to be mentioned that he will be

having his superannuation in the year 1997. It is under such

circumstance, the sustattftWity

of his ' termination

10-2-1994 is t<S be analysed.

7. So far as the alleged misconduct is concerned, the alle-

gation ii that the workman M. Kandan while on duty on

23-1-93 at about 7 30 hours quarrelled and manhandled' one

Mr. Annadurai, Khalani near the blacksmith room in the

Diesel shed; thus the petitioner workman has disturbed the

normal working in the shed and violated. Rule 3(I}(H)(IH)

of the Railway Servants Conduct rules 1966. The copy of

the relevant Gharge Sheet was marked as Ex. M3.

virtue of

Ex. Ml Order; dated 28-1-93 ttte petitioner work-

man was suspended from services, till it was revoked on

29-1-1993 through Ex. M2.^

There, was an intimation

piopo&ed enquiry proceedings made through Ex M4

dated

29-6-93, In. the said enquiry, the ^position: df delinquent

employee and that of

Annadurai, Selvam,

Sathyamurthv,

Annadan, Perumal and Ravichandran were marked as Ex.

torMil

respectively. Among these witnesse, Attandan

and Peiumal deposed that they were not aware of the alle-

ged incident held on 23-1-93; whereas the witness Selvam and

Sathyainurthy have vividly spoken about the abus, and attack

made on Annadurai by the delinquent Mr. Kandan, the peti-

tioner workman. Based on these materials, the Enquiry

Officer had given, a findings against this petitioner-workman

throrgh Ex. M12 on 17-8-93. This waft also acknowledged

by the petitioner-workman throiiRh Ex Ml3 There WHS also

a penalty advice through, Ex. M14 dated 7-2-94 \nh'ch was

acknowledged by the petitioner on 18-2-94 through Ex Ml5.

Thus he was terminated wef

10-2-94 The appeal preferred

by the delinquent through Ex M16 dated 20-2-94 was dis-

missed on 24-11-94 through Ex Ml8, aftfr personal Hearing

Advice Riven on 5-S.-94 thrQunh Ex M17 There was

Revision petition on 13 8-97 throuah Ex M19 which

was

ordered on 29-9^1937 through Ex M20 whereby the services

of the petitioner workman in the Armv for more than 15

years was consider d fn his favour and the penalty o* termi-

nation was reduced to comnulsorv

retirement

This was

o^rfeTd hv the Cb'ff Mechan^Jil Ene'tirrr of thr Personal

bianrh in the Headquarters office at Chenmv of the South,

ern Rsiiiwav The learned

counsel for t V TCinondent con

tended thit Procedural T aw was verv well adopted strictly

in the Conduct of (he Domestic enquiry

8. The petitioner-woikman contended that he had previous

enmity with Annadumi that the later alone had attached the

delinquent on 23-1-93. that there was a case against Annadurai

in STC No 111193 on the file of Magistrate Court at Trichv

that Annadurai was convicted as seen under Ex M8

and

that there was also found Certificate through Ex M7 in

showing that the petitiner sustained iniury at the hands

of Annadurai

It was attain contended that as seen in Ex

W!2 the Order in STC No 11O|93 of the Judicial Magistrate

at 1 nchv, the case acflinst the petitioner ended ,in acquittal.

Therefore it w^s contended that the real culprit was nrrde

to escape from anv -loniesjic enquiry ijn^I innocent petitioner

was unduly punished

" 9. Tii Wis connection, a perusal pf records, in ST.C 110|93

through Ex. W12¹ •»rW^rtSTC Ntf.¹ ni|?3Vttfroufch; Ex. W8

of the Judicial Magistrate at Trichv wftl*¹ gS't6 "sTiow that

Anngduraj was convicted Jor tho onenqe topk -place

on,

23,l«Sr*»d that fhe¹ peffrSner wis" a t ' ^ f e O f c an offence

held on 25-1L93. THu* th^ "ilfctfutttai 'of"Writ1bfcf was un-

connected to the Incidence dated 32M*?3"l0r the misconduct.

Even 'regarding the conviction 'of AaandumJ the wound

ceiiflcate oT petitioner ihrobgh Ex, W7 contains some erron

In the serrse that tot Wbirtaintihc^ tjf daid iniuV W 23-1-93

he was given treatment al 5 09 Ut&. WhiCh' is eMer false or

erroneous. Thefefolfs, ihts fact tfiat K^ttn4an "got injured is

not established. TrfOs the dnlV Mint remain^ to that Anna-

durai got convicted

That rriaV^nly'jio to Bu'ripWthe case

of Management, that there was nfi Incident on 23*-l-93 in

which each of Annadurai and Kandan assaulted the other

Karttiari's acquittal'was with ftftr&ce to a different incident

doted 25-1-93

We are not concerned with why,Annadurai

was not 'proceeded with,¹ Ofl thfc toritrffry we are concerned

only with* th« leWfity artd trythftlhefe of the, enquiry against

the delinquent wttrfcri>an taHnW* the 'pe™Pnftr.' Vm^ the alle-

gaition that^JtMe innoteut pet1tftjne( ^as" falsilv entangled in

the ditfmestifc eiiquirj/ is' not' corriSt A earettl perusal of

depositions of

witnesses thrbtigh E«. M5 to Mil recorded

in the domestic enqirlfy would also support this view. That

will jo to tfsfaWiSh tn6 fact fhSit thtt petitioner-wprtman as-

saulted cp-wofter (Annaflnra^ on 2J-I-9'5 in the workspot.

10. The Order in OA. No 75|95 before the Central Ad-

ministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench marked throunh Ex.

W14 dated 29-7-97 VJit\ not tilt the "issue; W In that ]fhe,

petitioner workman had only withdrawn the

Proceedings

Initiated by him. There was al^o no findings,

11 The Learned Counsel fox the Petitioner workman had

alleged that the enquiry officer put leading questions m the

course of Crass-examination of

witnesses. In fact,

the

Enquiry Officer in the domwtjc enquiry, can, put questions to

the witness for clarification wherever necessary and what is

necessary Ii that the witness ihall b$ undergone for. effective

cross-examination and otace it is done the enquiry proceed-

ings cannot bk impleafched a» unfaif.

This was so held TO

AI.R. 1975 Supreme Court p. 2125,. Jhe «nguiry officer was

alleged aa not th» Coffieetfru person tp .conduet the enquiry

In thlti aspect, the" tearned" CounseJ lor the Manttgernent,

pointed Out that the Enquiry Officer .was a EIefctnc.al Fore-*

man, Senior Supervisory who It higher than the

Grade of

petitioner.

We mile also flyon % time scale of pay of the

Enquiry Officer ai R9.

2000 4nd

that qf the

petitioner

workman as Rs 1300 Thus the allegation that the enquiry

officer is incompetent is unacceptable 'trie petitioner was

ako given an opportunity to file his defence statement dated

20-10-93 He Was alsb served with copy 'of "the

Findings

throuch Fx Mil The Plsnalty aaice was also acknowledged

bv the petitioner through Ex. MJ5- The Personal hearing

Advice in the Appeal was also served on petitioner through

Ex M17 He

has also -cross-examined

every

"witness

more effectively A careful perusal Of the recprds would RO

to show that the Disciplinary Authority had 'applied its mind

after considering the en*uirv rer>ort'nnH the representation

of the petitioner dated 20-10-93 Ho had alsp passed

SneakinR Order

Therefore, there li no flaw found m fhc

Proceeding of the enauiry, The earlier pnmttV of'the peti-

tioner with Annadurai is doubledfted weapon 'That need

not necessarily go in favour of the petitioner.

12 In order to apply Secelon 11 <V of the Industrial Dis-

P'lte Act, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Workman

relied

upon two Case Laws 1987 *r LLN^s405 and;' 1090 I

LLN 710. True it is that the following was mentioned in

1990 I LLN 710.

'The services of the fhst respondent workman were ter-

minated for slapping the charge hand who found

the workman

sleeping while on duty and reported

the matter to the mamcMnent The LabouV' Coiirt

upheld the propriety of tie disciplinary action, on

merits However, 6h ftie question of 'puritshme'nt,

the Labour Court chose to interfere and directed

reinstatement

af the employee but, denying him

the backwages from

17 Awtust 1976. When 'he

was suspeneded pending disclplinarv action till the

date of reinstatement.

This awrtfti df trie^f1Laboiir

Court was upheld by a learned Single Judge of the

i2^6

THE GAZETTfe OF INDIA ; MARCrf 24, 2001/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

High Court.

Henco ttho present appeal by

the

Management.

. . , The Learned Single Judge, rightly decline to in-

terfere with this discretion, on the part of

the

Labour Court.

It cannot be stated that the Labour

Court did not exercise

the discretion judicially.

The view aken by the Labour Court was that the

punishment imposed by the appellant was dispropor-

tionate to the degree of guilt of the employee. The

Labour Court has given leasons for his decision.

Such being the position, the High Court will not

Interfere in writ appeal and accordingly this wit

appeal is dismissed"

13. Similarly it was held in 1987 1 LLN 405. as follows:

"The denial of backwages to the employee to the extent

observed by the Labour Court are appropriate to

meet the ends of justice. But to depiivc them of

the employment itself would be too tarsh a result

especially in these hard days of widespread un-

employment and in this regard their unblemished

past record of service of long duration speaks in

favour of taking a lenient view of the matter. The

ultimate decision of the Labour Court cannot

characterised as perverse. The writ petitions both

of the Management and Workman arc dismissed."

Thai was also a case where the following Charge

was

made:

"Again on 27 Apiil 1973, at about 1 p.m. just outside

the factory gale, you abuesd Sri N.P. Balan, drivei,

and slapped him on his face and threatened to stab

him."

14. By applying the above ratio decidendum, we can also

show sympathy towards the petitioner. But the fact of the

rase do not allow us to do so because the petitioner-workman

had already atained the period of superannuation in the year

1997 itself. On this score, he could not be reinstated. Con-

sidering this circumstance and also the fact that the impo-

sition of Penalty of termination was reduced on levision into

the Compulsory retirement is qute reasonable and this case

deseryes no interference under Sec. 11 due to the fact that

the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation

a; eaily as in 1997, so no relief coald be provided.

Award passed accordingly. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, the 20th day of November, 2000

S R. STNOHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal.

I. D. No. 125197

Witnesses Examined

For PetitioncilWoikman : None,

For RespondenttManagement : None.

Documents marked

retitioneiiWorkman

Ex. Wl 16-12-88 Letter of the petitioner to the Respon-

dent.

Ex, W2 . .

Extract from Leave- milntenance book-

Ex. W3 .. Working Job Maintenance Renter.

Ex. W4 Jan'93 Muster Roll.

Ex. W5 23-1-93 Receipt

issued by

Senthcneerpuram

Pplice Station.

Ex. W6 25-1-93 OP. Sheet ksued by Rly. Hospital

Ponmalai.

F\. W7 —1998 Wound Ceitllkate.

Ex. W8 25-1-93 S F.C. 111|93.

Ex. W9 14-2-95 Evidence of Annathurai in CO 262f93.

Ex. W10 29-U93 Suspension cider revoked.

E\. Wll 7-2-94 Penalty ndvice.

Ex. W12 12-7-95 Ojder in STC ilO|93.

Ex. W13 16-2-y6 conciliation failure report.

Ex. W14 29-7-97 Ordere in OA 75J95 CAT

Madias

Bench.

Ex. W15 12-8-97 Letter Of the petitioner to respondent ,

Ex. W16 .. Evidyjde of the petitioner is STC 11O[93.

Ex. W17 .. Pamphlet issued by S. Rly. Mazdoor Union.

Ex. W18 .. Extract from Charge Sheet issued to Shan-

thaknshnan.

For Respondent|Management

Ex, Ml 28-1-93 Suspension Older.

Ex. M2 29-1-93 Revocation of Suspension order.

Ev M3 7-4-93 Charge Sheet.

Ex. M4 29-6-93 Intimation of proposed Inquiry pro-

ceedings.

Ex. M5 . . Deposition of delinquent employee.

Ex. M6 .. Deposition of Sii Annadurai.

fc'x, M7 .. Deposition of Sri L. Selvam.

7x. M8 .. Deposition of Sri N. Sathyamooi thy.

Ex M9 . . Deposition of Sri M. Anandan.

Ex. M10 .. Deposition of Sri A. Perumal.

Ex Mil

.. Deposition of Sri R. Ravichandran.

Ex. M12 17-8-93 Enquiry officer's report and findings.

Ex. M 13 ., Enquiry officer's repeoit and findings ack-

nowledged by the employee.

Ex. M14 7-2-94 Penalty Advice.

E'x. Ml 5 18-2-94 Penalty advice acknowledged by the

employee.

Ex. M16 20-2-94 Delinquent omployee'e appeal petition.

Ex. Ml7 5-8-94 Personal hearing Advice.

Ex. M18 24-11-94 Disposal and appeal by the Appel-

late Authority.

Ex M19 13-8-97 Revision petition submitted by

the

delinquent employee.

Fx. M20 ,, Revlsional authorities Ordejs on Revision

petition,

Ex. M21 8-1CK97 Divisional office letters.

New pclhi, the 1st March, 2001

S.O 643.—ID pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Industnul Tiibunal/Labour

Court, Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annevnre in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

\2i\

management of S. E. Railway and their workman, which was

leceived by the Cent, al Gqvemmont on 28-2-2001.

[No. L-41014/01/2001-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-

I.ABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:

Sri K. Vcerapu Naidu, B.Sc, B.L.,

Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated : 27th day of December, 2000

I.T.I.D. (C) No. 9/99

Petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act

BETWEEN

K, Venkateswarlu,

Releaving Clerk,

Kirandol S, E. Railway,

Visakhapatnam,

C/o K. S. Subhadra,

D. No. 7/128, Santhoshinagar,

Simhachaiam,

Visakhapataam.

. . . . Workman

AND

General Manager,

S. E. Railway,

Gardon Reach,

Calcutta.

Divisional Commercial Supdt,,

S. F. Railway,

Dondaparthy,

Visakhapatnam.

Divisional Railway Manager,

(T)/Waltair,

Visakhapatnam.

. . . . Management

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the

presence of Sri A. Jagajeeswara Rao, advocate for workman

and Sri S. Raglnvir, advocate for muru'nement, upon hear-

ing the argumtuts r.f both sides ajid on perusing the entire

rnaViial on lecord, Ihe court passed the foil-wing:

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Section 2A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back-

wages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

(2) The petitioner used to serve as a clerk in South

Eastern Railways since 1975. While he was senving as rele.iv-

nig clerk at Kirandol Station, the inspection sqijad lodged a

complaint against the petitioner alleging that he misappro-

priated railway cash to a tune of Rs. 16^13 by reporting U»

manipulating the station records, interpolation of printed card

tickets and pnper tickets in the stations copy of N I. statement

as 'non-issued' etc., befween the period from J-9-82 to 17-2-83

in respect of the tickets issued to TC.R. CCNR etc. Hence

it is contravention of Rule 3.Iff) of the Railway Service

("conduct) Ruks, 19<S6. SubseciueTitly the charge was amended

stating that the railway cash to a time of Rs. 1643 and

Rs. 3696 to be added and the Divisional Railway Commercial

Superintendent conducted an enquiry and issued

removal

orders ftom the sfrvicr vide his Orders No WC1/8 TTA

RF VZM/6/83/16 dtd. -1-4-85 tn tiir petitioner nnd the

said dismissal order is illegal and the piinishrnpnt <s dis-

proportionate atid it is ii violation c^e fhi- -iririciples of

Ti™ti'r,il insltce ?nd no- reasonnbie oppo tunitv w?" Given tn

him under article 311 of constitution. Th • appeal preferred

I- h'n

r)s "1r-y rejected and the pf-titi'iner also preferred

icvision hefore ttnj general mwajir, S. E Railway, Calcutta

»nd the snV rfvipjoT" Jj, aho d^mrsed conprminr the irmoval

order of the petitioner,

(3) It is the further case of the petitioner tb-iT he never

committed any misappropriation of the amunnt while Ji--

charging his duties of releaving clerk at Kirandol. Hence this

application.

(4) The management filed its counter stating that the peti-

tioner was

dismissed from service on 4-4-85 i.e. 14 years

auo and hence the petition is barred by limitation m the

A.P. Amendment Act 1987 and it does not apply to the

Central Government Establishments. The complaint alleged

against him is correct and the applicant was chaige sheeted

for misappropriation to a tune of Rs. 5339 and the discipli-

nary proceedings were conducted under the Railway Service

Conduct Rules 1966. The appeal prefeircd by him to the

General Manager, S. E. Railway was ;tlso disposed on in

Fehiuarv, U'88.

Thete is no irregularity nor any illegality

in the enquiry held in this case and the punishment is not

disproportionate and absolutely no grounds to interfere with

the said findings. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(?) Before this Tribunal, the workman examined WW1 and

2 and got marked Exs. Wl to W8. On behalf of the manage-

ment, one P. S. R, Anjanoyulu, Asst. Commercial Manager,

Viaskhapatnam is examined as MW1 and got marked Exs.

Ml and M2.

(6) Heard both sides.

(7) The point that arises for consideration in this case

is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with

back wages afld continuity of service as prayed

for 7

(8) The case of the petitioner is thai a false charge is

levelled against him. It is alleged against the petitioner that

•vvhile he was working as releavio^ clerk ut Kirundol, he

misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5339 during the period from

1982 to 17-2-85, A regular enquiry was ordeied as per the

provisions of Railway Services (Disciplinary and Appeal)

Rules, 19fiS and the Gazette copy of the rules marked as

Ex. Ml and the principles of natural justice was also followed

,ind an ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to

establish his innocence and an enquiry officer Was appointed

?nd in (he enquiry the charges held to be proved and the

enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner workman

Basing on the enquiry repoit only, the punishment of dis-

missal was ordered under Ex. Wl dated 4-4-85. The work-

man preferred appeal and the same was, also dismissed under

I \. W2 dftrd 30-7-85 and he preferred rcv'sion and the

same was also dismissed vide Ex. W3 dnted 13-2-88 and

he filed a review application before the General Manager

S. E. Railways, Calcutta which is marked as Ex. W4 dated

5-1-93 and later the workman made representations under

Exs. W5 to' W7. Therefore, the removal .of the applicant

under Fx. Wl order is in accordance with the procedure

and the principles of natural justice.

(9) The learned counsel appearing for the workman alleges

that the enquiry

is purfunctory

and the punishment

removal is illegal and disproportionate. But he is not specific

as to what h the irregularity and illeaalitv committed by

the enauirv officer or by Iho management while Imposing the

punishment on the netitioner. The workman admitted that

an enquiry was held and the domestic enquiry report wds

not filed before this court. The workmai is examined ai

WW1. His evidence is thit he was not s?iven anv opportunity

to establish hi.) innocence. The inspector, who allegedly

detected the fraud, was not examined and the petitioner was

rot shown even the station records nor any show cause

notices were given. Except issuing the charge sheet, no.

piqirirv "'as held ni oer rules and regulations.

Hence he

filed this application for reinstatement as the order of removal

in*}" Ex Wl is not valid am? is liable to be set a'ide.

f10> The workman¹ deposed these fiefs, however, he ad-

mitted that Ih- removal order Ex. Wl seived on him. His

case is that he preferred appeal and it was dismissed and

Ex. W2 is the said order. Subsequently he preferred a revi-

sion

and it was also dismissed

and Ex, W3 is the order

in revision and ultimately ho made several representation's

under Exs W4 to W7 for leinstaU nent but no relief was

given by the management.

n i ) On the other hand, it is the evidence of MW1 thut

the accounts inspector inspected th« records during the perio-

dical insoection and submitted a report, alleging that the

workman committed fraud or Rs. 5339 durinc the period

from 1-9-82 to 17-2-8-5 (houirh Ex. Wl

-order of removal

discloses that the report of the enquiry officer and consider-

ed and a copy was a'so enclosed along with thp order to

1272

THE GAZElTE OF JM)IA ^ A R d t f 24,2001/(?HAfTRA 3, 1923

[PAST fl—SEC. 3(ii)J

trjjit ftponkjiWt'rqittrcDBlVi: fo'Jtwiiljer filed by- tije lWork-

ripffli npr by tn^^atfaagemint.

HJ, (Be absence .of(the jepprt

we in"Oii'iy• lefj wjt^ tflc.p/arfeJtlniony of WWl. vis-a-vis

aii|d-Ex,^:,'Wi. m> ' r ^ t o O a t n t ^ did not, choose to file

anV shotlf fflusfe fTM?tltt fitqir before prderipc to issue charge

•'sfiMt ti%tttr tnt'cKarrftis fltc faeld.to be proved and before

irnpOfdtig thfc luElShbwtrroi removal under Ex, WI. Ther«-

'fpre; 'there^Aivfo ate ,tjttc intofrjiatiori therefore we we not)

hflVms thfc, domestic eflquity "report, ti'or any paper relating

to the'-fflJmeitJc enquiry nrocefdinjs, so as to access whe-

'ther trie isnquta wjj's held in ,fr'cc"<>rdan.cc with the principles

bj rrat|jrai, justice #.not.

It is fpr Jtia management to file

the liijd, etiqiiiify fep<Jrt Us well as the domestic enquiry pro-

teedltig*. 'Ex. Wi rbveals that an enquiry was held. There-

fore, ;l is a case where the management la suppressing the

(locurjieijl^ a^ .such, an adverse inference is to be drawn

ftJWiflst. the case, of the management -and the .case af the

petitioner is to be ^cc^pted, that the enquiry, conducted In

this fuse is riot in accordance with the procedure .and the

principles of natural justice. Further, the management did

not also choose to file any show cause "notice to show that

it was served prior to the passing pf, the order ,of, reinovaJ-Ex.

Wi. Therefore, the' procedure followed by the "management

in this case is not proper and it is liable to be vitiated.

0 2 ) Coining to the alleged charges of misappropriation

ol an amount of Rs. 5339 the Asst, Commercial Manager

deposM.a? MWl- He simply stated that the petitioner com-

mitted fTOU{|,of Rs.. 5339 during the period from 1-9-82 to

J7-2-$5,. w d^epvsed. that B» a booking clerk, the petitioner

was entrusted. Jttf .tickets, and he has to snow, the tickets

sold to this, passengers, and remitting the gash balance. He

"hflfl, shown some 'tickets, not issued, though he sold awav

' theft, and misappropriated those amounts. The

Accounts

Jn$ptctor, inspected the Records during the periodical inspec-

tion, a<# submitted a report and those tickets whiph were not

WWd< and expected to fee sent U> Head Quarter at Calcutta.

That Accoupff Inspector .was not examined before this Tri-

;^{pUnal rior ,the' records pertaining to his inspection and his}

'' report were not, forthcoming.

It, is the further evidence

of, MWl, that, though ih records) h6. mentioned, he jent those

li^ts.Jn.facf lje.dld. not send those tickets and in {he offtqe

ol>pv t)c mentioned about sending tHose Hcketp. But, in the

CQ,p(cs,.s.ent tp the Head. Dfflcfc and in the statement, he did

nrk Mention,, abput sending of. those tickets. Therefore by

^Ojitfi; checking, Jh;i» mJsQhief was noticed. JExcept the

tritjnwny p | thijj ^evidence there is, no other irtatefial

ilcptd', iai substatjjjatflj his .evidence. No ' records .are iiled

tm We .domestfc enfluiry report was submitted,, to establish

tne iitjllt against the woftetait.

It is also the' further evi-

dence of MWl that the Railways ajsp framed^ rules,, and rq?u-

lattops, wltWregaffl W the o*is£%^lne °i^its, fmpipyees under

Railway Servants'DfseMine Riileir J96S[ i.e under Ex. Ml

and the.procedure and the" re'^ulptiojj..afe.followed,,in con-

ducting the enquiry a'feafnsf the tjeWioner ^nd tho principles

of natural justice was fottowtd and the petitioner, wa«.(al*o

given spffieient anfl" fidetiuate y^^o'ftuni^y., In the. cross-exa-

rqmgtiop ,he admitted that tjje fadts stated by hipi, in the

9W9J ne^a,minatton .Is. only with reference to Ih^records, and

que, tp nassape o* tirrte." the jSleVant records wijh re^JH-dinc

tftomfsEfons: of hiitt ar( no lbnte'r' avaiTobie. jjjit euer, hojdinfl

fijauirv pnlv J»* wns'rtmdvid. Jfe alsp ndmittjsd, .that be

$lid nof sefe the enquiry re'tRJrt. Rfp aisp stated, tna$. there ift no

pr6visJon,for sh6w ciiUse niitTce Thus, this %evidence, of A4^W1

c'enrly goes, to show tlW he hns no qprsoriaj-i knov'edifr-

rttipu,t t^e,, e,ntiulrv and other jhint";, _ "py^ concerned ofllclilii

are not .ewm'nfcd nor tne record's prTfalnlnR to the enquiry

wnrnintt filed. Therefore, (is, .ririrflv

contendrd hv

thr

counsel aWilfrlhp' ftir tVie ivoriiniap nn sdvcrie Inference is

tb be drawn aftrilnst' the case of the mnnaeement.

,,(l$\ Of cofrrse. If ik ailercd jn the counter .that the cliam

rha.de by $«9 applicant is only after 4 Ja'pse^ of }4 years.,ty is

t^e t^at. t^erc' te abnorniftl" dtflay' Iji approachjnjr the .trifcunal

and the' same is to be taken into cotisldcraiion, but the sn!d

delay ) \ prie of fthp reasons for the management's capariiy (o

"ftjt the doqrb)errtts,^tc becauspi for every 5 vears rcords wjll

b£ desirftyw)! as. r^Cf. ,th* practice fpllowed by the railwavs.

If is*also stated by, MWl sine© the petitioner did not mak^

any'ferJreserf^tfOri fiffiin, lhe nerlpd of 5 years, the records

Wf^{r~ df-^^vea^; Thirefote,. the workman cannot insist this}

Trfttojial ,tp'cfraW an¹;,attterse. inference against the case ;pf

the manajeiaient. However, the workman filed Exs. W4 to

W7 the .representations

dated 5-1-93, 26-1-96, 20-1-97 and

1-1-98 to shPw that "he wa$ making some representations

.periodically to the General Manager. However, there is no

material on record -U> ^how that these representations wero

siibiirtted by the workman. The workman also stated that

he fell sick from 1987 tQ.199_5. To prove his fitness he filed

Ex. W8 medical certificate dated 1-5-2000 issued by one

Di. C. Radhakanth a registered medical practitioner, Visa-

khapatnam. The certificate -is only to prove that he was fit

to serve but there is no medical evidence to show that about

his sickness during the period from 1988 to 1997 so as to

condone the delay in approaching this Tribunal. Of couise,

the delay

is .not a ground to reject the grievances of the

petitioner-workman, rbut ,thqrq i.^s^no other material for the

workman to show that the.onauiry held in this case is not im

accordance with the procedure and in violation of the prin-

ciples of natural justice. If really there was any such ille-

gality or irregularity or nQH-observance of the principles of

natural justice, the workman would have not kept quite for

all these years. Though he filed Ex. W4 to W7 to show

that he made representations to the General Manager, there

is no material on record to support as- to- the submission of

such representations. There is no endorsement npr there

arc any acknowledgements from the concerned authorities

about the submission of these representations EJCS. W4 to W7

by the workman. In the absence of any such material, it is

very easy for the workman to fabricate these Exs. W4 to

W7. It is not the case of the workman that these represen-

tations are sent by R.P.A.D. or otherwise, but orally he stated

that he made representations that he wa.s, regularly correfc-

ponding with the management as shown in Exs. W4 to W7.

Further, he preferred the appeal and revision ,and they were

dismissed as could be seen from Exs. W2 and W3.. The

order made In the revision was in the year 1988 and subse-

quently he kept quite for about 10 .years end odd. If really

the petitioner was aggrieved, he would have resorted

approach this Tribunal, for the redressal of-his grievance. His

failure to do so drawn an adverse inference against the

case of the workman.

Therefore, the case of the workman cannot, be accepted

as true.- L ' .On the other hand, the enquiry,.hekj in this case

is held valid and it was proper and because of the affirm of

time, the management could not file the record as It was

clettrOyed. Therefore, under the circumstance, T see

merits In this appllcatoin.

f 141 In the reujjlt. the-petition is dismissed and nil award

h passed. No order as to costs In the circumstances of

tho cose.

IJlctated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand

nnct seal of the court this the 27th day of December, 2000.

K. VEERAPU NATDU, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN ITI'D ro

9/90

Witnesses Examined :

For Workman :

For Management :

WWl : K. Venkateswarlu

MWl : P.S.R. Anjayulu

WW2 : Dr. Radhakanth

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Workman :

. . . - . . ,

Ex. WI : 4-4-85 : Removal order.

Ex. W2 : 3-7-85 : Orders on the appeal.

T-.X. W3 : 13-2-88 : Orders on the revision petition.

Ex. W4 : 5-1-93 :. Review application to the Genernl

Manager, SE Railway, Calcutta,

Ex. W5 : 26-1-95 : Representation by the workman,

Ex. W6 : 20-1-97 : Representation letter by the work-

man.

Ex.' W7 : 1-1-98 : Representation letter by the work-

man.

Ex, W8 : 1 -5-2000 : Fitness certificate Issued by

Dr.

C. Radhakanth,

\HT

For Management:

Ex. Ml : The Railway servants (Discipline and App.Jj

Rules, 1968.

Ex. M2 : The Railway Services .Conduct) Rul.s, 19^f<6.

New Delhi, the 27th Febiuaiy, 2001

S.O. 644.—In pursuance ot Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of J947), the Cendal Government

hereby publishes the award of tht. Central Government In-

dustrhl Tribunal /Labour Court, Kanpur as s'linvn in tic

annexure in ihe Industrial dspute between the employers in

relation to the management of United India Insujancc Co.

Ltd. und¹ their workman, which was lcccivcd by tho Central

Government on 26-2-2001.

[No. L-17012/176/90-IRiB-U)]

C. GANOADUARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBCNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR

SUBJECT:—Ciariflauion U/s 36(4) of the Indmtiial Dis-

pute; Act, 1947, regarding interpretation of .word

dated 5-3-97 rendeied by this tribunal in ID. No.

94 of 1991 with reference lo the letter of Govern-

ment of India fUted 26-5-20QQ.

Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide is no 'iica-

tiou No. 17012/176/9(MR(B-2) dated 26-6-91 had referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribi-nil:~

Whether the action of the management of United India

Insurance Co. Limited in imposing a penally o"

reduction of basic p.iy from Rs 25') to R\ 195 o"

Sri C. P. Soni. with effect from th.* date of receipt

of order dated 11-6-85 upto tV date of receipt of

order dated 30-9-87 h lustified ">

2. Are the drcRon, at thj Discirl'nary Authiuty ^o J r

dated H-6-85) and Aprr-Und- Authotity O0-<>-R7) declining

to treat the period of su^cptrTiion as period spnt oii duty

just'fled and in the workman entitled lo any benefits of full

pay aud allowances for fhe period of strr>cns^:on counting

of penodi of Eusi-iiiJo-i ~°r the purport of iticemcnt senioiity

etc, ?

3. Is !he workman's alleqritjcvi that I- ? -seniority was arbi-

tral ily charged by tho management cotrect?

4. Whether the action of the manapcmi-iii in no'

giiirs

promotion to the woiktnnn w.c.f. Arnl 1987 is itisf (Vd 7

5. To what relief, ff any, is the worVnnn entitle lo?

2. After considering the pleading of thu parties and evi-

dence on the rei-crd thU tribnnp] pp.^ed an avmri on 5-3-97.

When this award was placed before A I C ( D (MI its IFTIOIC-

mentati"i both the parties interpreted th: rrrtii". m r a r >phs

Of this award ip th»Jr fivour and ALC(C) felt difricuirv in

fmnlnnentini; (he svB'd 'nonce he wrote n 'ritt— d ted 24 6-98

to (h* Cm "-n-"-nt of Tnd'a Ministry of T/t^oiir for seek'ns

cl;infira'^;ii-> hv thi tribunal of its award dated 5-3-97 regn-d-

irta Ci- <t<h n'v w-itiom rc^de by the tribunal in its award,

771 OI/2001—15

Af'er get'iujt that letter the Government of India, Ministry

iU Labour, New Deihi, has referred the matter to this tri-

bunal for interpretation of the award in the light cf the

letter of ALC(C) Kanpur. After receipt of the letter dated

2o-5-2000, jottccs vere sent to the parties whe mude their

r-.ipectivj repii'^-ntauon in writing re^ardins interpietation

of the aw aid

.¹>. 1 have heaid '.he rcprjucniatives for both the sides uni

h'vj uoms thiough thr recoid of the case. The award pa'sed

by this tribunal and the intcrpetation sought by ALC(C)

r yarding certdn observation of this tribunal in the award-

4. The five points v/hich wcrft referred to ihis tiibuna) in

indu ^Tial depute ca*e No. 94/91 for adjudication were de-

cided by tint, tnbunal npainst the manaficment. and the orders

of puniil-rr.-nt mentioned at head Nos. 1 and £»?f schedule

of tlu reference order were held to be unjuatinea.

In the

end (his iribuii«.l r^sed following order—

Accordingly my award is that the punishment of con-

cerned workmen awarded under head¹ one and two

aie not justified and the concerned workman will b'J

entitled for all bencf.ts as if he wat not awarded

cny punishment.

Nothing has been said regarding

3rd anct 4th part of the reference, hence they are

amvcievl against the concerned workman, it is made

clear that the ben.oi ity of the concerned workman

has been changed aad ho has not been given pro-

motion on ihe bas,is of punishment on the basis of

domestic rnquiiy the same shall not now be obstacle

in granting Lhc same by the management:—

The ot^ervsttions of the tribunal which have been re-

fened io thi tnbunal for interpretation by the

government with reference to the letter of ALC(C),

dated 24-6-93, whichever follows :—

and the concerned workman will be

enhtlecf Tor all benefits as if he was not awaid^J

any punishment.

it is mide clear that the seniority of the concerned

workman has been changed and he has not b»en

given nrorr.otion ou the basis of punishment on the

jiasts of dome tic enquiry the samj thall not now

be obstacle in granting the same by the management.

Fror> final order passed by this Tribunal as mentioned

nbove ard from the aforesaid observation of this tribunal

if is c\-?\ thru punishments mentioned at head Nos. 1 and 2

of the reference onfer were found to be unjustified bv this

tribunal and this tnbunal held that the concerned workman

\v,II be entitled to all benefits as ho was not awa-ded any

punishment.

Thus the orders of puni^chment as mentioned

under head Nos. 1 and 2 became non cu and they could

tint be any obstacle in granting <;e>y"cc benefits to (he con-

rcinrtf vio'l man r^tjnrding his sen'ority and promotion which

w&re adversely affectrd duo to the punishment awarded to

him. In other words the concerned workman became entitled

fo get hU original ?enionty which he wa« nettin« in tho cadra

of Apslsrnni hi foi-e the punishments were awarded to hV\

," ill I'IO bccune entitled to be considered for promotion

from the same date when his noxt junior was promoted to

th" rwt cT Senior Aisi'tTnt and if he was found fit he should

be Riven pirmotioni f-om the same date when his next

junior un^r- promoted- Thoie benefits are to be given to the

concerned workman as if he was not awarded inv punl^h-

roent

t nr.y point of time. Finally this tribunal made clear

that «<; ifie sen'oritv of the- concerned¹ workman has been

chanted <uid Ve has no* been given promotions on the bpsls

of rniimrrnont, the

punishment Rhnl) not now be obstacle

In ^ n ^ i n j hs oi-if^nal 'cniority in the ,-ndrc of Aasi^tant^

which h- Hfi' ^ttinij b^ore the punishment wai ftwsrdfd

*'> Iiirti and was JIISO cn^fitled to bn considered for promotion

frrm Aw: dale whrn his no\t junior was promolsd as If the

pforc'U(f j-uni-hment was not passed¹ against him.

5 From the iccoM \* is c'^ar tint fb* roncernrd vorkmnn

tvvihf

hi- oi-fpinni neniority in his statement o* cWm

v-.tb ref,.rcnr- *o spnin-;tv Ust dated 17-7-R7. He had also

^M"ht piomot'on" lo ne rost of Senior As^rtant v v f /*nr<1

!9K7 j», fii* v-"- debarred from his promotion on fircount of

r^tn^{r^^.H niTi'-'iiiiT^ awarded to h'"m which haie besn beia}

M bi: u-wiVfrd

bv this tribunal

It appear* that this trl-

Im-vil mad' ob'ervation^ regardinn III and IV part of the

reference in advertently tint nothing has been said

1274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART ll—SEC. 3(il)]

those points by the workman and they arc answered against

the uorkman, specially when the award has granted benefits

of seniority and promotions to the concerned workman even

b'-'fore making observations regarding III and IV part of the

reference and also in the sub equent part of the award. The

oliscivrttions made on points at head Nos. Ill and IV part

of the refeience appear to have been made due to inadvert-

ence and they carry no weight in view of clear findings

of this tribunal regarding punishment and also regarding giv-

inc h'm seniority and promotions which were changed and

withheld due to the punishments awarded to him.

The award referred to above is clarified accordingly.

Dated: 29th January, 2001

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

SO. 645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Depute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Certral Government

hereby publishes the award of the Cefitral Government

Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

In relation to the management of UCO Bsnk and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 27-2-2001.

[No. L-12012/56/98-IR(B-IU]

C. OANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRA! GOVFRNrvfENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT •

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer,

Reference No. CGIT : 61/? Ml)

Employers tn relation to the Management of

UCO Bank

AND

Shri Panchratan Kashinath Na^rale

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,

by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

the

Tpd""t^r"a1 Depute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for

ad;»d'cflt<'oii vide order No. L-12012/56 98-lR(B. II) dated

30-11-1998 on the following schedulo.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of UCO Bank city name

braach Chandrnpur is justified In terminating the

services of Sh. Panchratan Kashlnnth Naarale w.e.f.

7-5-97 without following the provisions of I.D. Act,

1947. If not, whrft relief the disputant worker Is

entitled to T

This reference wan sent by Ministry of Labour to C G I T

Court. Jabalpur on 30-1I-9S. It has been received In C G.I.T,

Court, Nagpur In April 2000.

The workman Panchratan Kashinath Nagrale has claimed

that he was appointed In UCO Bank, Chandrapur in 1989

and his services were terminated on 7-5-1997, He was initially

getting payment of Rs. 10 per day. From 25-2-95 he got

wages Rs. 20 per day. From 27-10-1996 his rate of wages

was increased to Rs. 30 per day. He was working from

10.00 A.M. to 6.30 P.M. He has claimed his reinstatement

In service and back wages.

The management of UCO Bank stated that he was not

employed by bank and he did not work continuously upto

7-5-97. His appointment was not made according to rules

ar,d procedure of the bank for appointment to the poAt of

sub staff. He was paid wages from Miscellaneous expenses

for the days, ho worked.

I have heard the arguments of the representative of the

workman Shri Sahastrabuddhe and arguments of the repre-

sentative of the management of bank Shri Waman Gajanau

Joshi.

The statement of witness, workman Pancl'aratan K. Nagrale

was recorded on 24-11-2000. In his statement he has admitted

that he had not moved any application for appointment to

the post of sub staff to any Manager of the bank.

appointment letter was issued to him. He nays that he used

to work from 10,00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. It is strange that

how he worked for about 10 hours when he was not the

employee of the bank. He says that other employees of

the bank were always found drunk. He also admits that

3 peons and 1 driver were the permiraant employee of the

bank and they were drawing regular salary. His statement

shows that he used to get Rs. 30 per day. Hia statement

therefore shows that he was not appointed by the bank on

any regular post. His statement also shows that he did not

get any regular pay or any facility of the bank employee.

Thus, the statement of the workman shows that he was not

appointed by bank as a regular employee any time.

The workman did not get any appointment letter from

the bank. Ho did not met any regular salary. Hencs. he can

not be considered as the regular employee of the bank.

It the workman was not appointed according to the pres-

cribed procedure his appointment was of a daily wages

worker and his service-"! can be terminated without is«uing

any notice for termination,

The action of the management in terminating the services

of Shri Ponchnitan Kanhinath Nngrnlo w.e.f.

7-5-97 is

therefore justified.

ORDER

The action of the mana&rment of (JCO Bunk citv nnmt

brnnc'i. Chnndn»Diir it imtiflpd 'n trrnvnaHntr the services

of Shri Panchratan Kashinath Nagrale w.e.f 7-5-97.

The workman is not entitled to any rolief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Pres'dinj Officer

Dale: 06-02-2001

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O 646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their

workman which was received by the Central Government

on 27-2-2001.

[No. L-12012/58/98-IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT: 48/2000

Employers in relation to the Management of

UCO Bank

AND

Shri Hukumchand Premchand Banjnriwale

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,

by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub

section (1) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication

vide order No. L-12012/58/98-IR(B. Hj dated 29-07-1998

on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank

in terminating the services of Sh. Hukumchand

Premchand Banjariwale is legal and justified ? If not,

to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

This reference has been received from Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi. In the reference the date of termination of service

of Hukumchand Premchand Banjariwale is not mentioned

The workman had submitted his Statement of Claim in

C.G.I.T. Court at labalpur on 26-10-98. This statement of

claim was submitted by the workman himself. The manage-

ment of UCO Bank disputed the claim of the workman and

alleged that the workman was never employed by UCO

Bank and his services has not been terminated.

The workman had claimed that lie had joined service as

sub staff at Chandrapur branch in TTCO Bank in 1992. His

service were terminated on 28-6-97. He worked for more

than 240 dBys in years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Tn the year

1997 he worked for 163 days and hence the termination is

illegal. He claimed for reinstatement and back wages.

I have considered the arguments of the representative of

the workman Shri Sahastrabuddhe, who represent the work-

man Hukumchand Premchand Banjariwale. From the side

of management the case was argued by representative of the

UCO Bank.

The statement of workman Hukumchand P. Banjariwale

was recorded on 30-11-2000. His statement shows that he

worked in Mahakali Branch of UCO Bank from 1989 to

1991. No record for this period of his employment has been

submitted. He further represented thnt he was transfered

to Chandrapur Main Branch in 1992. No transfer order has

been filed in the court.

The workman further stated that he had not received any

appointment letter from the Branch Manager of the bank

Shri Kulkarni, He also did not receive *ny termination order.

No show cause notice was given to him prior to his termi-

nation. The statement of the witness in cross examination

dtd. 30-11-2000 clearly shows that neither he was appointed

by the bank through any procedure prescribed by the bnnk

nor any termination order was issued to him. His statement

also does not shows that he got any regular salary or any

other benefits of the employee of the bank. Even the state

ment of claim shows that he was being paid wages Rs. 10

per day and subsequently his rate was enhanced to Rs. 20

per day. Thus, from the statement or claim itself it is evident

that he was not appointed on any clear vacancy in the bank

for the post of sub-staff.

It in argued from the side of management of the bank that

there is standing order dated 20-5-49 regarding the appoint-

ment of regular employees in the bank under the direction

of Ministry of Finance. If any person is employed for any

specific purpose or period by the Branch Manager then he

does not get the status of a regular employee.

In view of the circumstances and evidence discussed dbove

there is nothing on record to show the workman

was

appointed against any clear vacancy and he had received any

theicfore legal and justified.

The order of management of UCO Bank in terminating

services of Shri Hukumchand Premchand Banjariwale is

tehrefore legal and justified.

ORDER

The action of the management of UCO Bnnk in disconti-

nuing the services of Hukumchand Premchand Banjariawle

is legal and justified.

He is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

The reference is answered accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

Date: 06-02-2001

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 o; 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-

dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chcnnai as shown in the

annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer*

in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their work-

man, which was received by the Central Government on

27-2-2001.

[No, L-12012/90/98-IR(B-ID1

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 9th February, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthjkeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Di'pute No. 37/2000

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication urider Section

10n)(d) and Sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes AcL

1947 between the Claimant and the Management, The General

Manager, Indian Bank, Cberraai]

1276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/CHAlTRA 3, 1923

[PART H—SEC, 3(ii)]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

Indian Bant Employees Assn..

Cbennai-

Cluiman£,I Party

AND

The General Managei,

Indian Bank,

Chennai.

ManaE-'EieGl/TI party.

APi'FARANCES:

For the Claimant : Shri D. Hariparantlisinan, V. Ajoy

Khoec, P. Vijendian.

For the Management" M/v Aiyar pnd DoKr,, ACvxates,.

Reference No. L-12012/90/98 IR(B-H) dated 2Sth Ftbiuary,

2000, Government of India, Ministry of Labour.

New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up bifoie mo for final hcanng on

23-1-2001, upon penr-ing the reference, claim statement,

counter statement and other mate.iul papers on ICUWCI, the

oral ''viJence of boih the parties and dooimentaiy evidence

let in on the side of the Management and upon licarimi ihe

ar&umcma of the counsel for the Claimant Shri D. Haripa-

r;uitliaman and the counsel Tor the Management, M/s. Aiyar

uid Delia and this dwputa having stood over li'U this date

fur ccnsiJcration this Tribunal passed the following:—

AWARD

This reference by Central Government in the exercise of

the rwweis conferiul by Clause (d) oi iub-scction (1) and Sub-

section 21 A) of Section 10 of Indusirial Disputes Act. 1947

in ic^oect of dispute between Shri P. Ethirty. Workman and

the General Mana^.r, Indian B<mk, Chennai, Management,

mentioned a^c Schedule appended to the ordir of reference,

1 he Schedule reads as follows :—

''Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank

in terminating the services of Shri P. Ethiraj, Jewel

Appraiser of P. V. Kalathtrr branch ia justified end

lccdl ? IF not, whnt relief is the ili;piua(Jt couccrne-;

entitled to ?"

On receipt of this reference, this Industr'al Dispute lws Ixea

taken on file of this triDuna) on 4-^-2000 as Industrial Dii,; me

No. 37 '2000.

(in receipt of ihc notice from tfvs t.-ihr/w¹.

both the parties, appeared with their respective counsel and

filed their respective claim ttalcment and counter statement.

2. The averment* of the claim statement of the Clnimantjl.

JPnrtv aie briefly as follows *-—

The first party claimant, the Genera! S^rctaiy, Indian Bank

Employee- Association. C hennai (hereinafter refer lo a the

Petitioner¹) has raised this Indunrtia! Dispute espousing the

cause of Shri P. l'thiraj, a member of (he union. The con-

cerned disputant Shri P. Ethiraj was employed fis a J>wel

Appraiser in P. V. Kalathur Blanch of the II Party huhk

hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) from 1977, During

1986. the jewel loan was sanctioned to a party baied on some

jewels which was laier found to be spurious. On that parti-

cular date many jewel loans were enntcd.

S i n v^,

n e h a d

t o

awwss and appraise fcwels for many loans, it was not nble

to be dfducted at the time of pledge.

On coming to know

about this, immediately, Mr. Ethiraj, contacted the pnrty to

redeem the jewels and the party had also redeemed¹ the jewels

However. Mr. Fthiraj was denied employment from 29-9-87

without nnv notice and without any rhyme or reason. There-

after Mr. Efbiraj approached the Bank several tunes and

requested to reinstate him in service. But there was

tt-'non-e

Hence, he made a written representation and re-

quested the Bank to provide him employment. AR there was

no reply, he sent letters d-iicd 4-10-93. 4-7'95 and J 5-2-96

=ik» rcque-stcd the Bank to reinstate him in service. Since

there was no reply from the Bank for any of his written

riipie'.tmtution and the l-sue iclatinu to his non-employment,

the»Ptnt)Onci Union has taken up the matter before the

kegioiiBl Labour Commissioner (C) at Llsennai for concilia-

lion. Ihc Management I-J thsir leratrks filed before the con-

ciliating uinnority contended that the piroishmcnt imposed on

Mr. L./Jiraj w^i justified on Ihe ground that the flank was

a dnuuciul institution.

The B.ink never denied ihtit the ter-

tnuiation w^¹* without any enquiry and the workman concern-

ed was not at all given any opportunity to explain and

pultorth ins ca^e. Itic Petitioner filed their rejoinder cate-

goiicahy natinj} the provisioru, of tne awards, statements and

tiiLiilais ivgaro.nu 111'.* pioccdures foi diaciplinaj-y action and

ihey v/eie not followiJ in the case oi Mr. Ethiraj. Petitioner

also cuntendi.il th.U the action ol the Management in termi-

lining ihe services of J\Ir. Ethiraj was in utter disregard of

thii piinaplci o* n.,tuial justice.

As the conciliation was

endcii HI tinluie, u lailuie report wan sent to the Government

Iii Liui. ot relurnng the dispute for adjudication, Gov^rn-

mciii OL India by an order dated 20-10-98 declined to refer

Hie dispute on tiic giouiid lhat the jewel appraiseis are, not

wo/kitten and there was no relationship of master and ser-

•wi.it, <i,ne>i H vi.ii>i not even t'w plea of the MHnasemcnt, The

Penuoir.r Union fi.cd W.P. No. 19997 of 1998 in the Honour-

aDle U.j^ri Court to quash the Government Order dt. 20-10-98.

The s.ail writ petition was allowed and (hereafter the Gov-

witmcuL oj

lutiia refvrjed this dispuio for

adiudu-ation.

The actioQ in terminating the services of Shu P. Ethiraj,

is wholly illegal unjust and arbitraly.

The Honourable

Industrial Tribunal of Madras passed an award in the In-

dustrial Depute No. 25|77 on 3-12-7'J holding that the

appraisers arc enlided to wa^es and other conditions of ser-

vice applicable to regular clerical "staff as pnrt-l^;ine em-

ployees oi' the Bonk and that they would bi entitled to

half of the wages and benefits of clerical stall with effect

rrom 1-4-77, tlie date of reference. The bonk filed writ

petition and thereafter writ appeal before the High Court

and the award wag upheld. "Thereafter the bank took up

the matter before the Honourable Supreme Court as special

leave petition and the same was lejecied by the Supreme

Court on 10-10-90 confirming the cwurd. Thereafter, the

flink fram-d a scheme called Scheme of Service Condi-

tions of the Jewel Appraisers based on the award and re-

culaiised the jewel appraisers as part time clerical staff

m 1|2 scale of pay and other benefits of tha clerical staff

with effect from 1-4-77 and also paid arrears from 1-4-77

to all the jewel appraisers, Mr. P. Fthiraj was also paid

ai rears from 1-4-77 to 24-9-87. In fact, as pur the above

award and scheme. Mr, P. Kthiraj was also deemed to be

regularised as part time clerical staff with effect fiom l-4-77i

Therefore, terminating the services of Mr. Eth'iraj, a regu-

lar workman without issuing any notice and without follow-

ing any procedure contemplated under law is illegal and

arbitrary. The Bank itself stated In the scheme relating to

jewel appraiser that the jewel appraisers will be subject

to the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authorities for award

staff of the branches in which they are posted and tho dis-

ciplinary proceedings will be governed by the provision-* of

fpefion 19(12) of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-66.

Hence, the action of the Bank Management in terminating

the services of Mr. P. Ethirai without following the pro-

cedures

disciplinary

action

for

award

staff

illegal and violativc of the whole scheme and bipar-

tite strfcracnt.

Any

dismissal rr

discharge for

misconduct shall he precceded by- a fair properly con-

ducted enquiry cither in accordance with the Certified

standing orders or in ?ccordance with tJhe principles

of natural justice. But¹ in this case, admittedly when

Mr. Ethiraj

has been

terminated/dismissed as a

punishment for misconduct, the Respondent ought to

have conducted enquiry either

in accordance wifh

the bipartite, settlement or in accordance witJi the

principle! of natural justice.

Not doinp; so is illegal

mri violative of the judgement of the, Supreme Court.

Tlie Rrapondent before resorting to dismissal by way

of punishment had not issred any charge sheet and

.informed the wrarkmnn about the'misconduct alleged

against him and he. bad not conducted any encniirv to

prove trw mfceanrfijct.

Ho reason wis i?ivn by the

respondent

for dispensing with

the enquiry

The

workman had not been informed of about the npason

for his termination.

He had been deuied opportunity

to explain and putforth iiis casts. Therefore the "ac-

tion of the Respondent in terminating the services of

Mr. Ethiraj was in utfer disregard of and in flagrant

violations of the principles of natural justice.

It is a

violation of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. In

any event! since the termination was only for negli-

gence and when it was not wiilfuil or intentional and

There was no loss to ths br.nk and when his entire

past record was clean

and

unblemished one, the

punishment of dismissal

from

service amounts to

victimisation,

unfair labour

practice and colourful

exercise of powers and the dismissal is exercise and

disproportionate. If the termination was nof for any

misconduct, it amounts to retrenchment and if is void

ab intio as a mandatory obligation under section 25(f)

had not been complrH wifh by the Respondent before

terminating his services. Hence, it is prayed thnt this

Honourable Tribunal may bs pleased to pass an award

holding that the action of the Management in ter-

minating the services of Sh. P. Ethiraj, jewel apprai-

ser of P. V, Kalathur Branch as illegal and unjusti-

fied and consequently

direct

the Management! to

reinstate Sh. P. Ethiraj as a regular part time jewel

appraiser, with continuity of service, backwages and

oiSier attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the counter statement, of the

Respondent | II

Party

Management are briefly

follows:—

The Petitioner Association raised this Dispute only

on 15-3-96, after a delay of about 9 years from the

date of

alleged

non

emclovment.

The terms of

reference are incompetant and are liable to be rejected

the ground that

they are vitiated by laches and

bclatedness. Hence the

Honourable

court may be

pleased to reject the reference on the ground of the dis-

pute having been initiated by laches and belafedness.

During 1986 as a jewel appraiser working on com-

mission basis under an agreement, the concerned jewel

appraiser Sh. P. Ethiraj

examined certain jewels es

regard to the quality, quantify and genuineness. It is

based upon his certificate jewr-1 loans were advanced

at P. V. Kalathur Bfanch.

It WJS only in 1987, it

came to lighC that with regard to a particular transac-

•'tion that he certifies spurious gold jewels as genuine

. gold jewels based on which loan was advanced to the

party concerned.

But for the inspection made by the

Bank, it would not have come to light at all.

If is

not correct for the Petitioner to allege thp.t On any

date during 1986, thcrs were many jewels loans gran-

ted. Even assuming that very many jewels were Verified

and certified Mr. P. Fthirnj by virtue of being a profes-

sional man and goldsmith cannot get himself absorbed

of his responsibility to certifv

genuine gold jewels,

in 1987, after

inspection Sh. P. Ethiraj contacted

the party >o redeem the spurious jewels and the party

;>lso redeemed the spurious jewels does not nbs^r''

Sh. Ethiraj

his

iruilt.

was

account

of his own making and conduct, he ceased to be the

Hvcl appraiser of P. V. Kalathur Branch.

vr*

only on account of his own conduct, he was not ap-

proaching the Bank right from 1987 up'o 1993 seeking

any reRf. During the pendency of W.P, pnd\V.A. and

till 10-10-90. d\l the jewel appraisers

were treated

pnly as persons engaged on contract under individual

agreements. Thus, there is no scope for holding any

enquiry against Sh. Ethiraj. Hence the allegation that

opportunity

was given to Sh. Ethiraj

or that

no enquiry was conducted arc without substance.

As on 1987, there was no scheme in contemplation

specifically intended fox the jewel appraisers engaged

1 on commission and contract basis. Factually, in 1987

Sh. Ethiraj was only a jewel appraiser engaged on

commission basis under specific agreement. He ad-

mitted the position thai he was guilty of certifying

spurious jewels as genuine gold jewels,

only after

Ihe baice was detected by the Bank in 1987 and on

that factual basis, he was keeping quite till 4-10-93,

when for the first time he sought to send the letter.

It was because, he came know in

1992

that

the

Bank had formulated a scheme making the jewel ap-

praisers as part time clerks of the Bank.

Nothing

prevented

Sh. Ethiraj or the Petitioner's

Assn to

espouse the cause of Sh. Ethiraj

to approach the

bank for job even before the implementation of the

scheme. It was only on account

of the fact

that

Ethiraj is guilty of his serious misconduct neither he

nor the Petitioner Assn. choctee to raise- any dispute

relating to the non-employment of

Sh. Ethiraj. A

case of negligence is sought

to be pleaded.

Being

engaged as an appraiser

in a banking

institution

which deals with public money cannot afford to be

negligent, because, based on his certification amounts

were advanced to the public. Hence, the Bank can-

not continue the services of a person whose integrity

and honesty were found to be doubtful. Only reali-

sing these positions, Ethiraj himself

did

not stake

any claim for well over a period of

6 years.

having ceased to be the jewel appraiser from 1987

there was no scope for implementing the scheme by

holding enquiry afterwards. There is no

scope for

the Petitioner to invoke article 14 or article 21 of the

constitution of India. When loans

were

advanced

basul on his certification while being the appraiser

of the Bank, the negligence exhibited was grave and

serious. Further, he took steps to approach the cus-

tomer only after inspection and not before that. He

committed an act which made the Bank to loose con-

fidence in him. This act done by him by itself is very

serious in nature, which disables the Bank to take a

lenient view in the matter. He ceased

the

jewel appraiser of the Bank which is neither excessive

nor disproportionate to the act

of his

misconduct

admittedly committed by him. The question of there

being any retrenchment'does not arise

because Mr.

Ethiraj was onlv a jewel appraiser on contract basis

during 1987 and he ceased to be such jewel apprai-

ser on account of his own misconduct. The allegation

as to unfair labour practice, victimization are with-

out substance. Hence this Honourable court may be

pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner Aisn.

and reject the reference.

4. The Respondent has filed an additional counter

alleging that from the old records of the years 1985

to 1*987, it came to light, that the concerned jewel

appraiser has certified as many as 8 spurious jewel

as genuine gold ornEments and on that basis jewel

loans were disbursed. The above facts came to light

to the bank only on the inspection made on 30-9-97

by the external auditors

after the jewels wore re-

anpraised by

ano'her jewel

appraiser of

ozhalur

branch. As a matter of fact,' the

said

Ethiraj on

3-11-87 had admitted in writing that he arranged far

1278

, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH24,2001/&lArrRA 3. 1923

[PART ri-n^EC. 3(11)]

pledge of spurious jewels and had arrived the moni-

tory benefits The record showed that he had delibe-

rately and intentionly certified the spurious ornaments

as genuine gold ornaments for his own benefit as ad-

mitted by him. It is m this background, Sh. Ethiraj

ceased to come to the bank subsequent to the above

inspection by external auditors. As a matter of fact,

Sh. P. Ethiraj by his letter dt. 27-6-91 requested! the

bank to settle PF dues after acknowledging the re-

ceipt of all other benefits.

5. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the

then Manager of P. V. Kalathur Branch was examin-

ed as M.W.I and the Ex. Ml to M14 were marked.

On the side of the Totiiioner, the concerned jewel

appraiser wa^ examined as W.W.I and the Exhibits

WI to W5 and Ex. Ml2 were marked.

Then the

arguments of the counsel on either side were heard.

6. The point for my consideration is :—

Whether the action of the Managtment of Indian

Bank in terminating the services of Sh. P. Ethiraj,

jewel appraiser of P. V. Kalathur branch is justified

and legal 7 If not, what relief is the disputant con-

cerned entitled to ?

POINT.—It is admitted

that the disputant

Sh. P. Ethiraj was employed as a jewel appraiser in

P. V. Kalathur branch of Indian Bank. In the claim

statement, it is not mentioned as to how and under

viliai arrangement Sh. P. Ethiraj was engaged as a

jewel appraiser in ihe Respondent Bank's branch. In

the counter statement, it is clearly stated that Mr. Sh.

rthiraj was engaged as a jewel appraiser on com-

mivion basis under an agreement. This is not deni-

disputed by the Petitioner Union or by

the

disputant workman

himself. As W.W.I, the

jewel appraiser P. Elhiraj has admitted

in cross

examination that he joined as jewel appraiser in the

Bank on vear to year contract basis. The xerox

copies, of those contracts dated 20-12-84, 18-12-85

and 18-12-86 arc marked by

consent of both the

parties as Exhibits

Ml to M3. From this

it is

seen that the disputant workman had entered

into

with the Respondent yearly contracts for doing the

work of jewel appraiser of the Respondent

Bank's

Branch at P. V. Kalathur on contract basis. He

further

admit.

the cross

examination

that the original

contract,

under the original

of Ex. M3, which he signed in 1986 came to

an end on 17-12-1987. it is nobody's case that there

was any subsequent contractual

agreement between

the disputant and the Respondent Bank Branch.

From these oral and documentary evidence, it is evi-

dently clear that the disputant Sh. P. Ethiraj was

engaged as a jewel appraiser on year to year con-

tract basis in the Respondent Bank Branch of P V.

Kalathur.

7. In para 2 of the claim statement, the Petitioner

has stated tint Mr. Eihiraj was denied employment

from 29-9-87 without any notice and without any

rhyme or reason.

Nothing has been stated in the

claim petition ns to whether the said denial of emp-

loyment for the disputant workman by the Respon-

ded Bank's

Branch was oral or by written order.

Neither in the claim statement nor in the oral evi-

dence of W.W.I it is stated that the then

Branch

ividiiuger oi x*. V. jvuitunui i>iaiicn ot Uw Kespon-

utiit -uaiDv iiua biujj'^KAi Liic ui^jjuuuu jewel upp^otiscr

iioui otiviwti on iSj-y~at

oi iijiouucii liiin uica iic Win

nut ofc iuiuwwj. tO cuiiuiiuc iiiw juo oi jewei appumtr

in mat UiuiK. uidiicn. Wiicu ino biuu i>iaiiUi maud^er

oi me

ttosponucni:

L>OI_IK wvt. CAumnca as me

wiLaca!> ioi uie xveoponuem uanK injiuagcinciii, noifljiig

lia^ uccu Mi^gesiwi to niin in me cross ejuirnmauoa

ciiat iie only topped ifle jewel appraiser an. if. Human

on zy-y-6/ iioru service. Un me otner nand, it is

the spt^inc eviutnce ot M.sV.i that the disputant runx-

SCII mis stopped coming to the uank Dianch to do

ine woik oi me jewel appraiser.

It is also not tne

case ot die .miuoner or the disputant himseu that

me Respondent mnk Management has tenrun,ued

Ins service ot jewel appraiser in the Bank ot P. V.

Kaiamur.

ihe aveimcnis in the counter statement of

the Respondent that the question of there being any

leuencjuincni aoes not aiise cecause Jvn. ttniraj was

omy a jewei appraiser oil contract DOSJS aurini; iyiiV

auu ceased to oe such jewel appiaiser on account of

iais own misconduct i? miner n is alleged in tne addi-

tional counter oi the Respondent tiiat irom the old

records ot Ihe years 1480 to 1967, the tact that the

concerned jewel appmisci Sh, htrnraj had certiried as

many as 6 spurious jewel items as genuine gold orna-

ments and on that basis jewel loans we_re disouised,

came to light to the bank only on 3(J-y-87 when die ex-

ternal auoiiors conducted tb/* inspection and after the

jewels were reappraised by another jewel appraiser of

vadalur branch. It is further alleged that on 3-11-87

the said Ethiraj batl admitted in wntmg that he

arranged for pledge for spurious jewels and had

availed the monetary benents. In para 3 of the clarm

statement, it is clearly averred that in 1987

alter

inspection, Sh. Ethiraj contacted the party to redeem

the spurious jewels and the party also redemeed the

spurious jeweis. Though the counsel for the Peti-

tioner prayed time for liling rejoinder alter additional

counter statement has been filed by the Respondent

on 24-10-2000, no reply or rejoinder has been filed

by the Petitioner denying ths above mentioned aver-

ments ot facts both in both counter statement aud

additional counter statement filed by the respondent

bank. It is the admission of the petitioner in para 2

of the Claim Statement that Sri P. Ethirai was em-

ployed¹ as Jewel Appraiser in P. V. Kalathur branch

ot the II Party Bank from 1977 and that during 1986

the jewel loan was sanctioned to a party based on

some jewels which was later found to be spurious. On

coming to know about this, immediately, Mr. Ethiraj

contacted the party to redeem the jev els and the party

had also redeemed the jewels. Further. It is he ad-

mission of the concerned Jewel Appraiser as WW1

that the people come for inspection used to check 'the

Dimty of jewels pledged in the bank for jewel loan.

When the inspection in question was conducted the

repnlar Manager of the bank was on leave. The acting

Manager Was in-charge of the bank at that time when

the inspection done in September, 1987, they found

one of the jewels to be spurious. On inspection the

inspection authority found the quality of jewel as less.

It is the evidence of MW1. the then Manager of Indian

Bank Branch at P. V. Kalathur that when he wai

on leave and awav at Bhubancswar. he received a tele-

gram from P. V. Kalathur Branch of the Bank in-

forming him to report immediately, as inspection work

1279'

in the branch was in progress and on receipt of the

telegram, he returned back to the Bank branch. One

Mr. Loganallian Irom the Regional

Office

from

Kanjeepuram came on deputation as Branch Manager

in his place during his leave period and he informed

him about the detection of spurious jewels on which

jewel loans have been advanced and the same was

brought to light by the inspection done by the Audi-

tors and that acting Manager had sent a report to the

Regional Office.

It is his further evidence that he

has verified the same by examining those eight bags

wiih the help of a jewel appiuiser from Ozhalur and

found that they arc spurious jewels and

that on

3-U-1987 when Sri P. Ethiraj, Jewel Appraiser came

and met him, he asked him m td why he has certified

those jewels as genuine and he asked him to give a

statement. It is a>so his evidence that the said jewel

appraiser admitted his mistake on his part. So he

prepared the statement and read out to nim. There-

after, he signed that statement which was prepared

in duplicate. He sent the original statement to the Re-

gional Office nnd retained the carbon copy in their

office file. It is E\. Mt.

It is also his evidence that

they found out during the ysar 19S4, 1985 and 1986,

a total number of eipht jewel loans were sanctioned

on spurious gold jewels. For the advancement

those jewel lonns; ledger entries arc: in the bnnk nnd

four of those ledger entries are Ex, M5 to MS and

the concerned ledgers for other loan entries on the

spurious i»old iewel Imiis are not available. V is niso

adm^;tt(*rl in evidence thit Mr. Ethir"i, lewd Anrvraiser

himself told him that out of that eight- jewel loans

advanced on spurious

gold jewels, he has availed

seven loans and the office copy of the report sent by

Mr, Loganathan dated 29-9-97 to the Kanjeepuram

Regional Office is Ex. M9. In the cross-examination

also one Mr. Ethiraj came tu the bank and

asked him to give the letter about these spurious

jewels and Ex. M4 is the letter he gave on 3-11-87.

He has denied

the suggestions

that

Ex. M4

statement has been recorded by

him on his own

accord and Mr. Ethiraj has not given him one such

statement and it is incorrect to state that he has not

read over the contents of Ex. M4 to Mr. Ethirai

before he signed¹ the same and it is incorrect to say

that by threatening Mr. Ethiraj, he obtained his signa-

ture in Ex. M4 statement. When this disputant jewel

appraiser has given evidence as WW1, he has deposed

that the Manager has obtained his signature in Ex. M4

and he has not written it. It is his further evidence

that the Manager has not read aver the Ex. M4 to

him and he asked him to sign that leter to inform the

Head Office for getting him the job. It Is not hisi

evidence that the signature in Ex. M4 is not his signa-

ture and the Manager in MW1 has obtained his signa-

ture in Ex. M4 by threatening him and the said signa-

ture has been obtained under threat and coersion. He

has alsd not stated in his evidence that Ex. M4 state-

ment Was prepared by MWl himself on his own

afceord and Mr. Ethiraj has not given one such state-

ment as it has been suggested to MWl in the cross-

examination by the

learned counsel for the Peti-

tioner. A persual of Ex. M4 cleariv showi that spu-

rious jewels has been pledged in the Respondent Bank

branch for obtaining jewel loans and it was done bv

the disputant jewel appraiser Mr. P. Ethirai himself

in the name of various persons mentioned in Ex, M4.

It h also mentioned in that

statement that all those

jewels have been redeemed by steps taken by him. In

the Claim Statement" nothing has been disclosed about

this statement dated 3-1,1-1987. Ex. M4 that no such

thing had happened and one such stutement has been

prepared by the then Branch Manager himself and the

concerned jewel appraiser was threatend and coersed

to sign that statements without being informed about

the contents of the statement. If this contention of

the Petitioner now is true, the Petitioner would not

have ommited td mention the same in the

Claim

Statement itself. But the Petitioner has fair enough

to admit in the Claim Statement that the disputant

workman as the then jewel appraiser of the Bank

branch was not diligent enough to assess the purity

of the gold jewel pledged in

1986. The lcanred

counsel for the Petitioner, who had argued lhat as

admitted¹ by the Petitioner in the Claim Statement only

one such incidence had taken place when this dispu-

tant workman was as jewel appraiser at the Bank and

the same also has been subsequently redeemed, there-

by there was no loss to the Bank as such. Under

such circumstances, a lenient view can be taken to

reinstate the said jewel appraiser in service.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent had put

forth an argument that the concerned jewel appraiser

Mr. P. Ethiraj had appraised¹ the jewel, as regard to

that quality, quantity and genuineness and based upon

his certificate only the jewel loans were advanced by

the Bank branch. As it has been admitted by him in

his evidence as WW1 and the admitted overment

in the Claim Petition by the Petitioner, the Respon-

dent Batnk branch was made to advance jewel loans

on the basis of false certification of the spurious jwels

pledged as a genuine gold jewel. The very fact that

the concerned jewel appraiser himself contacted the

party to redeem the spurious jewels and the party also

redeemed that jewel clearly established that Mr. Ethiraj

is guilty of serious misconduct. The concerned work-

man being engaged as a jewel appraiser in a Banking

Institution which deads with public money,

cannot afford to be negligent because based on his

certification only amounts were advanced as loans to

the public and hence the Bank cannot continue the

services of a) person, whose integrity and honesty were

found to be doubtful.

On the

basis of materials

available as Ex. Ml 1O Ml 2 and WI to W4 in this

case, it is seen that the argument advanced bv the

learned counsel for the Respondent is co™vrt and

accntfnWe.

As it is held in the mse renr-vtH in 19QR

3 IXN 89 the Hon*Me Supreme Court "in anv bank^;nt;

business absolute devotion. dili<ren< and into"™tw r>rM

to Tv> preserved Viv everv bnriV **mnl'T"pe". TTik ri^n

of HoinT>1» Simi-"me Pnurt in tfnt c?se is quite ?nn1;-

ciMf to the fnctq of thk cpse.

9. The next argument advanced

bv the leaTned

counsel for the Petitioner is that the concerned work-

man Mr. P. Ethiraj w?s denied employment from

29-9-87 without any notice and without any reason and

the Respondent Bank management had not made

any reply when Mr. Ethiraj approached the bank seve-

ral times and requested them to reinstate him in ser-

vice and for his letters dated 4-10-93, 4-1-95 and

15-2-96 Ex. WI to W3 no reply was received from

the bank and that the termination was without any

enquiry and the workman was not at all given any

opportunity to explain and put forth his case and the

action of the management hi terminating the services

of Mr. Ethiraj was m utter disregard of principles of

*2*0

THE GAZETTE Q£ mt>XA : MARCH 24 2001/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART H*-$BC. 3(H)]

natural justice.

It is his fuithcr contention that the

management before resorting to such dismissal by way

ol piunsnnient had not issued any charge sheet

and

informed the workman about the misconduct alleged

against nun and had not conducted¹ any cnquiiy

piove the misconduct.

FuUher the management has

not given any reason for dismissing from the employ-

ment and the workman had been denied opportunity

to explain and put torth his case and hence the action

of the management is illegal, as the mandatory obli-

gatory under section 25F had not been complied with

before terminating his service.

For this learned coun-

sel for the Respondent replied that but for the inspec-

tion made by the authorities, it would not have come

to light that Mr. P. Elhiraj, Jewel Appraiser had certi-

fied the suprious gold jewels as genuine gold jewels

dud only after the detection of the same in the inspec-

tion by the officers, he had admitted his guilt. It was

only on account of nis own conduct he was not ap-

proaching the bank right from 1987 upto 1993 seeking

any relief.

His first letter is only on 4-10-93

averred in the Claim Statement and in his

evidence

as WW1. Except his own interested version there is

no acceptable or substantial evidence to show

that

subsequent to 1987 incident of his misconduct,

ever approached the Bank foi his job as Jewel Apprai-

ser, till he sent the written requisition in Ex. WI dated

4-10-93.

Till such time the

Petitioner Association

albo has not taken any steps, to espouse the cause of

this disputant

workman

Mr. Ethiraj.

Only after

cominft to know that in 1992 the Bank had format-

ted a scheme for the jewel appraisers, the Petitioner

Association had come forward to espouse the cause

of Mr. Ethiratj and not before that, that is only because

of the serious misconduct of the concerned workman.

It was further argued that as on 1987 there was

scheme in contemplation specifically intended for jewel

appraisers engaged on commission and on

contract

basis.

All the jewel appraisers were treated only as

persons engaged on contract under individual agree-

ments and there was no scope for holding any enquiry

against Mr. Ethiraj immediately after his misconduct

has been detected by the inspecting authority fdr the

bank.

Under

such circumstances, it is incorrect to

contend that the concerned workman was not issued

nnv charge sheet informing him about his misconduct

aid enquiry has to be conducted to prove his mis-

oondi'r* and there wns violation of principles of natu-

ral iu.tfire.

Only after the Supreme Court decision

nn 10-10-1990 confirming the Award of the Industrial

Tribunal, the Jtewel Appraisers would be treated

(Teemed to be regularised as part time clerical

staff

*vi h effect from 1-4-1977.

Hence, non-issuance of

anv charge sheet for his misconduct and not conducting

any domestic enquiry does not at afll arise.

Further

the misconduct has been soecifically admitted by the

disputant workman Mr. P. Fithiraj himself. Under such

circumstances the arguments advanced by the teamed

counsel for the Petitioner should not be accepted. A

ppnml of the materials available in this case would

wo to show that the oreuments

advanced by

trie

leamM counsel for the Respondent is proper and

c?nnot be refected as unacceptable.

10. The learned counsel for fh*» Petitioner has re-

nrr«*ntfv1 that this industrial Tribunal n n

take

lenient view considering the fact that there is only

one incidence of misconduct and can set aside

the

puni&hnient awarded! by the Management against the

concerned workman Mr, Ethiraj

and

consequently

direct the management Respondent to reinstate bim as

a leguiar pail-ume appraiser without back wages.

A his argument ot the learned conubel for the Peti-

tioner requesting this Tribunal to take a sympathetic

view in respect of imposing punishment for admitted

misconduct, of the concerned Jewel Appraiser cannot

be accepted as a valid argument; It is decided

1989 2 LLJ 194 by the High Court of Madras that

"When Jie finding is chat employee committed fraud

continued in

emplo>ment of the person

who com-

mitted fraud would be prejudicial to the interest of

the bank.

The Industrial Tribunal is a judicial forum

to record conclusions based on findings and available

rekvant materials.

When the discretion vested with

the Tribunal to intcrefere with the quantum of punish-

ment should be properly exercised by discharging its

fund'on judicialy and discretion power does not mean

licence to direct reinstatement even where it is

not

warranted aiid to set aside the order of dismissal when

records did not warrant such setting aside the order

of dismissal and that Industrial Tribunal cannot inter-

fere with the quantum o^F punishment, if proved mis-

conduct is grave in nature warranting dismissal from

service.

It is also held in that decision that employee

cinnot claim right to commit fraud during the course

of emplovment i nd cmpioyse should maintain ethical

stanrVds embodied in TJICS and regulations and ethical

standards cannot be appended on the plea that justice

shouM be rendered with

mercv

and the employee

shouM maintain minimum standard of integrity jind

thtt ewfllrc) of reinstatement and bock waees to work-

man who" dH not maintain minimum standnrd

intfp-itv wonM amount *o rewarding fraudulent and

ri'eh'vii'st r^nc^iet f>nr) w/onM b» TnorVin* nt intrprity

PT\H hoppstv of pniorUv of workmen Ord<"T nf dis-

tti^:cc/v) enirnrit K» irtvolirT'itfil on th<* «mv'nrt of svm-i

r>'f>vce "'

Th's ratio in this (fcritirvrt of tb»

Hirb

Court of Madras is qi'ite applicable to this prp«*nt

case.

Here in this CTS^ thi°- ooncern<M workman him-

self T"is ndm'ttpd thr- m^;sconr?uct and ihrrt> nre sr"ffi-

n^r*t Tnntp"fl1<t pvniii'iV iri tbis cacp t1m+ thf. con'-'¹T^r"^>r'

vrr"-'^Tn"n TVfi" T?th'r3? J^ r^n^Tis'Tii" fo"" tTi/»

i m w

tnisrotirt"^ pJnH nnHi»r "MIHI ci^rf""rnetnriTS Tn V'J»W nf

tl»-> rVfi'-'on nf T-T1<T1I d v i t of Mirir-n; r-itf»H ibnvc

tJ,j-> irnntn^nt nriviti.-tprT Imr t1n» 1f»tvTiPr! orvitiqpi fnr fhf»

PeWcmer ^equesrinp this Tribunal to show TTIPTCV on

th» disontunt workman Towel Appraiser Mr P Ethirni

for his reinstRtrnertt of service as a palrt-tim'o iewel

nnrvaiscr without back Wnves cannot be accentabic.

Under^cnch drrnms^fance^<; in M'CW of mv conclnsinns

fiV>vo, T am of the considered opinion that the action

of the m«ma<wTTV<*Tvt of th<°; Trtd'a^i Pank in ferminatinc

*hr senn"ee of Mi-. P Ethii-ai Jewel Ar>tn-aise*r

f V Kainthnr Brirch i¹; ins^rifi<H and lepp^ find thnt

disputant concerned is not entitled to any relief prayed

for by the Petitioner Claimant.

Thus, I answer the

point accordingly.

11. In the result an Award¹ is passed holding that

the relief prayed for by the Petitioner

Employees

Association which espousing the cause of disputant

workman Mr, P. Ethiraj cannot be granted, as con-

cerned workman n not entitled to any lelief prayed for.

No cost.

1281

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed

and

typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on the day,

9th

February,

2001.

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined

For Claimant|I Party : WW1 Sri P. Ethiraj.

For Managemcnt|II Farty : MW1,

Sri.

Venkatavaradhan.

Documents Marked.

For Claimant 11 Farty.

Ex. No.

Date

Description

WI 04-10-93 : Xerox copy of the letter

from

the T Party to the Management.

W2 04-07-95 : Xerox copy of the letter from

the I Party to the Management.

W3 15-02-96 : Xerox copy of the letter

from

the I Party to the Management.

: Xerox copy of

Postal

Acknowledgement Card.

—

: Original Fostal Acknowledge-

ment Card.

For Management

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ml 20-12-84 . Xerox copy of the

Agreement

hetween Sri P. Ethiraj and the Management

for annual renewal of contract.

M2 18-12-85 : Xerox copy of the agreement bet-

ween Sri P. Ethiraj and the

Management

for Annual renewal of contract.

M3 18-12-96 : Xerox copy of the argument bet-

ween Sri P. Ethiraj and the Management for

annual renewal of contract.

03-11-87 : Copy of the contention letter of

Sri P. Ethiraj.

M5 05-07-85 : Oricinal Ledger page of Jewel

loan Nd. 4570|85.

M6 16-12-85 : Original Ledger page of Jewel

loan No. 4712J85.

M7 20-12-85 : Original Ledger page of Jewel

loan No. 4720185.

M8 11-03-86 : Original Ledger page of Jewel

loan No. 4798(86.

M9 2909-87 : Cooy of the letter from Manager

fActing) to the Regional Manager, Indian

Batnk regarding discrepancy founci in jewel

packets.

M10 13-10-87 : Xerox copy of the Inspection

Report of External Auditors.

Mil 26-03-91 : Xerox cooy of the Award of the

CGIT, Cliennai in the matter of Jewel Ap-

praisers engaged on contract basis.

M12 27-06-91 : Xerox copy of the letter from

the I Party of the Management with regard

to PF Settlement.

771 GI|2001—16

- '

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh as shov n

in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of

Canara

Bank and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 27-2-2001,

[No. L-12O12|104|95-IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRT

JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT., INDUSTRIAL

TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDTGARH

Case No. I.D\ 84|96

Atma Ram

CIO Arun Ghai.

Canara Bank Staff LInion,

B-XI|1662, RariMohala,

Ludhiana.

- • Workman.

D.G.M. Canara Bank.

Circle Office,

Sector-34, Chandigarh

.Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Notie.

For the Management.—Hari Haran.

AWARD

Passed on 7th February, -2001

The Central Govt, vide gazette notification No, L-

120121104195-IROMn dated 9th September,

1996

has referred the following disoule to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether

the

action of the

Management of

Canara Bank represented throueh

D.G.M.

Canara Bank, Circls Office. Chandigarh in

terminating the services of Shri Atma Ram,

a DaMv rated sub-staff in Solan branch of

the Bank w.e f. 6-10-86 i-v Icpal and justi^

fied ?

If nor ? To v.hat relief the workman

is entitled and from what date?"

*iS2

THE GAZETTE OF TNpiX: MARCH 24, 20G1/CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PA»T H - 5 E C . 3(3)]

2. None has put up appearance on behalf of the

workman despite sevcul notice.

No claim statement

. has been filed. Cas? is pending singe 1996. It appears

that workman is nut interested to pursue wjlh

the

present reference,

Tn view of the above, present re-

ference is returned to the Appropriate Govt, for want

of prosecution.

Appropriate Govt, be informed.

Chandigarh.

7-2-2001,

U. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, thi 28th Febiuary, 200J

SO. 649.—In puisuanee of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industnal Tribunal Chandigarh as shown

in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Punjab

Naf'onai Bank and¹ then workman, vhich

was re-

ceived by the Central Go-eminent on 27-2-2001.

[No

L - 1 2 0 J 2 | 1 1 8 | 9 5 - T R ( B - I I ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRT

'ATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRA!

GOVf, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUVM,ABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

No. ID 49'96

Rmt. Sharda Devi

C|o Shri Thakur Shah,

General Secretary,

PNB Staff Association,

RIO Chak Mudhi

P.O. Mudhi,

Distt. Janrmn

Workman.

Regional Manager,

Pmiriiri National Bank,

Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu

- .Management.

APPEAR \NCFS •

1. For the workman --None,

2. For the management.—Shri Vinod Kumar,

AWARD

Parsed on 1-2-2001

The Central Govt, vide gazette notification No. L-

12012|118|95-IR(B-2) dated 30th April, 1996

has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of PNB

Jammu

in terminating the

services

Smt. Sharda Devi, Part time sweeper w e.f.

20-8-92 is legal ancT justified ? If not, what

relief is the said workman entitled to ?"

2. Today the ca»se was fixed for filling of

claim

s'atement. Despite sever-il notices, none has put

apperances on behalf of the workman.

It appears

that woikman is not interested to pursue with

the

present reference. In view of the above, the present

reference is returned lo the Ministry for want of pro-

secution. Appropriate Govt, be informed.

Chandigairh.

1-2-2001.

B. L. TATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 650.—Tn pursuance

o* Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government heicby publishes the award of the Cen-

tial Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh

shown in the anuexure in the Industrial Dispute bet-

ween the employers in telation to the management of

Central Bank of India nncf their workman, which was

received by the Central Governmnet on 27-2-2001.

[No

L-12012ll60|95-IR(B-II)l

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

JATAV

PRESIDING

OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL

TRTBUNAI-CUM-T.ABOUR

COURT

CHANDIGARH

Case No. 1011%

R. K. Sbarma,

Secretary.

Cent™] Bank of fndtrt.

Firmlovees Union 'P.'nfaM

H90'37B,

Chahdigarh.

... Workman.

1283

Vs."

Chief Manager,

Cential Bank of Indiu,

Sector-17B,

Cjhandigarh.

... Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Wojkman.—Workman in person.

For the Management—Shammi Kaplish.

AWARD

(Passed on 7th of February, 2001)

The Central Govt, vide Gazette Notification No. L-

12O12|16O|95-1RB. II dated lb-10<-199o has referred

the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica-

tion:—

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Bank

of India

represented

through

D.G.M. Central Bank of India, Zonal Office

Chandigarh in taking the duties of custo-

dial of lockers and others

duties earlier

being

performed

Scale-I from

Shri D. K. Sharma SpL Asstt, w.e.f.

1987

to 8-6-92, without making payment of offi-

ciating allow ance is justified¹' If not, to what

relief the workman is entiled to and from

which date?"

2. Case taken up today. The workman

appeared

atid made the statement that he does

not

want to

pursue with the present reference as he intends to opt

for the voluntary retirement scheme of the Bank and

requested for no dispute Award. In view of the above,

as the workman does not want to pursue with the

present reference, the same is returned to the Minis-

try as

dispuc

award. Appiopriate Govt, be

informed.

Chandigarh.

7J2-20Q1.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 651.—In

pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

1ribunal|Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to) the management of

Central

Bank of India and

their workman, which was received

by the Central

Government on 27th February, 2001.

[No. L-12()l2/167/99-IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 114/94

R. K. Sharma,

Secretary,

C.B.I. Employees Union (Pb),

Cential Bank of India, Scctcr-17-B,

Chandigarli.

.. Workman.

Regional Manager, Cential Bank of India,

Sector-17, Chandigarh.

. . Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the workman : Woikman in person.

For the management : Shri Shammi Kaplish.

AWARD

(Passed on 7th Febiuary, 2001)

The

Centrl

Govt

vide Gazette Notification No.

L-12012/167/94. 1R.B.2 dated 26th August, 1904

has referred

the following

dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether

the action

of The

management of

C.B.I. Chandigarh in imposing the punish-

ment of reduction

of pay

to next lower

stage

for a period of

two years on Shri

R. K. Sharma Spl. Asstt, vide order dated

,8-2-1991 is justified? If not, what relief is

tlhe said workman entitled to ?"

2. Case- taken up today at the request of the work-

man.

The workman appeared and made the state-

ment' that he does not want to pursr,¹; with the present

reference as he intends to opt for tho voluntary retire-

ment

scheme of the bank

and requested, for no

dispute award.

In view of: (lie abo<'e, as the work-

man does not want⁴ to pursue with the present refe-

rence the same is answered as No Dispute Award.

Appropriate Govt, be informed.

Chandigarh,

7-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

1284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/CHATTRA 3, 1923

^ART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 652.—In

pursuance of

Section 17 of

the

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

tral Government hereby publishes tlhe award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as, s,hown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their

workman, which was received by the Central Govern-

ment on 27th February, 2001.

[No. L-12012/177/99-IR(B-TD]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHUT B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 139/94

Balwinder Singh son of

Shri Karnail Singh,

VPO. Panniwala Phatta,

Teh. Malout,

Distt. Faridkot-Punjab.

. . Workman.

Vs.

Divisional Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank,

Near

Red Cross Bhawan,

Sarak Chowk, Faridkot-Punjab. . . Management¹.

^APPEARANCES:

For the workman : Workman in person.

For the management: Slhri J. S. Sa*hi.

AWARD

(Passed on 23rd of January, 2001)

*"* The Central Govt, vide Gazette Notification No. L-

12012/177/99-IRB-2 dated 25th October, 1994 has

referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the

action

of the

management of

Punjab & Sind Bank Faridkot in terminat-

ing the services

of Shri Balwinder Singh,

Armed

Guard w.e.f

8-6-93 is legal and

justified?

If not, what

relief is the said

workman entitled to?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of affidavit

by the workman. Today the workman appeared and

made the statement

that he got the iob elsewhere

and he does not

want to pursue with the present

reference and same may be answered as withdrawn.

In view of the statement of the workman, the present

reference is returned to the Ministry as withdrawn.

Appropriate Govt, be informed.

Chandigarh,

23-1-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 653.—In

pursuance

Section 17 of the

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

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government

Industrial

Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Canara Bank and their work-

man, which was received by the Central Government

on 27th February, 2001.

[No. L-l2012/261/91-tR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 168/91

Blhag Mai Azad son of Sri Lachman Dass

C/o

Shri Arun Ghai, Co-convener,

B.X1-1662, Ran Mohalla,

Ludhiana.

. . Workman.

Vs.

Deputy General Manager,

Canara Bank,

Divisional Bank, Sector-34-A,

Chandigarh.

. • Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman: Shri O. P. Batra.

For the management; Shri Ashok Jagga with Aihok

Kumar.

AWARD

(Passed on, 6th of February, 2001)

The Central Govt, vide Gatzcttee Notification No.

L-12O12|261|91-TRB-1I dated 4th

November 1991

Ite

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the management of

Canara Bank in stoppage of two increments

of Shri Bhagmal Azad, clerk with cumula-

tive effect is justified ? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the par-

ties. The workman appeared and made The statement

that he docs not want to pursue with the present

reference as he opted for the voluntary retirement

scheme of the bank and requested for no dispute

award. In view of the above, as the workman does

not want to pursue with fix present reference, the

same is returned to the Ministry as no dispute award.

Appropriate Govt, be informed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh,

6-2-2001.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Bank of India and

their workman, which

was received by the Central

Government on 27th February, 2001.

[No. L-l20J2/266/92-lR(B-m]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 5/93

Bal Krishan,

C/o

Secretary,

C.B.I. Employees Union,

811. Phasc-II, Urban

Estate.

Focal Point, LudHana.

.. Workman.

Vs.

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

427-A, Krishna Nagar,

Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

. . Manajpment.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman: None.

For the management!: Shri D. K. Chadha.

AWARD

(Passed on 15-2-2001)

The Central Govt, vide gazette notification No, L-

12012|266|92.IR(B.2) dated 21st December,

1992

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of CBI

in inflicting

punishment

on Shri Bal

Krishan, Peon by stopping one increment

justified ? If not, to what relief is fhe work-

man entitled ?"

2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared on be-

half of the workman despite several notices. It

appears that workman is not interested to pursue with

the present reference. In view of the above situation,

present reference is returned to the Ministry for want

of prosecution. Appropriate Govt, be informed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh,

15-2-2001.

r ' '<

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O, 655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publisher the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Canara Bank and their work-

man, which was received by the Central Government

on 27th February, 2001.

fNo. L-12012/299/91-IR(B-Il)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

i2i6

fHE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/ CHAlTRA 3. 1923

[PARF II—SEC. 3(U)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

' TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 28/92

Sukhwarrt Singh,

C|o Arun Ghai

Canara Bank Staff Union,

D-XI, 1662, Rari Mohalla,

Ludhiana vPunjab).

..Workman.

Versus

General Manager,

Canara Bank,

Sector-17, Chandigarh.

.. Management

\PPEARANCES:

* "or the workman : None.

for the management : Ashok Paul Jagga.

AWARD

(Passed on 25th January, 200J)

The Central Govt vide Gazette Notification No.

•l2012/299/91-tR(B-2) dated 26th of March 1992

n, referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

ljudication:—

"Whether

the acflon

of the

management of

Canara Bank in stopping Spl. Allowance to

Shri Sukhwant Singh, Daftry, in Morara

Branch is justified ? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled ?"

2. Today Che case was fixed, for appearance of the

irkman. Despite severail notices none has put up

^pcarances on behalf of the workman. Tt appears

<t workman is not interested

to pursue with the

sent! reference. Tn view of the. above, the present

IVrence is returned to the Ministry for want of pro-

iifion. Appropriate Govt, be informed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

'andigarh.

. "-K20O1.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S O. 656.—In

pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispule Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal|Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Go\ eminent on 27 February, 2001.

[No. L-12012[326|87-IR|DH]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No. I.D. 13J88

Sunnder Pal Singh,

CJo Shri Tek Chand Sharnm,

25, Sarit Nagar, Civil Lines,

Ludhiana

... Workman

Vs.

The Asstt. General Manager,

Punjab & iind Bank,

Sector-17-B,

Chandigaih

. . Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : None.

For the management : Shri P. P. Singh, Advocate.

AWARD

(Parsed on 31st January, 2001)

The Central Govt, vide Gazette Notification No.

L-12012|326|87-D. II(A)

dated

1st March, 1988

lms referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Punjab & Sind Bunk

in terminating the services of Shri Surinder

Pal Singh, deposit Collector with their Civil

Lines, Ludhiana Branch

w.e.f. 31-3-1986

'is justified '! If, not, to what relief the

workman concerned entitled ?"

2. The case of the workman in brief is that he was

appointed as a deposit collector on 2-2-1980.

continued to work as deposit collector till 31-3-1986.

He had been doing the duties of ledger posting,

maintenance of index register

of Chhoti

Bachat

Scheme Account, maintenance of subsidiary

book

and maintaining the balances

etc. and

doing the

other duties as lequired by the manager of the branch

at Kbanna. He had been working under the control

of the branch manager for all purposes and used to

be paid monthly wages on performance basis regu-

larly. He used to receive cash from

depositors of

the bank by rendering services at their door steps

according to the scheme and policy of the bank. He

maintained the books' of the bank regularly which

were checked by the superior concerned

regularly.

The services of the workman

was terminated on

31-3-1986 without giving any

chargesheet. No

inquiry was hold by the Mnnagement. The notice of

one month was not give" to him by the Bank. Thus

1287

his

service, were terminated illegally

contravening

the piovisions of law.

3. At the time of his teinniuation

jumor

person

were rua:nec? in service by the bank and

new em-

ployees wore also employed, but opportunity was not

given to the woikman tor employment

though the

post and the work was of permanent

nature.

The

workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back-

wages and all benefits

4 A 5 p;i written statement flliJQ by the manage-

ment the case in brief is that the workman was not

the regular employee ot the bank. The relationship

of master and servant between

them did

not exist.

Theicfoie, he is, not workman as defined in T.D. Act

1947. He was enrolled as an agent under the Chhoti

Bacliat Scheme to collect deposit from the depositors

of the bank. He was required to carry out this func-

tions only as an agent and not to perform any other

banking work. He was indepeodant agent for the per-

formance of collecting small deposits from small de-

positors. He was never paid any monthly remunera-

tion but commission was paid to him on the amount

of deposits collected by him.

The Chhoti Bachat

Scheme was found by the bank

uneconomical and

fraud prone Therefore, the bank decided to wind up

the same scheme. After winding up the scheme the

agency of the workman was no longer required which

was discontinued by the bank. His service was not

terminated but his agency was discontinued. There-

fore, he is not entitled to get any relief

from

the

management His claim statement

deserves to be

dismissed.

5. In this case the

date

appointment

and

date of termination are admitted facts. It is also an

admitted fact that the workman

had

worked as a

deposit collector at Khanna branch of the bank

6. In this case workman filed his affidavit He was

directed to appear in person in

this

Tribunal for

cross-examination but he did not appear to face the

rcross-ejtaminatiort He remained

absent,

therefore,

the case was proceeded exparte against him

7 The management has filed the affidavit of T.P.S.

Ouiial

The re-p of the management has not

exa-

mined "^hri T P, S. Gujral because no representative

of the workman was present for cross-examine the

deponent of the management.

Uder

these circum-

stances, this case has to be decided on the basis of

affidavits.

S. Shri Surinder Pal Singh has deposed in his affi-

davit that he was employed by the bank as deposit

collector and he was the employee

the

bank.

Monthly wages were paid to him He was working

under the control of branch manager nnd performed

the duties of a bank employee The witness of the

management Shri T. P. S. Gujral has deposed that

the workman was appointed as an agent under the

Chhoti B^chpt Scheme He was paid commission as

per agieement entered into between the bank and the

workman. Tn this ease the management has not sub-

mitted the ?ereement and other

documents

The

workman has also not submitted any document in

'upnort of his claim Therefore, this case rests upon

oath against oath. Now the question arises to con-

sider that whose oath should be relied upon.

9 In this case the workman was directed to appear,

foi cross-evimination but he did not

so.

The

burden of proving the allegations made in the Claim

a.temcni is upon the workman. Under these circum-

stances, the oatli of Shri T. P. S. Gujral deserves to

be relied upon. As per his affidavit the workman was

paid 3i% commission on deposit collected by

him.

The workman was not getting any wages from the

management. Therefore, he can not be

termed as

workman under the provisions of

I. D. Act 1947.

When he is nof a workman the provisions of Section

25-F do not apply. Therefore, the termination of the

workman is legal nnd justified. The reference is there-

fore, is to be answeied against the workman.

10 On the basfs of appreciation of evidence made

in the preceding p^rajjrBph of this award,

the

re-

rcrrn'jie is answered tbat the action of the manage-

ment of Punjab & Sind Bank in

terminating

the

services of Shri Surinder Pal Singh deposit collector

is justified. He is not entitled to aet any relief from

the mon?ipf>ment. The paities shall bear

their own

cost of this proceedings.

Appropriate Govt, be in-

formed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh,

31-1-2001.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

SO 657—Fn pumiance

Section 17 of

the

rndutffMl Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal [Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to Lh>i rmineement of

Bank of

India

and

their

workman,

\7hich

was

received

the

Central

Government on 27 February, 2001.

[No. L-12012|382|92-IR(B-II)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BFFORE SHRI B L. TATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFTCFR, CENTRAL GOVT., INDUSTRIAL

TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No 1 D 34]93

Harbhajan Singh,

C|o General Secretary,

1288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2001/ CHAITRA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(tt)]

Bank of India,

Employees Association Bank of India,

Building, Hall Bazar, Amritsar

. .. Workman

Vs.

Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of India,

Bank Square, Sector-17, Post Bag-2,

Chandigarh.

. .. Management

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Hardial Singh.

For the Management : R, N. Lohan.

AWARD

(Passed en 8th February, 2001)

The Central Govt., vide Gazette Notification No.

L-12012|382|92-IR(B. II)

dated 5th March, 1993

has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal

for adjudication ?

"Whether the action of the

management

Bank of India in imposing and punishment

of stoppage of two increments permanently

with cumulative effect on Shri Harbhajan

Singh justified ? If not to what relief is the

workman entitled to ?"

2. Today the rep. of the workman expressed that

he has no instructions to prosecute further on behalf

of the workman. The workman

has not filed any

affidavit in this case. The case is pending since 1993.

It seems that workman is not interested to prosecute

the case. In view of the above situation, the present

reference is returned to the

Appropriate Govt, for

want of prosecuiion, Appropriate Govt, be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2001

S.O. 658.—In pursuance

of Section \1

of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the emplpoyers in relation

to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their

workman, which was received by the Central Govern-

ment on 27-2-2001,

[No. L-120l2|464[87-IR|DII(A)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. TD 6/88

Sarv Shri

Paramjit Singh, Asholc Kumar Sc

Pritpal Singh C/o

Tek Chand Sharma,

25, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines,

Ludhiana.

Workmen.

Vs.

Asstt,, General Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank,

Sector-17-B,

Chandigarh.

. . Management.

APPEARANCES

For the workmen : None.

For the management: Shri I. P. Singlh Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 31st January, 2001)

The Central Govt, vide gazette notification No. L-

12012|464|87-D-II(a) daied 12th

February,

1988

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Pun-

jab

& Sind

Bank

terminating

the

services of S/Shri

Ashok Kumar, Prifpal

Singh and Paramjit Singh, Deposit Collec-

tor is justified ? If not,

to what relief ate

the workmen concerned, entitled ?"

2. The appropriate Govt, has referred the dispute

relating to Sarvshri Ashok Kumar, Pritpal Singh and

Paramjit Singh in single reference

order but theso

workmen have filed their claim statement and rejoin-

der separately.

The dates of their appointment as a

deposit collector is different but their date of termina-

tion is the same which is 17-1-1986.

3. The case of the workmen in brief is thaf Shri

Paramjit Singh was appointed as a deposit collector

'on 16-6-1978, Shri Pritpal Singh on 11-1-1981. Shri

Ashok Kumar has not filed his claim statement. They

continued to work as deposit! collector till 17-1-1986.

Every workman had been doing the duties of ledger

oosting,

mainlaincc of

index

Bachat Scheme account,

maintenance of subsidiary

'book and maintaining

the balances etfc. and doing

other duties as required bv the manager of the branch

at Khanna branch. They had been working under the,

control of the branch manager for all purposes and

used to be r>aid monthly wages on performance basis

reguiarlv. They used to receive cash from depositors

of the bank by rendering srevices at their door steps

according to the scheme and policy of the bank. They

maintained the books

of the bank regularly which

were checked by the supervisor concerned regularly.

The services of the workmen

were terminated

17-1-1QR6 'vithont¹ fmv charpu sheet. No enquiry was

held bv the management,

The notice of one month

kvas not given to them by the bank.

Thus their ser-

vicas were terminated illegally contravening the pro-

visions oi law.

4. At the time

of tlheir tciminatjon

of seivices

junior pers'ons were retained in service by the bank

{lnd new employee¹; were also employed but opportu-

jiilj, was not given to the workmen for employment

though the post

and the work was of permanent

nature.

The workmen are entitled to bo reinstated

|wi'h lull back wages and all benefits.

5. As per written statements filed by the tnanage-

bient the ca.se in brief is that tuit- workmen weie not

the regular employees of the bank. The relationship

of master and servant between them did

not exist.

Therefore, thuy are not workmen as ue'ined in T.T>.

Act, J947. They were enrolled as an agent under the

Chhoti Bachat Scheme to collect deposit from the de-

positors of the bank. They were required to carry out

their

functions

only ;>s nn agent and not to perform

liny other banking work.

They were independant

agents for fhe performance of collecting sm;;U deposits

from, small

depositors. They

were never paid any

monthly rcmimcration hiV- commission was paid

them on I he anovnt of deposits collected by them.

The Chhnti Bachat Schune was found by the bank

.uneconomical and

fraud prone.

Therefore,

the

Vm'v decided to wind up the same scheme,

after

vending up I he sc-Iii'inr- the agency of the workmen

\as no longer required which was discontinued by

LIK kink.

There services were not terminated but

their uf:en-y w;*s discontinued.

Therefore, they are

net entitled M >jct any relief from the management.

Their cK'ini staicmcnis deserve to be dismissed.

t. In thi- case the ti; les of appointment and date

of icrmiruition arc admitted facts.

It is also an ad-

Imitted fa^i th; t all the workmen had worked as a

deposit collector at Khnpna Branch of the bank.

7. In this uisj, Shri Pritipal Singh and Paramjil

Singh have filed their affidavits and other documents.

They were diicctcd to appear in person hi the Tri-

Ibunal lor cross-examination but they did not appear

and dare to face the cross-examination.

They re-

mained absent, there) or^. the case was proceeded ex-

parte against them.

8. 7 he management

has

filed the affidavit of.

h\ P. S fuijral

We had filed separate affidavits re-

lating to Sarvshri Paramjit Singh, Pritipal Singh nnd

Asl'nk Kumar alony vWh relevant documents.

The

ireprescntative of the management has not examined

iSh. T.P.S Gnjral because no representative of work-

man was present to cross-examine the deponent of the

nrjnagemeivt

Undci these

circumstances, this case

lv.ii to be decided on the basis of affidavit and rele-

vant record.

9. Shri Paramjit Singh and

Pritipal Singh have

deposed in their affidavits that they were employed

by the bank as deposit collectors and they were the

employees of the bank.

Monthly wages were paid

to them

Thev were working under the control of

branch ,nanager and performed the duties of a bank

employees.

The

witness of the management Shri

T. P. S. Gujral has deposed that all the workmen

wore appointed as an agent under the Chhoti Bachat

Scheme.

The} were paid commission as per agree-

771 GI12001—T7

" '••>'

ment dated 16-6-1078, in case of Paramjit

Singh,

dated 3-4-1978. ir> case of Astiok Kumar and dated

0-1-1981 in the e;.se of Pritipal Singh,

On perusal

of thesj agreements, il is evident that all the work-

men v-iv u\ "• i'nled a^. an agent to collect small de-

posi'

Iron ..mall

depositors and the

amount so

collected was icquired to be deposited in the bank.

They v. ere n u paid monthly wages but the commis-

sinn was paid to them on the amount so collected

b> (hem from the depositors

Thus it is clear that

the\ were not the regular employees of the

bank

but they »verc discharging the duties of a collecting

agents,

As pe^r definition of the workman

given

m Section 2 of the l.D. Act, 1V47, they arc

not

the 'workmen',

Therefore, the provisions of l.D. Act

do not

apply in this case.

Therefore these

peti-

tioners are not entitled to get any relief under

the

provisions of industrial Jaw.

Their claim deserved

to be dismissed in toto.

10. On the basis of the discussions made

the

preceding paragraph

uf this award,

the reference

is answered that the

action of the management of

Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services

S|Shri Ashok Kumar,

Pritipal

Singh and Paramjit

Singh, deposit collectors is justified.

Consequently,

thev are not

entitled to get

any relief from the

management

The parties shall bear their own cost.

Anpropriale Government be informed.

C'-Jindiga'h.

3M-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 28lh February, 2001

S.O. 659.—In pursuance

of Section 17

of the

Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

(14 of 1947),

the

Central Government heieby \ niM'shes the award of

the Industrial Tribunal Pune

shown in the

t'iine�rr in the Industrial Dispute between the emp-

k-vers in relation to the management of Union Bank

of Ii'Ji.i and their-workman, which was received by

the C:ntral Gowntnent on 27-2-2001.

fNo. L- 12013|19|9S-IR(B-TT)l

C. GANGM3HARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Bl"^fOKL SHRI S. G, HAIHALKAR : INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL : PUNE

Reference (T) No. 7 of 1999

Exh, No. O-6.

BETWEEN

Union Bank of India,

Jeevan Prakash LIC Building,

University Road,

Pune (Maharashtra) 41 I 005

..First Party.

AND

Their Workman

..Second Party.

J a the matter of : Fur adjudication of an industrial

dispute pertaining to

"Whethei the action of

the management of Union Bank of India in not

paying the Telephone Operator's Allowance to

Shri A. H. G, Shaikh, Telephone

Operator i.s

legal and justified ?

If nut, to what relief

the

said workman is entitled ?"

APPEARANCES :

Shri V, H. flhadha. Union Representative lor

the second party.

Shri R.ivi Khanna,

Management Representative

for the firsit purly.

AWARD

14th February, 2001

1. This Reference is made by the Central Govern-

ment under Sections 10(1 )(d) and 10(2-A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ('the I.D. Act" here-

inafter) for

adjudication of an

industrial dispute

between Union Bank of India

First Party and

the workmen employed

undsr them, . . . . Second

Party, as follows : —

"Whether the action

of the management

Union Bank of

India in not paying tele-

phone opera/or's allowance to Shri A. H. G.

Shaikh

Telephone Operator is legal

and

justified ?

If not, to what relief the said

workman is entitled ?"'

After the receipt of the reference from the Govern-

ment the notices were sent to the parties to the dis-

pute and they appeared in the Court.

2. The Union Bank of Tndia Employees Union i.e.

the Ilml Party to this Reference ("the Union" here-

inafter) submitted a statement of claim at Exh. U-l

and contended therein that the Union is duly regis-

tered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and repre-

sents the employees of the Union Bank of India, i.e.

Hie First Party ("th-j Bank" hi rdnafter). Shri Altab

Hussain Gularn Shaikh ("the employee" hereinafter)

is working as a Telephone Operator in Award Staff

>"adr;.

His

services are governed by the Awards

and by Bipartite Settlements.

As per the terms of

the service, it is contended that the said employee is

entitled to get the Telephone Operator's allowance at

the rate of Rs. 70 per month.

But the Bank declin-

ed to pay this special

allowance to the employee.

Hence the present "dispute is referred to this Tribu-

nal.

The employee is working 3n the Bank at his

Regional Office at Nasik Road and is a blind person.

This dispute in question was initially referred to the

Conciliation Officer.

but since the Bank did not

accept this demand of the employee, the said autho-

ritv referred the matter to the Government.

3 While justifying the demand in question,

it is

contended by the Union that the employee is work-

ing as a "Permanent Employee in the Bank," in the

Clerical

Cadre.

As per the

Bipartite Settlement

(para No. 5.2 tead with para 5.9) the said employee

is entitled to get (he Telephone Operator's Allowance

at tho rate mentioned above.

The; service conditions

of (he employees working in the Bank are

uniform

throughout the Banking Industry and the employees

working in the Nationalised Banks are governed by

the iami: conditions.

The

Telephone

Operators

operating less than three lines are also entitled to get

the allowance in question.

Henec the dispute is re-

ferred to adjudicate as to whether Shri Shaikh,

the

employee working in the Bank as a Telephone Ope-

rator Is entitled to get the Telephone

Operator's

allowance and

if not,

what relief the said

employee is entitled ?

4. The First Party submitted the written statement

at Exh. C-i and contended that the present dispute

cannot be branded as an "industrial dispute".

Ac-

cording to the Bank, the employee is working in the

Bank tance Januaiy, 1^89 and he laised the dispute

of the instant nature at too belated stage and there-

fore, it suffers from laches. While justifying the ac~

tiou of denying the

relief in question to the emp-

loyee, it is contended by the Bank that in the appoint-

ment letter .liven to the employee it is nowhere stat-

ed that the employee will be entitled to get any spe-

eiul allowance and on accepting this term

the

employment, the employee had joined the

service.

The Bank referring to the terms of the

Bipartite

Settlement dated 19-10-1966 further contended that

as per the said

settlement the work of "Telephone

Operator" means the work of PBX board

having

minimum three lines on

regular assignments

and

therefore, such an ernplovee who is operating

only

two external lines, is not entitled to claim the

dis-

puted special allowance.

It i<- therefore, submitted

that the demand raised in dispute is not substantiated

and tfi2 demand therefore, deserves to be rejected.

.^s. Each panty to the Reference has examined only

one witness.

Let us therefore advert

ourselves to

appreciate the said evidence together with the docu-

mentary evidence to adjudicate (he present dispute.

6 Admittedly since the yea.- 1Q,89 the employee

in working as a Telephone Operator in the employ-

ment (v,¹ the Bunk, and further tha; he is working on

PBX bo ird having two lines only, throughout

his

seivice career

Shri Vivas, the witness examined by

the Bank deposed f'uu ;hi- Bipartite Settlement

applicable to the Banking Industries who signed such

settlement.

The Bank while justifying their decision

to refuse to p^y the special allowance to the

emp-

loyee

contended that in the

appointment letter

(Annexure-'D" to the statement uf claim) there is no

reference tha: the employee would get any such spe-

cial allowance. It i¹. submitted before me

that these

conditions were

accepted by the

employee while

joining the employment and therefore now he cannot

claim such a special allowance on this ground.

7. This submission in my view, is not acceptable

fur the simple reason that in the appointment letter

dated 13-1-1989 at Sr. No. 7 it is specifically men-

tioned thai th* employee would be bound

the

Rules and Regulations of the Bank applicable to the

workman staff from

time to time

in force.

The

Settlements

between the

parties to the Reference

arrived at from time to time arc binding on the Bank

as well as its employees and therefore, the terms of

such settlements undoubtedly form the part of

the

service rules.

The employee therefore is entitled to

claim that the

benefits on the basis of such settle-

ment';.

Such benefits cannot be refused only on the

ground that there was no reference in the appoint-

ment letter of the employee that the employee would

be entitled to get such an allowance.

8. The BipaiMiu Agreement ie]ied upon by

the

parties to this Reference is admitted and the benefits

of it ar; givjn to the employees of various categories

working m the Hunk.

The Bank is coming

with a

case that &i per the

provisions of this

Bipartite

Settlement, the payment of the special allowance is

made only when the Telephone Operator is required

to operate minimum three or more external lines and

SIIJCJ the employee has admittedly never worked

the PBX boarJ having three or mure external lines,

he is not entitled to get the special allowance called

as Telephone Operator¹.' Allowance.

1 have

gone

through the said Agreement and it appears from the

record that as per Chapter V the Special Allowances

are given to the workmen of various categories

in-

eluding the category of the

Telephone Operators.

Such n c.itegory of workmen nowhere makes

any

difference amongst the

workmen working

as the

Telephone Operator on PBX Board having three or

more external lines and the

Telephone

Operators

'vorking on the PBX board hsvinjjf less than

three

lines.

V is true that Part 1 of the settlement (pro-

duced, dlonij'vith Anncxujv B to the statement

claim) show.-, that the work of Telephone Operator

involves operating a Telephone PBX board

with

minimum three external lines on regular assignment.

Taking the help of this provision in the settlement,

the Bank is refusing to accept the demand in ques-

tion saying that since the employee is operating

the

telephone PBX board hnving less than three exter-

nal lines, .such allowance cannot be granted to him.

9. This reason putforth by the Bank in refusing to

accept the

demand in

question is devoid of any

merits

my view.

It has some reasons. Admit-

tedly, as per the Bipartite Settlement,

the special

allowances are given to the workmen of the category

called as "Telephone

Operators".

This