This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

CNo. L-12O11|197|99-1R(B-I1)J

C. QANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL rTRlBUNAL, PATNA

Reference No. 3(c) of 2000

Management of Allahabad Bank Boring Road, Patna and their workmen repiesented by Allahabad Karamchari Sangh, Bihar Central, Patna University Branch, Patna

For the Management : Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, Zonal

¹ Office, Allahabad Bank, Patna.

For the workmen : Sri B., Prasad, General Secretary,

Bank Employees Federation, Bihar, Patna.

PRESENT :

Sri S. K. Mishra, Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal,

Bailey Road, Patna.

AWARD

The 21st March, 2001

The Government of India by Notification No. L-12011|197| 99)IR(.B-11) dated 10-7-2000 in exercise of powers u|s. 10U) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following 'industrial dispute between the Management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen represented by Allahabad Bank Karamchari Sangh, Bihar Patna University Branch, Patna to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

of All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-or-diuaion Com- miuee and its affiliated units would not be transferred with- out thoir consent. The Mmiagcmem, however, did not sign any similar settlement with all India Allahabad Bank .Employees Steering Committee affiliated to bank Employees Federation of India regarding job rotation/transfer of Award staff but the said settlement dated 3-3-1990 was made applicable to all the workmen of Allahabad Bank. The Management in pursuant to tho setlemeni dated, 3-3-1990 issued notice for transferring of award staff in the State of Bihar. After issue of the notice the union ap- proached the Management and requested them to allow exemption from transfer to the Principal >office bearers of All India Allahabad Bank Employees Ste'ering Committee and its aflatute in the State of Bihar namely Allahabad,' Bank Karamchari Sankh, Bihar but the demand was un- headed. The Management decided to transfer the Principal office bearers of the union namtly Sri B. K. Pal, President from Patna Main Branch, Budh, Marg, Allahabad Bank to Patna University Branch at a distance of merely 5 K.M., Sri J. D. Khanna, General Secretary from Patna main Branch to Patliputra Colony at a distance of merely 5 K.M., Sri Surendra Prasad, Assistant General Secretary, from Patna main Branch to Shekhpura Branch at a distance of merely 5 K.M., Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Joint Secretary of All India Allahabad Bank Employees Steering Committee from Patna University Branch to Phulwarisharlf Branch situated at a distance of merely 20 K.M. and even beyond the Municipal limit of Patna. After having come to know the decision of the Management of transfer the Principal office bearers of the union a dispute was raised before tho Assistant Labour Commissioner (c) Patna on 30-7-1999 against the discriminatory attitude of the Management. After receiving the nbbve referred dispute the A.L.C. (c) Patna Issued and got its notice served upon the Management on 30-7-1999. The Management after receiving the notice relieved the workmen from their respective places of posting on 31-7-1999. The workman Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha who was on medical leave due to his sickness w.e.f. 25-7-1999 was also relieved in absentia. ' After the workmen were relieved they joined their duty at the places of transfer. The A.L.C. (c), Patna held conciliation proceedings on various dates but the same ended in failure due to non conciliatory attitude of the Management and their failure report was sent to the Government of 'India, The Central Government thereafter finding that an industrial dispute existed between the Management and their workmen refer- red the same to this Tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Pank amounts to discrimination in effecting rota- tional transfer of clerical staffs i.e. Sri B.K. Pal, Shri J. D. Khanna, Sliri Surendra Pd. and Sri Rajesh Kr. Sinha and also not allowing exemption to the office bearers of Allahabad Bank Karam- chari Sangh and violation of guide lines while transfer! ing Shri Rajesh Kumar Sinha beyond Municipal limit ? If so what relief the said work- menluaion are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the notification notice was served upon

the union and the union has appeared and filed a written statement of claim. The Management has also filed written statement in reply.

3. The case of the concerned workmen as has been given in their written statement of claim in brief is that the Alla- habad Bank is an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it also State within the meaiimg of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Allahabad Bank Karamchari Sangh Bihar Central Office, University Branch, Patna (hereinafter to be called as 'the union') is a registered Trade Union as per" the provisions of Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The union is affiliated to the Bank Employees Federation of India, Central Trade Union Organisation of Bank Employees operating through out the country. The union is a minority Trade Union tend State unit of All India 4 Allahabad Bank Employees Steering Committee. The Union has n membership of more than 500 employees in the State of Bihar out of a total number of U00 workmen all over India. There is one another all India employees Organisation known as All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-ordination Committee having its State unit in the State of Bihar in the name of Bihar State Allahabad Bank Employees union, a majority Trade union affiliated to All India Bank Employees Asso- ciation (A.I.R.E.A.), at National level. The Management signed a memorandum of settlement with the majority union on 3-3-1990 regarding job rotation/transfer of Award Staff and in pursuance v"f tho said settlement the Bank issued a circular no. 2117 dated 3-5-1990 Among others it was agreed- between the signatories that important office bearers

4. The above facts of the case as stated in the written statement of claim of the workmen are not specifically denied by the Management in their written statement of reply. The further case of the workmen is that the Manage- ment resorted to discrimination while allowing exemption from transfer to the Principal Office bearers of the signatory union namely All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co- ordination Committee and its affllates and did not allow the same exemption in case of the Principal office bearers of the present union. Through Phulwarisharif does not fall within the area of Patna Municipal Corporation as it has a separate notified Aren Committee, Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha was transferred from Patnn University Branch to Phulwarisharif Branch in complete violation of Bank's Transfer Policy. Rajesh Kumar Sinha had been subjected to harassment on previous occasion also at the time of selection as Special Assistant for Patna University Branch which was ultimately decided bv the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhnnfrad in Ref. case No. 12 of 1992. The Management though a State like a private dishonest Employer indulged in unfair labour practice by making discrimination with the object in furthrrinjr the cause of the matoritv union and suppressing the minority union. The Manna^ment violnted the principles of Indian Constitution ensuring eqnalitv before Inw. On thi-se firound th*" workman have rraved for an award from this Tiihunni directing the Minn^f-mr-nt M1935 directed to pay the conveyance charges to these workmen from iticir dates of joining at the Branches 01 then transfer.

or minority, recognised or unrecognised. The agreement regarding rotational transfer is applicable to all employee of the Bank irrespective of union affiliation. The present dispute has arisen due to the arbitrary and discrimJnatbry attitude of the Management in giving exemption to a set of office bearers belonging to a particular union and ignoring, others. The Management in deceitful manner has tried to substitute Patna Municipal area with Patna Agglomeration area. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sinha was working in Patna¹ University Branch falling under Patna Municipal Corporation and ag such ho would not have been aggrieved had he been transferred to any Branch within the Municipal area. Thua, the actions of the Management in discriminating the office bearers of the present minority union in affecting a rotational transfer and also transferring Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha from Patna University Branch to Phulwarisharif Branch arc unjust, improper and unlawful.

7. The point to be determined in this Reference caae is:—

(i) Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank amounts to discrimination effecting rotational transfer of cleiical staff namely Sri B. K. Pal, Sri J. D. Khanna, Sri Surendra Prasad and Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha and also not allowing exemption to them from transfer being office bearers of the Allahabad Bank Karamchari Sangh und also viola- tion of guide lines while transferring Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha beyond the Patna Municipal limit ?

(ii) If so to what relief or reliefs the said workmen are

entitled to?

FINDINGS

8. The issues are inter-connected and hence, the same are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience. Both the sides have adduced both oral and documentary evidence in respect of their respective cases. Two of the concerned workmen namely Sri B. K. Pal and Sri Rajesh Kumjr Sinha have been examined as W.W. 1 and W.W. 2 in support of their respective cases. The Management has examined one witness namely M.W. 1 Rajesh, an Officer of the Zonal olJlce, Patna. Both parties have filed certain zcrox copies of documents which have been admitted into evidence and marked Exhibits on formal proof having been waived by each i"ther. T will examine and discuss about these documents and IIIKO oral evidence at the relevant time.

guido lino ol the Sank rotational transter of a workman can oe tutect"u nom i^atna to J*hurwnn"nftm anct-*Viee*versa. ThV Management hat. liiod the zerox copy ot a letter dated 16-Jl-iyyi issued ^by tlie otBce ot Director-ot Census opera tion, fluiar to tne AlJahabaxi flank to prove that the thai waniharif which is a separate- notified area falls Withifl thtf Patna Urban agglomeration area; Dut the Marragernent-±ia'" not snown any other 1rjstance-t>l transior ot any workmaj? iiom 'Patna to Fhuhvarisharif or vicencrsa. The -term, "station" Has beerr defined in the 'Memoramtum- of -Settlefficm between the Manirger of--Altehabwl Bank land All "India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-ordination • Commrttea (A.I.A.B.E.C.C.) dated 22-4^1989 as followfl-:—

"Station shall mean a place within the limits co\orcd b.y a Corporation:, Municipality,' Notified Artn or Grrim Panchayat as thff^case may be."

New .Delhi, the l t th April. 2001 - S.O. 915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),-the Central Government her-eby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal) Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in delation- to the • management of Canara -Bank and ,their workman, which- was received by the Central Government on 10-4-2001.

[No. X-12012|369|92-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Wider* Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TK1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 22nd March. 2001

BRS6ENT :

HGsfo]&,Shri*V:-N.'Kullcarni, B.Com.. LLB.

Presiding Officer

• C.--R. No. 1H93

P PARTY :

S,rG:> Hiremani No." 75,n Goktrittm Near Vaokateshwara Temple Maruthinagar, Madivala Extension, Banjjjatore.

II PARTY :

Tha Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank Staff Section, Circle Office. Bangalore,

AWARD

1. • The Central¹ Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of.Sub-section (1)

193) and sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12Q12|369|92-IR(B*H) dated 2-2-1993 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action taken by the management of Canara Bank in dismissing Shri S.G. Hiremani, Clerk from -service w.e.f. 17-8-1989 is justifiable ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. After receiving the reference, the notices were sent to the parties.' Parties appeared. There- after First Party filed claim petition and. the. Second Party filed Counter. The brief history of the case is as under :—

The First Party joined service as workman in the clerical cadre on 3-1-1977 and wotted at various places. He had put in more than 9 years service. Two Charge Sheets were issued, against the First Party. The Charge Sheet dated 10-7-1987 is that when the First Party was working in accounts Section, Bangalore, he committed misconduct by opening as SB Account bearing No. 10043 in the name of one Gopal Narahari on 27-3-1985 at State Bank of India, Shivajinagar -Branch, Bangalore. The cheque book was issued and the First Party issued two cheques for Rs. 40,000|- and Rs. 20,0001- respectively to Sri Ra^garaju and and committed fraud. The Second • Charge Sheet was dated 9-2-1988 when the first party was depu- ted to BDA Extension Counter during April 4,986. He worked as cashier and collected cash from 12 applicants being the initial deposit for.the, pur- pose of sites and issued counterfoils. Thus the first party committed.mis-appropriation, fraud and after holding Domestic Enquiry the First Party was dismissed from service w.e.f. 17-8-1989". This-dis- missal was based on the enquiry reports dated ltf-l-1989 and 30-1-1989.

It is seen from the records that the First Party in the claim petition has stated that the dismissal is dot correct. It is further stated in detail that the First Party gave suitable reply stating that he does not know Gopala Narahari and he has nothing to do with the cheques and he has not altered any re- cords of the bank.' He has also alleged that the en- quiry k illegal and improper. Regarding enquiry the first party has "stated that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded Jurisdiction in conducting the enquiry, and in giving findings,'The enquiry is not in accordance with the service code of Canara Bank. He further stated that he has not misat>Dropriated any amount. He says that police complaint was filed and *C - report was filed. TT> spite of this he is dismissed from the service. The First paftv for all these re- asons graved to pass an award in his favour and direct the' Secbnd Party to re-instntc and1938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2Q01/VAISAKHA 15, 1923 [PART II^-SEC. 3(ii)] award full back v/aj"e,s and all oilier consequential [benefits.

The Second Party in its written statement has given detail of 2 Charges and it is stated that first party is failed to discharge his duty with honesty and "integrity by not accounting the amounts in the books of the bank. Enquiry was conducted pro- perly by giving full and reasonable opportunity to the First Party to defend himself. The Domestic Enquiry Officer to conduct Domestic Enquiry report the dismissal or.ler was passed and the same is correct and the management is justified in dis- missing the first party from service. The Second Party in a lengthy written Statement has given all details of the Domcstice Enquiry.

It is also alleged by the Second party that Cen- tral Bureau of Investigation, Police Inspector was examined in the enquiry and documents were pro- duced, The Second Party for all these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

It is seen from the records that at the relevant point of time, the First Partv was working as a clerk at Bahur Branch. Bangalore district. Additional Preliminary Issue was framed which is as under :—

"Whether the Second Party prove that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party was in accordance with settled principles of law, standing orders and principles of natural justice ?" The Second Party in order to prove the ad- ditional issue examined MW-1. Mr. Navecn Chandra Guru has stated that during 1987-88 he was wor- king as Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore and the disciplinary authority appointed him as an Enquiry Officer to conduct Domestic Enquiry against the First Party on the charges framed as per Ex. M-II. He has given detailed evidence about the enquiry conducted by him. He has further stated that he gave full opportunity during the enquiry. It is seen from the records that the first party and his advocate remained absent and this witness is"* not cross examined Therefore he was discharged.' Second Party also examined MW IT and his evi- dence is that the enquiry papers were maintained in the circle office and workmen was served with a charge sheet Ex-M7 One Shri K. Harinaravan was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer Tesipned the service* of the bank and therefore, this witness is authorised to give evidence inaccor- dance with the records maintained in the Domestic Fnauirv. He hns also stated that the first partv participated in the proceedings from beginning *rt the end. Documents ire marked in his evidence. Tt is <"een from the records thnt even after cr;vin<> t;me thf first partv and the advocate remained ab- sent :n.d MW2 h not cross-examined.

On 23-8-99 orders were passed holding that Domestic Enquiry is in accordance with law and additional issue was answered in afiirmative by my learned predecessor. Thereafter the case was posted for arguments on merits,. The First Party and coun- cel remained absent.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the second party and have carefully pursued all the records and examined documents. There is no reason to discard the evi- dence of MW 1 and MW 2. I have carefully pur- sued the proceedings of the enquiry. The charges are proved against the first party. The first party has committed grave misconduct. In addition to this it is also clear from the records that Central Bureau of Investigation filed criminal case against first party and Rangaraju before the competent criminal court and the first party was punished by the 21st Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge for CBI at Bangalore) in CC No. 5811987 and for the alleged misconduct by the management only charge sheet was filed, and the first party is convicted. All this would go to show that the first party has mis-appropriated the amount while working in the bank by fraud and management has proved both the charges and T am of the opnion that with this unchallenged material the management is justified in dismissing the first party from cervice w.e.f. 17-8-1989. "

Tn view of this finding of mine, T proceed to tv>"s the following order :—

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, cor- rected and signed by me on 22nd March 2001) V. N. KUtKARNT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th April, 2001

S.O. 916.-~Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra] Government hereby publishes hte award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in trie apnexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers In relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their1939 woikman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/289/97'TR(B-Il)!

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BbtORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 30-3-2001

PRESENT :

Hon'hlc Shii V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com., L L.B

C.R. No. 25/98

I Party

Sri B. Puttaswamy, Watchman, Syndicate Bank, V/dyaranyapuram Branch, Mysore, Residing at 1143/25-F-ll, 7tli Main, 5th Cross, Sarvajanika Hostel Road, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore-8.

II Party

1. The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Vidyaranyapuram Branch, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore.

2. The Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause fd) of Sub-section fl) and sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/289/97-IR (B-II) dated 12-3-98 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether there was employer-employee' iclationship between Shri B. Puttaswamy and. the management Of Syndicate Bank 7 If so, whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank is justified ;n termi- nating his services w.e.f. 1-4-1995? If not to what relief he is entitled 7"

2. On receipt of reference, notices were issued to the parties. Part'es appcard and filed Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. Brief history of the case can ha narrated for the d'sposal of this reference as under :—

I.D. Act. It is stated by the First Party that from the date of appointment the First Party Workman was demanding to issue an appointment order and was also making request to recommend hia appointment to the Zonal office at Bangalore. But nothing was done. It is hia further case that upto 1994 appointment order was not issued. Then, legal notice was issued as alleged in para 4 of the claim petition. The 1st Party was in continuous service and was discharging his duties effectively to the entire satisfaction 6f his superiors. Now the First Party is aged about 42years and he is unable to get any alternative employment. The First Party for all these reasons has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

6. The Second Party in the Written Statement has stated that First Party is not a workman of the Bank. It is- further stated that First Party was never appointed by the Bank. The main contention of the Second Party is that there is no master and servant relationship at any point of time and tberefore> the dispute taised by the First Party is not at all an Industrial Dispute. It is also stated that no salary was paid to the First Party at any time. The allegations made) by the First Party are not correct. There is a well established procedure for appointment in the Bank, as alleged in Para 5 of the Written Statement. It is further stated that the First Party is an outsider having no connection with the Second Party. The First Party was only a customer. The temporary appointments are also made by the Zonal office and as su,ch the allegations of the First Party against the Branch Manager arc not correct. It is again stated that here Is no master and servant relationship and thj& court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The Second Party for these reasons has, prayed to reject the above reference.

7. At the trial, two witnesses are examined by the manage- ment viz.—MW1 Shri V. N, Sharma and MW2 Shri H, Ramnchandra Bhatt. Against all the workmen got examined, as. M W WI and documents Ext. Wl, W2 and W5 are marked, 8. T have heard both sides. In view of the rival contention the only material point which requires consideration is whether there is a relatiqn of Employer and Employee and the action of the management ia justified.

9. The Second Party, in order to prove that there is no. relation of Employer and Employee haa examined two wit- nesses, The evidence of MW 1 is to the effect that the First Pnrty was looking after a cycle stand near the Bank and tbr office of the Second Party is located in a complex where other offices of Insurance Company arc located. He has also stated that the First Party was not exclusively engaged to looknfter the cycle stand of the bank employees. It is further -iated that he was a enstomer of the Bank. Remuneration; was paid to the First Party for taking care of bicycle* and other vehicles' of the Bank Staff. He further states that the Branch Manager wa" not empowered (o appoint any body and there was no post of watchman existing in the Branch- He lastly savs that question of removing the First Party from" service dof* not arise. The First Party, for the reason? known to him hai not cross examined M WI and M w 2. Therefore, this evidence has to be believed.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA Reference No. 2(c) of 2000

Management of Union Bank of India, Palna and their workman represented by Union Bank Employees Association, Bihar State, Patna.

For the Management : Sri S. K. Kapoor Dy. Manager (P) Union Hank of India, Pdtna.

For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar, Patna.

PRESENT:

Sri S. K. Mishra, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, PatnaL

AWARD

lie tyii tbe circumstances will opt apeak lie. Truth ha* come from, Jhe mpijth of the Pint Party .and it 1$ clear that there wai qflly a promise to secure him a job. With his cross "ainlan|ion I have no hesitation to say that there is no. relation,""gt .Employer. and Employee between the first party and the $e*"nef P?>rly. Fjrst fcaify further stated, jn his cross exaWitttW ,th"t he Wat dojag the work jn a cycle stand and .volBnf&erp^yjp^f tyM he uW tp stand near the door, Ther,e fl-jw TO^d^Rroijufai ty the First Party jo the effect that .h£ was',unfla$y clear -that h.e was not nivrn any appointment and' there w"3 ijio relation of Employer and Employee bet- ween, •tto and ,thc second party and the first party has miserably failed to prove all this. Documents relied t?y the flrst party ,arjp not sufficient to prove that he yas an employee of (he ffc*ofld faWy. If we carefully read, the claim, it is said that, from-the date, of appointment he was demanding to l""^e an appoijifmerrt order. This w

11. I have Riven ,my best consideration to the. material fc^orc ana nrd J am of the firm opinion that th"re is no niTty. )n this dispute and I proceeds to paw the followijiR¹ order:

ORDER

For the reason* stated above,thp.reference, is rejected.

(Dictated to PA. transcribed by her, corrected and signet!

T^r me on ip-3T2OpQ,> r Vy 1-2001.

V. N, KULKARNI, Pic^iJIng Oftlcer New Efclhi, the 1 Uh April, 2001 SO. P17.~ln pursuance of Scclrcm 17 of the In- dustrial Dispu*ee,Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government" hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal Ftotna as shown in the arnexurc in the Indnstpi|] Dispute between ihc employers in relation to thi mfnuwiement of Union Bank of India jind thpir workmnh, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on ] 0-4-2001.

The 26th March, 2001

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour by notification No. L-12011l2S|200()|IR fB-II) dated 7-6-2000 in exercise of powers u|s. 10(l)(d) of the ID. Act have referred the following industrial dis- pute between the Management of Union Bank of India, Poitna and their workman as reprewn,tc

"Whether the action of the Management of Union Bank of India JH debarring the work^ man Sri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar a? Head Cashier Cat. 'E' is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"1941 J942 THE GAZETTE OF JNBJArMAY 5, 20©r/VAISAKHA 15, 1923 [PART fi—SEC.-3(ii)j is admitted that on 25-9-1996 the workman submitt- ed two applications informing the Management of his desire of refusal of the post of Head Cashier Category 'E' at Machhuatoli Bianch, Patna and his further request for retain at Dhanbad Branch itself in the same position as Head Cashier category 'C\ As per cjaiiic 12.2. Chapter XII of the stuff circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-1992. the refusal shou\d come within two days of the written offer. In the present case 'the workman submitted his refusal letter on 25-9-1998 whereas he was advised of his selection on 27-10-1998. Thus the refusal letter was much earlier before any offer for the post of H,ead Cashier category 'E' was made. As per the notification of the Bank dated 18-7-1998 inviting applications for the post of Head Cashier Category 'E' the last date for withdrawal of the application was 10-8-1998. Since the letter of Ihe workman refusing the post of Head Cashier category 'E' was not sub- mitted within the aforesaid stipulated period his application was considered to be infructuous by the Management. According to the workman the Mana- gement could not have debarred him from the post of Head Cashier Categd y kE' o" the basis of his refusal letter dated 25-9-1998 simply because at that time no written offer for the post of Head Cashier Category 'E' had been made to him.

5. The point to be determined in this Reference

case is :—

(i) Whether the action of the Management of Union Bank of India in debarring the work- man S'i Rajiv Ranjan Kumar as Head Cashier Category T,' is justified ? and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

FINDINGS

Cashiers category 'Cn on the basis of State-wise senio- rity. As per this, circular when a post oi Head Cashier Category 'E' is refused 3i bar of three years on higher assignment as per Chap. XU of tne Policy circulated vide staff orcuiar No. 3913 dated 23-10-1992 would be imposed. Ext. M/5 is the xerox copy of the said staff circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-1992, but I find nothing in Chapter XII of this staff circular regarding the bar to the post of Head Cashier category 'E' on refusal. In tlhe written statement filed on behalf of the Management Chapter XII (12.4) of the said circular has been quoted. But the clause 12.4 of Chapter XII of the said circular is to the effect thatj if an employee refuses the post of Head Cashier category 'C he will be barred for higher assignment of the said post for the period of three years from the date of refusal. In the present case it is not the c;ise of the Management that the concerned workjnan had refused the post of Head Cashier category 'C. However it is the admitted position of the parties that under the guidelines of the Bank an employee who refuses the post of Head Cashier category 'E' may be barred for the said post for a period of three years. Ext. M/3 (Ext. W/2) is the order of the Bank (selecting tlhe concerned workman lor the post ofj Head Cashier Category 'E' et S.S.B. Mchhuatoli Branch w.e.f. 15-10-1998. The order is dated 24-9-1998. Ext. M|4 is the xerox copy of the letter of the workman dated 25-9-1998 stating therein that due to some domestic problem She was in- need to stay at Dhanbad and hence, he refuse*! his posting as Head Cashier category 'E' at Machhuatoli Branch. Ext. M/6 is the xerox copy of the letter of the work- man dated 25-9-1998 making a request for his trans- fer from S.S.B. Machhuatoli Branch to Dhanbad Branch as Head Cashier category 'C Fxt. M/7 i<> the staff circular of the Bank No. 8270 dt. 12-4-1998 relating 'o request transfer of the employees and other masters. Ext. M|8 is the order of the Bank dated 22-12-1998 transferring the workman to Dhan- bnd Branch from S.S.B., Machhuatoli Brunch on the basis of his request letter dated 25-9-199S. Ext. M/9 is the staff circular No. 3715 dated 11-2-1991 to the effect that once an employed is transferred on the basis of his request application he will have to carry out the said order.

6. The concerned workman has been examined as W.W.I. In his evidence he has fully supported his case as has beer) made out in his written statement. Similarly the Management has also examined one witness namely Sri Matta Babu (M.W.I) in support of its case. The witness has said that he was posted as Assistant Manager, Personnel, in the Re- gional Office, Patna during the relevant time. Both sides have filed and exhibited some xerox copies of documents on formal proof having been waived by each other. Ext. M is the xerox copy of the letter of the Branch Manager, Dhanbad to the Zona" office, Calcutta dated 26-12-1990 forwarding the I quest letter of the concerned workman for hi;, tran tut to Patna and to other places. Ext. M/l is the xerox copy of the order of the Zonal Office, Calcutta dated 11-3-1996 transferring the concerned workman to Machhuatoli Branch. S.B.-Spin off on the basis of his request letter. But as admitted in the written state- ment of the Management the concerned workman could not be relieved from Dhanbad Branch until 29-10-1998 Ext. M/2 is the staff circular of the Bank dated 16-6-1993 in relation to the guidelines for fill- ing up the vacancies of Head Cashier category 'E' and other posts. In this circular it is mentioned that if at a Station there is no eligible Head Cashier category 'C or if there is no application received from the post of Head Cashier category 'C of diat station, the vacancy of Head Cashier category 'E' shall be filled in by inviting applications from the Head

7. Ext. W/6 is the letter from the Regional Office. Ranchi 'a the Branch Manager, Dhanbad dated 17-10-1998 on the subject of transfer of the workman to S.S.B. Branch, Machhuatoli, Patna as Head Cashier category 'E' clerk. The letter shows that the order of the Gencial Manager's Office, Department of Person- nel, Calcutta dated" 24-9-1999 (Ext. W/2) posting the concerned workman as Head Cashier category 'E' clerk at S.S.B., Machhuatnli Branch was forwarded alolig witlh the letter of the Regional Office dated! 17-10-1998 (Ext. W/6) directing the Branch Mana- ger, Dhanbad; to relieve the concerned workman on 22-10-1998 'positively. On receipt of this letter along with the'order of posting of th^ concerned workman as Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Branch, Mach- huatoli, the Branch Manager, DhunbaJ hy lettet da'.ed 29-10-1998 (Ext. W) relieved the concerned workman after close of working hours of that date and directed the workman fo report at S.S.B.,, Mach- huatoli, Patna on the following date. The Fubject of this letter has been noted as postiajj of tlhe concerned] workman as* Head Cashier Category 'E' at S.S.B.

when, the workman joined at S.S.B. Machhuatoli Bianch he was retransferred to Dhanbad Extension counter Branch by order dated 22-12-1998 on the basis of his said application dated 25-9'19l>8 (Vide Ext. M/8). The workman in his evidence has said that this retransfcr order from Machhuatoli .Branch to Dhanbad Extension Counter Branch was not serv- jed upon him. With reference to the letter daied 25-9-1998 of the workman refusing to accept the post of Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Machhua- toli Branch, the General Managers' office, Calcutta by order dated 14-10-1998 debarred him fiom higher assignment for the said post for a period of three years (Ext. W/l). It also becomes apparent that the order of Bank dated 24-9-1998 posting the work- man as Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Machhua- toli Branch (Ext. W/2) had not been communicated to him before this letter dated 25-9-1998 refusing the post of Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Branch, MacCihuatoli. The letters of the Regional Office, Ranchi (Ext. W/6) and the letter of the Branch Manager, Dhanbad to the workman (Ext. W) go to tliow that the copy of his pos'ing order as Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Branch, Machhuatoli was supplied to him only on 27-10-1998. On 20-10-1998 he was relieved from Dhanbad Branch with a direction to join his new assignment at Machhuatoli on 30-10-1998. Accordingly on being relieved from Dhanbad Branch the wotkman joined at S.S.B. Branch, Machhuatoh', Patna as Head Catftiicr category 'E' on 30-10-1998. On the same date lie submitted an application stating therein that his ear- lier request in this regard be considered as cancelled. The letters of the Regional Office, Ranchi ;md the Branch Office, Dhanbad clearly show that the work- man was relieved from Dliambad Branch on 29-10-98 in view of his posting as Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Branch, Machhuatoli, Patna. So I find no substance in the assertion of the Management that he was lelieved from Dhanbad Branch to join the S.S.B. Machhuatciu Branch as Head Cashier category 'C in the light of the- earlier transfer order dated 11-3-1996. It is absord to say that the workman was relieved on 29-10-1998 iri compliance of the trans- fer order of long back dated 11-3-1996 Maehhuatoli Branch, Patna. So I find no element of truth in the assertaion of the Management that the workman was relived lrom Dhanbad Bianch on 29-10-1998 on the basis of the earlier order of the Bank dated 11-3-1996 (Ext. M/l) transferring the workman to Machhuatoti S.S. Spin-Off Branch as Head Cashier category 'C. Ext. W/l is the order of the Bank dated 14-10-1998 debarring the workman from higher assignment for the post of Head Cashier category 'E' for a period of three years on the basis of his refusal letter dated 25-9-1998. Ext. W/3 is a letter from the concerned workman to ihe Manager, Personnel, Regional Office, Calcutta dated 3U-10-199N stating therein that inspire of his request to the cont- rary he was relieved from Dhanbad Branch on 29-10-1998 for the post of Head Cashier category 'E' and tlhen he joined at S.S.B. Madihuatoh Bianch on 30-10-1998 as Head Cashier categoiv 'E'. It is further mentioned in tfhis letter that in the circum- stances he accepted the post of Head Cashier cate- gory 'E' at S.S.B. Machhualcdi Branch and he ic- qucSted the Management to treat (his earlier request in this regard as withdrawn .Ext. W/4 is the repre- sentation made by the concerned workman with the Management against the order debairing him from the post of Head cashier category 'E' for three years. In this letter it has been mentioned that the order of the Management dated 14-J 0-1998 debarring him from the post of Head Cashier category 'E' was re- ceived by him only on the date of the Idler. In the margin it is noted that this representation letter was received in the Branch Office on 13-11-1993. Ext. W|7 is the reply of the Bank dated 9-11-1998 to the representation letter of the concerned woikman. In this tetter it is mentioned that as the workman had refused the offer for the post of Head Cashier cate- gory 'E' aud as he had been debarred from that post on the basis of the said refusal letter his transfer to S.S.B. Machhuatoh Branch was for the post of Head Cashier category 'C\ Ext. W/8 is the letter of the Management inviting applications for filling up the post of Head Cashier category 'E' at S.S.B. Branch, Machhuatoli. It shows that the hsi date for withdrawal of (h. application was 10-8-1998. It is further mentioned that in no circumstance withdrawal of applications for the said post would be permitted after the said stipulated date.

3. Thus, from the above oral and documenlary evi- dence it becomes apparent that the concerned works man Sri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar submitted two applica- tions with the Management on 25-9-1998. One appli- cation was with record to refusal for the post of Head Cashier category 'E' Machhuatoli Branch since he wanted to continue at Dhanbad

9. It also becomes apparent that the decision of the Management fcr debarring the workman from the post of Head Cashier category E as contained in the order of the General Manager's Office, Calcutta dated 14-10-1998 (Ext. w / l) was not communicated to the workman so long he remained posted at Dhanbad. It seems that even no copy of the said order had been supplied cither to the Regional Office. Ranchi or to to the Branch Office Dhanbad. If the fact of debarr- ing the workman from the post of Head Cashier category 'E' was known either to the Regional Office or Branch office the workman would not have b^en furnished with a copy of his posting order as Head Cashier'"category 'E' at S.S.B. Machhuatoli Br.inch, Patna on 29-10-1998 and would not have been re- lieved from Dhanbad Branch to join the said post. The said order of the General Manager's office, Calcutta was apparently communicated to the work- man only after his joining there ns Head Cashier category"'E'. As per clause 12 of Chapter XII of the memorandum of settlfaient circulated bv circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-1992 (Ext, M/5) nn employee1944 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA:MAY 5, 200T/VA1SAKHA 15, 1923 [PART tt—Sec 3(U)] has to refuse to accept tttie higher assignment within two days from the written offer. As we have seen the written offer for the posting of Head Cnshier category 'h' at S.S.B. Machhuatofi Branch was made to the workman only on 27-10-1989 when the order of said pasting dated 24-9-1998 wys furnished to him. So he could not have Validly refused the post before the offer was made in this light of the said memorandum of settlement (Ext. W/5).

10. Since there was no valid rcfus?l, the action of the Management in debarring the workman Sri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar as Head Cashier Category lE' is noL justified. He is therefore, cmitled to be posted at S.S.B. MachhuaHoli Branch. Patna as Head Cashier category 'E' w.e.f. 30-10-1998 when he joined there. Accordingly the Reference is answered. The Manage- ment is directed to j-piplemcrit the awaid within a month from the date of its publication.

11. This is my award.

S. K. MISHRA. Presiding Officer Dated: 26-3-2001.

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2001 S.O. 918.—In pursuance -of Section 17 of the In* dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal New DUhi as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managenrnt oi Medical Supdt. Satdarjung Hospital and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 11-4-2001.

[No. L-42012|186'87-IR(D.II(B)] KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRl K. S. SRIVASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL C3OVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

I.D. No 107(88

in the matter of dispute between :

Shri Atar Singh S/o Shri Ram Pher, Chowkidar c|o Hospital Employee's Union, Aggafrwal Bhawan. G.F. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-11)0054.

Versus

Ihe Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi-16.

APPEARANCES :

Shri Rajiv Aggarwal—for the workman.

Shri M. P. C. Rao, P.P.O.—for the Management

AWARD

This industrial dispute under section 10(1) (d) and section 1(A) of the Industrial Disputes Aci, 1947 iias been referred fay the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012|186| 87-D.Il(B) 6-10-88 for tlie adjudicauon of the dis- pute on the following teims : —

"Whether the management of Medical Supdt., Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi is justified in terminating the services of Shri Atar Singh s]o Shri Ram Pher, Chowkidar Rank No. 2618 w.e.f. 22-7-86/ If not, to what relief the Concerned workman is entitled to?" 2. Il is to be noted¹ at the first stage that during the continuance of the proceedings the workman namely Shri Attar Singh dies on 7-10-95 and on the application of his heirs and legal representatives moved [hrough Smt. Jagwa|ti wife ot the deceased workman. She was impleaded as Iei^al representative of the deceased workman in the case vide order dated 20-9-96.

3. It is admitted lact of the case that the woikman Shri Attar Singh was the employee of U& Manage- ment namely Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and he was employed as Chowkidar since the year 1^76. The workman was charge sheeted twice for hh misconduct f>y showing neg/tigence in the performance of his) duties causing huge loss to government money and showing lack ot integrity and devotion to duty. The first charge sheet was served vide memorandum No. 6-J2|84-Vig. dated 20-7 84 leveling two charges, {ts details are given in pjra 4 of claim statement and it is reproduced below:—

"(]) That Shri Altar Singh, Chowkidar, Rank No. 2^18 was on duly at Medical Store on 20-1-83 f/om 9.30 PM to 7.00 AM next day (21-1-83).

In tite flight of 20/21-1-83, a theft occurred in the Medical Store resulting in the loss of Rs. 27,247. Shri Attar Singh was so irres- ponsible in his duty that he could not watch the entry of thieves in the Medical Store. By not keeping vigil on the Medical Stores, Shn Atotr Singh has exhibited lack ot Integrity and devotion to duty thereby con- travening rub 30){i~) & Cii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 196-1.

(2) That Shri Attar Singh, Chowkidar has given different statements at different occasions,1945. On 21-1-83, in one of his statements, he has said that at about 4.00 AM he went to take tea outside the hospital gate and when he came back, he found the lock of the rear gate of. the Medical Store opened. In his another statement dated 21-1-83, he has said that at about 3.30 A.M. Shri Gokal Singh, Security Guaid came to him and both of them went to take round, fie then went to answer a natural call out- side the hospital gate and when he came back, he saw s man running towards the ground behind the Medical Store. He found the lock opened and shouted loudly follow- ing which may Chowkid'ars collected there and the matter was reported to Casuality Medical Officer.

By Giving different statements a\t diffeicnt occasions, Sh, Attar Singh has exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty thereby contravening rule 3(1)0) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.'⁷

4. Dr. D. Ghosh Head of Department, Radiothei&py was appointed as Enquiry Officer and¹ Dr. B. G. Matapurkar. Surgeon was appointed - as Presenting Officer on behalf of the Management. The second vnarge sheet was sawed vide memorandum No. 6-10| 85-Vig. dated 25-6-1085 the detail of which is also given in the same para 4 of the statement of claim and the changes framed ar" ako mentioned below:—

"Charge No. I

That Shri Attar . Singh, Chowkidar, Rank No. 2618 was posted for duty on 26-5-85 from 3 PM to '1.30 FM. At about 5.30 PM he requester,! Shri Roop T^al, Security Guard. Rank No. 144? to look after his dutv and left the duty place without proper petmis- sion. Shri Attar Singh did not return to m's dutv thereafter.

Shri Attar Sinch, Chowkidar deserted his duty in a verv irresponsible manner inspite of soecific instructions issued in Office Order No.*4-4J5 dated 11.5-1985.

was passed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Management.

S. As disclosed in patra 5 of the statement of claim, the workman has challenged the legality of the punish- ment order on the following grounds firstly he was placed under suspension \kle order No. 6-lO|85-Vig. dated 30-5-1985 and had-remained under suspension throughout till the dale of the order of his dismissal. Secondly despite demands workman was not supplied copies of the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry and proved during the disciplinary procced- irgs. ' Thirdly the report of the enquiry officer was perverse and was based on extraneous and foreign consideration. Fouthr ly, the punishmentt order was passed by th" disciplinary authority without the application of mind. Fifthly punishmsn' imposed on ihc workmom was disproportionate to the charges framedagainst him. Sixthly workman's past service record was not taken into consideration.

7. On behalf of the management it is strongly opposed that the enquiry proceeding against the work- man were held illegally und against the principles of natural justice. It is stated on behalf of the manage- ment that the petitioner was given copies of the docu- ments and wajs afforded opportunity of hearing and producing his defence. The order of punishment was • p a s s ed a g a t o l st h im 1 KG a l ly a nd f n i r lv a f t er c o n s i- d e r i ng t he e n t i re m a t e r i al a v a i l a b le by t he d i s c i p l i n a ry authority.

8. The Managementr kas also stated about the con- duct of the torkman-imd'-it is stated that at the time of the employment in 1976 the workman had con- selled the fact that he was jailed in Sri Nw for ai period of ten days. The management ha^ also denied workman's contention (hat his service ipeord was satisfactory and good and has stalled 'that in fact service record of the workman was not upto (he mark. He was given various warnincs and was aekecl to improve vide memorandum daned 7-12-79, 24-7-79, 28-4-82 and 5-1-83 hot instead of bringing improve- ment in him he continued to *how lacity in the per- formance of his duties.

11. It appears that on the failure of the appearance by the management in the case on 27-11-98 direction fur proceeding experts against the management was Kivcn.

12. Written arguments on behalf of the workman

was filed and oral arguments were also heard.

13. Besides the objections taken by the workman against the legality of the disciplinary proceedings aad the punishment order m para 5 of the statement ot claim and mentioned above the workman in this respect has also taken a plea of the mcompetency of the punishing authority to pass the punishment order. This plea has been taken by the workman for the first time in the affidavit of Shri C. P. Aggarwal held in ths case on behalf of the workman being autho- rised representative of the workman. His assertion in this respect is that the appointing authority of the workman was the Chief Medical Superintendent of the Management and not Chief Administrative Officer who has passed the punishment older and thus the Chief Administrative Officer who was subordinate to the Chief Medical Superintendent was not competent to pass the order.

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001 S.O. 919.—In pursuance oi Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court, Lucknow tits shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agemenL of Military Dairy Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2001.

[No. L-14012/115/98-lR(DU)l KULDTP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT JNDUS TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 123/2000 Old No. 101/99 (Kanpur)

BETWEEN

Ambika Prasad Yadav, C/o B.M.S.. 32, Chakrata Road. Dehradim-248001.

AND

Officer Incharge, Military Dairy Farm, Dehradun-248001.

AWARD

By reference No. 14012/115/98/IR(DU) dated 22*4-1999, the Central Government, in the Ministry af Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) (if sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Ambika Prasad Yadav and Officer Incharge, MUitary Dairy Farm, Dehradun for adjudication, to the CGir-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and later, trans- ferred the ense to this Tribunal.

1204 GII20O1—8

The reference is reproduced as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Dairy Farm, Dehradun in LCiminating the services

3. The management has filed written statement through Capt, D. S. Rathorev Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh. It is pleaded that 'Military Farm' is an army unit, engaged in pro- duction of milk for free ration to army jawans and hay for the army animals. It consists of a dairy which is engaged in production and processing of milk and milk products. The cultivation section of the farm, is for production of fodder for the animals, kept at the farm. The work in the dairy is of regular nature but the work in cultivation section is of seasonal nature. La- hours engaged in cultivation section, arc not put to regular work due to its nature of work. Engagement of the workman at Military Farm, Dehradun is not denied but it is stated t h* he was engaged subject to needs and did not work continuously as claimed by him.

4. It is further pleaded that due to reduction of work load, grades 'C and 'D' staff arc under process of transfer of different units, and no work is left to keep engaged casual labours. It is clarified that the casual labours including the workman would be called on availability of work.

5. Since 28-2-2000 the workman did not appear, to file rejoinder or evidence in the case. Registered notices were sent on 28-9-2000, 23-10-2000 without any res- ponse from him. Attain registered notices was issued on 14-11-2000, 12-12-2000 as well on 22-1-2001. Despite all these notices, the workman failed to appear and file lejoinder. Accordingly, an cx-parte proceeding was initiated.

6. The management filed a number of documents, showing retrenchment order, and offer of retrenchment compensation etc. Letters regulating the services of casual labours, have also been filed.

7. There is no evidence to rebut management's con- tention that retrenchment compensation was offered and the termination was duo to non-availability of work. There is nothing on record to suggest unfair labour practices, in face of the offer of the manage- ment that the casual labours as per seniority would he called to work as and when requirements would arise.

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of March, 2001 S. The workman has n

9. Award accordingly.

Lneknow,

1. Tho Government of India, Ministry of Labour viK- oulcr No. L-4OO12|1C7|92-1RDU dt. 10-1-94 lias referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

27-3-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Ramkhiladi S/o Shri Sewaram w.c.f. 30-4-90 is justified ? It not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled t o ?"

New Delhi, thj 12th April, 2001

2. The case for the workman is that initially he was appointed as casual labour under Assistant Engineer, RE, Jhanu w.e.f. 1-2-85. He continued as such till 5-3-86. Thereafter he was engaged under SDO(T), Morena w.e.f. 1-4-86 and remained in the employment till 30-6-86. Thereafter he was again sent to RE w.e.f. 1-7-86 and continued to work till 31-10-86. Thereafter ha was again engaged under SDO(T), Morena w.ci. 1-1-87 where he worked till 30-6-87. Again he was scut under SDO(T) and he worked there w.e.f. 1-8-87 to 30-4-88. Thereafter on 1-5-88 again he was sent to RE Vidisha where he worked till 13-1-89. He was again sent to SDO(T), Bhopal w.c.f. 1-9-89 and worked there till 30-4-90. His attendance was entered in the muster roll till 31-10-89. He was given identity boo!, in which his complete attendance was entered. The SDO(T) discontinued his service w.e.f. 1-8-90.

S.O. 920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabal- pur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief General Manage] Telecom and their work- man, which was received bv the Central Government on 12-4-2001.

[No. L-40012/167/92-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The workman further alleges that his services were illegally tciminated in violation of the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. He had continuously worked for more than 2-10 day? ,in a calendar year. He is therefore entitled to regularisation prior to terminating his ser- vices. The management had neither served him with statutory notice nor any retrenchment compensation was giwn to him. The termination of his service w.c.f. 30-4-90 deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with all back wages.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/2/94

PRESENT :

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

4. The case for the management is that the workman was employed purely on casual basis. He had not worked for* 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination from service. His termination therefore does not amount to retrenchment. He is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F oF the T.D. Act, 1947 as claimed by him. In view of .all these facts, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

5. The following issues arise for decision in this

case—

Shri Rcm Khiladi, R/o Nayapura, Thani Ambah, District Morena. Applicant.

1. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate-

ment with back wages.

2. Relief and costs ?

Tiri'on of Indin through Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi. Chief General Manager. Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal. Asstt Engineer, Telecom,

Railway Electrification Project,

6. Issue No. 1: The workman has admitted in his statement that ho was employed as casual labour on temporary basis by the management. He used to work till the work was made available by the management. A tier the work was over, his services used to be dis- continued. Thereafter again when the necessity arose, the management gave him the employment temporarily for a particular period.

Bhopal.

• .Non-applicants.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/235/91

PRESEN I" :

Piesidjig Officer : Shi i K. M. Rai.

Shri Gulab Singh, C/o Shankar Singh, PC) G:>ndhi Gram, Budhagar, Teh. Sihora, District Jabalpur.

. .Applicant.

Versus

The Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpui.

. Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on tin's 2nd day of March, 2001 7. I he workman was initially appointed as casua¹ labour w.c.l. 1-2-85 and he continued to work as such till 31-10-89 which is evident from attendance record Ex. W-2. In this way as per the scheme of manage- ment, the workman attained the temporary status as on 29-11-89. He had also continuously worked tor 240 days in the preccdmg years which has been estab- lished iiom the attendance register Exhibit W-2. in this way as per the management scheme dated 12-4-91, the workman attained a temporary status and therefore hq was eligible for regularisation. The management did not consider him at all and discontinued his services w.e.f. 26-4-90. The management also did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act prior to terminating the services of workman. The workman has amplv proved that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date ot hib termination. As per the regularisation scheme of 12-4-91, he has attained temporary status. Hence the workman's termination is bad in law. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages w.c.f. 1-5-90 till the date of his reinstatement. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

a. Issue No. 2: On the reasons stated above, it is

1. Tlic Government oi India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-40012;99|91-D-2(B),IR(D.U.) dated 15th December, 1991 lias referred the follow- ing dispute IOJ adjudication by this tribunal—

held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement w ith back wages w.e.f. 1-5-90 till the date of his reinstate- ment. rI he workman shall be reinstated within the period of 3 months from the date of award,

9. Copy of award be sent to the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

"Whether the action of the management of Tele- com. Factoiy, Jabalpur hi terminating the services of Shri Gulab Singh, Ex-Mazdoor w.e.f. 17-9-90 is justified 7 If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001

S.O. 921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of Telecom Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2001.

[No. L-40012l99|9]-D-2(B)|m(D.U.)|

2. The case for the workman is that he was first appointed in Telecom. Factory, Jabalpur as a Mazdoor on 13-7-73. At that time, he recorded his date of birth in the prescribe! form as 15-6-1947. He had not studied in any school and therefore no proof for the age was produced by him. T,he management also did not ask any proof and accepted his date of birth as given by him. The declaration made by the work- man with rtgard to his date of birth was based on the inionnation leceived from his patents who were totally illiterate. His seivices were teiminated w.e.f. 17-7-76 illegally. Again he was given appointment on 27-4-84. The management asked him to furnish ihe information about his dale of birth which was ahcady recorded in connection with the cailicr appointment. The workman being unaware of his age and date of birth, he gave his age as 35 years on the information received from his'parents. On that basis he also filed an affidavit declaring his date of birth as 5-7-54. This date of birth was not based on any document. The workman further alleges that he was chargesheeted for the alleg- ed misconduct of furnishing talse information about his dale oi birth and age. He was illiterate and had no service leco'd. His parents were, also illiterate. At the same time there was no documentary evidence regard- ing the date of birth. There was no mala-fidc intention of woikniati rit the lin>e of furnising the date of birth to the management. He had not exercised nny fraud in this connection us alleged by the management. The management had issued the ehaigoshcet simply because he had challenged his fresh appointment instead of icinstdting him on duty as he hjid been acquitted of the criminal cli:urge by the High Court of MP on which basis, his sci vices, were terminated on 17-7-76. He was also allowed to be reinstated with full back wages KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer1950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2001/VAJSAKHA 13, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)1 and other consequential benefits by this tribunal in case No. C'Gir/LC/R/37/84. The management was annoyed with this oider and therefore a false charge- sheet was served on him and the Departmental Enquiry regarding misconduct was conducted against him. Ul- timately on the basis of enquiry report, he was illegally dismissed from service from 17-9-90. In spite of his expressed willingness he was not examined by the medical hoard to ascertain his age. The workman was not given opportunity to cross examine the prosecu- tion witnesses during the Departmental Enquiry and no ample opportunity was given to him to defend his case properly. . In this way the Enquiry was not con- ducted in fair and just manner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer is againsl the princip'es of natural jus- tice. The order of dismissal therefore deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with all back wages.

3. The case for the management is that the workman was first appointed as mazdoor in Telecom. Factory. At the time of his appointment, ho had furnished his date of birth as 15-6-47 which was accepted by the Department and was recorded in the service book as" per his decollation. He was engaged as temporary maz- door and his services were terminated w.e.f. 17-7-76 under rule 27 (1) of CSO after payment of one month's notice. He waL offered the job of mazdoor as a fresh appointment. For his fresh appointment as mazdoor, the workman submitted an affidavit on 14-6-84 stating his date of birth as 5-7-54. He was given fresh appoint- ment on temporary basis on 27-4-84, Subsequently it was revealed from the office records that in order to, get undue advantage false date of birth was given b y' the workman at the time of getting the second tempo- rary appointment as mazdoor. The workman was, accordingly issued chargesheet on 22-7-86 for miscon- duct of fraud and dishonest under CSO 31 ( D ). The Depaj tmental Enquiry was conducted as per rules. He,, was given ample opportunity to defend himself. The charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of this report, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service w.e.f. 17-9-90. The work- man pi'efencd an appeal against the order of dismissal. This appeal was > ejected on 19-7-91.

4. The management further alleges that the petition, challenging removal from service of workman has no connection with this case. He has been rightly removed from service after due enquiry and his charges were found to be proved against him. The enquiry conduct- ed against the workman was just and proper. There- fore the punishment awarded to him does not rejfijire any inlerfercnce by this court. The workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages as claimeJ by him.

5. The following issues arise for decision in the. present case and my findings thereon are noted as hereinafter—

1. Whethci the DE conducted against the work- man is just and proper ?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead, evidence to prove the misconduct of the •workman ?

3. Whether the punishment awarded to the work- mau is just and proper ?

4. Relief and costs '!

6. Issue No. 1 and 2:—This tribunal has held on 15-4-99 that the DE conducted against the workman by the management was just and proper. In view of this finding, the management is not required to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. Issue Nos. land 2 are answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 3: It is an admitted fact that the work- man was gtven first appointment as mazdoor by the management on 12-7-73. At the time of appointment, he had furnished his date of birtb as 15-0-47 which was accepted by the management and was recorded in the service book of the workman as per his declara- tion. He was on temporary employment and therefore his services were terminated w.e.t. 17-7-7b under rules 27(1) of CSO after payment ot one month's notice. JFor the 2nd time the workman was given a fresh tem- porary appointment as a mazdoor on 27-7-84. ihis time, the workman gave his date of birth as 5-7-54. He had given an affidavit also confirming his date of birth as 5-7-54. After about 2 years, this (act came to the notice of the management that the workman had give/i laJse date of birth as ,5-7-54 tor securing undue advantage. He was therefore issued a charge- sheet in this respect and proper DE was conducted against him. 1'hc charges were proved against him and on the basis ol cnuqiry report, the Disciplinary Autho- rity terminated his services w.e.i. 17-9-90. All these tacts haVe been admitted by the workman himself. It was the duty of workman to- verify his date of birth Jtrom the oilice of management wjiile getting the second fresh temporary appointment as mazdoor on 22-7-84, After caieiul mvestigation he should have given affi- davit In respect of his correct date of birth which was submitted earliei when the first appointment was issued to him. The changed date of birth is a clear nusconduct which cannot be excused by any amount of argument what so ever might be.

8. The circumstances of the case clearly go to prove that the workman had deliberately given the false date of birth at the time of getting the second temporary appointment as a mazdoor only with a view to gain some advantage for continuing in the service for a longer period tor which he was not entitled at all. In such a c;ise, the punishment of dismissal is perfectly just and proper. The management had acted reason- ably in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

9. Issue No. 4 : On the reasons stated above, it is held that the punishment of dismissal of service award- ed against the workman by the management is just and proper and needs no interference by this court. The workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him in the present case, In this way, the reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

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

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer1951 New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001 S O 9 2⁹ —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial -Disputes Act, I'j47 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal |Labour Court, Lucknow, as shown ir the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to-the-management of TcVcom. Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on J 2-4-2001.

[No. L-40012[46l99-lR(DU)l KULDIP RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer The reference is reproduced as under :

"Where the action of ithe JDoorsanchar Depart- ment, Luaknow in terminating,the services of Sh. Balram Merma is .legal and justified ? If not, to what 'relief the workman is en- titled ?"

2. Shortly Put.—The case of the workman is that he was appointed in the services of Lucknow Door- sanchar Department as helper and was assigned work under Mr. V. K. Srhastava, Asstl. Engineer. His emo- luments were ,Rs. 48 per day. He worked with Mr. V. K. Srivastava und then after, under other officers, continuously from January, 1992 to Decem- ber, 1994. In each of the year during the said period, he worked more than 240 days continuously. His servces were terminated w.e.f. 1-1-1995 without any notice, notice pay or letrenchinent .compensation. His pleas to the higher officers of the department had no effect. Even juniors to him are retained and are working. Three of such juniors viz. Anil Kumar, Daya Ram, G. S. Tewari have been mentioned in the claim statement. The workman contends that [he work against which he was engaged, is still vacant and i those engaged with him are still working and some of them have been made regular employees.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Presiding Officer.—Rudiesh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

3. The management has not denied engagement of tiro workman, .Balram Veima, in the department, but has pleaded that under pressure of works, some casual labours wtie engaged from market and the workman may be one amongst them. It is denied that the workman had worked continuously since January, 1992 to December, 1994 and completed 'continuous service' for more than 240 days in any calendar year. I he management is not specific, to deny work and chaiactcr certificate issued by its officers but has come with ploas that they were not authorised to issue such certificates and, thus, the certificates have no legal effect.

I.D. No. 8|99

BETWEEN

Balram Verm a S[o Sh. R. K. VERMA R|o 221741, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)-226001.

AND

The General Manager Doorsanchar 'LucknoW Doorsanchar,

Lucknow(U.P.)-226001.

4. The workman, in order to substantiate his ver- sion, examined himself before this Tribunal. He also relied " on two certificates relating to his work and conduct, issued by Mr, V. K. Srivastava and Mr. M. B. Verma, both Asstt. Engineers of the Doorsan- char Department. A number of copies of the repre- sentations made to the officers and the Hon'ble Minister have been filed to show that he regularly approached the authorities to redress his grievances but no attention was paid and ultimately he has to raise, this industrial dispute.

AWARD

By reference No. L-40012]46;99|1R(DU) dated 26-7-1999, the Central Government in the Ministry 4>f Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) -made over this industrial dispute between Balram Verrna and the General Manager, Doorsan- >char, -Lucknow Doorsanchm, Lucknow for adjudica- tion.

5. -The management on, the other hand, examined Mr, V. K. Srivastava, ihen Asstt. Engineer with whom the workman allegedly worked. One of the certifi- cate? T.x, W-l is said to have been issued by him. Mr. V. K. Siivastava denied to have issued Ex. W-l and his signature over it. The workman with per- mission of the Tribunal, examined hand writing ex- peif Mr. S. P. Gupta and submitted his report. Initially, the management desired to examine his own expert but later, changed its mind and desired to cross examined the export.

6. To shorten Ihe discussions, the core issue is whether Balram Verma was engagedr.and had work- ed under V. K. Sriv;istava and M. B Verma from January, 1992 to December, 1994 71952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2001/VAfSAKRA 15, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7. It is pertinent to mention that the management did not deny engagement of Balram Vcrma, but, stated that he might have been one of the many labours, engaged tor day to works borrowed from the market. Such averments do not amount to deni- al of engagement of the workman, especially, in face of the certificates Ex. W-l and Ex. W-2 issued by V. K. Srivastava and M. B. Verma. Expert's evi- dence conclusively proves that Ex. W-l was signed by V, K. Srivastava. The management did not exa- mine M. B. Verma to deny issuance of the certificate Ex. W-2 which mentions period 1993-94. M. B. Verma was available with the management, who could have examined lo deny Ex. W-2.

8. It was for the management to show that the services of the workman was taken for few days and he was paid on petty vouchers, as was the practice, in the department. The workman in Ms statement claimed that he was paid on Form ACG 17 regularly on monthly basis. He al"o stated that those casual labours working outside Lucknuw were paid on mustor roll. This tact is not denied by the manage- ment. On application of the workman, this Tribunal ordered production ot ACG 17 to prove whether payments were made to the workman regularly from January, 1992 to December, 1994, but the manage- ment failed to produce the records, or to show cogent reasons for not doing so. Consequently presumption has to be drawn against the management as it deli- berately concealed the documents. The statement of the Workman that he worked from January, 1992 to December, 1994 continuously, is corroborated by the certificate Ex. W-l rnd W-2. These certificates can be accepted as pi oof to claim period of works, since these were issued by the officers with whom the workman remained engaged.

9. The management has noi filed any record or also did not give any evidence to show that the workman were never .engaged. It has also not been shown that the three junior persons, viz Anil Kumar, Daya Ram and G. S. Tewuri arc not working. It has also not been shown as fiom which contractor, this workman was borrowed, if not engaged by the department, as stated by MW1.

10. Thus, from evidence on record, it is proved that Balram Verma worked in Kaiserbagh Exchange and assisted Mr, V. K. Srivastava and Mr. M. B. Verma. It is also proved by Ex. W-l and Ex. W-2 that he worked upto 1994. Accordingly, the work- man succeeded in proving his engagement as casual labour, and continuous woikiug from January, 1992 to December, 1994 and hJs continuous working in these years were more than 240 days in each calendar year, His abrupt lerminaiiou from Service was not justified as the management failed lo comply with the provisions of the section 25-F Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

11. In the result, the workman is entitled conti- nuity in service. He is entitled to be reinstated with back wages.

12. Award accordingly.

Luck now,

Vt. 3-4-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001 S.O. 923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industiul Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of 1 he Ccntn.il Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Couit, Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Dairy Farm, and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 12-4-2001.

[No. 1.-14O12|17|99-1R(DU)] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BHI-ORE THE CEN1RAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Presiding Officer.--Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 142|200C Old No. 236|99 (Kanpur)

BETWEEN

Mukesh Kumar, C|o B.M.S. 32, Chakrata Road. Dehradun.

AND

Officer Inchaigc, Military Dairy Farm, Dehradun.

AWARD

By reference No. L-l4012117|99|IR(DU) dated 22-7-9"9, the Central Government, in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Mukesh Kumar and Officer Incharge, Military Dairy Farm, Dehiadun for adjudication, to the CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and later, transferred the case to this Tribunal.

The reference is re-produced as under :

"Whether the ?clion of the management of Mili- tary Dairy Farm, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar, Ex- casual labour is hgil and justified? If1953 not, lo what relief the workman is entitled." 2. The workman, Mukesh Kumar, has raised this industrial dispute claiming continuous service from 10-1-90 to Jl-8-98 andVoiking for 240 days in t;ach calender year and thus entitled to reinstatement with back wages. lie plcuds that the work, which was assigned to him was of perennial and permanent nature, that the management, all of sudden, termi- nated his services w.e.f. 1-9-98 without any notice, notice p:w or retrenchment compensation. The mana- gement did not follow provisions of section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-11 Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Relief of reinstatement from 1-9-98 with back wages is claimed.

3. The management has filed written statement through Capt. D. S. Rathore, Officer Incharge, Mili- tary Farm, Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh. It is pleaded that 'Military Farm' is a army unit, engaged in pro- duction of milk for free ratioa to army jawans and hay for the army aniimU. It consists of a dairy which is engaged in production and processing of milk and milk products. The cultivation section of the farm is for production of fodder for the animals, kept at the farm. The work in the dairy is of regu- lar nature hut the work in cultivation section is of seasonal natur •. Labours engaged in cultivation section, are not put to tegular work due to its nature of work. Engagement of the workman at-Military Farm, Dehradun is not denied but it is stated that he was engaged subject to needs and did not work continuously as claimed by him,

4. Tt is further pleaded that due to reduction of work load, grade 'C' and 'D' staff arc under process of transfer to different units, and no work is left to keep engaged casual labours. It is clarified that the casual labours including the vorkman would be call- ed on availability of work,

5. Since 28-2-2000, the workman did not appear, to file rejoinder or evidence in the case. Registered notice? were sent on 28-9-2000, 23-10-2000 without and response from him. Again registered notices was issued on 14-11-2000, 12-12-2000 as well on 22-1-2000. Despite all these notices, the workman failed to appear and file rejoinder. Accordingly, as cx-parte proceedings was initiated.

6. The management filed a number of documents, showing retrenchment order, and offer of retrench- ment compensation etc. Letters regulating the ser- vices of casual labours, have also been filed.

7. There is no evidence to rebut management's contention that retrenchment compensation was offer- ed and the termination was due to non-availability of work. There is noihing on record to suggest unfair labour practices, in face of the offer of the manage- ments that the casual labours as per seniority would be called to work ns and when requirements would arice.

8. The workman has not filed any evidence to substantiate the claim and thus, the management has justified its action in terminating the services of the workman. The workman 's not entitled to any relief.

9. Award accordingly,

Likknow. 27-3-2001

RUDRESI-I KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001 S.O. 924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cantt. Board, Sajiar and their workman, which v, as received by the Central Government on 12-4-2001.

[No. L-13O12|2|92-1R(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALFUR

Case No. CGTTjLC!R|24|93

Presiding Officer: Shri K. M. Rai. .

Shri L. P. Srivastava. Ex, Junior Clerk, Cantonmen' Board, Sagar.

. .Applicant.

Versus

Cantonment Board,

Sagar

. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 5th d.-iv of March, 2001 1. The Government of India MinHrv erf Labour -'ide order No. L-13012I2I92TRPU dated 18-1-93 hns referred the following dispute for adjudication by 'his tribunal:—

"Whether the ma^'an^mcnt of C.intf Board, Saear CMP1 is iiistffied in terminating the services of Shri T, P. Snvi^fava, E\-Tunior clerk w.ef. 1-fl,91 ? Tf not, wfia' relief he is enriied to?"

?.. The case for tlif wori-man is thnt he was an- rioirited as varcimfnr hv thf> Government Board. Sagar in the vear 1957. Me was promoted a? clerk in the1954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2001/VAISAKHA 15, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] year 1974. Thereafter he was holding the post of sLore keeper v.e.f. May 85 to Nov 87. The canton- ment Board Sugar served him with a chargesheet for deficiency oi stoic, unaccountability ut tyres and thelt of tyres in the year 1987. Three enquiries were conduced against him indcpentlj of the said cnarges. He submitted his reply to the charges but the management did not accept the same. During the Departmental Enquiry, tile copies of relevant docu- ments, relied on by ine management, were not supplied to him, The Enquiry Officer did not permit him ID avail the help of Shri Dunsingh Thakur to ik'tend himself during the enquiry proceedings. The entire enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and the prinaiplcs of natuial justice were not complied with. During the enquiry proceedings his applica- tions weie not considered properly. There was no material on record to prove the charges against him.! (workman). During the enquiry proceedings, the prosecution failed to establish the workman's link with (he charges served on him. The enquiry officer sub- mitted ;i taVt report holding the charges proved against him on the basis of surmises only. In this way,. Hie enquiry Report is absolutely perverse which "•hfuild rnvc been ignored.

3. The workman further alleges that the Canton- ment Board has illegally held the charges proved against him. He has ueerr illegally dismissed from service by the management. This or.de>- deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

4. The case for the management is that while holding the post of store keener,,- the workman com- mitted serious acts of misconduct causing deficiency in the stores and theft of tyres etc. On 19th Sept. S8, the workftiJto; was issued chargesheet in this respect and the disciplinary proceedings were started nfeainst him under rule 12 of CESR-1937. After the enquiry proceedings were over, the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved against him. The report of Enquiry Officer Was accepted by the competent authority and the workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 30-7-91. The workman should have filed appeal against this order under rule-14 of CFSR-1937, bui he could not avail of this remedy. Tn this way the workman has not exhausted the alternative remedy availnMe to him in this connection.

the charges proved against the workman. The Com- petent Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry OHiccr and dismissed the workman from service. The teport of the enquiry committee is perfectly legal aftid doss not require any intcifeienee by this tribunal. The punishment awarded against the workman is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. In view of all these facts, the workman is not entitled to any relief r|s claimed by him.

6. The following issues have been framed in this case and the findings thcieon are noted herein after.—

1. Whether the enquiry is just, proper and legal.

2. Whether the management is entitled to IcacT evidence before this tribunal ?

3. Whether the changes of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case ?

4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?

5. Rcfief and ~ost9?

7. Issue No. 1 & 2 ; It has been held by this tribunal on 17-4-96 and 21-6-97 that the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the workman is perfectly just end proper. In view of this finding, the management is no required to lead¹ evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. Both these issues are amswered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 3 & A :

The Departmental enquiry regarding the alleged misconduct of the workman conducted by the majnacprnent has been held to be just and proper. Now the question arises as to whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman ^s pro- portionate in the circumstances of the case or not ? From the perusal of the Departmental Enquiry papers, it appears that the enquiry committee had considered the oval arid documentary evidence pro- duced in the Departmental Enauiry Proceedings from both the sides properly. The findings does not appear to be based on surmises or convictures only The conclusion is based on the facts and circumstances of the case available on the record. This finding docs not nppear to be perverse as contended bv the work- man. This court cannot reappreciate the evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings. T therefore hold fhat the icport of the enquiry committee does- net suffer from any legal infirmities.

9 The wo) km an wns charged with deficiency of stoie, theft of tyres and uncountability of tvres during his performance as s+ore keeper. He was holding the responsible nnd senribie post and the management had reposed the confidence in him for discharging the duty. Thn workman did not prove himself to be true and sincere to his dutv In such a circumstance, the imroHton of penalty of dismissal from service bv the cantonment board. Sojrar is perfectly just and proper and it does not require any interference bv ihi, tribnn-jl. Tt is therefore held that the charges of misconduct h:ive been proved against the workman tnd the punishment of dismissal from service is also proper. These issues are answered accordingly.

AND

The Deputy General Manager, State Bunk of India, Trichy. —Management/II Party.

10. Issue No. 5.—On the-reasons stated above, it is held that the workman is not entitled to any rcliet as claimed by him. The imposition of penanty of dismissal from service is perfectly just and proper and docs not require any interference,

APPEARANCES :

1 I Copy of the . w id be sent to the Ministry of

Labour as per rules.

For the Claimant—Sri V. S. Ekambaram, Autho-

rised Representative.

K. M RAI, Presiding Officer.

For the Management—Sri K. S. Sundar, Advo-

cate.

REFERENCE:

Older No. L-120l2/99/99/IR(B-I) dated 16th June, 1999. Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final bear- ing on 20-3-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, documents filed on the side of the Management Ex. Ml to M8 and upon considering the representation made on either side, this Tiibunal pass the following :—

AWARD

New Delhi, the 12th Apiil, 2001

This reference by the Central Government in exer- cise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between Shri A. G. Akbar Sheriff, Workman and ths Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Trichy. Management, mentioned as Schedule appended to "the ojder of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :-—

ti.O. 925.—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, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial 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 11-4-2001.

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment 'warning' to the- workman, Sri A. G. Akbar Sheriff by order dated 3 -10-95 is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?" [No. 12012/99/99-IROM)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 20th March, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presid:nq Oi.t!cci\

Industrial Dispute No. 134[2001

(Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 104/99)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10(l)(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Claimant, the General Secretary, State Bank Employees Union, Chennai and the Management, the Deputy General Manager. State Bank of India, Trichy)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Stato Bank Employees Union, Chennai. —Claimant/I Party.

This order of lefcrence was first made to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute for ad- judication and the same was taken on file there as I.D. No. 104/99. On receipt of notices from that Tribunal, both the parties appeared before that Tri- bunal and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending for enquiry before that Tribunal, as per the orders of the Central Government this case was transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the fide of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of re- cords from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, this case was taken on file as I.D. No. 134/2001 and notices were sent by registered post to the authorised represen'ativc of the I Path [Union and the counsel for the II Party/Management, informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal and to appear before this Tribunal with their respective parties tor the hearing on 1-2-2001. From 1-2-2001, the cass was Ldiourned to 16-2-2001, granting time for the II Party/Management to fife their document* and from 16-2-2001 the case was adjourned to 9th March, 1001 for the Mafia^ement to file the docu- ments. On 9-3-2001, the documents on tfv. Manage- ment sido were marked by consent of both the parties 12CM GI[200I—91956 THE GAZETTE OP" INDIA ; MAY 5,2001/VAISAKHA 15, 1923 [PART, EU$Be.3(ii)J as Ex. Ml to M8 and the case was adjourned to 20-3-2001 i.e. to-day, on request of both the parties.

3. When the matter was came up for enquiry this day, the aggrieved workman whose cause being es- poused by the I Party/Claimant Union has filed a memo stating that he has opted for voluntary retire- ment from service and the Respondent Bank has ac- cepted the same and has issued him a letter that he Will be relieved from the Bank service on retirement on VRS on the close of working hours on 31-3-2001 and since he is going U> retire next week, the punish- ment has become irrelevant and he has already sub- mitted a letter to the Respondent, Deputy General Manager of the Bank through proper channel about his withdrawal of this case and he requests that he may be allowed to not pres3 this industrial dispute No. 134/2001'. The authorised representative of the bank took notice and has made an endorsement that he has no objection. After -hearing¹ both sides, the memo is recorded. In view of the fact of the aggriev- ed workman's decision do not press this industrial dispute, due to his voluntary retirement from service, this case is allowed to be withdrawn by the aggrieved Workman, who is represented by ihe Claimant/I Party Union and consequently, this industrial dispute is dis- missing as not pressed.

4" la fee result, no dispute award is passed. No cost.

(Dictated to the Steifographer and transcribed & typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me on this day, the 20th March, 2001 >.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001 S.O. 926.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 erf 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-4-2001.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT MUMBAI PRESENT :

Shri S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer. Reference No. CGIT-2J40 of 2000 Employers in -relation to the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Aurangabad.

The Deputy Manager, State bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Officer, Aurangabad.

AND

Their Workmen

The General Secretary, State Bank of Hyderabad Workers' Organisation, C|o, Shri Mungikar, Pushpakunj, Old Osmanpurp Aurangabad.

APPEARANCES :

Fdr the Employers : Mr. A. S. Telang, Represen- tative.

For the Workmen : No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 21st March, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-12011|3|2000|IR(B-I) dated 25th/ 30th May, 2000 have referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Aurangabad in not redesignating Shri U R. Bodhankar, Head Cashier as Special Assistant, Degloor is ille- gal *nd justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?" \9S1

MATTER 1

ORDER

He reference stands disposed dff for non-prosccn-

tioiL

21-3 2001

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

Complaint under Section 33A(b) of I.D. Act, 1947 in the matter- of dismissal from service of Shri Chunnilal S/o Feku, Tub Loader, Nandan Mine No. 1, Western-, Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, during pendency of arbitration proceedings.

The Government of India, in the Ministry pf Labour, made a reference lor adjudication in industrial dispute between the Management of Western Coalfields Limit- ed in Pench and Kanhan Areas and RKKMS (INTUC) under Section 10-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Ga2ette Notification No. L. 22025/27/yO-IR-C.IL, dated, 6-7-1990. The terms of reference is as under.:

"Whether the demand of RKKMS (INTUC) for payment of wages to the workmen of Pench and Kanhan Areas for the period of strike from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988 is legal and justified, and if so, to what relief they are entitled,"

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001

S.O. 927.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1 4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL ynd their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-4-2001.

[No. L-22025/27/90-IR(C-II)J

N. P. KESHVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI M. G. WANARE. ARBITRATOR

2. Shri C. Bhattacharya, General Secretary, Rash- triya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, the Complainant, lodged a complaint on 25-5-1998 under Section'33-A (b) of the Indusrtial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the services of Shri Chunnilal S/o Feku, Tub Loader, Token No. 782 of Nandan Mine No, 1 of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area has been dismissed with effect from 18-7-1993 during the pendency of Industrial Dispute before the Arbitrator without ob- taining permission/approval from the Arbitrator, and that the Complainant prayed for investigation and grant of justice to the workman Shri Chunnilal S/o Feku, Tub Loader, Nandan Mine No. 1, who is adversely affected, Onginal copy of complaint in Form I under Rule 59 of I.D. (C) Rules dated 25-5-1998 is cnetos- ed in duplicate.

(Under Section 10-A of I.D. Act, 1947)

62, Friends Colony, Katol Road P.O. Nagpur-440013 Maharashtra State

3. On receipt of this complaint the -workman con- cerned Wjis ptoduced and I examined the workman on oath. I found that the workman concerned is dismissed on 18th July, 1993 by the Superintendent of Mines, Nandan Mine No. 1. Western Coalfield* Ltd., Katthan Area.

AWARD

Shri Chirantan Bhattacharya, General Secretary. RKKMS (INTUC). Chandatnetia P.O., District Chhindwara, Madhva Pradesh State. Complainant (Representing Workman).

4. The Management of Western Coalfields Ltd., through General Manager, Kanhan Area, was repre- sented on large number of dates from timp to time by officers of Personnel, Department of Khanhan Area to say by S/ShM M. L. Chourasia and Seth (both since expired) and Shri-R. B. Mishra and finally by Shri V. R. Chowlian, Area Personnel Manager, Kanhan Area, Western Coalfields Limitod, and submitted ver- bally that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act are not attracted end therefore this complaint cannot stand* Verwu

5. The Management submitted in case of Shri Chunnilal S/o Feku, Tub Loader, Nandan Mine No. 1 as under :

General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited. Kanhan Area, P.O. Dungaria, District, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh State Opposite Party (Representing Management).

"Shri Chunnilal &\a F&ku, Ex-Tub LoadttC, N*ndan Mine.No. 1 was issued a charge-sheet for his unauthorised absence from duty from 25th Dedsaber, 1991. A dettfiled domestic "n- quiry was conducted and charge levelledl⁹^ 55 .G^ ? ?T T EJ⁰F I N D IA : MAY $' 2001/VAlSAKHA 15, 1923 LFART H - S E C. 3(ii)1 against him were proved. Accordingly, he was dismissed from the service. His attendance particulars prior to his dismissal from the services are as under :

Vear Days 1990 35 1991 59 1992 112 1993 (upto May 1993) 13 days 6. On investigation 1 find that the admitted facts are as under :

Hie workman concerned is the employee in Nandan Coal Mine No. 1 of Western Coalfields Limited, in their Kantian Area and the workman is directly involv- ed in the industrial dispute at. under reference dated 6-7-1990 pending before me and that the above named complainant is directly concerned workman in the industrial dispute pending before me. On J1-3-1992 the concerned workman was charge sheeted for mis- conduct of unauthorised absence from duty continu- ously for more than 10 days and an enquiry was held and the workman concerned was issued order of dis- missal on 18-7-1993. I find that the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Kanhan Area admittedly failed to make any application as required by law for seeking an approval/permission of dismissal of the concerned workman from the Arbitrator, who is undersigned, as per statutory obligation.

7. I find on the date of dismissal i.e. on 18-7-1993 there has been pendency of industrial dispute in which this workman being directly connected in the pending industrial dispute and is directly involved. I enclose herewith for record xerox copies of charge sheet Ho. Nandan|l|CHS|92-698 dated 11-3-1992. The enquiry officer's findings were not shown by the Management despite my insistant demand till the writing of this Award. Thc\, however, made avail- able Enquiry Officer's proceedings i.e. question|ans- wer .(not findings).

8. The provisions of sub-section (b) of Section 33 of the Act clearly lays down the obligation on the part of the employer that during the pendency of any proceedings before on Arbitrator no employer shall for any misconduct dismiss any workman con- nected in the industrial dispute. The Act further lays down in the proviso under Section 33(2) of the Act that no such workman shall be dismissed unless sn application" has been made by the employer to the authority (In this case the authority is an Arbi- trator u|s. 10-A of the Act) before whom proceedings are pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. In this case the employer, Western Coal- fields Limited, in Kanhan Area did not make any application for seeking approval of dismissal of the workman concerned though directly concerned in the industrial dispute pending before the undersigned being an Arbitrator under Section 10-A of the Indus- trial Disputes Act. 1947.

ab.nitio and not operatne being violativc of the pro- visions of Section 33 read with Section 33-A of the Act.

10. The dismissal older as relevant effective from 18-7-1993 dismissing the workman Shri Chunnilal S|o Feku, Tub Loader, Token No. 782 of Nandan a>al Mine No. 1, in Kanhan Area of Western Coal-, fields Limited directly concerned in Industrial Dis- pute beinf pending i<; set aside. In the result this workman continues to be in the seivrce of the mana- gement. Thus the dismissal being not lawful stands set aside. This workman is entitled to all the wages and all other allowances and all other benefits as if his dismissal w.e.f. 18-7-1993 has not been effected it -ill. ThL it. my award. The complaint dated 25-5-1998 under Section 33-A of the Act stands :ucceeded

Issued at Nagpur on this 4th day of April, 2001.

MI-

NI. G. WANARE, Arbitrator.

New Delhi, the 16tlh April, 2001 S.O. 928.—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 Tribunal/Labour! Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and tlheir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-4-2001.

[No. L-22025]27!90-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESHVAN. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI M. G. WANARE, ARBITRATOR

(Under Section 10-A of I.D. Act, 1947.) 62, Friends Colony,

Katol Road P.O. Nagpur-440013

Maharashtra State

AWARD

Mine No. 1, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, copy enclosed.

Shri Chirantan Bhattacharya,

General Secretary, RKKMS (INTUC), P.O. Chandarneta, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh State . . COMPLAINANT (Representing Workmen).

Versus

4. The Management of Western Coalfields Ltd., through General Manager, Kanhan Area, was repre- sented on large number of dates lrom time to time by officers of the Personnel Department of Kanhan Area to say by S/Shri M. L. Cfaourasia and Seth (both since expired) and finally by Shri V. R. Chowhan, Area Personnel Manager, Kanhan Area, Western Coalfields Limited and submitted verbally that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act are not attractcdf and therefore this complaint cannot stand.

5. On investigation 1 find that the admitted facts

fire as under,:

General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, P.O. Dungaria, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh State OPPOSITE PARTY (Representing Management).

MATTER:

Complaint Under Section 33-A (b) of I.D. Act, 1947 in the matter of termination of ser- vices of Shri Hariprasad Son of Gendulal, Casual Mazdoor, T. No. 0539, Nandan Mine No, 1, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, during pendency of Arbitra- tion proceedings.

The workman concerned is the employee in Nandan Coal Mine No. 1 of Western Coalfields Limited, in their Kanhan Area and the workman directly involved in the industrial dispute pending before me and that the above named complaina|nt is directly concerned workman in the industrial dispute pending before me. On 29-1-1990 the concerned workman was charge sheeted for misconduct of habitual/late coming and habitual absence and an enquiry was held and the workman concerned was issued order of dismissal on 16-9-1990. I find that the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Kanhan Area admittedly failed to make any application for seeking an appro\allpermis- sion of dismissal of the concerned workman from the Arbitrator, who is undersigned, as per statutory obli- gation.

The Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour, made a reference for adjudication in indus- trial dispute between the Management of Western Coalfields Limited in Pench and Kanhan Areas and RKKMS (TNTUC) under Section 10~A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Gazette Notification L. No. 22025/27/90-1R-C.II. dated 6-7-1990. The terms of reference is as under :

6. I find on the date of dismissal i.e. J 6-9-1990 there has been pendency of industrial dispute in which this workman being directly connected in ttie pending industrial dispute and is directly involved. I enclose herewith for record xerox copies of charge- sheet dated 29-1-1990 and Enquiry Officer's report dated 2-8-1990 and dismissal order dated 8/- 16-9-1990.

"Whether the demand of RKKMS (INTUC) for payment of wages to the workmen of Pench and Kanhan Areas for the period of strike from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988 is legal and justified, and if so, to what relief they are entitled."

2. Shri C. Bhattacharya, Secretary, R.K.K.MS, the complainant, lodped a complaint on 25-5-1998 under KSection 33-A (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the services of Shri Hariprasad S/o Gendulal, Casual Mazdoor, T. No. 0539 of Colliery—.Nandan No. I of General Manager, Kanhan Area of Western Coal- fields Ltd. has been dismissed from service with effect from 16-9-1990 during the pendencv of Industrial Dis- pute before the Arbitrator without obtaining permis- sion! approval from the Arbitrator, and that the com- plainant prayed for investigation and grant of justice to the workmen Shri Hariprasad S/o Gendulal, who is adversely affected. Original copy of complaint dated 25-5-199& is enclosed in duplicate.

7. The provisions of Sub-Section (b) of Section 33 of the Act clearly lays down the obligation on the part of the employer that during the pendency of any proceedings before an Arbitrator no employer shall for any misconduct dismiss any workman connected in the industrial dispute. The Act further lays down in the proviso under Section 33 (2) of the Act that no such workman chall be dismissed unless an appli- cation has been made by the employer to the authority (in this case the authority is an Arbitrator u|s 10-A of the Act) before whom proceedings are pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. In this ease the employer. Western Coal- fields Ltd. in Kanhan Area did not make nny application for seeking approval of dismissal of the workman concerned though directly concerned in the. industrial dispute pending before the undersigned being an arbitrator under Section 10-A of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The complainant, RKKMS (INTUC) in party to the industrial dispute before the undersigned, succeeded in establishing his complaint filed under Section 33-A of the Act. The relevant dismissal by order dated 8/16-9-1990 is inoperative beins void abinitio and not operative being viotatiye of the pro- 3. On receipt of this complaint the workman con- cerned was produced and I examined the workman on oath on 3-7-1998 and this statement is placed on record enclosed in original. I found that the work- man concerned is dismissed on 16th September, 1990 by office under Ref. No. Nll|Per|90-2640 dated 8J16- 9-1990 issued by Superintendent of Mines, Nandan19"* THE GAZETTE QFflNDtft^MAY, S, 2G8VVAJ8AKHA 15, 1923 [PAIRT'E-SEC. 3(H)] visions "rf Section 33 read with Section 33-A of the Act.

9. The dismissal order No. N|I|Tcri90-2640 dated 8 16-9-1990 issued to the workman Shri Hariprasad S o Gendulal, Casual Mazdoor, T. No. 0539 of Nan- dan Cbal Mine No. 1 in Kanhan Area of Western Coalftads limited -directly concerned in industrial dispute being pending stands set aside. In the result •this workman continues to be in the service of the management. Thus the dismissal being not lawful stands set aside. This workman is entitled to all the wages and all other allowances and all other benefits as if his dismissal w.e.f. 16-9-1990 has jint effected at a". This is my Swlftl Tho conptolnl "te*i! 25-5-1998 under Section 33-A of the Act stands succeeded.

Issued at Nagpur on this 16th day of March, 2001.

M. G. WANARE, Arfatrator New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001 S.O. 929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of-the In- dustrial 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 Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2001.

[No. L-22025/27/90-IR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI M. G. WAN ARE, ARBITRATOR

I Under Section 10-A of I.D. Act. 1947) 62, Friends Colony,

Katol Road P.O.

Nagptu>440013

Maharashtra State

AWARD

Shrl Chirantan Bhattacharya, General *Seftl*tt*v. RKKMS (INTUC);

Ghandametta P.O. District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh State. Complainant (Representing Workman).

Versus

General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited. Kanhan Area, P.O. Dungaria, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh State Opposite Party (Representing Management).

MATTER :

Complaint under Section 33-A(b) of I.D. Act, 1947 in the matter of termination on 18-7-93 from services of Shri Shamsher Khan S/o Shahadat Khan, Mining Sirdar, Nandan Mine No. 1, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Aieat during pendency of arbitration pro- ceedings.

The Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour, made a relerence for adjudication in industrial dispute between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. in Pench and Kanhan Areas and RKKMS (INTUC) under Section 10-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Gazette Notification No. L. 22025/27/90-IR.C-II- dated 6-7-1990. The terms of reference is as under :

•'Whether the demand of RKKMS (INTUC) for payment of wages to the workmen of Pench and Kanhan Areas for the period of strike from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988 is legal and justified, and if so, to what relief they are entitled-"

2. Shri C. Bhattacharya, General Secretary, Rash- tiiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, tbe Complainant, lodged a complaint on 25-5-1998 under Section 33-A (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the services of Shri Shamsherkhan S/o Shahadat Khan, Mining Sirdar, Token No. 2793 of Nandan Mine No. 1 of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area has been terminated with effect from 18-7-1993 during the pendency of Industrial Dispute before the Arbitra- tor without obtaining permission/approval from the Arbitrator, and that the Complainant prayed for in- vestigation and grant of justice to the workman Shri Shamsherkhan Sjo Shahadat Khan, Mining Sirdar, Nandan Mine No. 1, who is adversely affected. Origi- nal copy of complaint in Form I under Rule 59 of I.D.

j. On receipt of this complaint the workman con- corned was produced and I examined the workman on oath. I found that the workman concerned is termi- nated on 18th July, 1993 by the Superintendent of Mines, Nandan Mine No. 1, Western Coalfields Limit- ed, Kanhan Area.' Copy of the said termination order is enclosed.

6.3. In the result the action of termination of ser-

vices becomes not lawful.

4. t he Management of Western Coalfields Limited through General Manager, Kaiihan Area, was repre- sented on large number of dates from time to time by officers of Personnel Department of Kanhan A*-ea to say by S/Shri M. L. Chourasia and Scth (both since expired) and Shri R. B, Mishra and finally by Shri V. R. Chowhan, Area Personnel Manager, Kanhan Area, Webiern Coalfields Ltd., and submitted verbally that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act are not attracted and therefore this complaint cannot stand.

7. Thus the order dated 7-6-1993/18-7-1993 of termination of services of Shri Shamsherkhan S/o Sahadatkhan, Mining Sirdar, Nandan Mine No. 1. Kanhan Area, Western Coalfields Limited, has been issued/effected though the workman is connected in the industrial dispute and when there has been pen- dency of the said industrial dispute before the statutory authority i.e. Shri M. G. Wanare, Arbitrator under Section 10 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The Management submitted in case of Shri Sham- sherkhan S/o Sahadat Khan, Mining Sirdar, Nandan Mine No. 1 as under :

7.1. The Domestic Enquiry proceedings i.e. question/ answers only has been given and that the finding of Enquiry Officer has not been made available though it has been asked for time and again.

"Shri Shamshcrkhan was absenting from duty every now and then on account of unauthorised absence from duty, he was issued a charge- sheet and a detailed domestic enquiry was conducted and charges levelled against him were proved beyond any shadow or doubt. Accordingly, ho was dismissed from the ser- vices on 18-7-1993. His attendance in 1990—

154, 1991—74, and 1992—42 days."

6. On investigation, I found the following facts are

revealed.

7.2. The relevant provisions of the law u/s 33 are reduced for interesting reading as relevant that during pendency of any proceedings, in respect of an industrial dispute the employer may [sub-section (2) of Section 33J for any misconduct may furnish whether by dis- missal or otherwise the workman (proviso) provided that no s.uch workman shall be discharged or dismissed unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceedings is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.

7.3. The management failed to observe the require- ment of the statute. In the result the termination oidcr dated 7-6-1993/18-7-1993 issued become void ab- initio being illtjjal and is becomes not effective ns if it is not i

7.4. I find that on the date of termination i.e. on 18-7-1993 there has been pendency of Industrial Dis- pute in which this workman being concerned in the pending industrial dispute. T enclose herewith for record xerox copies of charge sheet No. N/I/CHS/of 92/6(>9 dj'ed 11-3-1992. The enquiry officer's finding were not shown by the Management despite my insistent demand till the writing of this award.

The workman Shri Shamsherkhah S/o Shahadatkhan is employed person as Mining Sirdar with Token No. 2793 in Nandan Mine No. 1 of Kanhan Area under control of General Manager, Kanhan Area, of Western Coalfields Ltd., who is party to the industrial dispute under reference dated 6-7-1990 being pending before me. The complainant Workman is employed as Mining Sirdar and that this workman is not directly involved in the pending industrial dispute but he is the work- man concerned in the pending industrial dispute. Thus the Complainant before me falls within the ambit of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947. Therefore, the management is obliged to implement and/or follow the proviso below Chuse (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act. The said proviso obliges the party-management/General Manager, Kanhan Area of Western Coalfields Limited to pay one month wages and make an application for approval of the action of termination of services pro- posed to be taken.

8. The Complainant, RKKMS (INTUC) H party to the fndustrial Dispute before the undersigned, suc- ceeded in establishing his complaint filed under Section 33-A of the Act. The relevant termination order effect- ed on IR-7-1993 is inoperative beins void nb initio and not operative-being violative of the provisions of Section 33 read with Section 33-A of the Act. 6.1. The workman under investigation was charge- sheeted on 11-3-1992 under No. N/I/CHS/of 92/699 for alleged misconduct of habitual late attendance and habitual absence without leave and without sufficient cause and the domestic enquiry was held and he was found to have been guilty of the misconduct for which he was charge sheeted and that the management i.e. Superintended of Mines, Nandan Mine No. 1, Kanhan Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. issued the order of termination of services vide No. N/T/Ter/92/1782 dfited 7-6-1993/18-7-1993 .and effected termination of services on 18-7-1993.

9. The termination order as relevant effective from 18-7-1993 terminating the services of the workman Shri Shamsherkhan S/o Shahadatkhan. Mining Sirdar, Token No. 2793 of Nandan Mine No. 1, Kanhan Area of Western Coalfields Limited, directly concerned in industrial dispute being pending is set aside. In the result this workman continues to be in the service of the manrHement. Thus the termination of services being not lawful stands set aside. This workman is entitled to all the wages and all other allowances and all other benefits as if his termination w.e.f. 18-7-1993 has not been effected at aUV This is my award. The complaint dated 25-3-1998 under Section 33-A of the 6.2. I find further that trw obligation under law is not at all followed hv General Manager, Kanhan Area of Western Coalfields Limited ayi that an application for seeking approval of an action of termination ofl services was not at all made to the authority i.e. Arbi- trator before whom the industrial dispute is pending.

Act stands succeeded.

Issued at Nagpur on this 6th day of April, 2001.

M, G. WANARE, Arbitrator

sub-clause (vi) of the clause f n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), de- clared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2416 dated 20-10-2000 the industry for the Supply of milk under the Delhi Milk Scheme to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 24th October, 2000;

And whereas, the Central Government ¹S of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the ' said industry to be a public utility service for the

purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 24th April, 2001.

[F. No. S-11017/7/97-IR(PL)]

H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2001 New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2001

S.O. 931.—In the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2419 dated the 24th October, 2000 published in the Gazette of India, Part II Section 3, Sub-section (a) dated 4th November, 2000 for 'December' read 'November'.

[No. S-38O13|41|2OOO-SS-I] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

S.O. 930.—Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required had, in pursuance of the provisions ofi

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Presi, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064 "nd Published bv th