This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D.L.—33001/99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No 19] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Rehabilitation Division)

New Delhi, the 18th April, 2001

S.O. 932. —In exercise of the powers conferred on me by Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Dis- placed Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 (No. 12 of 1954), I, S. K. Chattopadhyay, Chief Settlement Commissioner, hereby delegate to Shri B. N. Lahiri, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division, the powers vested in me under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 to be displaced by him in relation to revision of cases decided under the Dis- placed Persons (Claims) Act, 1950.

2. This supersedes Notification No 1(2) [99-Settle-

ment, dated the 22nd July, 1999.

[No. l(2)|99-Settlement]

S: K. CHATTOPADHYAY, Chief Settlement

Commissioner 1281 Gl/2001—1

(1963)1964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001 S.O. 933.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Polipe Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka, Karnataka Secretariat Vidhana Sdudha, Bangalore vide Notification No. HD 151 PCR 2000 daled 7-6-2000, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Soecial Police Establish- ment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for inves- tigation of offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and attempt abetment and criminal conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the offence mentioned above or any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of same facts in criminal case against Sri Krishna Reddy, Senior Assistant Supervisor, Aero Space Division, HAL, Bangalore Complex, Banpalore registered wif'i Delhi Police Establishment CBI, ACB Bc-nsalore vide RC. 18(A)|2000|Barigalore.

[No. 228!25!?001-AVD-II] HARI SINGH. Under Secv.

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001 S.O. 934.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-seclion (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the Stal'e Government of Karnataka \ide Notification No. HD 204 PCR 2000, dated 2-9-2000, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction cf the members of the Delhi Special Police Establish- ment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for inves- tigation of offences punishable under section 120-B redd with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(2) read with 1 3 ( l ) ( c) and (d) of Pre- •\cntion of Corruption Act, 1988, and attempts, abet- ments and conspiracy in relation to or in cdnce'"on with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offffencc and offences committed in the course of the same transaction of arising out of thj same facts against Smt. M. G. Shantha Kumari. formerly Chief Accounts Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Bantn'ore Urban, Bangalore, legistered with CBI| ACB|Banga1ore vide RC. 1(A)'2001-Bangalore.

[No. 228126|2O'O1-AVD-ir(i)J HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

u&

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001 New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001

S..O. 936.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with tho consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD 246 PCR 2000, dated 11th January. 2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdic- tion of the members of the Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under Sections 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with, 13(l)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connec- tion with one or more of the offence mentioned above and any other offence and ollences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts against Sri Shivasaranappa Pada Sctty, Code No: 4297, Special Assistant, Vijaya Bank, Gulbarjja Branch, legistered with CBI/ACB/Bangalore vide RC. 3(A)/2001-Bangalore.

S.O. 935.—In exercise of tne powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD 9 PCR 2001, dated 24-01-2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the mem- bers of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corrupt Act, 1988 and attempts, abetments and cons- piracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offence mentioned above and any other offence and offences conunitted in the course of the same trans- action or arising out of the same facts against Sri Prabhakar, Inspector of Income Tax, Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), CR (Annexuc) Building, Bangalore-01, registered with CBI/ACB/Bangalore vide RC.2(-A)/2001-Bangalore.

[No. 228/26/2001-AVD-II(iii)] [No. 225/26/200l-AVD-H(ii)!

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 937.—In exerdse of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 ot 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Chhattisgarh, Home Department Notification No. 695/Homc/2001 Raipur, daied 3-2-2001, hereby extends the poweis and juris- diction of the members of Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to the whole of the State of Chha|ttisgarh for investigation of offences as specified in Schedule annex- ed to this notification and attempt, abetment and cons- piiacy in i elation to or in connection with the offences mentioned in the list and any other offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

LIST OF OFFENCES

SCHEDULE

Offences punishable u/ss, 34, 114, 120B, 121, 12IA, 122, 123, 124, 124A, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140, 143, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 161, 162,, 163, 164, 165, 165A, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171E. 171F, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 211, 212, 214, 216, 216A, 218, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 225B, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 263 A, 277, 279, 284, 285, 286, 292, 295, 295A, 302, 303, 304, 304A, 304B, 306, 307, 308, 309, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 352, 353, 354, 355, 363, 363A, 364, 364A, 365, 366, 367, 368, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 426, 427, 429, 431, 435, 436, 440, 447, 448, 452, 454, 456, 457, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 477A, 489, 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E, 495, 498A, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 (Act No. 45 of 1860).

CENTRAL ACTS

B. Ollences punishable under:—

1. Aircraft Act, 1934 (Act No. 22 of 1934) and rules made under the said Act.

2. Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 (Act No. 65 of 1982).

3. Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (Act No. 52 of 1972).

4. Antiquities (Expoit Contiol) Act, 1947 (Act No. 31 of 1947) Repealed.

5. Aims Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959).

6. Atomic Eneigy Act, 1962 (Act No. 33 ot 1962).

7. Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Act No. 1 of 1944).

8. Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956).

9. Ciiminul Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act No. 23 of 1961).

10. Customs Act, 1962 (Act No 52 ot 1962).

11. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940).

12. Fssential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955).

13. Fxplosives Act, 1884 (Act No. 4 of 1884) 14. Explosive Substances Act, 190,8 (Act No. 6 of 1908).

15. Fmcrgency Provisions (Continuance) Ordi- nance, 1946 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1946) if committed by the Employees of the Central Government or contractors or sub-contractors or their representatives by contravening any order issued by the Central Government. 16. Electiicity Act, 1910 (Act No. 9 of 1910). 17. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 49 of 1976).

18. Fpieigners Act (Act No. 31 of 1946).

19. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act No. 46 of 1973).

20. General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1922 (Act No. 57 oi 1922).

21. Gitt Tax Act, 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958).

22. Gold Control Act, 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968).

23. Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act JSTu. 43 of 1961).

24. Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 (Act No. 18 of 1947).

25. lnsuiance Act, 1938 (Act No. 4 of 1938).

26. Industiies (Development and Regulation) Act, J951 (Act No. 65 of 1951).

27. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 oi 1939). 28. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985).

29. Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Act No. 19 of 1923).

30. Passport Act, 1920 (Act No. 25 of 1920) and rule 6 of Passport Rules, 1950.

31. The Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 read with Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (Act No. 34 of 1920).

32. Passport Act, 1967 (Act No. 15 of 1967).

33. Pjcvention of Conuption AU, 1947 (Act No. 2 of 1947).

34. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988).

35. Post Office Act, 1898 (Act No. 6 of 1898).

36. Prevention of Food Adultration Act, 1954

61. Sections 63, 63A, 63B, 65, 67, 68, 68A and 69 of Copy-rights Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957).

( Vet No. 37 of 1954).

37. Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,

1934 (Act No. 3 of 1984).

62. Section 25A of Narcotic Drugs and Psycho- tropic Subsfances Act 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985).

63. Offences under the Railways Act, 1989 (Act

No. 24 of 1989).

38. The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycliotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Act No. 46 of 1988).

39. Railways Act, 1890 (Act No. 9 of 1890).

40. Railways Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act,

64. Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act No. 43 of 1978).

1955 (Act No. 51 of 1955).

65. The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 41. Representation of tho People Act, 1950 (Act

(Act No. 25 of 1867).

No. 43 of 1950).

42. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act

[No. 228|61|2000-AVD-II] HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

No. 43 of 1951).

43. Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 (Act No.

16 of 1939).

44. Suppression of Unlawful Act against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 (Act No. 66 of 1932).

45. The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Mis- use) Act, 1988 (Act No. 41 of 1988).

46. Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act No. 13 of 1885).

47. Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act.

1950 (Act No. 74 of 1950).

48. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven- tion) Act, 1985 (Act No. 31 of J985) and Rules made thereunder.

4L). Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven- tion) Ac, 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987) and

Rules made thereunder.

50. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 1967

(Act No. 37 of 1967).

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2001 51. Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1933 (Act No

J7 of 1933).

52. Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957).

53. Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act,

1971 (Act No. 69 of 1971).

54. Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

55. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

S.O. 938.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Cri- miml Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Ranjan Kumar Roy, Advocate, Calcutta a Retainer Counsel of the Central Bureau of Investigation, in the Calcutta High Court at Calcutta as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeals, revisions or other proceedings arising out of the case- investigated by the Delhi Special Police Esta- blishment in the Calcutta High Court.

J881 (Act No. 26 of 1881).

56. Section 24 of Emigration Act, 1983 (Act No.

[No. 225|27|2000-AVD-H] 31 of 1983).

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

57. Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibi- tion) Act, 1988 (Act No. 45 of 1988).

58. Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

1972 (Act No. 53 of 1972).

59. Section 24 of the Securities Exchange Board

of India Act, 1992.

60. Sections 11 and 12 of the Territorial Waters Continental Shejf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (Act No. 80 of 1976)1970 THE GAZETTE OI INDIA-MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)] RC-6(S)|91-SIU.V, RC-9(S)I92-SIU.V, RC-3(S), 94-S1U.V, and RC-l(S)l95-SIU.V-lSIC-II|CBI|New Delhi and any other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto investigated or instituted under the said Act, in the Designated Court at Jammu consti- tuted under the piovision of Sec. 9 of the TADA (P) Act, 1987.

I No. 225[39|2000-AVD-II(ii)]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2001

S.O.' 939i^Ia exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to. subjection (1) of section 13 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987) the Central Gov- ernment hereby appoints Sh. M. L. Thushoo as Spe- cial Public Prosecutor for conducting case RC-1(S)| 95-SIU, VjSIC-II|CBI|New Delhi (NAM Stadium, Jammu Bomb Blast Case) and any other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto investigat- ed or instituted under the said Act, in the Designated Court at Jammu constituted under the provision of Sec 9 of the TADA (P) Act, 1987.

[No. 225|39|2000-AVD-II(i)l HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2001

S.O. 940.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to,sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987) the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Bansi Lai Boat, as Special Pub- lic Prosecutor for conducting cases RC-7(S)|90- SIU. V., Rr-8(S)|90-$J]U.V, Re-4(S)]91-SIU.V.,1971 (iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income tape (Exemptions) 10 Middlcton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta-700071, (b) the Secretary, Depaitment of Scientific and Industrial Re- search, and (c) -the Commissioner of In- come tax|Dircdor of Income tax (Exemp- tions), having jurisdiction over the organisa- tion, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income and Expendituie Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was Granted under sub-section (1) of section 35 of Tnccme tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

Name of the Organisation Period for which approved Notification is

s. No.

effective

1.

1 -4-2000 to 31-3-2003

IndiRn National Academy of Engineering, No. 117, IMalanda House, TIT Campus Hauz Khas. New Delhi-110016

2.

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2002

The Automotive Research Association of Tndia Sr. No. 102, Vetal Hill, Off. Panel Road Kothrud, P.B. No. 832, Pune-41100t

3.

1-4-99 to •31-3-2001

Pushpawati Singhania Research Tnsftnte for Liver, Renal & Digistive Diseases, Link House, 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

Notf\— The notifie-d Institutions are advised to appy in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax [Director of Tncome tax (Exemptiom) having jurisd'etion. Three copies of application for renewal of ap- proval tnoii also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

(INCOME TAX)

[Notification No, 96/2001/F. No. 203/17/2001- ITA-II] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

S.O. 941.—It is hereby notified for general in- formation that the mganisatious mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1SJ61, read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions :—

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities;

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, 'Techno- logy Bhawan'; New Mehrauli Road, New DeihM 10016 for every financial year qji or before 31st Mav of cads veai;

1281 GI|2001—2.

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

INCOME TAX

S.O. 942.—It is hereby notified for general in- formation that the organisations mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Association" subject to the following conditions :—

(i) The notified Associations shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities;

(ii) The notified Association shall furnish the Annual Return of Us scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, 'Techno- logy Bhawan', New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-H 0016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year;

(iii) The notified Association '-hall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income tax (Exemptions), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta-700071, (b) the Secretary Department of Scientific and Industrial Re- search, and (c) the Commissioner of In- come tax|Dircctor of Income tax (Exemp- tions), having jurisdiction over the organisa- tion, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income and Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (1) of section 35 of Income tax Act, ] 961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

Name of the organisation approved

s. No.

I.

Period for which Notification is effective 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

2.

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

Dr. Patani Scientific & Indus- trial Research PSIR Building TNGA Complex,' Mahakali Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 Vivekanand Medical Research Society, Vidya Nagar, Latur-413531, Maharashtra

Note.—The notified Associations ate advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax [Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of ap- proval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 97/2001/F. No. -203/17/2001- ITA-II] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy1973 New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001

S.O. 943.—It is notified for general information that enterprises/industrial undertakings, listed at para (3) below have teen approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that— (i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will con- form to and comply with the provisions, of Section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 2E of the Income-tax

Rules, 1962;

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

(a) ceases to carry on Infrastructure faci-

lity; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accoun- tant as equired by sub-rule (7) of Rule

2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or

(c) fails to furnish the audit report as requirJ ed by sub-rule (7) of Rule 2E of the

Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3. The enterprises/industrial undertakings approv-

ed are :—

(i) Development of Mundm Port on BOOT Basis by M/s. Gujrat Adani Port Ltd., "ADANI HOUSE" Shrimali Society, Near Mithakhali Circle, AVarangpura, Ahmcdabad-380 009. (ii) Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in Kolkatta of M/s. Spice Cell Limited, White House, 3rd Floor, 119, Park Street, Calcutta- 700016 under the license agreement No. 842-2O/93-TM dated 30-11-94 between President of India, acting through Director (TM-I), Department of Telecommunication and M/s. Indian Telecom Pvt. Limited.

[Notification No. 98/2001/F. No 205/16/2000- ITA-II & 205/76/200O/ITA.II] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001 S.O. 944.—It is notified for general information that enterprises, listed at parti (3) beJuw have been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules', 1932, for the assessment years 2002-2005, 2003-20U4 ai;d 2004- 2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that—

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will con- form to and comply with the provisions of Section 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 2E of the Tncome-tax Rules, 1962 ;

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

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure faci-( lity; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by tin accoun- tant as required by sub-rule (7) of Rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ; or (c) fails to furnish the audit report as requir- ed by sub-rule (7) of Rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3. The enterprises approved are :—

(i) Project of Basic Telephone Service in Andhra Pradesh by M/s. Tata TeJeserviccs Ltd., Jecvan Bhaiti, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, in respect of the license granted by Department of Telecommunica- tion on 4-11-97. (205|64|98-Vol I I ).

(ii) 500 MW Lignite based thermal power station at Jayatondam, Distt. Pernmbulur, Tamil Nadu uf M/s. Joyakondam Power (P) Ltd., No. 38, Dr.. Karuppiah Nagar, Jayarnkon- dam, Udaypalam Tahik, Perambuhir dis- trict, Tamilnadu-621802 (205|190|99 Ptd.- ITA-IT).

[Notification No. 99/2001/F. No. 205/64/98-VoI. TT and 205/190/99-Pt-lTA-II] KAMLESH C. V^RSHNEY, Under Secy.

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 30Ui April, 2001 S.O. 945,—Tn exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Industrial Development Bank of India, Act, 1964 (18 of 1964), and in continuation of Notification No. 7-1-99-B.O.I dated 16th March, 2000, the Central Government, hereby re-appoints Shri S. K. Chakrabarti, piesently Deputy Managing1975 Director, Industrial Development Bank of India, after his superannuation on 30th April, 2OQ1 for a period of three months with effect frorri 1st May, 2001 or till a regular Chairman and Managing Director | Deputy Managing PinM. r i.>>c* the charge, which- ever is earlier.

ment of a regular Chairman and Managing Director| Deputy Managing Director of the bank. During this period, the financial and administrative powers of the Chairman and Managing Director shall be exer- cised by the Board of Directors/Managing Commit- tee of the Board of the bank.

[F. No. 7|10|2000-B.O.I]

RAMESH CHAM>, Under Secy.

Shii S. K. Chakrabarti will continue to co-ordinate ihe functioning and look after the administration of Industrial Development Bank of India until appoint-

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.O. 946.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read witft sub-cj^use (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions), Scheme, 1970, the- Central Government, hereby nominates the persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Directors of the nationalised banks specified in column (1) thereof in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect until further orders:

TABLE

2

1

3 Punjab National Bank

Shri R.S. Awasthi

Shri Y.S.P. Thorat, Regional Director. Reserve Bank of Tndia, New Delhi.

Tndian Bank

Shri A. Somasundram

Shri S. Karuppasamy, Chief Geneial Manager, Urban Banks' Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai,976 THE GAZETTE 01 INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAfCHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 3 2 Shri C. Krishnan

UCO Bank

Shri P.1C. Mishra, Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Guwahati.

[F. No. 9/18/2000-B.O.IfO]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.O. 947.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (c) of sub-sect,ion (3) or section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sul>clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri G. K. Sharma, Chief General Manager, Department of Personnel and Administration Management, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai as a Director of Corporation Bank with immediate effect and until further orders vice Dr. R. Kannan.

[F. No. 9|18|200O-B.O.I(ii)] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

from the 1st July, 2000 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, ve^t in the said Company, subject to the following terms and condi- tions, namely:—

(1) the said Company shall re-imburse the Cen- tral Governmtnt all payments made in res- pect of compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, tho 23rd April, 2001

(2) a tribunal shall be constituted for the pur- pose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Com- pany under condition (I), and all expendi- ture incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the said Com- pany and, similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal procedings like ap- peals, etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands, so vesting shall also be borne by the said Company;

(3) the said Company shall indemnify the Cen- tral Government and its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government and or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vesting;

S,O. 948.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Minis- try of Coal number S.O. 1430 dated the 19th June, 2000 issued under sub-section (i) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 1st July, 2000 the land and rights in or over the lands as described in the Schedule appended to tfie said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

(4) the said Company shall hav^ no power to transfer the said lands to any other person without the previous approval of the Cen- tral Government; and

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli (here- iaafter referred to as the said Company) a Govern- ment Company willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to

impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

(5) the said Company shall abide by such direc- tions or conditions as may be given or im- posed by the Central Government for parti- cular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

•by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the laud and rights iri or over such lands so vested shall, with effect

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

New Delhi, tht 26th April, 2001

S.O. 949.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O J24(E) dated the 31st March, 2000, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (herinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Extra-ordinary , Part-II, Section 3, sub-sectior (ii), dated the 31st March, 2000, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire lands and al] rights in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government: 1281 GI12001—3.

And whereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting) V%?j Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that the lands measuiihg 34l 25 hectares (approximately) OJ\ 843.26. acr^sj (approximately) and all rights in or over svck lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be at?quire'd Now, therefor*., in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government herety declares that the lands measuring 34,1,25 hectares (approximately) or 843.26 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as desciibed in Schedule are hereby acquired;

The plan bearing number C-l(E)III/JJR/679-102000 dated the 20th October, 2000 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected irr the office of the Collector, Yavatmal (Maharashtra) or in the office of the. 'Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta (Pin 700 001) or in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estatt, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra).

SCHEDULE

KOLGAON BLOCK

WANI AREA

DISTRICT YAVATMAL (MAHARASHTRA)

[Plan N6. C-l(E)III/JJR/679-102000 dated the 20th October, 2000]

All Rights

Tahsil District

Remarks Name of village

Village number

Area in hectares

Serial Ntrmber

Patwari circle number

I

108 109 109 107

58 133 107 306

Wani Wani Wani Wani

Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal

Kolgaon Takali Chikhali Yertak

73.39 106.12 151.88 9.86

2. 3, 4.

Part Part Part Part

Total area : 341.25 hectares (approximately)

or

843 26 acres (approximately) Plot numbers acquired in village Kolgaon ;

. 90/1^90/2, 91/1-91/1A-91/2, 92, 96, 97/1-97/2, 98/1-98/2, 99 to 101, 102/1-102/2-103/3, 103 to 112, 115/1- 115/2, 118, 119, 162/1, 162/2, 163, 164, 167, 168, 171/1-171/2, 172/1, 172/2/172/3. road part. Plot numbers acquired in village Takali :

18/1-18/2, 20/1A-20/1B-20/2A-20/2B, 21 to 24, 25/1-25/2, 26 to 29, 30/1A-3O/1B-30/1C, 30/2, 30/3, 31 to 34, 35/1-35/2, 36, 37/1-37/2, 38 to 46, 47/1-47/2, 48, 49/1-49/2-49/3, 50, 51/1-51/1A-51/2, 52/1-52/2-52/3, 53/4" 53/2-53/3, 54/1-54/2, 55/1-55/2, 56, 57/1-57/2, 58 to 60, 61/1-61/2, 62, 63, 73, 74/1-74/2-74/3, 78, 79/1-79/2, road part,

Plot numbers acquired in village Chikhali ;

30/1-30/2, 31 to 36, 37/1-37/2-37/3, 45/1-45/2, 46/l^l6/2A-46/2B, 47/1-47/2, 48, 49/1-49/2-49/3, 50, $1/1- 51/2, 52/1-52/2A-52/2B-52/2C-52/2D-52/3, 53/1-53/2, 54, 55/1A-55/1B-55/2, 56/1-56/2, 57, 58, 59/1-59/2, 6 0 /^ 60/2, 61, 62/1-62/2, 63/1-63/2, 64/1-64/2, 65, 66, 67/1-67/2, 68/1-68/2, 69/1-69/2, 70/1-70/2, 71 to 75, 76/l77,6pf 77, 78/1-78/2-78/3, 79/1-79/2-79/3, 80 to 84, 85/1-85/2, 86/1-86/2-86/3, 87/1-87/2, 88, 89, 90/1-90/2, 94/1-94/2 95,96.

Plot numbers acquired in village Yenak :

135/1A-135/1B-135/2A-135/2B, 136. 137

Boundary description :

A- B :

Line starts from point 'A' and passes along the common village boundary of villages Yenak and Chikhali, then proceeds through village Yenak, along the outer boundary of plot number 135/1A-135/1B-135/2A-135/2B and proceeds along the common village boundary of village Yenak and Kolgaon and meets at point 'B\ B—C—D—E :

Line passes through village Kolgaon along the outer boundary of plot numbers 119 118, 115/1-115/2, crosses road and passes along the outer boundary of plot number , 112, 111, 107, 106, 105, 162/1-162/2, 163, 164, 167, 168, 171/1-171/2, 172/1-172/2-172/3. 171/1-171/2, 168, 167 crosses road, then passes along the outer boundary of plot num- bers 96, 91/1-91/1A-91/2, 92, 90/1-90/2 and meets at point 'E'.

E—I*MQ—H

Line passes along the commdn village boundary of villages Kolgaon and Takali' then proceeds thrugh 'village Takali, along the outer boundary of plot numbers 63, 6!/l- 61/2, 49/1-49/2-49/3, 48, 73, 74/1-74/2-74/3, 78, 79/1-79/2, 21, 20/1A-20/1B, 20/2A- 20/2B, crosses road, and passes along the outer boundary.of plot number, J8/1-1S/2, and meets at point 'H'

H—I-J

Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Chikhali and Tafcah, then proceeds through village Chikhali along the outer boundary of plot numbers 96, 94/1- 94/2, 90/1-90/2, 89, 88, 45/1-45/2, 49/1-49/2-49/3, 37/1-37/2-37/3, 31. 30/1-30/2 and meets at point T.

Line passes along the pommon village boundary of villages Yenak and Chikhali and J—A :

meets at starting point 'A*.

[ No. 43015/1S/96-LW/PRIWJ

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. $ecy.

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING

(Shipping Wing)

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2001

S.O. 950.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958; read with Rule 4 of the National Shipping Board Rules, 1960, the Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Shipping Win,g)'s noti- fication No. SS-18O11/1/99-SL dated 28-6-1999:—

In the said notification dated 28-6-1999, for the existing entry at S. No. 12, following entry shall he substituted, namely :—

12. Vice Admiral Raman Puri, AVSM, VSM,

Dy. Chief of Naval Staff."

[F. No. SS-18011/1/99-SL]

MUNSHI RAM, Under Secy.

' , ' ; •><• t lX** *•*• M^"V * * J"< Vl " • * • • " -1 .

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S,O. 951.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorises the authority mentio ned in column (I) of the Schedule- below to perform the functions of the competent authority under the said Act, in respect of the areas mentioned in ths corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Schedule.

SCHEDULE

Area of Jurisdiction

Name and Address of Ibt authority

(2)

(1)

Nagapattinam District, Tamilnadu State for laying & cross country pipeline from the proposed Oil Jetty to Refinery at Pananngudi, Nagore Post in Naga-

Pattinam District.

Shri R. Ramanujam, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), on deputation from the Government of Tamilnadu, Competent Authority, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, CaUvery Basin Refinery, Panunngudi, Nagore Poat-611002, Nagapattinam Distric , Tamil Nadu

[F. No. R-25012/1/2001-OR-tI

S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Soof.

1781 GI/2001—4 !4"4 ^- _ IllF CjA/rTTEOi INDIA MAY 12 2001 VAISAMIA22 l¹^

| IVM T II S f c x i nl 108- |<)Mi

I l l F G A / E T T E O F I N D lA MAY 12 200! VAISAW1A22 ll)23

[ P M U I I —S ic 1 (n)J1987 1988 1HI GAZETTE OF INDIA M AY 12 2 0 0 W A I S A K H A 2 2 J 9 2 J_ _ [PART1I—SFC 3 ( H )] 1989 1990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA M AY 12,2001 V A I S A M IA 22,1921

[PARTII—SEC 3(ii)l Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 4th Ma\, 2001

s. o. 952.— whereas by the notification of the Government of India In the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1268 dated the 16/6/2000, Issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands, specified In the Schedules appended to those notifications for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transport of Petroleum products from Mangalore to Bangalore in the state of Karnataka, by M/s. Petronet MHB Limited;

And whereas, the copies of said Gazette notifications were made available to the public on 4/7/2000;

And, whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (I) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And, whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified In the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User In the_saJd_Jands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

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

S C H E D U LE

STATE : K A R N A T A KA D I S T R I CT DAKSHINA KANNADA

[ P A K I I I - SK 3(II)] |'*P

IHFCAZLTTEOFINDIA MAY 12 2001 VMSAKHA22, 1^21

|W

!•><, mi ( , \ /i 1 11 o| is M A Y i: \ \ I S M K 1 I \ 22 102"!

| l ' \ i i ll Si. } ( I I )|

[No R-"U(Hll/l OKOR-II Paril

IIARlSlIkUM\R Under Sees1997 I W$ ^ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MAY 12,2001 VAISAK.HA 22,1923

[PART 1 ]—Stc 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 1 Oth May, 2001

s. o. 953.— whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas through Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni pipeline in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, pipelines should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, the Central Government authorised vide S.O. 1853 dated 14th September, 1998 Tehsildar Kalkaji, Delhi to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962);

And whereas, notifications under sub- section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, in respect of the areas mentioned in the Table annexed, were published in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S O. No 1016 (E) dated the 7m October, 1999; S.O. No 921 (E) dated 6th October, 2000 and S O No 67(E) dated 2nd February, 1999;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 2 and sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User i n ^ nd Act, 1962 (50 of 1962)^6 Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the column (2) of the Table mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table1999 TABLE

[No -L-14014/9/98 OP (Paifrffl)] P M MEENA, Director 1281 GI/2001-62000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 12,2001 VAISAKHA22,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 2001

New Delhi, the Hllli M.i> 2001

s o l"54.--whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of NaturqJ Gas from KMP GCS to TVR MRM TNCSC Gas Pipeline Project in Tamil Nadu State, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority oflndia Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise o'* the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette oflndia, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying o\ the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Gas Authority oflndia Limited, Can very Basin, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.

1001 111L O V I -n Ir OF INDIA MAY 12.2001 VAISAKHA22. U>2 i

[P\KI II -Sic ^(11)]

Schtdalt

Survey No.

Village

Distt

Tehsil

Ward No.

Block JVo^

1 iruvarur Kodavasal

104,

Peruntharakudi

Area to be acquired for ROU in Hectare 0.12.0 0.04.0 0.04.0 0.13.0 0.03.0 [Proil 0.11.5 0.02.0

125-2D 124-7 122-2A 122-2B 122-3 114-1 111

0 M? ^

Tofci\

7

Tiruvarur 1 iruvarur

3

Tiruvarur

280-4 260 279-1

0.00.5 0.02.0 [Proi] 0.02.0 Municipal Town

6

3

268-2 267-1B2 367-Hi

0.03.0 0.00.5 0.01.5

3

14

553-1 553-2B 553-3 55 3-4A1 553-4B

0.00.5 0.00.5 0.01.0 0.01.0 0,02.0 [Projj

3

5 SO-IB 550-1AI 549-2 549-3 546 545

0.05,0 jProj] 0.00 5 0.00.5 0.00.5 |Proil 0.01.5 [Pro)| 0.02.5 fProj|

17

0.02.0 [Proj] (HJL0, ^

568-1 567-A

0 2l-Q

[No-I -I U)l+ I 7l> ' u i p| I¹ M Ml F N\ Hu^ctoi2003 AWARD

This reference by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of dispute between Shri T. Radhakrishnan, Workman and the General Manager, Canaia. Bank, Chennai, Management, mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows:—

"Whether the dismissal of Shri T. Radbakrishnan by the management of Canara Bank is legal and juitifled ? If not. what relief is the woikman entitled to ?"

On receipt of this reference, this industrial dispute has bet n taken on file of this Tribunal on 03-10-2000 as Indus- trial Dispute No, 77]200O. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, both the parties appeared with their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Coun- ter Statement.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

2. Th" averments in the Claim Statement of the Workman/¹ New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001

I Party are briefly as follows:—

S.O. 955.—In pursuance of Section 17 ol the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government, hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chennal as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the- employers in relation to the management of Cnrraia Rank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 11-4-01.

[No. L-I2012/99/2000 IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 13th March, 2001

PRESENT:

K. KARTH1KEYAN PRESIDING OFFICER

Industrial Dispute No • 7712000

BETWEEN

Shri T. Radhokrishnan. Chennai : Petitioncr|I Party

AND

The Geaeral Msnnger, Canara Bank, Chennai. : Manage- ment/II Party.

APPEARANCE :

For the Worknnn : M/s. K. V. Ananth.akn.Mhn m and V, Cliandrasckar, Advocates. For the Management: M/". T. R. Sathiyamohan and S Devaraj, Advocates.

Reference: Order No. L-12012/99/2000-IR(B-II) dated 29-09-2000, Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

The Claimant[Workman|I Party (hereinafter mentioned as Petitioner) joined the Management^ Party bank (hereinafter mentioned as Respondent) on 08-10-1980 as sub-staff at Guindy branch, Chennai. The service of the Petitioner was conlirmed and he is a permanent employee. He has put in, more than 18 years of service and was drawing u salary of Rs. 5613/- at the time of termination from service by an order dated 22-9-98 on the ground of misconduct. While the Petitioner was working at Ic" House branch of the bank, :i charge memo dated 3-J-98 was given to him containing) four charges of misconduct. The Petitioner gave an explana- tion denying all those charges. The Respondent has conduc- ted a domestic enquiry, in that the Investigating Officer, Branch Manager Ice House and Triplicane were examined as witnesses on behalf of the Respondent! Management and 17 documents were marked a" Exhibits. The Enquiry Offi- cer in his report dated 30-6-98 has given a finding that all the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. The Petitioner sent a reply on the proposed punishment of dis- missal. Inspite of the reply given by the Petitioner, the Respondent|Management dismissed the Petitioner froirt service by an order dated 22-9-1998. Agatnbt that, the Peti- tioner preferred on appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its proceedings dated 22-3-99, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal. Against that the Petitioner has raised this industrial dispute. The oral and documentary evidences let in by the Respondent before the Enquiry Officer do not prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer entirely relied on the investigation report, alleged admission and statement obuined behind the back of the: delinquent employee to give his findings without evidence of the parties to substantiate the charges. The first charge against the Petitioner is that one Mr. V. Mani, Special Assistant issued a cheque in reBpect of loan availed by him from Sri T, Sundaresan. He re- quested Sri T. Sundaresan not to present the cheque No. 10388 dated 23-7-97 for Rs. 2500. But despite his effort the cheque signed by Mr. Mnni was presented for collection. He mad" an attempt to get possession of the cheque. To help Mr, Mani, the Petitioner, the peon of the branch requested the super- visor Smt. Manimejtalai of Clearing Section to retain the cheque without Rending the cheque for collection. The Peti- tioner was making arrangement to get hold of the cheque. The said charges acainst the Petitioner was not proved in thr domestic enquiry. Mrs Manimegalal and Mr. Mani were not examined. The Branch Manager Mr, Gopal Who was enemically disnosed gave statement against the Petitioner. The Claimant was not at all involved :n the alleged incident. Mr. V. Mani sub-staff Was charsc-.hcet< d for the very same charge nnd though he was found guilty of the charges, he \vw reinstate in service after irnnoninq minor punishments. Wh^n the Petitioner is nftt at all involved in the charges anc the co-emnloyce Mr. V. Mani. who was involved in the incident has been let off with lenient punishment imposih the punishment of dismissal is hostile discrimination and This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 28-2-2001, upon perusing reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, having ni> oral evidence on either side, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the Workman/1 Party Sri K. V. Ananthakrushnan and the learned counsel for the Manage- ment Sri T. R. Sathiyamohan and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal pawed the following:—

1281 GI/2001—72W4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART H—9ic. 3 (ii)] therefore, the order pasted agaimt ftic Petitioner has to be set aside. The second charge is that the Petitioner obtained reimbursement of educational expenses incurred tor his son. It is alleged that the bill produced by the Petitioner tor re- imbursement was originally issued 10 ton Ananthapadmanaban oi Inpncane brancu. Ttie said Anauthapadmanaban has al- ready availed the reimbursement by producing the said bill. Therefore, the Petitioner is said to have obtained reimburse- ment on fabricating the document. The Petitioner is eligible tor reimbursement of educational oxpensos as per the norms. As per the scheme, he satisfied the requirement and availed ine said reimbursement. Ho did not fabricate documents for availing the said facility. When the Petitioner is eligible to ttie amount by producing the proof of son's education, the charges levelled against the delinquent employee is baseless and cannot be substantiated. The third charge was that the Petitioner issued a cheque in favour of M/a. Madras Invest- ments on 8-11-97 for Rs. 1150. It is alleged that the cheuqe belonged to one Mr. Syed Magjid Easha lost by him. I ho Respondent failed to prove that the Petitioner misused the cheque of Mr. Syed Magjid Basha. The Petitioner did not commit the chaigos levelled against him The charge No. 4 is that the Petitioner obtained a cheque book in his own account. The cheques were signed by Sri Ananthapadma- naban, Peon of Triplicane branch. One cheque was returned as 'account closed and not signed by the Accountholdcr', whereas other Rvo cheques isisued by Sii Ananthapadmanaban. Were passed after era'sing the signature. Therefore, the Peti- tioner was chargesheeted for acting in collusion with Sri Ananthapadmanaban. It is disputed that the Petitioner made eraser* in the cheque, whereas Sri AnanthapBdmannban has committed misconduct by misusing the cheque of the Peti- tioner. Sri Anfinthapadmanaban was although chargesheeted lor misusing the Petitioner's cheque book, after domestic enquiry, the said Ananthapadmanaban was let off with a lenient punishment. Whereai the Petitioner for the very same charges was imposed with major punishment. The Petitioner did not commit any act of misappropriation of the hank's money and cause loss to the bank. The said Sri Anantha- padmanaban, ivho was involved in serious irregularity and, misconduct, once dismissed from service after enquiry, was subsequently reinstated in service. The said Ananthapadma- nabaa did not depose before the enquiry officer. The Respondent 6'anfc was adopting discriminative attitude &"Qinst the emptoyees in respect of punishment imposed for mis- conduct. The Bank Management has been Jellberately picking Out persons in Subordinate level to impose major r-uniihment to keep fear in the minds of the employees and whereas in respect of staff of higher and top level positions, the Manafie- mrnt showing the partition attitude In imposing the punish- ment Since the discrimination of punishment among the employees is writ large, the punishment imposed 0" the Petitioner is liable to be set aside. In >.o far as charge No 3 ii concerned, the Petitioner did not commit such charges of misusing the cheques of customers. He admitted the piiilt on tlv assurance of the bank authorities that he would be let off from the char&es and would be reinstated in service with warning He. admitted the guilt, without knowing the conse- auences and he being assured of reinstatement by MnnaRe- m-ni us done in other cases. The entire enquiry proci-rcHmm would reveoi that the Enauirv Officer came to the conclusion nit en tho basic of anv indenendent evidence of the witness h"* nn th* arfmWon made bv the deiincmnnt emnlovce and <,„ thr rfntements mad- hv the staff obtained behind fhi- b e* of ^oi;nn"ent c m i Wc The f>bove nrccednre fldonted bv the

i i ,. „-„,,„* ; in-mf irrVntt the Inw and tV crindnles of ^n",,_n1 JiTct^rr Therefore the (tiiri"i I"TiH1fd ncainst the fiollnrm'nf ••mnlnvf**' *"• "ot proved Comnnrinp thi* charpps. 1h>* n'iTn"rIiTn""t of d'"nvsiM ir

3. The nverments fn the Counter Statement of the Manage-

ment/TT poi^v are briefly as follows:—

TTip P""nnTirf*"t hnnlr Is n Nhtlnflnl'Vil flank It 18 n

various irregularities* for which he was issued with charge memo d a ea 3-J-V8 containing four cnarges of misconduct 5lui V. VeCK4tar4mau, Officer, italf Section {O), Circle Otfice, Ciiciindi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri A. Narayanan, Omcer, Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office, Chunnai was appointed as Presenting Officer to piesent the case betore Oie fcJiquiry Officer, tnquiry waa comenced on 13-4-y8 continued on various dates and was finally con- cluded on 14-5-iyya. During the course ot the enquiry, the Petitioner was defended by Sn S. Palanivelu, the then officer uf the Respondent G.P. Road, Chennai Branch. 17 documents were maiked as Management exhibits and three witnesses wcie examined as Management witnesses. On the deience side, no documents weie marked and no wit- nesses were produced. At the dcniObtic cnqiuiy adequate opportunity was provided to the Petitioner to defend his case. He wag allowed to have the assistance of a co-worker to cioss examine the Management witnesses and to have copies of ull the records|documents relied upon by the Respondent bank. Thus, the enquiry was conducted fully in conformity with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the Service Regulations duly framed by the Respondent Bank which are binding on the Peti- tioner. On the basis of evidences adduced in the enquiry, the Enqui/y Officer has submitted his findings on 30-6-98, holding the Petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded the enquiry findings to the Petitioner for his submissions on 1-7-1998, The submissions of the Petitioner wts received •Od 6-7-98 dnd as the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, had proposed the punish- ment of dismissal and personal hearing was given -by the Disciplinary Authority on the proposed punishment to tho Petitioner on 22-8-1998. Finally, taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct, ciicumstances of the casa and the past records of the employee, the punishment of dismissal, as envisaged under Chapter XI Regulation 4 Clause (a) of the Canara Bank Service Code, was. imposed upon the Petitioner vide proceedings dHted 22-8 1998, Aggri- eved by the punishment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal dated 11-9-1998, a personal hearing was also given by tho Appellate Authority. Tho Appellate Authority vide his order dated 22-3-1999, rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere either with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or with the orders of the Disclpllnaiy Authority and confirmed the punishment of dismissnl by bis order dated 31-3-1999. An investigation conducted with regard ta Charge No. 1 revealed that the cheque in question wai issued by Sri V. Mani in respect of the loan availed by him from Sri T. Sundaresan. The Petitioner has introduced Sri V. Mani to Sri T. Sundaresan. The Petitioner has contract- ed Sri T, Sundaresan and requested him to handover tho dishonoured cheque and has further informed that the cheque issued by Sri V. Mani was not pertaining to his account and Mr. Mani was not entitled to any cheque hoc*. He has also requested Sri T Sundaresan not to present any cheque issued by Sri V, Man). The Petitioner has admitted to the investi- gating Officer fnr having attrmpted to retain the cheque in the bank Sri Balaraman, Officer, during the course of inter- rogation bv the investicatiTin officer has stated that the Peti- tioner visited the accounts Section on 20-8-97. The same was confirmed bv Sri Gopalnn, Sr. Manager of the branch. It is rrveaVd that the Petitioner was on leave on 20-8-98 and 27-8-98, hence the evidence produced in the enquiry clearly established that the Petitioner and visitid accounts section to middle with the records. Hence, it is very clear that thei Petitioner had attemcted to get possession of the cheque and tried to prevent the cheques from beins received at the drawee branch. Durinn the course of the rnouirv, it has been esta- b'isiird that the P^tifiorifr has claimed educational expetis"s trimbiir'""ment "f R' f>00 by irodnrlnc a copy of the receipt rmmortedlv rauM bv the Hindu Seiior S^coTidTv School. Trinlirane- fT">riri"i! informed thnt the rec^irvt was limicd to Mc T?n")ini Filo ncr hcd. conferred to fh" iT>v"tijrnti'nn officer thnt h" hpi\ mnd" the f*l°'rci fri reHiwt of 'h° nh"ve ft"1 bv frniid- nVntJ T aiteWip* +f"i npmf Ir ttr* mnv o^ thp r~r"Tnt. The Option o" the Petitioner in rnismin^ the we'fir/> measure

extended hv t^.e i^n}; to tbe employers is certainly prejudl- *O0$ cial to the interest of the bank. The Petitioner hod pro-, duccd false deciaiaircm and lubricated bni to gain pecu- niary advantages. An investigation into the matter revealed trim ma Petitioner hits acquired possession ot tnt cneques belonging to Sri Syed Masjid Basna which was lose by nun and he had also given stop payment instruction. The Petitioner has- confessed that he got Ihe cheque book near the htaircase ot the branch premises) and had used it for his personal requirement. J nus, knowing fully well that the Cheque book does not belong to nun, the Petitioner bad issued cneque wuh intention to cheat the payee. With iregard to charge no. 4, the cheques were originally signed and issued by Sri K. Annathapadmanaban. in favour of Al/s. Akash Finance. Xhe enquiry and the statements recorded by the investigating officer revealed that the Peti- tioner had made available the cheque leaves 10 Sri K. Ananthapadmanaban to meet his requirements and when the said cheques were received at the branch, the Petitioner had erased the signature of Sri JC, Ananthapadmanaban so as get the cheques passed. Thus, the Petitioner in collusion with Shri K. Ananthapadmanaban hud misused his official position and tampered with" the records of the Bank. This has been proved from the documents /evidences on record. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner that there is ho substantial evidence to piove the charges cont- rary to the facts. The punishment of dismissal was im- posed on the Petitioner considering the gravity of the mis- conduct, circumstances of the caas and pkst records of the Petitioner. Each and every case of the misconduct was tried separately and punishment was imposed based upon the gravity of the misconduct of each case and the Peti- tioner cannot compare his case with that of others as the punishment imposed against the Petitioner is proportionate. The Bank is the custodian of money of the customers and the staff who are dealing with the Bank are dealing with the money of customers and they should be more diligent, honest and justify th© trust imposed on them by the bank Bnd the customers. Once the customers loose the confi- dence in their dealings, the entire organisation suffers and the confidence of the -customer is the basis on which the entire edifice of the banting system Is built The allega- tion that the Petitioner admitted the guJH on the assurance Of the barjk authorities that he will be let off from the charges and would be reinstated in service with a warning is far frotn th? truth. At no point of time, the Respondent gave any such assurance. The Enquiry Officer after consi- dering the charges, the imputations, and evidence both oral and documentary submitted his findings holding the Peti- tioner guilty of all the charges. In ths event of this Hon*bk Court holding that domestic enquiry 1* not fair nnd proper, the Respondent bank may please be affored an opportunity to adducs fresh additional evidence before this Court to tubstnrlive the charcM. Therefore, it h prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dmrnm the industrial dispute.

the enquiry, 17 documents were filed on behalf of the Res- pondent Management except the letter of one in l\ ^undarc- uun dattd. Dt-i-iWI prouucea oeiorc me tnquay uincer and fuxniDued as ivim ima me stdttutiuu ol i>ri Amminu- paomdiiao.m dated it-il-M*f exinoued beioie trie fcnquiry uniLer as tLx.. ivicl.Z ana another iiuierneut of the suul Sn Ananinapadmani-Dun exbiDited ocioro liie fcnquiry Officer as EJC. Mt.it>. All otfW aounheiits exniDKed beiuie tne enquiry onicer uuve oeen maiKed oy consent oeiore tuis Court as t,x. Ml to J\il4. liie explanation given by the Petitioned to me ciwige mtmo dated M - J - I WH has been maike'd as fix. Mis. me learned counsel tor me'Petitioner has put torth an aigumeut itutuig that me documents produced Derore the Enquiry (Jfticer nnii thd evidence Wt in betorc him by the' Management witnesses did not prove the chaiges against the delinquent employee and ihe domestic enquuy and that the Enquiry Omc^r relied upon fhe statement of persons not examined before him like S/Sri Suhdnresari and Ananthapa- draanaoan. iwace one sucrl objection has Deen raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for giv* ing his consent to maik those documents i.e. statements of these two persons recorded by the investigating officer und. exiubited b^iore the Enquiry ufheer' as Ex. Mtil and ME12 and ME16, have not been marked as Management exhibits here before this Court. The Warned counsel for the Petitioner argued that co-employees S/Srl V. Man! and Ananthapad- manaban werf colluded with the Petitioner and were charge- sheeted but they we

5. The point for my consideration h "whether the dis- missal of Shri T. RadhfkriEhnan by the management of panara Bank is legal and justified ? IT not, What ieiicf is the workman entitled t6 ?''

Point :

used somebody else cheque, who hat lost the cheque book, but the said account holder was already issued instructions to the bank to strip payment. By doina so. the Petitioner has not caused any low to the bank or to the said customer, whose cheque book as used by the Petitibfler. So it cannot be considered as a grave miscon- duct. With regard to charge no. 4, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has put forth an argument that out of 1he three cheques marked as Ex. M5 series, cheque bearing No. 972179/ 972192 datad 2-9-96 and 2-12- 9fi respectively were pasied and when the chequp bearing no. 972185 dated 19-8-97 was presented it was returned as it does not contain account holder's nignature. By using alf these cheques the cerow to whom the cheau.es were ftsued have nbt at all been sustained the monitary loss. For that, the Enauiry Officer has come to the conclusion onlv on the basis of the admis- sion mdde by the Petitioner ' and he is not based his conclusion on any evidence. So from all theie things, It can lie seen that the Petitioner does not commit misappropriation nor caused any loss to the bant and the Petitioner has not- committed any misconduct with a view to defraud the bank. All the serlons ehirfies as Incident meni^ned m the Claim Statement with rcrard to other emoloroe^ were not ot all denied hi the Counter sad tho"e rafiloyww were let off with It is admitted that the Petitioner, while working as bank sub-staff at Ice House branch of th? Respondent bantc, was given a charge memo dated 3-3-19*8 for aliened miscon Suet Xerox copy of that charge sheet is Ex. Wl. In put- suance of, the issuance of the charge (.h? During2006 THE GAZETTE Oi INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA22,1$23 [PART II—SEC. 3 ( U )] lenient punishment also has not been denied. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal tan interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management against the Petitioner employee as the same Management ban discnmiuatcly dealt with similarly placed subordinate staff. Hence, this Honble Court may be taken a lenient view and to pass an award by setting aside the' order of punishment of dismissal of the Petitioner fiom service imposed by the Management and to direct the Management Bank to reinstate the Petitioner to service with- out any back wages.

0. The learned counsel for the Respondent would urgue that the Enquiry Officer, not only on the admission given by the delinquent employee, the petitioner herein, about the charges levelled against him, has independently analysed the evidence let in before him during the domestic enquiry, by the Management both by oral as well as documentary evi- dence and has come to a proper conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee have been proved. He has taken the admission made by the delinquent employee in respect of the charges against him only as a supportive evidence for his conclusion. He htvd further con- tended that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no loss has been caused by the delinquent employee by his acts as stated in the different incidents mentioned in the charge sheet and that he has not misappropriated any funds of the bank caruiot be accepted ox a valid argument, to take a lenient view against the delin- quent employee, as per the evidence both documentary and oral let in by the Management before the Enquiry Officer. Sufficient materials aro available to come to the conclusion that the delinquent employee has fabricated the documents and has also misused the cheques that were given to him as well as to third party customer. Apart from the oral evi- dence the charges have been proved matenaly on the basis of the documents and the evidence of the investigating offi- cer and the Branch Manager were only given a supportive evidence to the unimpeached documentary evidence in thia case. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the findings mainly on the basis of the admission of the delinquent employee alone, und the question of discrimination will not at all arise since the charges against the other employees are quite different and not the same set of charges. Only in Charge No. 4, it is the case of the Management that the other co-employees have colluded with the delinquent employee and hence the question of equality will not at all the attracted in this case. Further the Petitioner has admittedly utilised the cheque book belong to the third party customer of tne bank is no- thing but an attempt to cheat the bank and there are over- whelming material evidence availabls in this case which have been put before the Enquiry Officer to show that ell the charges have been proved and under that circumstances only, the Enquiry Officer has come to a proper conclusion and has given a correct finding in his report that all the charges levelled against the delinquent employee have been proved. So there is no necessity for this Tribunal to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as w*ll a? the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which has been, based upon the report of the Enquiry Officer and henca the action of the Management taken against the Petitioner tuny be upheld and the claim of the Petitioner may be dismissed.

tne investigating officer, As far as the first charge is con- cerned, there is sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion tnat tne Petitioner, who is a churgeshected employee, had made an attempt to retain the cheque there going to Branch Manager on 2U-8-97 and 27-8-97, tiioujju he waa admittedly on leuve on 4-S-97 to 30-8-97, unless he has got some motive he would not have visited the accounts section on 2U-H-97 and 27-8-97. Considering all the circumstances and other evidences, both oral and documentary in respect of Charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer come to the proper con- clusion and has given a correct finding that Charge No. 1 is proved. So far as Charge No. 2 the reimbuisement clai- med for educational expenses of his son is concerned, there is &ulilcient documentary evidence available to show that the original bill No. 303 belongs to daughter of Sri K. Ananthapadmanaban and by falsifying the records, the Peti- tioner had claimed the reimbursement. The arguments advnaced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in respect of this charge, that the Petitioner himself is eligible for reimbursement of educational expenses for his son, as per law, cannot be accepted as correct argument because it will not absolve the Petitioner from his misconduct of falsifying the record of somebody else or getting a pecuniary advantage for himself. The documentary evidence available in respect of this charge clearly shows that [lie Petitioner hud produ- ced false declaration and a fabricated bill to gain pecuniary advantage. Furthermore, the Petitionei himself has admitted tiiat he lias made use of the bill belongs to Ms. Shreeranjani and has fabricated the same. So the Enquiry Officer's find- ing in respect of this charge that it has been proved cannot be held to bo incorrect. So far as the Charge No. 3. the cheques three in numbers issued by the Petitioner favouring M|s. Madras Investments were belonged to a customer of the bank, one Sri Sycd Masjid Basha. The said customer had also given instructions to the bank to stop payment of those cheques, since he has lost the cheque book. The Peti- tioner knowing fully well that it docs not belong to him and he does not enjoy the cheque book facility had misused all those three cheques for his own purpose, which amounts to a gross misconduct of the Petitioner Wmseif. The Petitioner has fairly confessed that the cheque book of the customer was found out by him near the staircase. As a nincerely* dutyful employe© of the bank, he ought to have handed over the same to the Branch Manager, but he misused the same by putting his signature. So this charge against the Peti- tioner is proved by unimpeachable documentary evidence, which establishes a grave misconduct of the Petitioner, the bank employee. So far M the charge No. 4 is concerned, the cheque book issued to the Petitioner was made use for the financial dealing with M|s. Akash Finance and three cheques were issued to that Finance Company duly signed by Sri K. Ananthapadmanahan and it is available in evidence that one cheque bearing No. 972182 presented for payment was returned for the reason as 'accoupt closed and cheque was not signed by account holder¹. So far as the other two cheques were presented for payment, the signatures of Sri Ananthapadmanaban on the cheque leaves were erased and in that place, the Petitioner had affixed his signature. That is olenrly borne out by those cheques, which have been exhibited. The signatures in those two cheques have not at all been disputed by the Petitioner. There is ample evidence available in this case to show that the concerned cheque* books bearing No. 972101 to 972200 was issued to the Petitioner, From this, it is clearly borne out that the Peti- tioner had helped his colleagw: Sri Ananthapadmanaban by furnishing three cheque leaves from his cheque book for uti- lising the samn to give cheques in ftvonr of the finance company M|s. Akash Finance. From all these it is seen that overwhelming documentary evidence available on the side of the Management, apart from the oral evidence from the witnesses for the Management to prove that the charges levelled aRainst the delinquent emplovee were pro- ved. Only on the basis of those unimpeachable documentary evidence supported bv oral evidence Riven by the MannRe- ment witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has found that the chrapes have been proved and IIPH Riven a finding to that effect in his report. So only on the basis of these findings nf Hie Pnouirv Offl'-er the Disciplinary Authority has iriv-n the ounishment to the Petitioner bv di'missimt him from- •rrv;ce. Thr Madras Hieh Court while deciding the case h"t™*n tfc- MANAOFMFNT OF CATHOLIC SYRTAN HAWK TTD. nnd INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. MADRAS ft ANOTHFR renortrd ns J999 (T\ LL.T f>4 r-ns held t'vit "confidence of customer is ptu-nrnount for success of banlcinf 7. Considering the arguments advanced by both the coun- sels and also the Ex Wl to W5 and MJ to Ml5. this Tribu- nal can come to a conclusion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent can be accep- table as correct. The perusal of the enquiry proceedings Ex. W2 by the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that proper opportunity was given to the Petitioner, who is the charge sheeted employee, to defend his case and he has been pro- prely represented by his defence representative and the witnesses examined on the side of the Management were also croia-examined in detail by the defence representative. Fur- ther, it is not the case of the Petitioner that the enquiry- conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not fair and proper and he has not followed the principles of natural iustiee while conducting the enquiry. The perusal of the enquiry report and trie document filed on behalf of the ManngementlRes- pondent which have been already exhibited before the En- oulry Officer in the domestic enquiry poes to show that there aro ample documentary evidence to prove the charRes against the Petitioner, apart from his own ndmfadon before2007 V.

M5 08-11-97 Copy of the Cheque No. 972179,' 972182 & 972185 of the Canara bank, Triplicane branch.

M6 08-11-97 Copy of the cheque book issued regis- ter of Triplicane branch of the Management.

M7 08-11-97 Copy of the page No. 3 of the Cheque return register of Triplicane branch,

M8 26-12-97 Copy of investigation report of Ms. Roseline and Sri B. Prabakar.

M9 13-11-97 Copy of the investigation report of Sri B. Prabakar.

M10 13-J1-97 Copy of the oral statement of Sri T. Radhakrishnan.

M il 28-07-97 Copy of letter addressed by the Princi- ple of Hindu Higher Secondary School to the Manager, Kanara Bank.

M12 09-11-97 Copy of letter No. 10HD 556 97 of Triplicane Branch, Chennai.

M13 13-11-97 Copy of the written Statement given by Sri Gopalan, Manager, Ice House, Chennai.

M14 10-12-97 Copy of Investigation Report of Sri B. Prabakar.

M15 31-3-98 Copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management acknowledging receipt of chargesheet.

business and hence continuing an employee, a person who comimtted fraud on customers would be pre-judicial to the interest of the bank." This decision of the Madras High Court is quite applicable to the present case because the Petitioner, a bank employee has committed a fraud by using the cheque of a customer as if of his own and hence by! continuing in employment of such a person, the Petitioner herein, who has committed a fraud on customer would defi- nitely be pre-judicial to the interest of the Respondent bank. Further ai it is decided in that case by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, that "an employee canuot claim right to commit fraud during the course of employment and employee should maintain such ethical standard embodied in rules and regulations and they cannot be abandoned on free that jus- tice should be rendered with mercy and the employee should maintain minimum standard of integrity." So under such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned coun- sel for the Petitioner to view this case leniently and to modi- fy the punishment given by the Respondent Management to a lesser one by reinstating the Petitioner in service without back wages by showing mercy i.t> him cannot at all be accepted. The Supreme Court in the case reported as 1998 (3) LLN 89 (SO pg. 90 has observed that "in bankingl business absolute devotion, diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular by bank officers and if this is not observed confidence of depositors will be imparted." So in view of this decision of the Sup- reme Court, it can be said that misconducts of the Petitioner as alleged in the charges go to show that he had no absolute devotion, diligence and integrity, need to be preserved by every bank employee. So under such circumstances, on the basis of the above conclusions, this Tribunal can come to the conclusion that the dismissal of Sri T. Radhakrishnan by the Management of Canara Bank is legal and justified and the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.

8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the Peti- tioner|Claimant is not entitled to any Mief, as prayed for in his Claim Statement. No Cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed & typed by •him and corrected & pronounced by tnc on this day, the 13tl March, 2001).

K, KARTHIKBYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

On either side : NONE

Documents Marked:—

For ClaimantU Party : Ex. No. Date Description

W¹ 03-03-98 Copy of the charge sheet against Sri T. Radhakrishnan.

W2 series 13-04-98 Copy of the Enquiry Proceedings.

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001 W2 Series 27-04-98 Copy of the Enquiry Proceednigs.

W2 Series 30-04-98 Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding*.

W2 Series 14-05-98 Copy of the Enquiry Proceedings.

W3 01-07-98 copy of the findings of Enquiry

Officer on 30-6-98.

W4 22-08-98 Copy of the Dismissal Order,

S.O. 956.—In pursuance c"f Sectiut, 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Kanpur ns shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-4-2001.

w< 22-03-99 Copy of the order of Appellate Authority.

For Management|II Party;

[No. L-12012/112/97-IR(B-H)] Ml 30-07-97 Copy of letter No. 10: H O: 97 : KG of

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ICc House, Chennai Branch.

ANNEXURE

ment of educational expanses from Sri T.

Radhakrishnan

^ ^ T ^E R N M E NT ^USTRIAL TRIBES: CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 73 of 1998 M⁴ ffin-STULffi ,3V£-,2s

In the matter of diiputo:

BETWEEN

4. On behalf of the workman rejoinder has been filed in which the {acts alleged In statement of claim have been re- iterated. Both the parties have filed documentary evidence, in support oi their respective ca&es and nave not adduced any oral evidence.

GeneraJ Secretary, U.B. Employees Union, 628/M.-33 Mur"n Nagaf, Faizabail Road, Lucknow.

AND

The (Jeneral Manager, Union Bank, of India. Zonal Office, Sheda Tower, Kapporthalft Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its adjudication No. L-12012/112/97-IR(B-H) dated 24/28-4-98 has reterrea the following dispute for adjudication

o this tribunal—

5. I have heard the authorised representative* for both the parties and have gone through ine record of the case. Both itic parties have tiled the pnotocopy of the staff circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-92 which contains the promotion policy for the clerical staff. It also provide* a policy on higher assignment in clerical cadre. There is no dispute amongst the parties that the post of computer operator is a post 6f higher assignment and is filled by making regular selection, from amongst the clerks on the basis of stationwise seniority. The case of the 'workman is that ad long as the post of computer operator is not filled through regular selection, the higher assignment of all duties in clerical cadre on tem- porary basis will be made on branch wise simple seniority. This is supported by provisions of para 10.1 of Chapter 10 of Staff Circular No. 3913 dated 2340-92 as contained in Ext. W-2. There is no dispute about the fact that Sri Alvik was senior most clerk in his branch. The management has, not becil able to show me any provisions of Bipartite Settle- ment showing that a temporary appointment or higher assign- ment of dutibs can be made on stktionwise seniority. I am, therefore, inclined to believe the case of the workman that the management has violated the mandatory provision of para 10.1 of chapter X of Staff Circular No, 3913 dated 23-10-92 a copy of which has been filed by the management also as Ext. M-3,

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bunk of India in filing up the vacancies of Computer/ ALPM Operator 'on adhoc basis on stationwise simple Bcniority of cjerks pending regular appoint- ment js legal and justified ?' Whether the manage- ment nas violated the staff circnlar No. 3913 dated 23-10-96? Jf so to what relief Shri M.A.A. AM ii e n p e d ?"

6. In view of findings recorded above. I hold that the action of the management of Union Bank of India in tilling up the vacancy of computer operator on adhoc basis on station wise simple seniority of clerks pending regular appoint- ment was not legal and justified being in violation of staflj circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-92. As Sri M.A.A. Rlvi was entiteld to .get officiating promotioii/higher assignment on the post of computer operator from 9-2-97 to 14-11-97 ond he has been deprived from that higher assignment illegally ne must be compensated by grant of special allowance and other pecuniary benefits attached to the" post dt computer operator. The management is directed to pay Tiim the speciaj allowance and other pecuniary benefit? of the post of computer operator w.c f. 9-2-97 to 14-11-97 within a period of two months from the date of publication of this award failing which Sri Alvi shall be entitled to get interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the amount due to him.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.-

Dated : 11-4-2001

R. P. PANDEY. Presiding Offlcer 2. In the statement of claim filed on behalf of Sn M.A.A, Mvi, the concerned workman, it has been alleged that he „ pobted in Specialised Saving Bank Branch at Clerks Awadh Lucknow. fje¹ was senior most clerk in the branch. The post of Computer Operator was vacant w.e.f. April 1996 i.e. the date of opening of Specialised Saving Bank Branch at Clerk Awadh, In absence of regular potting of selected ;omputer opeiator, the concerned workman who was the icnior most at the branch was required to officiate in terms af circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-96. It has been alleged .hat pepding filh'ng up vacancies by permanent coniputcr operator the post was to be officiated by Sri Alvi the con- xrned workman being the senior most clerk of the brunch n terms of paragraph 10.1 and 10.2 of Chapter X of Staff Circular No. 3913 of 23-10-92. The management of bank without giving any notice or amending the promotion policy wsted another senior clerk on that post on the basis of tationwise seniority w.e.L 9-2-97 at the branch on adhoc " is till posting of the properly selected computer operator. Tie service conditions of the clerks of the bant are governed iy Bipartite Settlement and awards. According paragraph 0.1 of Chapter X of the aforesaid circular dated 23-10-92, rl Alvi was entitled to get officiating appointment on the jt of computer operator but he was denied his right to officiate a" computer operator w.e.f. 9-2-97 when another jerson on the basis of "tation wise seniority was posted therr* Tie pojjf pf computer operator was filled in that branch by ippointing a, regularly selected: cqmputer operator w.e.f 4-llv97. Thus Sri Alvi was deprived of the benefits of the pedal allowance and other financial benefits attached to ti, * ~"t of compute? operator from 9-2-97' to 14-11-97 on account jf the. Iftpse o£ management of Union Bank of India who lad violated the provisions of paragraph 10.1 of the foresaid circular dated 23-10-92 relating to promotion policy. t has been prayed that Sri Alvi should be compensated lnancially keeping in view special allowance as computer )perator fo^ the aforesaid period.

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001

S.D. 9 J 7 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947\ the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industral Tribunal I Labour Court, Chermai a$ shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in 3. The management of Union Bank Of India in its written itatement stated that the management has not violated any >rovisions of the guidelines contained in itaff circular No. ^13 dated 23-10-92. It has been alleged that since work- nan was not the senior most in station his claim for offlcia- ion as computer operator is devoid of merit. It has been illeged that Sri Alvi has not suffered any financial loss, ~:e there ii no question of compensating him It has been Heged that the reference should be decided in favour of the ntnagement.

^009

Manager, Jndiaa Overseas Bank, Chennai, Manage- ment, mentioned _as Schedule appended to the order of reference.

relation to the managment of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2001.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

[No. L~12012]124|99-IR(B-II)J C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.,

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the lfith March, 2001

PRESENT :

⁴ Whether the action QI the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in :t?nnuiating the service of Shri A. Mur^gavci, Clerk | Shroff without affording him an oppor- tunity to be heard during the course of domestic enquiry is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman con- cerned is entitled to ?" K. Karthikeyan, P r i d i ng Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 254|2001

(Tamil Nadu Industrie Tribunal I.D. No. 266199)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) (d) and Sub-section 2(A) of the Indusfrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Petitioner Sri A. Murugavel and the Management, the Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

Shri A. Murugavel, Madurai

. ., Petitioner|I Party

AND

The Assistant General Mun.iger, Indian Overseas Bank,

Chennai. . . Management|II Party

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner : S|Sri C.R. Chandrasekaran

& N. KrishnEfkumar, Advocates

For the Management : S|Sri N. G. R. Prasad &

S. Vaidyanathan & R. Prabhavathy, Advocates

Reference : Order No. L-12012|124|99-IR(B-II) dt. 29-94999, Govt. of India-, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This order of reference was first made to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Central Govern- ment, Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute for adjudication and the same was taken on file there as I.D No. ,266|99. That Tribunal has sent notices to both the parties to appear and file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement On receipt of notices by both the parties, one Mr. Clia-jidrasekar. Advocate undertook to file vakalat for the PetitionerlWorkman and Sri N. G R Prasad, Advocate filed vakalat for the Respondent on the hearing date 17-12-99. Subsequently the cpse was adjourned in that Tribunal and as under- taken by the counsel for the pet;tioner, he filed his vafcalat for the Petitioner on the heariiw date 10^4-2000. Subsequently, the case was adjourned m that Tribunal from time to t:me extending time to Petitioncr|Workman to file his Claim Statement, t'll the case was transferred to this Court as per the orders of the Central Government. On transfer, the records of this case were received from the Tami Nadu Industrial Tribunal and was taken on file on 24-1-2001 as I.D. No. 254[200l. Notices to cither counsel on record were ordred to be sent by Regis- tered Post informing them that the case has been transferred to the file of this Court from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal and it is posted on 9-2-2001 for srpocarance of both the parties. On 9-2-2001, both the parties and the counsel for the I Party were not present. Counsel for II Partv alone was present. Since the CWm Statement of the Petitioner had not vet been filed, tfme wa- ex- tended for flirt* the Chlm Statement with docu- ments till 7.3-2-2001. On- 23-? ?001, the mumel lor the I party an-1 both the carriM W P re n^t nre- sent. vhil- the counsel for the n Partv alone Wns present, Thrri final notire wis ordered to h* ^Pnt p T Partv d w rt bv 'Pi^^rrci Po^t with pr-Vpnw- ledpempnt card fnr to-day's herain^ i.e. 16-3-7001.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearin" or) 16-3-2001, upon perusing the reference and other material papers m record amd <^n the counsel who proposed to appear for the I Party, hwrne; not chosen to file any record for .the I Party! Petitioner ?n^ reported no instructions and on hearing the IT Party counsel and havine considered this case, the Tribunal pass the following :—

? Whf-n the imtter wai ta-Ven up for hearine AWARD

This reference by the Central Government in

to-d.v. the counsel on eifW ,i dp ^ Tn-^ent and both the rv,rt" wer" not n r ^ ,nf The m m vi anoeat-ed for T Portv m^ ^ t ,4 "no

r" r

dtrrt on wVfll^ be filed rn *^f ^ t hp T p exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- "vfl"on (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 TMustrial Disoutes Act, 1947 between Shri A. Miiru^vel, Petitions and the Assistant General *

tnent due to the I PartyiPetitioner direct to toSa^s20lt> THE GAZETTE Ot INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22,1923 [PATT II^-SEC. 3(ii)] hearing returned unserved with a postal endorse- ment 'No such addressee'. On a perusal of the re- cords, it is seen that from the same address, the Petitioner had already sent petitions to the Tribunal praying extension of time to file Claim Statement with documents., Though his counsel undertook to file vakala-t on the first hearing before the Tamil NadU Industrial Tribunal on 17-12-99, he was able to file vakalat only on 10-4-2000. Subsequently, till this date the Petitioner|I Party has not chosen to file Claim Statement with documents. Since th^ Petitioner|Workman having shown no interest in this matter, his counsel on record has also reported no instructions. All these things go to show that the I Party| Petitioner has no interest to prosecute this case for the reasons best known to him. Under such circumstances, this reference is closed, dis- missing the industrial dispute for non-prosecution by the Workman I Claimant.

3. In the result, an award is passed holding that no dispute exists between the parties. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed & typed by him and corrected & pronounced by me in the opencourt on this day, the 16th March. 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001 $.0. 958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award cxure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- Dlnyers in relation to the management of Tndian Bank and their workman, which was received by tho Central Government on 12-4-2001.

[No. L-12012|240|98-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy..

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

PRESENT ;

Thiru A. Ahamadullah, B.Sc, B.L., Presidjag Officer,

Friday the 23rd day of February. 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 239 of 1999

BETWEEN

Smt. Indirani Ammal, Rep. by the General Secretary, Indian Bank Emp. Union, No. 25, Second Line Beach, Chennai-1.

AND

The Management of Indian Bank, The Zonal Manager, 24|2, Ethiraj Salai, Anna Salai, Chennai-103.

AWARD

This industrial dispute has been referred to this court for adjudication of the dispute between the workman Smt. Indirani Ammal and the management of Indian Bank, Chennai. by the Govt. of Tndia, Ministry of Labour, by G. O., L. 12012]24O]98-IR(B-II) dt. 3O-3-l"99, on the following issue :

Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified: in not regularising the services of Smt. Indirani Ammal, Temporary Part-time Sweeper and if not to what relief the worker is entitled to 7 2. Claim statement has not been filed by the worker. •

3. To-day the dispute is taken up for enquiry. There is no representation for the petitioner. Claim statement not filed. Posted to-day as last chance for filing claim statement. Petitioner is called absent. Coming for several hearings for filing of claim statement. In the result, an award is pasced dismissing the I.D. for default No costs Dated at Chennai, this the 23rd day of February, 2001.

A. AHAMADULLAH, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001 S.O.959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award2011 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal) Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which Was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2001.

[NQ. L-12012|255]97-IR(B~II)) C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1999 In the matter of dispute between .—

Punjab National Bank Employees Union The President PNBEU, 13-A Keshava Kunj Pratap Nagar, Agra

AND

Punjab Niatonal Bank The Regional Manager PNB Regional Office Church Compound Bhajona Road, Saharanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide its notification No. L-12012|255|97-IR(B-II) dated 31-12-98, has referred the following dispute for adjudication, to this Tribunal :—

Whether the action of the management in not counting the courtyard portion of the building for the purpose of wage deter- mination of Smt. Sumitra, Part time Sweeper equal to 1|3 sca-le wages of sub- ordinate staff is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?

2. In the instant case parties to the disput? have entered into an ainicable settlement outside the court and have filed a joint application before the tribunal on 18-9-2006 with the request to decide the reference in terms of settlement. The represen- tative for the Union appeared in the proceedings of the case and made an endorsement to thb effect that he agree with the settlement on 28-3-2001 at camp court at Delhi.

The terms of Settlement are as under :—

1. That Smt. Sumitra Devi will be paid one third of the scaie wages as payable to the subordinate staff of the bank w.e f. 1-10-96.

2. That Smt. Sumitra Devi will continue to swep the premises of B O. Badshahi Bagh, Si'haranpur as well as the entire court yard attached thereto on daily basis. 1281 GI|2001--K

3. That this is in full and final settlement of payment of wages to Smt. Sumitra Devi and no further dispute shall be raised on this issue by her and or her representative.

4. That the parties agree to move a pint application before the Hon'ble CGIT, Kampur, alongwith a copy of the under- standing for giving a no dispute award in the matter pending before it.

5. That the understanding shall be imple- mented on- receipt of No dispute award of the Hon' CGIT Kanpimr.

3. In view of above, I have no hesitation to hold that now there exists no dispute between the parties, A. Accordingly the present reference is answered in t inns of settlement referred to above arrived at between, the parties and accordingly it is also held that now there remains no dispute between 4ho parties in pursuance of reference made to this tribunal.

5. Reference made to this tribunal is answered accordingly.

Da'id 10-4-2001

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officei New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001 S.O. 960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial TribunallLa-bour Court, Ajmer as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment nf Paschim Railway, Ajmer and their work- man, which was reeived by the Central Government on 16-4-2001.

TNo. L-41012|119|98-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer2012 THE GAZETTE Ot INDIA . MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-04-2001.

[No. L-41012/118/94-IR (B-I) J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 19th March, 2001

PRESENT : K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 389/2001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 26/95)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication underl section 10(I)fd) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 194"?, between the Workman Sri G. Baburaj and the Management. The Golden Rock Workshop, Ponmalai, Trichy.)

BETWEEN

Sri G. Baburaj Tiruchirapalli. Claimant/I Party

AND

The General Manager, Southern Railway, The Golden Rock Workshop, Ponmalai, TiruchirappalH. Managemcnf/TI Party

APPEARANCE : For the Workman : MK K. Chandru,

D. Bharathi and Muthupandi, Advocate^.

For the Man3gene-it : Sri M. Munir Sheriff, Standing Counsel for Central Govt

Refe ence : Order No. L-4101?/ll8/94-IR(D-I) dt. 15-6-95. Gov<. of India. Minis'ry of L'iboi"r, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 19-93-2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and upon the representation made by the counsel on either side on 12-3-2001 and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following :—

AWARD

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001

This reference by Central Govt. in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in resoect of dispute between Sri Baburaj, Workman and the General Manager, Southern Rail- way, The Golden Rock Workshop, Ponmalai, Trichy, Management, mentioned as Schedule appended to the Order of reference.

S.O. 961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central overnment hereby publiohes the award of the sntral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour >urt. Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation the management of Southern Railway and their5013 The Schedule reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Workshop Per- sonnel Officer in terminating the services of the Workman Srj G. Baburaj with effect from 20-12-1991 (Afternoon) is justified 7 If not, to what relief is he entitled ?"

suance of the same, he undertook to file a withdrawal petition today. Though time was granted on the last hearing 1-3-2001 to this date as per the under- taking given by the 1 Party to file a petition to with- draw this case, neither the 1 Party nor his counsel has turned up today to file a withdrawal petition, as per their undertaking. So under such circumstances, this Tribunal has to conclude that the 1 Party Peti- tioner and his counsel have remained absent today, since the I Party is not inclined to prosecute this case here before this Tribunal, and since ho has already decided to approach a different forum for his basic remedy for employment against the Manage- ment and to withdraw this case, as not pressed. So, no useful purpose will be served in keeping this case on file for the I Party to prosecute this case before this Tribunal for the relief mentioned in the Sche- dule of reference as an industrial dispute. Hence, this industiial dispute is dismissed for non-prosecution and for default.

4. In the result an award is passed accord>nglyh

as no relief award. No cost

(Dictated to Stenographer and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me on th's day, 19th March, 2001)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer This order of reference was first made to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute for adjudication by that Tribunal. The same was taken on file as industrial dispute No. 26/1995. That Tribunal had sent notices to both the parties to appear before it and to file the Claim Statement as well as the Counter respectively. Accor- dingly, on receipt of the notico of that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim Statement as well as Counter Statement respectively. When the matter was taken up before that Tribunal, by the consent given by counsel on cither side, xerox copy of the documents filed by cither side were marked as Ex- Wl to W8 and Ml to Ml4 respectively. Then at the request of the counsel on either side, the case was adjourned from time to time for the counsel on record on either side to advance their respective arguments. At this stage, as per the orders of the Central Government, this case has been transferred from the filo of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to ihe file of this Tribunal.

Witnesses examined : Or either side NONE Document Marked : On Workman/I Par'y sid.-:

Date

Description

Ex. No

28-02-87

Wl

Xerox copy of cilice Older of the Respondent rcgu'arising the servces of the Petitioner as DSL Fitter Grade Ht

W2 30-04-90 Xerox copy of order promoting the Petitioner as Grade I DSL Fitter.

05-12-91

W3

Copy of memo issued by Respon-

dent to the Petitioner.

4-12-91

\V4

2. On receipt of records of this case on transfer from the file of Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file of this Tribunal as I.D. No. 389/2001 on 5-2-2001. Notices were ordered to the counsel on record on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with the intimation that the case has been posted for their appearance for further hearing on 20-02-2001. On 20-2-2001, the I .Party/Petitioner was present. The change of vakalat for him was filed by Sri Hari Parandhaman, Advocate and on request, the case was adjourned to 12-3-2001. On that date, when this case has been taken up for enquiry, additional documents as xerox copies were filed by tho II Party. Then the counsel for the I Parly informed the cjurt that he prays liue for to withdraw this case. Hence, the case has been adjourned to this day.

Copy of 1 etter from Petitioner to Respondent for extension of time to submj! his explanation

Copy ol Plaint in O.S No 66/92.

—

W5

Copy of pjljumi filed u/s 2(A)

16-05-92

W6

of the I D, Act.

Xerox copy of remarks filed by

-

W7

the Petitioner Xerox copy of i4<1u te repott

W8 01-07-94

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry today, the counsel for the II Party alone was present. The I Party and his counsel were not present. No representation was made on behalf of I party. Since it was represented in the last hearing that the counsel for tho 1 Party that the Petitioner wants to approach a different forum for his basic remedy for the employ- ment, he wanted to withdraw this CTI" and in pur-:0t4 THE GAZETTE 01 INDIA : MAY 12, JLOQI/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] On ManagemenV/I Parly s

Date

Description

Ex No.

Ml

Xerox copy of community certi- 07-01-78

ficate form.

- 4-89

M2

Xerox copy of le'ler from Tash'l-

dar, Ti'chy.

0J-05-S9 Xerox copy of confidential letter M3

of the department

17-08-89 Xerox copy of confidential letter M4

of the department

Xerox copy of Community certi- M5

ficate.

Xerox copy of Jetter to Collector, 25-08-89

M6

Sa'em.

08-06-9]

M7

Xerox copy of proceedings of Salem Co'Jector. Xerox copy of confidential letter 22-08-91

M8

Xorox copy of confidential letter. 11-1] -90

M9

21-06-90

M10

Xerox copy of Jetter regarding acceptance of caste certificate. 24-04-90 Xerox copy of office memorandum' MJ1

19-12-91 Xerox copy of notice of teimi- MJ2

natioa

M13 21-12-91 Xerox copy of department leLter regarding termination of service of I Party

M14 26-12-91 Xerox copy of undelivered depart- ment letter with acknowledge- ment card.

New Delhi, the J6th April, 2001 S.O. 962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), (he Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 1 the management of North Eastern Railway and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2OQ1.

[No. L-41011/55/9MR(DU)(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT

DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shrj Sarju Prai;adl Presiding Officer, la the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the T,D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 91 OF 1993 PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of North Eastern Railway, Sonepur and their

workman.

APPEARANCES:

On bohajf of the : Shri D. Mukherje , Advocate workmen and Shri K, Chakravorty,

Advocate.

On behaJf of the : Shri S,N. Dutta, Advocate management

State : Jharkhand Industry : Railway.

Dated, Dhanbad. the 29th March, 2001,

AWARD

The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the LD. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicatio vide their Order No L-41011/55/91-I.R.(D.U) dated the 23rd August, 1993,

SCHEDULE

2. The present industrial dispute has been referred to decide two distinct and separate questions. The first question to be adjudicated upon is whether the action of the management of Sonepur Railway Divi- sion dt. 1-1-84 by which the management did not give promotion to the dorks mentioned in the list to the schedule is justified? If not to what relief they are entitled lo? The second question relates to2015 termination of Shri Jai Ram Sharraa, ty^d. Yunus, Shri Dularchand Sharma, Shri Jan^g Bahadur and Shri Ram ^ukar, a'J casual ^azdoors working under Divisional Engineer, Sonepur Railway with effect from 16-2-89 is justified, or not? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?

3, Brief facts of the case is that under restructuring,

Transhipment clerk who coul/i pass examination, in goods and who failed were rcvertecL back. .The goods clerk who have raised tneir dispute through the W^on had not challenged the combined seniority list of Transhipment Clerk and Senior Gpods cle.rk in the scaje of Rs. 1200-2(140 and after about, 6 years they have raised the present dispute. The Senior goods clerk not only have demanded their promotion with affect from 1-1-84 by which date their counter part l. e. the Senior Transhipment Qctks were promoted but has al$o claimed t^jat. ofher goods Clerk shpuld be promoted with effect from 1-1-84 in their place i-e. in place of Senior Goods clerk in the sca,le of R,s. 1200- 2040 and similarly the other goods clerk should be accordingly promoted. Thus it appears that tho Senior Goods Clerk, in fact, demand seniority over the Transhipment Clerk in the matter of promotion not only in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 but also in other lower seals also. Further it is admitted that the Senior Goods clerk who have raised the dispute after 6 years did not dispute this combined senidrify of Senior Transhipment Clerk and Goods clerk in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Thus it is admitted that Senior Transhipment Clerks were senior to Senior Goods Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Further it appears that some of the goods clerk were senior on the point of appointment on different scale. Since it Was promotion of the scale from Rs. 1200-2040 to 1400-2300, therefor , we are concerned with the* seniority of the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 only.

4. The sponsoring union has examined two of the Goods Clerk in support of their case, They have also filed the comment of the Railway Administration before the RLC (C), Patnain which they have clarified their posjtion. They have also filed seniority ijst of the Senior Goods Clerk as well as Senior Tranship- ment CJerk.

29 Senior Transhipment clerk's in the scale of 1200-2040 were promoted to Grade Rs 1400-2300 as per A.V.C in vogue from 24-11-^. A.V.C. required that on the basis of combined seniority of 'Senior Goods Clerk and Senior Transhipment clerk in Cirade Rs. 1200-2040, those semOr persons who were quali- fied in goods were td be promoted to the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. It so happened that both Senior Geod Clerk and Scmor Transhipment clerks did not fulfill one of the condition of eligibility. The Senior Transhipment C'erks were senior to Senior Goods clerk bUt the Senior goods clerk were well qualified ifi goods whereas Senior Transhipment dork's were not well qualified in goods. Therefore, the manage- ment decided to promote Senior Transhipment clerks who were senior fo Sr. Goods e'efk and who were not possessing required qualification in goods were promoted with effect from 1-1 -$4 in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. ' Subsequently when there was natural vacancy the'senior" Goods clerk were also promoted in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 but with later date. Since the Senior Transhipment Clerks who were promoted to Grade 1400-2^00 were nof possessing qualification in goods, therefore they were first sent for undergoing training in goods and they were required to pass examination in goods. Accordingly with two years after receiving training they passed examination goods and thus their promotion to the next scale was confirmed but those who could not pass examination in goods were reverted back. But the concerned union has espoused the cause oi Senior Goods clerk who were junior to Senior Transhipment Clerks but were possessing required qualification in goods by staking a claim that the Senior Goods clerk shou'd have been promoted with effect from 1-1-84 by-passing the Senior Transhipment Clerks because they were not possessing qualification in goods But the management [decided otherwise and without possessing requifed'qualjficat'on ^n goods the Transhipment Clerks were promoted in preference to Senior Goods Clerk. The management has pleaded that since the goods Clerks were not senior enough for next promotion it was decided that the Senior Transhipment Clerk should be promoted first with condition that they will have go undergo training in goods and pass examination fai'ing wh'ch they will be reverted back. Accordingly the manage- ment did promote 29 Senior Transhipment clerk'in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 'and thereafter they were given trailing and confirmed" promotion of those

5. The facts of the case are almost admitted and we find that since senior Transhipment Clerks were senior to Senior Goods Clerk the action of the management in promoting Lhcm eailier with the condition that they will have fo go for goods training and have to'pass the examination does no^ appear be unjustified The sponsoring union has tried to make the case complicated but the fact remains that the Transhipment Deris were senior to Senior Goods Clerk in the sca'e of Rs. 1200-2040. Therefore, if the management has decided to promote the Senior 0erks >n preference to jun;or goods e'erk, the Rail- way ' Management cannot be sa'd to be unjustified With respect to possessing qualification in goods* the management has made provision of tra>n>n.g and examination in goods Furthermore tince the case of the promotion of ihe Senior Transhipment'Clerk has been challenged after long lapse of 6 years and in2016 THE GAZETTE OJ INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VATSAtfHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] this reference those Senior Transhipment Clerk are not a party, therefore on this score also this Tribunal shou]d not interfere unless and until on the face of it the action of the management is glaringly erroneous. Furthermore it is admitted that the promotion to the scale of Rs 1400-2300 js not only seniority but also suitability has to be soen Thus the promotion is managerial function of the management. If they have found suitable the Senior Transhipment Clerks who are admittedly senior to Senior Goods Clerk in the scale of Rs, 1200-2040, their action cannot be said to be unjustified- Therefore, in my opinion the Senior Goods Clerks are not entitled to any relief.

6. As per second dispute is concerned it is with respect to the termination of services of Shri Jai Ram Sharma, MdL Yunus, Shri Dularchand Sharma, Shri Jang Bahadur and Shri Ram Pukar who were casual labourers working under Divisional Railway Engineers Soucpur, According to the sponsoring union they were regularly working as casual labour in permanent nature of job and without following the principles ol natural justice and without complying of the provi- sion of the I D. Act they have been retrenched with effect from 16-2-79. Similarly other 8 persons were retrenched with the same dale and they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Palna the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna das been pleased to hold that their termination is illegal and they are entitled for reinstatement with full back wages

7. The management lias not given any reason for termination ol service of the concerned persons nor the management had disputed that they were casual labour working under Divisional Railway Engineer, Sonepur. The management has taken only shelter to the point of limitations and has submitted that since the dispute has been raised after much delay, there- fore, the concerned persons are not entitled to any relief and the action of the management cannot be questioned.

8. Thus from the pleadings of the parties il is apparent that the management is defenceless regar- ding its action in terminating the services of the concerned persons with effect from 16-2-79. They have taken only plea of limitations. It is well esta- blished law that a workman cannoL be terminated from service without following the principles ol' natural justice i.e. giving a chance o(: hearing before terminating from service nor a workman can be terminated from service wUhoul notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25F of th; ID. Act. Therefore tho action of the management in terminating the five concerned persons with effect trom 16-2-79 is totally illegal. Now so far the point of de'ay is concerned i* has been held in a numbor of cases that since Section 10 of tho I D Act does not prescribed any limitation therefore, on the ground of delay the Tribunal can- not refuse to give relief to workman against whom wrong has been done by the management. By now the Apex Court of this Country has been pleased to hold that 'f there is delay in .raising a dispute then the Award of the Tribunal or Labour Court should be modified in such a way that the benefit of back wages can be denied. A reference may bo made to 1999 (82) FLR p-169 Mahab

In the result, the following Award is rendered :

"The action of the management of Divisional Railway Administration, Sonepur denying promo- tion to the concerned goods clerk with effect from 1-1-84 is not unjustified and they are not entitled to any relief. The action of the management in terminating the services of Jai Ram Sharma, Md. Yunus, Shri Dularchand Sharma, Shri Jang Bahadur and Shri Ram Pukar with effect from 16-2-79 is not justified. They are entitJed for reinstatement without back wages from the date of termination till before the date ol reference Le. 22-8-93. The management is directed to icin- state them and^pay them back wages with effect from 23-8-93."

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th April, 2001 S.O. 963.—in pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Goveni.nent Industrial Tribunal/Labour2017 Court, lianpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank oF India and their workman, which was rcceivod by Central Government on 18-4-2001

[No. L-J2012/211/96-IR (B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Industrial Dispute No. 94 of 1997 In the matter of dispute between : Shri Arun Kumar Chaturvedi 127/22 U Block Nirala Nagar Kanpur

And

Dy.Goncral Manager Bhartiya State Bank Kshetriya Karyalaya Varanasi-221010

the workman may be reinstated in service wit 1' full back wages.

3. The mangemont did not dispute the fact that the workman was appointed as clerk cum typist and he was confirmed on that post. It has been alleged that the workman was on leave for 320 days from 1981 to 1983 out of which Extra Ordinary Leave for 302 days was granted to him. They admitted that the services of tho workman were terminated vide order dated 18-8-83 in view of the provisions of para 522(1) of Shastry Award on payment of three months salary and allowances in lieu of three months notice. It has been aleged that he was guilty for remaining absent from duty and also misutilised the money of the bank by withdrawing an amount of Rs. 1650/- from different branches of the bank against his saving bank account kept at Varanasi in which there was not sufficient money for withdrawal. Thus he misutilised the money of the bank. It has been pleaded that the claim is barred by limitation and the work- man in not entitled to get any relief in pur- suance of the reference made to this tribunal.

4. On behalf of the workman rejoinder has been filod in which facts alleged in the statement of claim have been reiterated.

Award

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour, vide its notification no. L-l/?.012/211/96-TR(B-l) dated 23-6-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Tndia Varanasi in terminating the services of sh. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, S/o Sh C.PJChaturvedi, Ex-clerk cum typist vide order no. SIB/35 dated 18-8-83 is justi- fied? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. On behalf of ihe workman statement of claim has been filed with the allegation^ that Sri Ann Kumar Chaturvedi concerned workman (herein- after referred to as workman for the sake of brevily) was appointed in the bank as clerk cum typist on 20-5-78 . He has put in service for 5 years 3 months as clerk cum typist without giving any chance of complaint to the management. The services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 18-8-83, without, giving any opportunis of hearing and without giving him a chango to defend himself against the alleged charge of unatroriscd absence and for mis- utilising the money of the bank. The Ir-ink could ha\j r^movci the workman from service only after holding domestic enquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry. It lias been alleged tnat the im- pugned order of termination is illegal find bad in law being pass:J in violation of the princi- ples of natural justice. It has been prayed that 5. The workman examined himself as W-W. 1 and filed 47 documents marked Ext. W-l to W-47 in support of his case. The management of S-B.T. examined Sri Brijesh Kumar Verma, Dy. Manager as M.W. 1 and has filed 46 documents.

6. T have hoard tho authorised representatives for both the sides and have gone through the record of tho case. It is admitted to boih the parties that services of the employees of the bank are regulated by the provisions of Shastri Award, Desai Awarcd and Bipartite Settlements made from time to time. The provisions of Shostri Award and De*sai award have been modified from "time to time by entering info Bipartite Setlements between the Indian Banks Association and the Em- p'oyc,es Unions of different Nationalised Banks. From the impugned order of termination dated 18-8-83, Ext. M-33 on the record it appears that the services of the concerned workman, who was a permanent employee of State Bank of India, have been terminated without giving any reason in terms of paragraph 522(1) of Shastri Award by giving him 3 months salary. From the record it is established beyond doubt that the services of the workrain were terminated because he had remained absont from duty unautiiorisedly and that he had misutilised the money of the bank without keeping suffici^^t amount of money in his saving bank account. The order passed by Regional Manager, Region 0) Varanasi, on 18-8-83 is paper no. ^0/1 filed by the manage- ment. This document is Ext, M-31/2. This shows201 5 THE GAZETTF 01 INDIA : MAY 12, 2 0 0 1 / V A I S A K HA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(li)] that action urtdcr paragraph 522(1) of Sftastri Award was taken because tbe workman had remained absent unathorisedly and he withdrew of money from different branches of the bank against his saving bank account in- which there was not sufficient amount to satisfy the demand. There is no dispute about the fact that ynathorised absence from duty and misutrllising the banks funds is a serious misconduct Sri Brijesh Kumai Verma, Dy. Manager, M.W. 1 admitted in

his cross examination that services of the Work- man were terminated because he remained un- authtfrted from tluty. He admitted that the workman was a permanent employee of the b a nt and Extra Ortlinary Leave was granted to him from 13-8-81 to 12-7-83 on the ground of illness. This shows that the concerned workman was ill, hence he was not in position to attend his duties. This fact, is borne out from the evidence of workman who has examined him- self as WAV. I before this tribunal. For apprecia- ting the facts and circumstances of this case, the provisions of paragraph 522 (1) of Shastri Award are relevant which are as under—

In cases not involving disciplinary action for misconduct and subject to clauses (6) below the employment of a permanent em- ployee may be terminated by three months' notice or on payment of three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The services of a probationer may be terminated by one months' notice Or on payment of a month's pay and allowances in lieu of riotice.

instead of serving charge sheet on him fOr aforesaid misconduct and instead of giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accor- dance with the principles of natural justice, tho management of the bank adopted a sh'drt out method by terminating the permanent ser- vices of the workman by giving three months salary in lief notice. Such notice could not be served on him when a disciplinary action was in process against him. I, therefore, hold that the management has virtually passed an order of punishment of removal against the work- man in the form of simple order of termination for the alleged misconduct of absence from duty, without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principlo of natural justice. Such an order can not be sus- tained before a competent court of law. In a similar case ofOm Pi'akash Goel versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation AIR 1991 S.C. 1490, it was held that court can always look whether an innocuous termi- nation order is a camouflage for removal of the employe;. In that case although a disciplinary action was initiated againt the concerned employee but befoe conclusion of en- quiry without reference of charge framed, simple order of termination was passed. Tn that caso, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that form of ord?r was merely a cloak for order of punishment of re- moval and that order was held to be illegal being passed in violation of purincipl of nitural justice and was qmMwd. In my opinion, t]ie lx>w laid down in the case cited above fully applied to the facts of the present ca5e also in which a decision w^s taken to take disciplinary action against the con- cerned employee but without reFerenco to the charges, his services w:ro terminated by a simple order by giving¹ him three mdnths salary in lieu of throcf months' notice. Such order appears to be an order of pu lish- mertt for the misconduct for absence from duty and appears illbgal because it ha* been passed iri violatidh of thi principle? of natural justice wlthou' giving him any opportunity or hearing a jainst the alleged charge of mistofrttuct.

Para 522 (I) of Shastri Award as mentioned above provides that employment of permanent em- ployee nuy be terminate! by threa months' notice Such provision appeari to bo violativs of the pro- visions of Article 14 of thj Constitution of India being against the principlo of natural justice. Tf an employes becomes psrman'rit in tho sarvico he must got security of job until and unless ho is found guilty of serious charge in discharge of his official duties. The aforesaid provisions of Shartn Award which have given arbitrary power to the employer

o terminate the services Of permanent employe* The aforesaid provisions of paragraph 522(1) Of Shastri Award clearly provide that in cases not involving disciplinary action for miscon- duct the employment of a permanent employee may be terminated by three months notice or pay- ment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. In the present case there was a serious charge of misconduct against the con- cerned empldyee which is clear from the order dated 18-8-83, passed by Reginal Manager, Region- 1, Varanasi of the State Bank of India, which is on paper no. 30 filed by the management. Paper no. 26 filed by the management is an order dated 25-7-83 which has been passed by tbe State Bank df Tndia, Personnel Department, Local Head Office Lucknow. It is mentioned in this letter that disciplinary action against the workman was in process for romaifliii^ ab^i.t from duty unathorisedly from 7-5-83. This is sufficient to indicate that the Bank was intending to take disciplinary actiori against the workman for remaining absent from doty unathoriscdly but 20T)

of SMstri Award appears to bi illegal bsinj in 'vio- lation of the principles of natural justice.

by giving three months' notice wothout assigning any reason appear to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair which cannot be sustained in view of provisions of Article 14 of* the Const tu ion of India.

8- Regulation 34 of West, Bengal - Elpctricuy Board regulating authorised the board to terminate services of permanent eraplyees of the board by giving three months wages or salary in Hsu tliereof. The service or an employer of the Board wore ter- minated in accordance with that Regulation. The provisions of that Regulations- 34 Were hold .totally arbitrary and discriminate by Hon'blo Supre ne Court of India, in West Bengal State "Electri- city Board Versus D^sh Bandhu Ghosh and others 1985 Lab IC 885, The law laid down in that case aho supports the view exproiicd by me' regarding provisions of paragraph 522(0 of Shastri Award.

7. In Central Jnjand Water Transport Corpo- ration versus Brij Nath Ganguly 1986(2) SLR 1586 Lab IC 1312 the services of an employee of tho corporation were terminated under Ru'o 9(i) of the Rules which regulated service conditions of* the employees of the Corporation. That rule empower- ed the employer to terminate th^ services of a per- manent employee by giving three months' notice or three months' pay m lieu of notice. Jhs employee was also empowered to terminate hij services by giving similar notice to the employer. In that case the provisions of Rule 9(i) were held to b; illegal and void. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

9. In Delhi Transport Corporation , ^venus DTC MaZdoor Congress AIR 199,1 S^ lOl y> which the service of an employes of that Corporation were terminated under regulation, 9(b) oj\tho Regu- lation ragulaiiing ihe services cpnditions of, the em- ployees of that Corpotation- t he Hon'ble Sureme Court held thit such order of termination wa^jllegal and observed as under :

It is true that there is mutuality in clause 9(i) the same mutuality as in a contract between the Lion aad the Lamb that both will be free to roam about in jungle and each will be at liberty to devour other. Whon ono conside" th? unequal positjon of th,e c?rpor

Regulation 9 (b) which confors power on the authority to terminate the services of a perma- nent and confirmed employee by issuing a notice without assignirig * any feasbn ' in the order and without giving an dpp^rttfnity of hear- ing to the employee before passing tne impugned order is whoHy arbitrary, uncahsliscd tHe un- restricted violating the principles of natural justice as well as Article J4 of tji"f Constitution.

A clause such as Rule 9(i) in a contract of employment affecting large section of the public is harmful and injurious to the public interest for it tends to create a sense of insecurity in the mind** of those to whom it applies, and consequently it is against public good. Such clame, iruiVoru is opposed to public policy and biing opposed to public policy is void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Aet,

The law laid down in the cases cited above fully app- lies to the facts of the present case.

10. In view oi¹ jaw Javd down, > by, thav JJpn'ble As pointed out above Rule 9(i) is both arbitrary and unreasonable and it also wholly ignores and sets aside the Audi Alteram Pai'tem rule, it, therefore, violates Articb 14 of the Coii>- titution.

Supreme Court of India in,, £he casff$ cited above I hold that termination of permanent services of the concerned workman Shri Arun.Kupiar Cfaajtur- vedi by the bank is who"y illegal being passed in violation of the principle or natural justice and being passed in accordance of that rule which appear* to be arbitrary and vfolative 6f the pro- visions of Ssction 23 oi Contract Act/land Article 14 of thd Constitution of India. ' Such ^rder of termination being illegal "'s lialib to bs quashed.

The- law l^id down in the case cited above fully ap- plies to the factq of the present case als6. The pro- visions of para 522 (i) of Shastri award appear to be similar to the provi-ions of clause 9(\j Of the Rules applicable to employees of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation. , la vievv of t'15 abivo observations of the Hon'ble Suprom? Court of India the provisions of pargraph 522(1) of Shastri Award also appears to bo oppose to the public policy and void being in contravention of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. That rule also appear, to be arbitrary and unreasonable as it wholly ignores and sets aside tho Audi Alterm,Partem Rule and it, therefore, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid paragraph

11. The .auf,h, representative for the manage- ment has a^gu/sd that the services of the concerned workman terminated in the year 19S3 but he raised dispute before A^C(C) in 1985 and the reifefencc has bean made to this trihunal in the year, 1997, hence th"j claim of .the workman is barred by Limi- tation a^nd liabje tp be rejected OQ thk ground alone. Byt I dp nof fta4 aay fproe m this cOntention.'Simi- lar objection was raised in Ajaib Singh vs t 1281 GII2001—9,2Q2P THE GAZETTE OF INDLA. : MAY 12, 2Q01/VAISAKBA22, 1923 [PART U—Sue. 3(ii)] Sirhind Copperstivc Marketing Cvm Processing Service Society Limited and another 1999 (2) SCALE 508. Rejecting that objection the hon'ble Suprenfc Court ha* held as under :

It foUows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to. Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the em- ployer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generaly questoined on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing the tri- bunal, labour court or board dealing with the cases can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to ths workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment, termination or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages.

The Jaw laid down in the case cited above fully applies to the facts of the present case. I, there- fore, hold that the claim of the workman cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay or on the ground of being barred by Limitation, However, this can be considered while granting appropriate releief to the concerned workman in respect of back wages.

12. In view of findings recorded above, I hold that the action of the management of State Bank of India, Varanasi, in terminating the services of Sri Arun Kumar Chaturvedi s/o Sh. CP Chaturved ex-derk cum typist vide order no, SIB/35 dated 18-8-83 ii wholly illegal, arbitrary and void. Accor- dingly it is here by quashed. The concerned work-i man is entitled to be reinstated in service.

13. Considering the facts that he raised the dis- pute with great delay, I am of the view that he may be awarded 50% back wages from the date of termi- nation till the date of award and thereafter the work- man shall be entitled to received full wager till the date of reinstatement by the management of the bank. 14, As the impugned order of termination has been held to be illegal and void and has been quashed, Sh. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi the concerned workman will be deemed to be continuing in the service of the bank without interruption from the date of termi- nation i,e. 18-8-83 upto the date of reinstatement and jhall be entitled to get consequential benefit including annual graded increments as and when found to him and benefit of revision of pay according to revision of pay scales from time to time. The management is directed to reinstate the workman in service and pay him 50 % of back wages till the date of award and full wages from the date of award to the date of reinstate- ment in service calculated according to the directions, given above, within a period of one month from the date of publication of this award in the official gazette.

15. The reference made to this tribunal is ans- wered accordingly. Dated 10-4-2001

R.P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001

S.O. 964,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Lidustrinl Tribunal, Patna as shown in the Anno- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank and their workman, which was recei- ved by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/643/98-IR (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA Reference No- 4(c) of 1999

The Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, Arrah and their workman represented by Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank Employees Association, Arrah (Bhojpur).

For the Management :

Sri V. N. Sahay, Advocate Sri Arun Shrivastava, Advocate

For the workman :

Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincia Gramin Bank Employees' Association.

Present :

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

mt AWARD

The 9th April, 2001

The Government of India by notification No. L-12012/643/98-I.R. (B-I) dated 5-5-1999 have, in exercise of power u/s. 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, referred the following industrial dispute between the Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Grainin Bank,and their workman as represented by Bhojpur Rohtas Grarain Bank Employees Association to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether Shri Dinesh Kumar has worked for more than 240 days with the Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. If so, whether the action of the Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank in terminating his services w.e.f. 17-2-1989 is justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Patna held conciliation proceedings On various date? but due to the uncompromising attitude on tho part of the Management tho attempts resulted in failure. The A.L.C. (Q Patna submitted the failure report before the Ministry of Labc or, New Delhi and ulti- mately the Government of India has made the present reference to this Tribuial for adjudication of the dispute. The further case of the workman is that he worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months and the termination of his service is retrench-- ment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) cf the I.D. Act. The workman was neither given notice nor the salary in lieu of no tice nor the retrenchment cjmpen- satio n prior to retrenchment. Thus according to the workman the termination of services of the workman is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. The Manage- ment failed to follow the direction of the National Industrial Tribunal and also vio la^ed the principle of 'equal pay for equal wo rk\ The Management re^o r- ted to unfair labour practice while keeping the wo rk- man as Badli wo rkman fo r a number o f years as per Schedule V of the I.D. Act. Tho workman wai neither paid bonus nor wages for Sundays and ho li- days. So it is claimed that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages w.c.f. 17-2-1989 an d also f or regularisation of his service as Messenger- cum-Sweeper in terms of the N.I.T. Award.

3. The Management has appeared and has con- tested the claim of the workman by filing a written statement. Th° case of the Management in brief is that the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank is a Rural Bank incorporated under R.R.B. Act, 1975 having its Head Office at Arrah and having its Branches at different places. The work,n in wa> e.i^agci within the period from Marci, 1933 to Febraary, 193) at Darwan and Ruppur Branch to perform tha LabOur- oriented job on the daily wage basis. The engage* ment was purely need based as and when required. It is denied that the workman completed 240 days of continuous service preceding 12 calendar months on the date of his alleged termination. According to tha Management he worked only for 171 days from March, 1988 to February, 1939. The workman was never appointed on tbo Roll of the Bank, and therefore, the question of termination of sorvice by issuing notice docs not arise. The service of the workman was never terminated as his engagement was on daily basis, According to the Management the workman himself stoppod coming on duty and he voluntarily abandoned the job. Further it has been pointed out that the present Reference has been made on the basis of the letter of demand on union dated 19-1-1998 by which an industrial dispute was raised for the first time. It is apparent from the letter of drnand that there was no industrial dispute for more thin 9 years. No demand of any kind had be-sn rairad before the appropriate competent authority before 19-1-199$ 2. The case of the concerned workman as it appears from the written statement of claim filed on his behalf in brief is that he was orally appointed at Head Office Arrah of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank on 4-1-1991 as Mcsscnger-cum-Swecper and he worked at the Head Office till 31-12-1995 continu- ously as a full time worker from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. on paymont of Rs. 3.35 paise per day. Ths workman was again appointed at Darwan (Mohania) Branch of the said Bank on 19-3-1938 and he worked thire till 24-12-1988. The Management again appointed him at Ruppur Branch of the Bank on 30-12-1938 and worked there till 16-2-1989. The v.orkman was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 8-15 paisc per day at Darwan (Mohania) and Ruppur Branches of the Bank. On 17-2-1989 when the workman went to Ruppur Branch to attend to his duty he was stop- ped from working. The workman discharged the normal duties of a Messenger/Sweeper both at Head Office and also at Darwan (Mohania) and Ruppur Branches of the Bank such as sweeping and cleaning of floors, chairs, tables, Bath room. etc. taking out registers, ledgers, from the Abiirahs and placing the same on Tables and vice-versa, posting of m?.ils, distribution of local Daks, stitching of vouchers and currency notes, serving water and tea to the members of the staff etc. It is said that while working at the Head Office the workman was paid wages on weekly basis and some times in different names. In the moan time the National Industrial Tribunal gave an award directing the Management to pay wages at par with the sponsoring Banks and to regularise the services of casual sweepers/Messengers. After termination from the service the workman represented to the Manage- ment on a number of occasions for taking him back in the service but without any result, and then the workman wcib compelled to raise an industrial dispute before the competent authority through the Spon- soring union. After the dispute was raised AX.C.(C), 202? HUE GAZETTE Q£ BttXA MAX l2;.2flQl/VAJ!UKHA 22,1923 tPARt/fh*A*L4tfft* According to the. Management :as the. .dern;n4 is, rai?ed, after lapse Of considerable ,long tirpc it can no^ be termed.as industrial dispute, under the l.p. Act. The present Reference is thus bad in law and no .relief can be granted tp the workman, on account of stale clainv According to the Management there is no proof available rcgajdjng the alleged working of the.workman in the Head Office from 4-1-1981 to 31^-1985. According to the Management it was not,a case of .retrenchment and hence, the workman was not pntitted^to- notice or pay in lieu of notice or reJirenchmenit, -compensation. On these grounds it is stated that the workman is entitled to no relief.

Office and also at P^nv^n Mohania and Ruppur Branches he used to perform the duties of a regular Messenger. His duties, included sweeping of premises, bringing and keeping the files on the Tables of clerk, going to the Post Office for pdsting and bringing mails, visiting State Bank for posting drafts etc.j stamping of pay-in-slips and withdrawal forms etc. He used to work from 9.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. on every wof-king day. He has further said that he worked tnorti than 240 days in 12 calendar months continuously prece- ding his removal. At the time of removal he was not given notice, pay in lieu of notce or any retrenchment compensation. In cross-examination- he has said that When he was posted at the Head Office he was paid wages weekly at the rate of Rs. 3,35 parse per day through cash vouchers and when he was posted at Ruppur Branch and Darwan Mohania Branch he was paid his wages weekly at the rate of Rs. 8.35 paise per day through vouchers. He waS paid in cash while he was posted at the Head Office. His wages used to be deposited in his Bank Account whil e he was posted at Darwan Mohania and Ruppur Branches. The workman has admitted that when he was removed from the job from the Head Office from 1-1-1986 he did not file any case at that time. He worked as a Casual worker and he was paid his wages Only for the days he worked.

4; A rejoinder to the Management's written state- ment fcas also been filed on behalf of the workman leiteratirrg his case. It is denied that the workman performed only labour oriented job and that he abandoned the job voluntarily', ft is claimed that after the N.IT. AwVd the workman and also his sponsoring union regularly submitted in Writing and sometimes orally before th£ Management for consi- deration of his dernand for appointrnent'but the same wa$ turned down by the Management in the year 1997 tyhich pompelled the union to raise the industrial dispute before the appropriate authority. An indus- trial dispute existed all along when the workman was terminated w.e./. 16-2-1989 and the submission of the Management is merely to divert the main issue. It hps been submitted that once a Reference is made it is to be adjudicated wjthin the conceptual frame work Off pip Industrial Disputes Act, The Bank being a Regional, Rural, -Bank incorporated under R.R.B. A"t, 1976 is/a State., It did not behave fairly like a Model and Lightened Employer while denying proper wages to the workman and acted arbitrarily while dispensing with his services.

5. The following issues arise for determination in

this Tribunal ;—

(i) Whether Sri Dinesh Kumar has worked for more*than 240 days with the Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, and if so, whether the action of the Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Oramie Bank in terminating bis services'w.e.f. 17-2-1989 is justified ?

(ii) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?

FINDINGS

7. The Management has examined four witnesses. M.W.I Arun Kumar Pandey has said that in the year 1993 when he was posted at the Head Office as Sr. Manager, Accounts he received a letter from the Head Office for enquiring about the wages paid to Sri Dinesh K umar said to have worked as casual labourer within the period January, 1981 to December, 1985. In compliance of the instruction he located the old vouchers rleatiug to the period January and February, 1985 and November-December, 1985. During the process of search he could not locate any Bill, voucher or payment receipt which was made in favour of Dinesh Kumar. It was physically not practicable to search out the vouchers, receipts, bills for the entire period. He has said that he did not find any docu- mentary evidence \o thow that any payment was made to Dinesh Kumar by the Bank. In cross- examination he has said that he was not posted at the Head Office Arrah in the period 1981 to 1985. He was also noted posted at Darwan Mohania Branch and Ruppur Branch at the relevant time. M.W.2 Sri N. N. Ojha in his evidence has said that he was posted as Branch Manager at Mohania Branch from 6-2-1996 to 21-2-2000. Prior to his posting at Mohania Branch the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar had worked at that Branch as a part-time Messenger. A report had been called for by the Head Office of the Bank from him when he was posted at Mohunia Branch about Dinesh Kumar. 6f Issue Np. (i)^The workman has examined himself as W.W1. He has fully supported his case in his evidence and, has staged that he had worked at the Head Office Arrah from 4-1-1981 to 31-12-1985, at Parwan Mohania Branch from 19-3-1988 to 24-12-1988 and a,tt Ruppur Branch from 30-12-1988 to 16-2T1989, While he was posted in the Head ton7024 THE GAZETTE OS INDIA : MAY 12, 2001 /VAKAKHA 2% 1923 \?A9LT n~S£c 3flt)l Thus, I find that the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar worked as a full time casual worker for a period more than 240 days in Darwan-Mohania Branch and Ruppur Branch of the Bank in 12 Calender months preceding his retrenchment.

Bank at Arrah from 4-M981 to 31-12-1985. At the time of recroding of his evidence on 16-2-2000 the workman gave his age as 31 years. The Tribunal also assessed his age to be of 31 years. So he was aged about 11 years on 4-1-19G1 when he clainms to have joined service at the Head Office Arrah. It is absord and not convincing at all to say that he was engaged at the Head Office as a casual worker when he was a child of 11 years. Further excepting hi:, oral evidence* the workman has not been able to adduce any other evidence to show that in fact he had worked from 4-1-1981 to 31-12-10-15 According to him he was disengaged from work at the head office after 31-12-1985 and he was agii n engaged at Darwan Mohanii Branch on 19-3-1988. Thus, though according to him he remained dis- engaged from 1-1-1986 to 18-3-1988 he did not raise any industrial dispute during that period of disengagement. Furthor as we have seen M.W. 1 scrutinised the vouchers, payment receipts, bills etc. of four months of the year 1985. Jf the workman had worked at the Head Office as a casual worker M. W. 1 would have found evidence of payment of wages to him during those four months but he could not locate any such payment. M. W. 4 Baban Pandey has stated that he was ported at the Head Office, Arrah as a Manager Accounts from February, 1984 to Match, 1986. He has r.aid that during that period of his posting no body by the name of Dinesh Kumar had worked in the Head Office.

13. Disengagement of workman w.tf. 17-2-1989 amounts to retrenchment within the mcarinng of section (oo) of the I.D. Act The case of the workman that the requirements of section 25F of the I. D. Act were not complied with while re- trenching the workman has not been disputed. The workman in his evidence has also said that at the time of retrenchement he was r i c h er served with any notice nor pay in ]>eu of notice i or retrench- ment compensation, the learned counsel appearing for the Management relying the decision of the Patna High Court reported in (2,000) (4) P.L, J. R. page 771 Sanjay Kumar Tewary and other? Vs. State of Bihar and others submits that termi- nation of engagement of a person working on daily wages does not amount to retrenchment within the meaa;ng of cUusc (oo) after insert'on of sub- dause (bb) by Act, 49 of 19S4 w.e.f. 18-8-1984 Bat it is now we]] settled law that a daily rjtcd workman who has completed service for more than 240 days v/ithm the meaning of section 25 (B) of the 1. D. Act can not be terminated from service without complying the provisions of section 25F of the I D. Act (1997) (11) S C. cases page 396- Ratan Singh Vs. Union of ladia and another, A.LR. 1994, S. C page 163R. (1996) (2) S.C cases page 293,

14. Thus, I and that the action of the Manage- ment of Dhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank rn terminating the services of Sri Dniish Kumar w.c.f. 17-2-1989 without complying the provisions of section 25t- of the T, D. Act is unjustified. The Issue No. 1 h accordingly decided in. favour of the workman.

15. Issue no. (ii) : It was pointed out on behalf of the Management that though the workman was disengaged w ef 17-2-1989 no industrial dispute was raised uatil 19-1-1998 when it was raised by the letter of demand of the union. According to him stale dispute can not be the subject matter of the Reference. In this connection the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 4 P. L. J. R. (S.C.) Page 1 Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Mtdhavankutty and others has been cited. The facts ol the case before the Supreme Court were quite different . li tint case before the Supreme Court the Respondent was di.,- missed from service of the Bank finding him guilty of raise >nducl after the conclu- sion of Disciplinary proceeding. The Respondent thereafter filed an appeal to the Boaid of Director 12. However as we have seen, there ari over- whelming evidence and materials to prove that he worked n ore than 2^0 days from 19-3-1988 to 16-2-1989 as a casual worVer at Dar.van-Mohanui Branch and Ruppur Branch of the Bank. As we have seen the Branch Manager of Darwan Mohania Branch granted a certificate to tho workman on 24-12-1988 to the effect thru he worked in that Branch from 19-3-1988 to 24-12-1988 regularly Ext. W/7 (The B r n ch Manager of Ruppur Branch has also give/i a certificate dated 12-5-1997 to the effect thaJ Din-A Kumar had wcked from 30-12-1988 to 16-2-1989 as a casuael sweeper. Even the witness of tho Management (M. W. 2) has admitted in his cross- examination that the records which he had s_nt to the Head Office showed that Sri DnWsh Kumar had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a Calendar year. The workman W. W. 1 in his evidence has suppoited his case that he workel as a full time worker from 9.30 A. M to 5.30 P.M. on every working day and that he performed the duties which a regular Mes^enga ot Sweeper performs, I hc Management has not adduce any evidence to controvert such claim of tbi> workman.

of the Bank. His appeal was dismissed by order2055 dated January 30, 1973. Then after a period of about 7 years the Respondent served a notice on the the Bank raising an industrial dispute. Since the Disciplinary proceedings teimiriatcd in the dismi- ssal of the employee and the matter finally rested, it was held that there was no rational basis for the Government to make a reference to the Tribunal to adjudicate the dismissal of the employee after a period of seven years. But in the present case the

of higher amount of wages. It was rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Management that in the present case DO order could be passed for regularisation of service of the "workman. The setting aside the illegal order of retrenchment can- not confer on the person the. status which was not enjoyed by the person at the time the impunged order was passed (2000) (4) P.L.J.R. page 771 (Sanjay Kumar Tiwari & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.).

17. In view of my afyove discussions I decide that the workman Sri D*nesh Kumar is entitled for reinstatement in •jervice w.e.f. 17-2-1989 (the date when he was retrenched) with payment of back wages from 24-6-1997 tSll the date of reinstatement. The Referncce is accordingly answered . The Manage- ment is directed to implement this award within two months f'/om the date of its publication,

18. This is. my award.

S. K. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001

S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of tbt Central Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Railway Mail Service and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-41012/50/98-IR(B-rj] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT matter was not finally settled after the retrenchment of the workman. In Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service Society Ltd. and mother Respondent 1999 Lab l.C. 1485 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 137 of the schedule to the limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the pro- ceedings under the I.D. Act and that relief under it can be not denied to the workman msrely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the Employer required to bo proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice r.nd not as a merely hypothetical defence. No Reference to the Labour Court can generally be questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal Labour Court or board, dealing with the case, can appro- priately monjd the reJJef by declining to grant back wages to the workman ti]l tbe dare he raised the demand regarding bib illegal retrenchment/termi- nation or dismissal, Tbe Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages, In Ratan Singh Vs. Union of India and another 1997 (11) S, C cases page 396 a consolidated amount of 25,000 was allowed for back wages as w'H as reinstatement as about 20 years has lapsed since the date of termination of service, As we have seen zerox rop;es of two 1'tiers Ext. W/ and W/4 have been exhibited in tht present case These letters wer^ written to the Management of the Bank by the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar seeking re-engagement/appointment Ext. W is the similar letter dated 24-6-1997. Thus according to th^ workman himself he had raised the industrial dispute fdr the first time on 24-6-1997, The workman has not even said in his oral evidence that he had raisod any demand with the Management before 24-6-1997. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh case as cited above in my view the workman is not entitled to get back wages til] the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment on 24-6-1997.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT SHRI B.G. SAXENA, TRESID1NG

OFFICER

REFERENCE NO. CGTT : 68/2000 16. The workman in his evidence has only

Employers in relation to the Management of clai md for roinitat-m^nt ia his service. He has not claimed for any regularisation or for payment

Railway Mail Service2026 THE GAZETTE OF JNWA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii) ] and

Their workman Shri Ajay M, Shende AWARD

The Central, Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhj, b.y. exercising the powers conferred by ^lause (d) of #ub-s?ction (1) and sub+Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred tjais dispute for adjudication vide order no. L-41012/50/98/IR(Bl) dated 31-12-1998 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether action of the management of Railway Mail Service " F" Division, Nagpur through its (1) iSub Record Officer (J,S. Gr.II) "F" Dn., Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Ajay M, Shpndc, R/o Gadge N,agar, Arjiravati i? legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman i& entitled?" Ajay M. Shende has submitted his Statement of Claim that he was appointed on, Daily wages w.e.f. 17-06-96 in R.M.S. Office, Amravati. He worked for 240 days continuously and has acquired the status of a permanent employee. He was getting wages Rs. 20/^ per day which is contrary to the -rules. On 12-8-97 his appointment was cancelled without any reason. Other workman D.B. Nagture, V.S. JColhe, D.B. Ingole are still in service through they were appointed With him. He has claimed that he may be treated as permanent employee and regular pay be givch to him.

The management of R.M.S. through Superin- tendent, R.M.S. (F), Division Nagpur contested the case and filed written statement on 05-08-99 in the C.G.I.T. Court no. 2 at Mumbai. The management stated that Ajay M. Shende was appointed for two months from 15-04-96 to 15-06-96 for filling water ia the coolers during the summer season on daily wages. He was not given any work after 15-06-96. He has no right to claim his regular appointment.

On behalf of the workman the affidavit of Ajay M. Shende was filed on 06-08-99. He was cross- examined on 13-09-2000. On behalf of management the affidavit of Shri S. V. Rao, Supdt. of R.M.S. Office was filed, The counsel for the workman did not turn up to cross-examine this witness on 06-12-2000- The management submitted Written Argument on 09-01-1001. The counsel for the workman did not appear in the court on 23-01-2001. On 09-02-2001 the workman submitted an application that he has filed an affidavit in support Of his claim and his affi- davit be treated as written notes of arguments. The case was again adjourned to 22-03-2001. The counsel for the work.Jjan did not turn to argus the case orally I Jiave. considered the. documentary and oral evidence on record. In cross examination the work- man Ajay M. Shende stated that he wfts employed for filling water in the coolers of R.M.S. Office fcr two months i.e, from 15-04-96 to 15-06-96, i He also admits that the Department had informed him that service will be discontinued after two months, He says that on 17-06-96 he was again taken on work and worked upto 12-08-97. He has submitted Je,tter dated 17-06-96 (Exhibit W-l) issued from Sub Record Officer. This letter shows that he was called in the morning at 7 A.M. and again 3 P M. to appear in the office and may enquire what work he has to do He can work after taking the order for duty. This letter also therefore does not show that he was given any regular job or he was appointed for any specific period or for any specific work on 17-06-96.

Another letter dated 12-08-97 has been filed by workman to show that order dated 17-06;95 and 17i-O6-96 were cancelled. This document aho does not show that the workman was regularly working for 240 days in any calendar ye"ir. The affidavit dated 04-09-99 of S.V. Rao, Supdt. R.M.S. Office shows that Ajay M. Shende worked only for two months i.e. from 15-04-96 to 15-06-96 on daily wages to fill water in the coolers during summer season. He was not employed after 15-06-96 for any work.

The affidavit of the witness has not been challenged by the workman. Even the counsel for the workman did not appear to argue the case.

There is nothing on record to show that the workman Ajay M. Shende was given any regular work in the R.M.S. Office after 15-06-01. There is no evidence on record to show that he got any wages from R.M.S. Dept. after 15-06-96.

In the above circumstances the workman was not appointed for any regular work. He cannot claim for his permanent employment in R.M.S. Dept., when he was employed only for two months to fill the water in the coolers. The workman has not submitted any evidence to show that he worked for 240 days in any calendar year. His claim is there- fore baseless.

ORDER

The action of the management of R.M.S. " F" Division, Nagpur through its> Sub^Record Officer in discontinuing the service of Ajay M. Shende is legal and justified. The workman was not appointed on any regular post in R.M.S.

He is not entitled to any other relief.

Dated : 28-03-01

B.G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer2027 Court no. 2 at Mumbai. This case was received on transfer from Mumbai in April, 2000.

The workman Sh. Kailash has stated in his state- ment of claim that he was appointed as daily wages worker in R.M.S. Office at Amravati on 17-06-95 in the existing vacancy. He was getting Rs. 20/- per day as wages. On 12-08-97 his appointment letter dated 17-06-95 and 17-06-96 were cancelled and he was terminated. He has worked for more than 240 days and should be given regular pay of class IV employee.

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001

S.O. 966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Railway Mail Service and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001

[No. L-41012/52/98-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT SHRI B.G. SAXENA, PRESIDING

OFFICER

The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service " F" Division, Nagpur in their written statement dated 05-08-99 contested the case. It is mentioned in written statement that Sh. Kailash was employed for two months from 15-04-95 to 15-06-95 for filling water in the coolers during summer season. Again he was appointed from 15-04-96 to 15-06-96 for two months on daily wages to fill the water in the coolers After 15-06-96 he was not given any work in R,M.S. Office. He is not in the service of R.M.S. department. He has not worked for 240 days, in any calendar year. The affidavit of Kailash was filed on 06-08-99. He was cross-examined by the counsel for management on 22-09-2000. In the cross examination he admitted that he was provided work of filling water in the coolers from 15-04-96 to 15-06-96. He says that he was appointed from 17-06-96 to 12-08-97. The work- man has not submitted any document to show that he worked regularly from 17-06-95 to 12-08-97.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT : 56/2000 Employers in relation to the Management of Railway Mail Service

During cross examination, the counsel of the workman represented that no appointment letter has been filed by the workman in the court for the above duration of the employment.

and

Their workman Shri Kailash S/o Shriram Manohar

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order no. L-41012/52/98/lR(B-D dated 30-12-1998 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

On behalf of the management affidavit of Sh. S.B. Rao, Superintendent Railway Mail Service Office was filed. He was cross examined by the counsel for the workman Shri S.D. Malke. In cross examination this witness stated that no letter of appointment of the workman dt. 17-06-95 is in the record of his office. The Sub Record Officer has no authority to appoint any person for one year or for two years on daily wages. Thus, from the statement of this witness it is clear that the workman Sh. Kailash was not appointed for any regular job in the R.M.S. Office during the year 1995 or 1996. If the workman was appointed only for two months in any calendar year to fill the water in the coolers, he cannot claim his regular appointment.

''Whether action of the management of Railway Mail Service " F" Division, Nagpur through its (1) Sub Record officer (J.S. Gr. II) (F' Dn. Amravati and (2) Superintenent, R.M S. 'F' Dn. Nagpur in termi- nating the services of Shri Kailash S/o Shriram Manohar, Amravati is legal and justified. If not to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

There is no evidence on record to show that the workman has worked for 240 days in any calendar year or he was paid for any work for 240 days in any calendar year. In these circumstances the claim of the workman is baseless. He is not entitled to any relief.

The workman Sh. Kailash S/o Shriram Manohar had submitted his statement of claim in C.G.I.T. 1281 GI|2001—10.

ORDER

The action of the management of Railway Mail Service "F" Division, Nagpur through its Sub Record Officer (J.S. Gr. U) 'Fn Dn. Amravati and Superin- tendent R.M.S. 'F' Division, Nagpur in discontinuing the services of Sh. Kailash S/o Shriram Manohar is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Dated : 28-03-2001

B.G. SAXEMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001 S.O. 967.—In pursuance of Seclion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 19-4-2001.

[No. L-41012/9/94-IR (B-l)] AJAY KUMAR De^k Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 47 of 1995 Sh. Sodagar Mai Village Qadir Pur, Post Office Rathana, Teh. R.S. Pura, Distt. Jammu (J&K) Petitioner

Vs.

Northern Railway, Ferozepur (Pb.) Respondent REPRESENTATIVES:

For the workman : Shri D.R. Sharma For the management ; Shri N,K, Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 22nd February, 2001) The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-41O12/9/94-I.R. (B.I) dated 31st May, 1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway in terminating the services of Shri Sodagar Mai w.e.f. 29-7-91 is legal and justi- fied? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2, Today the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. The rep. of the workman has made the statement that the workman does not want to pursue with the present reference further as he got the emp- loyment with the management and the reference bo returned to the Ministry as no dispute award. In view of the statement of the rep. of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Appropriate Govt. as no dispute Award. Appropriate Govt. be infor- med.

Chandigarh, 22-2-2001

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001 S.O. 968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 19-4-2001.

[No. L-41012/10/94-1RQB-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 51 of 1995

Sh. Vijay Kumar, Village & Post Office : Janja), Teh, : Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur (Pb.)

. .Petitioner Vs.

Northern Railway, Fcrozepur (Pb).

. .Respondent REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : Shr D. R, Sharma For the management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 22nd February, 200]) The Central Govt, Ministry of Labour vide Noti- fication No. L-41012/10/94-LR, (B.I) dated 1st June, 1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway in terminating the services of Shri V'jay Kumar w.af. 31-7-90 is iegal and justi- fied ? If not> to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2 Today the case was fixed for evidence of the partieSr The rep, of the workman has made the statement that the workman does not want to pursue With the present reference further as he got the emp- loyment with the management and the reference be returned to the Ministry as no dispute Award In view of the statement of the rep of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry as no dispute Award Appropriate Govt, be informedr Chandigarh. B. L JATAV, Presiding Officer 22-2-2001.

2029" New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001 S,O, 969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Centra) Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2001.

[No. L-41012/165/93-I.R. (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 28/95

Shri Sham Singh S/o. Sh. Tula Ram, Hut No. 180, East Colony, Jammu Tawi (J&K). " —Petitioner Vs.

TheD.R.M., Northern Railway, Fcrozcpur (Pb.). —Respondent REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : Shri D. R. Sharma.

For the management: Shri N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 22nd February, 2001)

The Central Govt., Ministry of Labour vide Noti- fication No. L-41012/165/93-I.R. (B.I) dated 3rd May, 1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal tor adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway, Ferozepur in terminating the services of Shri Sham Singh w.e.f. 31-7-90 is legal and justified 7 tf not, to what relief is the work- man entitled to ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. The rep. of the workman has made tha statement that the workman does not want to pursue with the present reference further as he got the emp- loyment whh the management and the reference be returned to the Ministry as no dispute Award, In view of the statement of the rep. of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry as no dispute Award. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer 22-2-2001.

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012(3)/90-LR. (Coal-I) dated, the 21st August, 1990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this Tribunal :

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

"Whether the action of the management of Swang Washery of CCL., P.O. Swang, Distt. Giridih in putting Sr> R. K. Mishra under suspen- sion is justified ? If not, to what relief the work- man concerned is entitled ?"

^.O. 970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribual, (No. I), Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workman, /hich was received by the Central Government on

2. The present industrial dispute has been raised by R- K. Mishra as a Secretary of Raihtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Swang Washery Branch, The reference is for adjudication as to whether the action of the management of Swang Washery of M/s. C C. Ltd., P.O. Swang, Distt. Giridih in putting R, K. Mishra under suspension is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?

17-4-2001.

[No. L-2OO12/3/9O-I.R. (C-I)j S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

n the matter of a reference under Section 10(l)(d) 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 177 of 1990

arties :

Employers in relation to the management of

Swang Washery of M/s, C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

resent :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

ppearances :

Jor the Employers :

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate,

or the Workman :

Shri R. K. Mishra, Secretary Rashtriya Colliery

iazdoor Sangh, Swang Washery Branch.

tate : Jharkhand Industry ; Coal

3. The brief facts; giving rise to this industrial dispute is that the concerned workman, R. K. Mishra was employed in Swang Washery of M/s. C.C. Ltd. as Foreman Incharge. He was served with a charge sheet dated 12-2-89 and was placed under suspension with immediate effect till further order by the Project Officer of Swang Washery. The allegation against the concerned workman was that on 11-2-89 he left his place of duty at about 10.45 A.M* and entered into the office of the Senior Personnel Officer, Swang Washery, V. K. Srivastava and in a most contemp- tuous manner asked Sri Srivastava "ABHI KlTNA TIME HUA HAL APKI KAB SE KAB TAK DUTY HA1". On being asked by Sri Srivastava as to why he was asking him, the concerned workman told him that "MAI KUEN PUCH RAHA HUM ABHI BATATA HUM". At this it is alleged that Sri Srivastava told the concerned workman to go and do his duty, but the concerned workman shouted at the Sr. Personnel Officer and told him "ABHI TUM ANDHIARA ME HO. UJALE ME BAHAR NIKALO. ABHI TUMHE BATATA HUM. ABHI CANTEEN JAKE DEKHO." At this, it is alleged, Sri Srivastava told the concerned workman that he will see that, then the concerned workman is alleged to have threatened by uttering "TUMHARE BAL BACHEAHAIKI NAHIN. YADI BAL BACCH EA SE MOH HAI TO SAMBHAL JAO. KALSUBHA TUM SAMHBAL KAR ANA. KAL Kl SUBHA TUMHARIAKHRI SUBHA HOGI. TUM SUBA NAHIN DEJCH PAO GE."

Dated the 16th March, 20012031 of letter dated.25-1-90 again&fr Set Mishra. According to himt theaotioa'Of. the managdment is in order to harasgithe office bearorsof tho union and put them to loss for trade union- activities

4. Upon the aforesaid, allegation in thc^ charge- sheet dated 12-2-89 the concerned¹ workman was placed* under suspension- till further otd"r. The concerned workman had replied to the chargeshetrt, but the management was not satisfied' withl the reply and therefore the Project Officer of Sawang Washery appointed Sri R. B. Singh* Personnel Manager,. KatbaTai Ar"a, as the Enquiry Officer to hold* an enquiry into the charges framed against R. K. Mishra. Against the aforesaid suspension order the present industrial dispute has been raised by the concerned workman himself as Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor.Sangh, Sawang Washery Branch challenging the suspension order of the management.

per Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act the same is null and void. Further plea of the con- cerned workman in its rejoinder to the wirtten state- ment of the management is that the Project Officer is not a disciplinary authority against the concerned workman and therefore he is not empowered either to issue chargeshcet or suspend the concerned work- man. According to him his appointing authority was Chief Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical), Dar- bhanga House, Ranchi, therefore neither the P.-oject Officer nor the General Manager are his disciplinary authority.

charges were issued against the concerned workman for committing various misconducts on various dates and upon the domestic enquiry he was found guilty of ajl the charges. Therefore the management has decided to dismiss him, but the General Manager of Kathara Area took a linient view and instead of dismissal awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments and withholding of the wages for the suspension period less the subsistence allowance paid to the concerned workman. According to the management the concerned workman has ten- dered an apology then the management has taken a linient view. Therefore, according to the management, the concerned workman is now stopped from chal- lenging suspension order. Further according to them this court has to confine its award to the term of reference only and cannot enlarge the scope o reference to consider subsequent punishment awarded to the concerned workman. The management has further pleaded that before awarding punishment the management has conducted a fair and prop er domestic enquiry, thcreforo at the first instance the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry should be considered if at all this Tribunal is to considered the punishment and thereafter if the domestic en- quiry is found not to be fair and proper then the management may be given opportunity to justify its action.

7. In pursuance of the pleading of the manigi- ment, the management had started to adh,eie its evidence to prove the fairness and properiety of the domestic enquiry held by the management but this Tribunal by order dated 27-4-94 held that as per terms of reference this Tribunal is only to ad- judicate about the justification of suspension order rtnd cannot adjudicate as to whether or not the pu- nishment awarded after domestic enquiry was justi- "led. Therefore the management was directed to lead evidence only in justification of the suspension order. That order has not been challenged by either party and has become final. Therefore, in view of the srder of thsi Tribunal dated 27-4-94 the Tribunal will adjudicate only the justification of the suspen- sion order nothing more or nothing less than this. In other words, this Tribunal is not going to sec whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper and subsequent punishment is justified or not. The only point which requires to be adjudicated as per reference order is whether the action of the manage- ment in suspending tho concerned workman 'pend- ing domestic enquiry' is justified.

9. First of all let us see whether the Certified Standing Order of N.CD.C. Ltd. whose name has bcon changed as M/s- C.C. Ltd. after the nationalisa- tion of Coal Industry is null and void. The con- cerned workman has not been able to cite any pro- vision of law under which the Certified Standing Order of the Company will become null and void in case its name and Held Office is changed. There is no such provision in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act under which a company is required to get its Standing Order certified contains any provision under which if the name of the comp- any is changed the Certified Standing Order will become null and void, therefore the plea of the con- cerned workman that the Certified Standing Order of the N.CD.C. Ltd. is null and void is baseless and not tenable. Accordingly I find that the Certified Standing Order of N.CD.C. is applicable with res- pect to the workmen of Sawang Coal Washery even if the name of N.CD.C. has been changed as M/s. C.C. Ltd. The Certified Standing Order of N.CD.C. ii, in the library of this Tribunal and extract copy of Certified Standing Order has been filed by the management also along with is written argument which has not been disputed by the workman. It appears that Clause 17 of the Certified Standing Order of N.CD.C provides that a workman may be suspended of fined or his increment may be stopped or he may be demoted or dismissed without notice JF he is found to be guilty of misconduct provided that suspension without pay as a punishment shall not exceed ten days. The workman may be sus- pended pending departmental enquiry and in such case he shall be paid subsistence allowance half of his wages for a period upto 30 days and if he is kept suspended by the management beyond 30 days then subsistence allowance will be at the rate of 3/4th of the wisps, but if tlu enquiry is delayed beyond 30 days because of the workman, susbistence allow- ance will be reduced to 1 /4th of his wagss. Thus, under Clause 17(i) thsre is provision for suspension of a workman. A suspension may be as a punishment or a suspension may be pending departmental en- quiry. If suspension is as a punishment then it should not exceed ten days, but if it is a suspension 8. A rejoinder has been filed by the concerned workman to the written statement of tho manage- ment in which ho has taken plea that Certified Stand- ing Orders of N.CD.C. is null and void because the name of N.CD.C. has been changed and registered •lead Office has also besn chaagsl. Therefore, as iif!

pending departmental enquiry then it shall continue till departmental enquiry is completed subject to payment of subsistence allowance as mentioned therein. In the present ca>e it is tllo suspension of the second count i.o , sujpeisio'i priding depart- mental enquiry. Thus from the Clause 17 of the Certified Standing Order it is crystal clear that a a disciplinary authority has right to suspend a work- man pending departmental enquiry subject to payment of subsistence allowance pending a depart- mental enquiry into the alleged charge of miscon- duct. This provision further contains that if a work- man is not found guilty of the charge framed against him, he shall be deemed to be on duty during full period of his suspension and he shall be entitled to receive bame wages as he would have received it, if he had not been suspended. Thus suspension pend- ing departmental enqu'ry is not a punishment-

10', The concerned workman has stated that he was appointed by Chief Engineer (Electrical/Mechani- cal), Darbhanga House, Ranchi, therefore the Pro- ject Officer of Sawang Coal Washery is not a compe- tent authority to issue a chargeshect against him or to suspend him pending domestic enquiry. The management has filed the Office Order of N.C.D.C., Darbhanga House, Ranchi issued by the Chairman- cum-Managing Director from which it appears that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of N.CD.C. under the powers conferred by S.O. I7(ii) of the Certified Standing Order as amended by corrigendum dated 15-7-89 of Chief Labour Commission;r(Central^ and Appellate Authority under the Industrial Emp- loyment (Standing Orders) Act for the purposo of S.O. 17(ii) the following officers shall exercise the power for apporval of punishment as referred to thereunder in respect of workmen working or posted to work for time being in the unit, section, depart- ment or establishment under their respective jurisdic- tion or control : (1) All General Managers, (2) AH Area General Managers, (3) All Addl. Area General

Managers ,. (10) All Project Officers of Wash- eries. Thus, from the Office Order dated 9-6-70 of the N.C.D-C. all the Project Officers of the washeries have been delegated powers of approval of punish- ment with respect to the workmen posted in their respective units. Therefore, I find that the Project Officer of Sawang Coal Washery had been delegated power to take disciplinary action including the ap- proval of dismissal, thereforo there is no lack of jurisdiction in issuing or chargesheet and puting tho concerned workman suspended pending departmental enquiry. Therefore, on this score the Order of sus- pension is not illegal or void.

ery at MW-2 who has made report that on 11-2-8 ⁹ R. IC. Mishra came to his office, threatened him with dire consequence and for that he has filed writ- ten complaint to the Project Officer. The written complaint has been brought On record and has been marked Ext. M-15 which contains details of allega- tion against tho concerned workman. The concern- ed workman too has examined himself as WW-1 and he has come to say that the allegations levelled against him by V. K. Srivastava are all biased be- cause in the year 1987 there had been hot exchange of words between- the conerned workman and V. K. Srivastava over the matter of payment of contract labours and B. K. Srivastava, younger brother of V.K. Srivaitava was working as Munshi of that contractor, Manik Chand Jain and for that incident he was issued a chargesheet, but he has not filed that chargesheet to show that pfior to this incident V.Ki Srivastava had having any grudgo against the concerned workman.- Regarding the incident of 11-2-89 he has stated that a lizard was floating dead in the tank containing drinking water on 11-2-89. He went to Sri Srivastava to bring to his notice this hoalth hazard and made complaint to him but Sri Srivastava asked him to go away and there was hot exchango of words between him and the concerned workman. But we find neither in the written state- mont of the concerned workman nor in the reply to the chargesheet of the concerned workman, or there is any story regarding floating of lizard. The concerned workman himself has admitted that he had hot exchange of words between V.K. Srivastava on 11-2-89. This shows that at least some incident has taken place on 11-2-89. Whether that incident is true or not is a matter of enquiry and the concerned workman would have very well shown in tho domestic enquiry that as a matter of fact the incident has not taken place as alleged by V.K. Srivastava, rather it was due to floating of lizard in the water tank of the canteen. As a matter of fact if we go throagh the Standing Orders of the company we find that a sus- pension pending enquiry do not require that the allegations of the chargesheet must be proved before placing of the concerned workman under suspension. The management has to exercise the desirability of placing the concerned workman under suspension subject to a prima facie charge of serious misconduct. Tu the present case the charge of misconduct was that he left duty place and he abused a Sr. Personnel Officer, misbehaved with him and even threatened him to do away with his life. Sub-clauses (c) and (r) of clause (1) of S.O. 17 arc the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the concerned workman. Clause (c) is with respect to wilful insubordination or disobedience and sub-clause (r) is threatening, abusing or assaulting any superior or co-worker. Thus, the allegations as contained in the charge- bhcet dated 12-2-89 by which the concerned Workman 11. Now coming to the merit of the case we find that the management has examined R.D. Pandey who was appointed as MW-1, Vinoy Kumar Sri- vastava, Sr. Personnel Officer of Swaang Coal Wash-2634 THE GAZETTE OF INE8A : MAY 12, 3001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [***T II—tec. J{ji)] which certain grievance of the concerned workman regarding promotion has been replied and Ext. W- 7/6 is a letter of the concerned workman as a Secre- tary dated 26-12-88. Ext. W-7/7 is a letter to the Officer-in-Charge dated 12-2-89 i.e. after the concerned workman was put under suspension making allega- tion against the officers of the washery including V. K. Srivastava regarding sabotage of National property. Exts. W-7/8, W-7/9, W-7/11 are letters regarding enquiry after the charge-sheet. Many documents have been filed without any relevancy in order to make the record cumbersome. It appears that after the concerned workman was suspended he has created a lot df papers in retaliation. But from the docu- ments filed by him or evidence adduced by him there is nothing from which it can be presumed that the management has suspended him only because of his trade union activities. A trade union leader is not immune from-any disciplinary-action if he commits any misconduct as contained in the Certified Standing Order of the company because a workman is the Secretary of the union. He is not at a liberty to abuse his superiors and go scot free. The manage- ment has filed all the six Charge-sheets to show that even if the concerned workman was suspended he did not stop, rather, he had been misbehaving with the officers of the coal'washery and doing subversive actions against the maintenance of discipline and decorum. It appears that he had no hesitation in threatening a superior dfficer and misbehaving with him as if he is'the t>oss of entire coal industry. There- fore, in my opinion on merit also the action of the management in suspending the concerned workman pending domestic enquiry is fully justified. The con- cerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

12. According I render.

Award

That the action of the,management in suspending

the concerned-workman is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

SARJU PRASRD, Presiding Officer was -placed under suspension lill further order i.e. till domestic enquiries were withjresjjcct to misconduct as mtttttioiwd in S-X). I7(l)(c) and 17('1XE). TO threaten a superior or abuse him is a serious miscon- duct and BO is wilful insubordination or disobedience, therefore on Etich charges if a management puts any workman under •suspension then the same cannot be said to be unjustified. But let us-see whether the said suspension was as a revenge >to the taade .union activities of the concerned workman or wasa pure and simple suspension under powers conferrediby Si0J7(l) of (the Company? The concerned workman has filed a lot -of .papers in this case which have be"n marked EXt. >W-1 to W-7/12. 'Esirts, W-l and W-4 arre the memo dated 7-4-89 after the eroncerrted workman was placed Under suspension by whidh he was declared ''Parsoua Non Grata' due to his continuous abusing, threatening the life Of Personnel Officer, Project Officer, Sr. Executives and stopping Corporation Vehicle and restraining the executives of Sawang Washery whHe discharging their duties, and 'therefore, the management haa 'decided not'to make any nego- tiation 'With him. The concerned workman has filed a letter addressed to V. K.'Srivastava, Sr. 'Per- sonnel Officer which is dated 11-2-89 from which it appears that the concerned workman has levelled several charges against himand has demanded expla- nation from-him as if he is the disciplinary authority ttfV. K.'Srivftstava. This tetter dated 11-2-89 by the concerned "Workman 'goes to show that he has for- gotten *his limit and he 'is challenging the authority of his superior aslf he is the boss of Sr. Personnel Officer. Ext. 'W-5 is the letter of Project Officer by which some disciplinary action dated -6-8-85 was withdrawn. Ext. W^6 is a tetter dated 26-10-87 by the^Project Officer in which some serious allegations of misconduct ;has been alleged against him as men- tioned in S:O. 17(l)(r) and 17(l)(g) and explanation was called for from him. 'Ext. W-7'is purported to be a letter of'SUb-Divisional Officer, Bermo dated 17-2-89 j:e. after 'the charge sheet with respect to some^ittegation made by the 2035 Now Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

S.O. 971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947;, the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad as shown In the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in i elation to the management of M|s. ECCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-4-2001.

iN'o. L-20Oi2[54|92-TR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Sarju Prasad,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 110 of 1992

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Loyabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workmen: Shri S S Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

On behalf of the employers : Shii H. Nath, Advocate. STATE: Jharkhand

INDUSTRY: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd March, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, In exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the followinu dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20O12/(54V 92-I.R.(Coal-I), dated, the 29th September, 1992.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for employment of Shri Sunil Kumar and 22 others (as per enclosed list with the order of reference) on the roll of BCCL and payment of wages as per NCWA is justified ? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. The present dispute arises out of a demand of Roohtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for employment of Sunil Kumar ahd 22 others on the roll of BCCL and payment of wages as per NCWA.

c.micable negotiation but the management did not abide by their assurance and the union has to re-open the dispute in 1991 which ended in failure and present reference has boen made. According to the sponsoring union the concerned workmen are for all purposes the employees of M/s. BCCL but the management is projecting them as contractor labour under the contractor Shyamal Kumar a contractor. But, in fact Shyamal Kumar is also one of the concerned woikman and the management is projecting him as contractor in order to camouflage the real issue. The concerned persons have been paid much below the iate of wages payable to stona cutter under NCWA, On the aforesaid wound the sponsoring union has demanded that an Award be passed in favour of the concerned persons directing the concerned manage- ment to regularise them as their workmen on the roll of M/s. BCCL.

4. The case of the management on the other hand is that the present reference is bad because no Industrial dispute as defined under I D. Act exists because there is no relation- ship of employer and employee between the concerned work- men and the management and MA BCCL, Further, according to them one M/s. Shyamal Kumar, a Civil Contractor was awarded a contract of deepening of river near Loyabad ropeway by work order dt. 26-2-87 in order to collection of wind in tho river and do that the same be transported to the colliery through ropeways. This wan a surface job. The said contractor had engaged his own labour, to perform the joh. The job was not stone cutting job and was purely of temporary nature. Therefore, no refationsnlp of employer and employee ever exists between the concerned persons and the management of BCCL. As a matter of fact it was the contractor who was supervising their work and, the maange- ment has nothing to do with then- engagement and has absolutely no control over tnem. Theiefore, the present dispute is bad and is not an industrial dispute. Further according to them initially the dispute was raised by the sponsoring union for Sunil Kumar and 20 others and subsequently narn?s of two presons have boen added. The concerned persons were never on the roll of BCCL and they were not tinployed by the management of Mines. Further according to them the sponsoring union has failed to give the details of parentage nnd nddress along with photbgraphs of the concerned persons. Therefore, they are all bogus persons and lob seekers but want to be employed cm the roll of BCCL by backdoor¹ method, Accordine to the mpnacement of BCCL. BCCL has got its own aopolntment poljcv and only those persons are appointed whose names are sponsored through the Employ- ment Exchange or through advertisement but the concerned persons were never recruited by M/s. BCCL. Further, accord- ing to them BCCL has got surplus work force and therefore it is not possible for them to give employment to the con- cerned persons. In the rerult, the management has prayed to give an Award against the concerned persons.

5. From the pleadings of the parties it i" apparent that according to the management also the concerned persons have worked in the deepening of river Damodar so that sand get collected there for transportation to Coal Mines through ropeways. The management has further stated that Shyamal Kumar was a contractor who was awarded a contract by work order dt. 26-2-87. They have filed the said work order from which it appears that the work order was for stone cutting at Damodar river at Loyabad ropeways, and work was to be completed within one year. The work order Ext. M-l mentions that it was sent to Shri Shyamal Kumar under Regd. Post with A/D. But the management has not filed any postal registration receipt nor A /D to show that this work order wa* either sent to Shyamal Kumar or was received by him. There Is no receipt from Shyamal Kumar in token of having received the work order. The management has pleaded and its witness has also stated that the contract was awarded after open tender but tho management has not fllrd OTIV tender notice nor they have filed any paper to "how that Shyamal Kumar has filed any tender paper for the said contract. The management witnesses have further mid that there was a203* THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1933 [PA*T H^IJJC, 3(itfJ of 2.S per cent of the total value of the work but the manage- ment has hot .filed any paper to BFIOW that Shyamal Kumar has deposited any security money as per Work ofder Ext. M-lj Thus I find that the management has' act been able to prove that any valid tender was awarded to Shyamal Kumar. Tho management Has further filed pay order Ext. M-2 series and measurenient slips Ext. M-J series. There are in all thref ineasurement reports and one pay order which has been , marked as copy not for payment i.e. pay order which has been filed, was not a copy for payment to the* contractOTvIn the pay order there is a column for rccoipt of cash/cheque/draft with signature of person receiving the amount but there is no sigpature of Shyamal Kumar or any of th<; concerned persons showing that they have received any ^c^ash,, cheque or draft in pursuance of pay order Ext. M-2. Ext. M-3 series are the measurement reports. The management's witness itself has admitted that in the measure- ment reports the concerned contractor Shyamal Kumar has not put his Bigaatnre and who has put bis signature in place of Shyainal Jffumav is not known to him. There is only one signature of Shyamal Kumar in one of the measurement report -buf-. tjfie management has nbt filed any paper to show that any, bill'was submitted by the so-called contractor Shyamal Kumar and he flas received- any amount either by cash,. cheque or draft as per'bill prepared. The management has'also fifed two more pay order which are copies but not for payment and there h no receipt of money either in caph, cheipie qr draft by Shyamal Kumar or any of the concerned persons. Thus It appoars that the so-called work order, pay order widmeMUFement-report are nothing but paper arrange- ment of the management.

ln any of them. UVf-2 Suresh Narayan Sam has filed another wort order winch nas bwat-mSrted^&rt^ivM but as a matter of fat-t n uppeais that Ext. M-4, is the photocopy of Ext. M-l. H c i as also come to say that the contract was awarded to Shyamal Ktimai who was a cotnractor for stone cutting in river Damodar.' They have admitted that some times the management used tir sup"rvine- their work. They hive come to say no master-sefVant relationship exiited between tho concerned persons and the management of Loyabad Colliery. They have shown their ignorance -an to Whether this "o-ealfed contractor Shyamal Kumar was having any licence. The management has not filed any registration certificate under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (.Regulation and Abolition) Act showing that Loyabad Collieiy of M/s, BCCL was a registered establishment for engagement of contractor under the provision of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The management has'also not filed even licence of that so-called contractor Shyamal Kumar/ under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Thus I find that this is a case where .neither the principal employer 'of a registered establishment under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act nor the so-called contractor h a licence under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In a number of cases the different High Courts and even the Hon'ble Supreme Corut has been, pleased to hold that where the principal employer is not a registered firm under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and tho so-called contractor is not having any licence the contractors labourers engaged shall be deemed to bo the workmen -of the principal employer Therefore' after applying the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secre- tary, Haryana Electricitv Board-vcrsus-Suresh and others reported in 1999 L.L.J. Vol. I page 1086 the concerned persons are working In BCCL. " Further it has been ad- mitted that the contractors persons were engaged in stone cutting job and stone cutting job has been declared a* " prohibited category of job by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation -"nd' ASoli- fion) Act, 1970 in which io contractor can bo engaged. Therefore, in view of the ratio decided by HoVble Supreme Court in case of Air India Statutory Corporation's case versus United Labour Union reported in 1997 Lab I C. Page 365 such workman must b"r regularised in the employ- ment of the principal employer. The management has placed reliance in case of Draffnath, which has < also b"en declared over ruled in the'Air India Statutory Corporation's case (Supra).

8 Thus we find that thero is relationihlp of emnloyer and emplovee between tho management of Loyabad Colliery of M|s BCCL and the concerned persons and that thoro is dispute regarding reRularisatlon, Therefore, there is a valid industrial dispute and reference not at alt bad,

9. In the result, I rander the following Award :—

"The demand of Rashtrlya Coflier? Mazdoor Sangh for employment of Sunil Kumar and 22 others as per list enclosed In the reference, order on the roll of B C C L, for payment of Wages a" per NCWA is justified. The management is directed to regularise them as permanent employee of BCCL in General Mazdoor Category I within 30 days fVom the date of publication of the Award ftlHng WHich the coficfcfried persons shall b* en- titled to Wages' from the date of publication of tho Award."

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer2037 New Delhi, the 17th April, 20C1 S.O. 972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, J947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. I), phanbad -as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17^4-2001.

[No. L-20013/83/91 JR(C-I) & L-200l2/61/9MR(CJ)]

S. S. GUPTA* Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under sectign 10(lXd) C2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference) No. 100 of 1991

PARTIES:

Employers.¹ ini relation- to the management of Madhuban Washery Project of M/s. B.C C Ltd.,

AND

Their Woripnen.

Reference No. 105 of 1991

PARTffiS:

Employers in relation, t to the management of Madhubatj. Washery Project of M/s. BiC.C. LM.,

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT:

Sbri Sarju Prased, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Shri B. foshi, Advocate. For the Workmen—Shri D. Mukherjee, Advo- cate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal. AWARD

Dated, the 20th March, 2001

Reference No 100 of 1991

By Order No. L-20012/83/9M.R.(Coal-I) dated, &k, llth October, 1991 the Central Government in tne Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)' of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for ad- judication to- this Tribunal:

"Whether the management of M&Q*Uuban Washery Project of M/s. BCCL is justified in not according regujarisation, with proper categorisation and corresponding wage .pay- ment as per NCWA-IV to the fallowing 14 workmen employed through- sub-con- tractor, M/& Ratan Etiginjeerinjf Works ? If not, to what relief are the workmen en- titled r

(1) Shri Arjtm Muhato, (2) Shri Jugal Mahato. (3) Shri Madan Mabato. (4) Shri Suresh Ptasad. (5) Storj Dwarika Prasfld. (6> Shri Raradev Parsfaad, (7) Shri Gouri' Shaakar Saw, (8) Shri Ramji Saw. (9) Shri Mahendra Singh, (10) Shri Mathur Mondjal. (11) Shri Kisun Mahato. (12) Shri Jiten Mahato. (13) Shri Aghru Mahato. (14) Md. Sirajuddin Ansari,

Reference No. 105 of 1991

By Older No: L-2D012/61/9M.R,. (CoaU), dated, the 23rd October, 199-1 thifr Cental Government in the Ministry of Lab"u/,hft8, in exotmo of the powers conferred by clause (d) of BufehsecbBPTt <1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the folkwing dispute for ndjpdi- catkm to this Tribunal :

"Whetlher the ra.fta8®*mentr of- Madhuban Washepy Project of M/s. B C.C.L. is justi- fied in not according regularisaiion with proper caitpgorisatioa and- corresponding wage payment as pejc NCWA-IV to the following. 15 wofkmea employod' through subMJontractor M/"- R*bi' & Cr>. ? If not, to what relief the said workmen are en- titled ?"

(1) Shri Khedan MaMto. (2) Shri Sudhir Kr. Siqgh, (3) Shri Khirodhar Mdttfto. (4) Sbri Gulab Ch. Yadav. (5) Shri Rahan Thakar. (6) Shri R&mjee Pmsad. (7) Shri Bibsrat Ptasad Siogh. (8) SUri Kashim Ansari, (9) Shri Kanwl Thakur.

(10) Shri Mahendra Mahato. (11) Shri Nayamuddin Ansari. (12) Shri Mahfu MabAto. (13) Sbn Lakhan Mahato. fl4) Shri Kieun Mfthato. (15) Shri RltlaJ Mahata.

2. In both the aforesaid reference cases a com- mon Award is being submitted because the facts and circumstances of both the cases are same and simi- lar.

3. It is the admitted case of the parties that M/s. BJharat Coking Coal Ltd. had awarded a contract work to M/s. Mining and Allied Machinery Corpo- ration Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, Durgapur for completing design, engineering supply, delivery to site, erection and commissioning of a coal washery at Madhuban Project of the management. The Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. in turn awarded contract job to M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Calcutta and M/s. Hindu- stan Steel Works Construction Ltd. which is also a Government of India Undertaking, engaged petty con- tractor. The concerned workman of Reference No. 100 of 1991 were the workmen employed by the petty contractor, M/s. Ratan Engineering Works and the concerned persons of Reference Case No. 105 of 1991 were the persons employed through petty Contractor, M/s. Rabi and Company Thus, all the persons concerned in these two reference cases were working in Madhuban Washery Project of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. as workers of petty contractor from 1987 to the middle of 1991.

and was to expire on 17-11-88. This licence haa been marked Ext. M-2. They have also filed licence of M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. as contractor under Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 which is dated 11-11-88 and has been renewed upto 10-11-92. Be- sides that they have filed the wagesheet regarding full and final payment made to the concerned per-" sons by M/s. Rabi and Company and M/s. Ratan Engineering Works which have been marked Exts. M-3 and M-3/1. Besides that they have examined one Ashok Kumar, a Superintending Engineer, working at Madhuban Coal Washery since 1986 under M/s., B.C.C. Ltd. who is MW-1. He has com& to say that M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. had given contract work for con- struction of Madhuban Coal Washery to M/s. Min- ing and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd., a Con- tractor Firm and a Government of India Undertak- ing. This Contractor firm, for execution of work,' had appointed sub-contractors including Hindustan. Steel Works Construction Ltd. which is also a Gov- ernment of India Undertaking and this sub-contrac- tor firm had awarded petty works to other contrac-' tors including Rabi and Co. and Ratan Engineering Works. According to him, the concerned persons were employed by petty contractors and their work was supervised by sub-contractor and payment was made to theni by sub-contractors. He has come to say that these firms were licenced firms under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. He has admitted that supervision of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. was limited to see as to whether the work was being done according to specification of contract with M/s. MAMC. He has said that tjic work of tfo( contractor has still not been completed, 3. According to the sponsoring union, Janta Maz- door Sangh, the concerned persons arc the workmen of M/s. BCCL for all practical purposes and sincet they have worked continuously for so many years from 1987 to the middle of ' 1991 they should be regularised as permanent workmen on the pay scale as per NCWA. Further according to them, the man- agement has been paying these concerned persons much less amount of wages than their counter-parts arc getting as per NCWA-IV.

5. The sponsoring union, on the other hand, has examined two of me concerned workmen, namely, Khedam Mahato (WW-1) and Arjun Mahato (WW-2) who have said that they were working under petty contractor in the Madbuban Washery Project from May, 1987 to June, 1991 which belongs to M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. They have also scid that they were work- ing as fitter, helper, khalasi etc. and used to prepare column beam and other articles as per specification. They have come to say that initially they were get- ting Rs. 17 per day which was raised to the maxi- mum of Rs. 27 per day which is much less than the wages of NCWA. They have further said that for rirn- ning of the washery M/s, B.C.C. Ltd. requires to engage about 5000 persons which has not been de- nied by the management, therefore their demand for regujarisation is justified.

6. Thus, from the materials available on record it is admitted case of the management of M/s.B.C.C. Ltd. also that the concerned persons have worked in construction work of Madhuban Washery Project under petty contractors, M/s, Rabi and Company and M/s. Ratan ^Engineering Works. The man- agement has net filed any licence of these two petty contrnctors to show that they were licencee under Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The management of M/s, B..C.C. Ltd, has also not filed any registration certificate as required under Sec, 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act to show that 4. According to the management of M/s B.C.C. Ltd. since the concerned persons were working under petty contractors, M/s. Ratan Engineering Works and M/s. Rabi and Company, who were engaged by sub- contractor, M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construc- tion Ltd. There is no relationship of employer and employee between them and the management of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. Further according to the management, all the concerned persons have been retrenched by M/s. Ratan Engineering Works and M/s. Rabi and Company after payment of retrenchment comoensation and notice pay in the month of May, 1991 as the petty contract work which was allotted to these companies have been completed. There is no fur- ther work of contract to be allottM to these petty contractors, therefore the concerned persons are not, at all entitled to be regularised as permanent em- ployees of the management of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. Fur- ther according tb them, since there is no relationship of workman and the employer between M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. and the concerned persons the reference is bad. In support oil their case the management has filed the photo copy of agreements Ext. M-l and M-l/1 to show that for construction if Madhubnn Coal Wash- erv Project contract was awarded to M/s. Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. on turn key basis. They havfc filed photo copy of licence of M/s. Min- ing and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. a* con- tractor under Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regu- latlop * AbolWon) Act, 1970 which is dated 18-11-86 "M"

management of M|s. BCCL and their workman, whic was received by the Central Government 17-4-2001.

[No. L-20012|135|89-IR(C-i; S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section 10(1)

(d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947

Reference No. I ll of 1990

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management Kendwadih Colliery of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Madhuban Washcry Project of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. was a registered as principal employer for engaging contractor. Therefore v*e find that the management has failed to provs that Madhuban Washery Project of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. has been registered as principal employer under Sec. 7 ol the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and two petty contractors i.e. M/s. Ratan Engineering Works and Mis. Rabi and Company are the licencecs under Section 12^ of the Contralct Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. Therefore in view of settled principal of law, that " in absence of any registration certificate of the principal employer or licence to the contractor the contractor's workers shall be deemed to be the empolyees of the principal employer. Therefore, m view of the settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court in several cases including in the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. vSuresh & others reported in 1999 L.L.R. page 433 aiid Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United, Labour Union reported in 1997. Lab. I.C. page 365 = 1997 L.L.R. page 288, the concerned persons are entitled for regularisation as permanent employees under the management of Madhuban Washery Pioject of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

7. In the result, I render—

APPEARANCES :

Award—

For the Employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

For the Workmen : Shri S. Bose, Treasure

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Co

Dated, the 28th March, 2001

AWARD That the management of Madhuban Washery Pro- ject of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd, is not justified in not regu- larising the concerned persons as permanent emplo- yees in proper categorisation as per NCWA-IV and the concerned persons of both these reference cases are entitled to regularisation as permanent employees of Madhuban Washery Project of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. in Category-I General Mazdoor. The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award failing "which the concerned persons shall be entitled to claim wages of General Mazdoor Category-I from the date of publication of the award.

SURJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer

By Order No. L-2OO12/135/89-I.R.(Coal- dated the 6th May, 1990 the Central Government the Ministry of Labour has, hi exercise of the po crs conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) „. sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industr Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether Shri Gopal Banerjee and 11 others z employees of the management of Kendwac Colliery of M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Lt and whether their demand for regularisati in the services of the management is Justine If so, to what relief the concerned workrr are entitled to?"

LIST OF THE WORKERS

Name.

Father's name

1. S]Shri Ganesh Mahato S|Sri Sadhu Mahti

2. Doman Mabto

Sadhu Mahto New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

3. Ajay Kumar

Arjun Sharma

4. Balmiki Pandit

Jago Pandit

5. Rameshwar Prasad Matuki Prasad S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent- ral Government, hereby publishes the award of th? Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No. I) Dhnabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

6. Kamtswar Prasad

Girija Prtsad $DHO THE GAZETTB^FJtlI""!KV"L"yTn"lOTiywnSAKHA22, 1923 [Pt/WfffI*"-$£e.4(ti)l KMrpatU"R*m •

7.^GBWicswariR*ra'

Muni Mahfo

8. Mahesh Mahto

Vijay Kumar Siflgh Kailash Prasad Singh

9.

Ram Pri? Mahto

10. •Fuldeo .Mahto

Ram Ballam Singh

CHdndra Deo Singh

n.

Gopal Bflnerje© had worked in 1983 only and had put total number of 61-days attendance. Similarly among the floncorned workmen, Rameswar Prasad had Work- ed- in <19#3 and had put only 93 days of attendance. The rest of -the persons contained in the list enclosed with the-> reference order did not work in any, years between 1982 to 19&5. Further according .to the management, Kfcndwadxh Colliery has got surplus labour and therefore it is not possible to regularise them as permanent employees of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. In. the circumstances they have prayed to pass an award against the demand of the sponsoring union.

Sudhir Bancrjee.

Gopal Banerjee

12.

2. The present .industrial dispute has been raised toy

R^htriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Putki Colliery demanding regularisation of Gopal Banerjee and 11 others as permanent employees of Kendwadih Colliery of M|s. BCCL.

4. Thus, ftom the pleadings of the parties, the management has admitted that out of 12 concerned persons Gopal Banerjee had worked for 63 days and Rameswar Prasad had worked for 93 days and none else have worked¹ there. Therefore, let us see whether all the 12 persons had worked at KenUwadih Colliery as Co-operative workers and their attendance was 190 days or more than 190 days, in any calendar yejrs 1982 to 1985. It is admitted that the manage- ment has decided to employ co-operative workers who had. pyt jn J90 days or more than 190 days, in, attend- ance in any calendar year as per circular of the Head- quarters of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AI&4999 Supreme. -Geurt 1160, the concerned per- sons are to- be .treated -as workmen .of -the principal employer i.e. M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. and therefore they are entitled for regularisation/ a* permanent employees ot Kendwadih Colliery.

7. In.the result I'sender—

AWARD

That the demand of the, sponsorlng_nnlon for regu- larisation of Shri Gopal* Banerjee and 11 others is justified. The management' is. directed to regularise them a.s peramanent employees^ of Kendwadih Colliery within 30 days from' the date of publication of the award, failing which, they shaft be entitled'for wages of miner|loader as per NCWA from the.date of pub- lication of th& award.

SftKJU PRASADi Presiding. Officer

New Delhi, the 17th.' April, Z001

SO, -974.—In pursuance.'of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 <34> of 1947), the Cen- tial Government hereby publishes the award of the Central 'Government Industrial' Tribunal,

[No. L-20fH2|323i93-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

ChairmanKJum-Managing Director in which it was de- cided that in order to increase production co-operative workers besides others will be given employment dS miner|loader (£xt, W-5). Ext. W-6 is Advocate Notice to th& Director Personnel demanding rcgularisation of the concerned persons and Ext. W-7 is the circular dated 8)9-5-86 by which all the General Managers were requested by the Head Office to give employtnent to co-operative workers who have completed 190 days or more attendance in a calendar year between 1982 to 1985. The management, on the other hand, has filed a chart showing the attendance of Ganesh Paswan and others in which the names of the concerned per- sons do not find place. From the Chart Ext. M-l appears that this is a chart with respect to contract workers working under the Contractor, Gopal Singh in the year 1984. The sponsoring union has pleaded that the concerned persons have worked only in the years 1982 and 1983. They have never pleaded that they have worked in 1984 or onwards, therefore this attendance sheet is with respect to another contract, whereas the xerox copy of attendanc sheet filed by the sponsoring union shows that the concerned persons have worked under the Contractor, Ram Binod Kumar Singh. The management has not filed any attendance sheet of the workers engaged by the Contractor, Ram Bmod Kumar Singh. The management has further filed contractors bill and work order issued to Gopal Singh but they have not filed any work order and bill of the Contractor, Ram Binod Kumar Singh. There- fore* tho documents filed by the management are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Ap&rt from the above documentary evidence, the sponsoring union have examined WW-1—Gopal Banerjee and Mining Sirdar, Overman and Manager and they have worked as stone cutter alongwith other concerned persons and their work: was being supervised by the Mining Sirdar. Overman and Manager and they have claimed that they have worked for more than 190 days in a calendar year. They have said that the management was taking work from them in the guise of contract labourers. The management too have exa- mined two witnesses, namely, MW-2—Krishna Mohan Prasad, Dy. Personnel Manager and MW-2-*-S- R. Chakraborty, who have come to say that the colliery has stopped working since 9-6-89 and the workmen of the colliery were transferred to 5 and 6 Pit Hydro- mine Section. But I find that there is no such plea in the written statement of the management nor a|ny paper has been filed showing closure of the said col- liery.

BEFORE THE CHN-FPAL GOVERNMIT NT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL' NO- 1 AT DHANBAD PRESENT ;

Shrf. Sarju PraiJd, PreMdm^ Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

Section l'O(lXd) of the I.D. Aci, 1947.

Rero^nre No. 249 of 1994

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to thrmanagement of Kuju Area of M's CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES .

On behalf of the workmen : Shri D. K. Ve-ma,

Advocate.

On behalf of.the management : Shri B, Josh¹",2642 THE GA2E3TE QF 1N1>1A : MAY 12, 2 0 0 1 / V A I S A K HA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coal, Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd Match, 2001

AWARD

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section lCXlXd) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(323)|93-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 25th October 1994.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action*-of the management not to allow Shri Kapildeo Tewari, Ex. Clerk, Gr. Ill of Kuju Regional Stores of Mis. C.C. Ltd. to perform his duty is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the con- cerned workman is entitled ?"

him any chaxgesheet for the misconduct of remaining absent from duty without any reasonable cause nor the management has struck oft his name from the roll of the company by terminating his service. Thus in ihe present calse the service of the concerned workman has neither been terminated nor he has been dis- missed from service. The standing order of the Company makes out a provisions that remaining habi- tual aibsent without just and reasonable excuse is a mis- conduct under S.O. 17 fi) (d) of the Standing Order. According to the certified standing order 1^7(i) a workman ma/y be dismissed if found to be guilty of the misconduct but that will not be done without making any departmental enquiry. Under the certi- fied standing order there is no provision relating to abandonment of service. The management has ad- mitted that the concerned workman was never issued any notice regarding his absence from duty. The con- cerned workman stated on oath that he was suffering from mental illness and was under treatment of a doctor from the year 1977 ro sornefimes in 1988 a|nd in support of this he has produced medical certificate granted by Dr. B. N. Chakravorty which are Ext, W-l series. From the certificate gianfed by the doctor it appears that the concerned workman wals suffering from mental illness and therefore in such condition he was absent from duty for such a long time. Therefore, I find that in absence of any provision regarding abajndonment of service in Standing Order of the Company and in absence of the fact that the management has neither terminated his service nor has dismissed him for the misconduct as defined under S.O. 17(i)(d), therefore, in my opinion the con- cerned wdrkman cainnot denied to resume duty but for this situation it is the workman who has to be blamed. Therefore, the entire period cf his absence will be treated break in his service and the conemed workman shall not be entitled for anv back waees. However, considerinp the fajct that the concerned workman was mentally unw and has suffered for such a long time he should be riven an opportunity to serve the company. Therefore, in my opinion he should be reinstated wihout back wanes and conse- auential benefits and the period of absence from the du+v till the date of reinstatement shall be deemed to be the break in service.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to this dispute is that Shri Kapildeo Tewari was a Clerk Gr. Ill at Kuju Regional Stores of Mis. CCL. He wa)s regularly working till 14-4-97. Thereafter he started re- maining absent without any information to the management. Thereafter all of a sudden the con- cerned workman KapildeoTewari alleged that when he went to resume duty on 2-11-1988 i.e. after a lapse of more than 111 years the management 'did not allow him to resume duty According to the concerned workman since he wa$ suffering from mental illness and was under treatment of Dr. B. N. Chakravorty, Sr. Medical Officer, Ranchi Manshik Arogyasala, Rnnchi from 20-4-1977 to 31-10-1988 therefore he could not inform the management re- garding his illness nor he reported for duty. Acce- ding to the management since the concened wokman has left sevice without infomation for a period of more than 11+. years it was presumed by the management that the concerned workman had left service out of his own sweet will, therefore he lost his lien to join the post after a lapse of so many years. Therefore, the management is justified in denying him to resume duty. The management cannot v ait for such a long period in absence of any information by the con- cerned workman and therefore the management has already filled up the post and in such situation the concerned workman is not entitled to a|ny relief.

In the result, the following Award is rendered:—

"The action of The manaeernent is denying the concerned workman to resume dutv is not fully justified. The .nan a cement is directed to retnstpjte him without back waccs and consequential benefits and the period rtf hi* ptwence will be trentM break in bis service. The management is directed to imn^merrt the Award withm 30 davs from the date of publication of the Award."

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer 3. The management, has however admitted that, the management has neither terminated the service of the concerned workman Kapildeo Tewari nor has i&sucd a|ny chargesheet to him for remaining absent unputhorisedly. Since the concerned workman was absent suo" moto for a long period of time it is pre- sumed thatt he has abandoned the service and therefore the management did not think it necessary to either terminated his service or issuing chargesheet to him. However pecordine to the management the certificate produced by the concerned workman regarding mental illness is procured one because the management has made enquirv from Ranchi Mayi^hik Arocvasnla, Ttunchi find the SuoenVendent of the hosoital has! clearlv mentioned that the concerned workman was never admitted in that hospital.

4. Tn this case the facts are almo-s^ admitted and the concerned workman has admitted that he wat absent from duty for more than 11+ years without information to the management. The management too ha!s admitted^ that the management has neither issued2043 New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

S.O. 975.—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 Cential Government Industrial Tribunal, (No. I ), Dhanbad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M|s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-4-2001.

[No. L-20012!338|96-IR(C-I)l S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1. DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference undci section 10(1) (d) (2A") of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 204 of 1997.

PARTIES :

2. This dispute has been raised by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union. The sponsoiing union has claimed that S|Shri Aloke Bhaittacharjee, Sahabuddin Khan, Paltu Modak, Dilip Modak, Sontosh Roy, Meghnath Ghosh, Ashok Supakar, Son jay Supakar, Ranjit Supakar ajnd Rajendra Saw were working as plant cleaning mazdoor in the Sudamdih Coal Washery which is a permanent and perennial nature of job and hat> ako been declared as prohibited category of job by the Central Government by Notification S.O. No, 3103 dated 25-7-1983 published in the Gazette of India dated 6-8-83. They were rendering service trad producing goods for the benefit of the manage- ment of coal washery and, therefore, they are entitled for reguiarisation as permanent employees of the said Washery. Further according to" them the concerned persons were being paid wages through some mter- meditries in order to deprive them the wages as per NCWA. An industrial dispute was referred to this Tribunal for regularisation of some other plant cleaning, mazdoor who were terminated which was registered as Reference No 66 of 1990 and on the bapis of an award passed by this Tribunal the manage- ment has regularised all such workmen on whose behalf the dispute Was raised. But the concerned workmen's demand for rcgularisatlon was under con- sideration, therefore, they were waiting patiently. When the management did not take any cognizance to their earlier assurance then the sponsoring union has raised thi^ dispute. Further according to the sponso- ring union the concerned persons have been stopped from vork from the year 1990.

Employers in relation u> the management of

Surfemdih Area of MIS. BCCL.

AND

Thetr Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Ptesidng Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

For the Workmen : Shri D. Mukherjee, Secre-

tary, Bihatr Colliery Kamgar Union.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, the 26th March, 2001

AWARD

By Order No, L-2Q0l2|338|96-IR(CodU) dated the 2Mh November, 1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1") and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for aldiudication to this Tribunal .

3. The management of Sudamdih Coal Washery has pleaded that the present reference is not maintainable and¹ there is no employer-employee relationship between the management and the con- cerned persons. According to the management, the sponsoring union had alieady sponsored an industrial dispute of all the plant cleaning ma^doors who were engaged through contractor and as per award of this Tiibunal in "Reference No. 66 of 1990 they all ha\e been regularised. The management has admitted that the Central Government has issued! Notification under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour _ (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting engagement of contract labour on the job of plant cleaning in washe- ries. According to them, all the plant cleaning mazdoors have been regularised and there is none left to be regularised According to them, the spon- soring union with a view to induct several persons into employment of the componv has talen advan- tages of tine award passed by this Tribunal and devised the wavs and me:ms of ra'binir demand on behalf of the iob seeker Arcordintr to them, all the concerned persons aie job seekers and they^ bave never worked as plant cleaning mazdoor in the Sudamdih Coal Washerv. In such circumstances the management has prayed to ;*K"c an mvnrd in favour of *he management.

"Whether the claim of the Union that Sh. Alofce Bhat+acharjee, Sh. Sahabuddin Khnn, Sh. Paltu Modak, Shri Dilip Modak, Sh. Santosh Roy, Sh. Mephnath Ghosh, Sh. Ashok Supakatr, Sh Saninv Supakar, Sh. Rann't Supakar and Sh Rajendrn Saw were working as a permanent plant cleaning mazdoor n|nd their demand for leeularisa- tion is legal and justified ? Tf so to what relief are these persons entitled 7"

1281 GI[2O01—12.

reference case had been regularly doing the pob of plant cleaning at Sudamdih Coal Washery. These slips are date-wise which go to show thit the con- cerned persons were working as pUnt cleaning maz- doors right from the year 1980 till 1988, yet the management hais falsely pleaded that none of Ihem had worked as plant cleaning mazdoors. Therefore, in view of the admission of MW-1 and in view of Ext. W-l series we find that the concerned ptrsons have been working regularly on the plant cleaning job which is a| regular nature of job and the Central Government has issued Notification prohibiting en- gagement of contract labours in such job, Theiefore, in view of the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corpora- tion Vs. United Labour Unit n reported in Lab. I.C. 1997 page 365, such plant cleaning mazdoors must be absorbed as permanent emolovees of Sudamdih Coal Washery. Therefore, T find that the cocnemed persons are the employees of the management and therefore, this reference is not pt all bad.

6. Tn the result I render —

AWARD

That the claim of the sponsoring union for regula- nsation of Aloke Bhattacharjee and others as named in the reference order is justified. The management is directed to regularise them as permanent em- rioyees of Sudamdih Coal Washerv in General Mpzdoor Category-I within 30 davs from the da'e of rublication of the award, Nline which the concerned persons shall be entitled for claiming waees of Gene- ral Mazdoor Category-T as p?r NCWA from the date nf publication of the .awai'd.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001

S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No. I) Dhonbad, as shuwn in the Annexure in the Industrial D:spiie between the omployeis in relation to the management of Mjs, CCL and their workman, which was rscdv^d bv the Central Government on

17-4-->OOI,

5. In order to prove that the concerned persons have worked ts plant cleaning mazdoors the sponsor- ing union has examined Aloke Bhattacharjee, one of the concerned persons, who has said that he along- with other concerned persons were working fiom the year 1980 as plant cleaning mazdoor in Sutlamdih Coal Washery and their attendance was more than 240 days in a calendar year, 'lhc plant cleaning job is regular nature of job. They have been stopped from the year 1990. He has further come lo say that the management was maikirig payment of less wages than NCWA and whenever they made demand for wages according to NCWA they were threatened to stop from work. This witness has further filed xerox copy of attendance sheet under the signature of one Mr. Giri, one of the officers of said¹ Coal Washery which has been marked Ext. W-l series. The management too has examined one B. J. Giri who is Sr. Executive Engineer at Sudamdih Coal Washery from the year 1979 tp September, 1997. He has come to say that there is coal handling plant at Sudamdih Coal Washery where plant cleaning maz- doors pick pillage and load the same on conveyor belts. Initially for doing thi> job Co-operative Labour Society was awarded contract but when there was ^notification and cases V'cre filed then thos.o plant \deaning majzeroors were regularised as permanent employee cf the plant. He lias come to say that all those who v.erc doing the job of plant cleaning maz- doors and fulfilled tcinis and condHions of the com- pany ha|ve been regularised. He has further come to say that out of the concerned persons whose case has been referred a few of thom, such as, Bhattacharjee had irregularly worked as plant clennin" mazdoor, but they were not regular and did not fulfil the con- ditions for regularisation of the company. Jut the management has not filed anv document to show that the concerned persons have worked irregularly and they do not fulfil the conditions for n*ut sicnnture on' behalf of the manaeement tn show tn?t tWv were en"nf""d !n the iob of n'ant cleaning on tiir Hntfv. men'innpri in the attendance slips. Thus, f find thnf the e v i n ce of this witness is altogether contrary to the plea of the management and also falsifv the plea of the manage- ment that none of the r>:r.sons hnd worked r,s plant cleaning mazdoors. At 1c-ict from thf evidence of the management itself it anpenrs ih.it some nf the concerned persons hnd wnrktd ns plant cleaning ma7floors snd MW-1 has "ut rus signature ^n some of the attendance sheets, Ext W-l series. \Ve find that the sponsoring union rn'

[No. L-20012|382|Q2-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section 10(1) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference No. 96 of 1995.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Jarangdih Colliery of M|s. CCL.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers.— Shii B. Joshi, Advocate. For the. Workmen.—Stm D. Mukherjce, Secre- tary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union.

STATE : Jhaikhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, the 27th March, 2001.

bursed rhrough some intermediaries in order to camouflage the real issue to deprive the concerned persons trom wages as per NCWA. The concerned parsons were entitled for wages of Category-I. They were performing various permanent nature of job as per direction of the management, such as, isolation- stopping, line packing, stone drifting and other per- manent nature of jcb under the direct control and supervision ol the management. For performing similar nature of job thcje are rtber permanent work- men of the same colliery who were getting more wages. The concerned workmen represented before the management several time for their regularisation and payment of Category-I wages but without any effect, therefore they have raised the present dispute through rlie union.

AWARD

By Order No. L-20O12(382)|92-I.R. (Coai-i) da- ted the 22nd August, 1995 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers ponferred by clause (d) of iub-section (1) and sub- jection (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this Tribunal :

"Whether the demand nf the Union for the re- gularisation of the setvices of SjShri Laljee Saw and others (as per list enclosed) by the management of Jarangdih Colliery of Mjs. Central Coalfields Ltd. is justified ? If so, to what relief are the concerned work- men entitled ?"

2. The present dispute has been raised by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union demanding regularisation of Laljee Saw and 89 otheis as per list enclosed in the reference order dated 22-8-1995.

3. According to the sponsoring union the concern- ed workmen have been working in permanent and perennial nature of job inside the mine under the direct control and supervision of the colliery mana- gement. As per Mines Act, Rules and Regulations all the underground workers are legally bound to work under the direct control and supervision of the competent person and their attendance is required to be recorded in Foim 'C register. The management has been supplying all the wojking implements to the concerned workmen for execution of the job. They we|re also been issued cap lamp which was being recorded in Cap Lamp Issue Register. The concern- ed workmen have been rendering services and pro- ducing goods for the benefit of the colliery manage- ment, but the management was not paying them wages as per NCWA and their wages were being dis- 4. The case of the management, on the other hand, is that the concerned persons were never working into the underground mine on permanent nature of work and under the direct control and supervision of the management. They ate all job seekers whom the sponsoring union wants to induct them into service with the help of litigation. The management has said that on account vagueness of the complaint it is diffi- cult for them to say if some of them had ever work- ed under any contract job allotted to a contractor. Further, according to them the management had awarded one contract to M/s. Bagga Construction for construction of 13 nos. of isolation stoppings of 1 metre thick in No, 3 incline mine of 18 feet seam¹ by work order dated 31-3-1991. The work commenc- ed on 1-2-91 and was completed on 15-3-91. Simi- larly, another work order was issued in favour of a contractor, Munna Singh for construction of venti- lation stoppings, pump foundation, tramline packing and white washing in No. "5 to 3 incline of 18 ft. seam by work order dated 5-1-92, According to the management the work of isolation stopping, venti- lation stopping, pump foundation and tramline pack- ing and white washing are all temporary and casual nature which is required only when coal from a parti- cular district has been totally raised and the mine is not required to be further operated. This is done rarely on few occasion in the gap of several years, therefore these work being temporary and casual nature were awarded to contiactor for which there was no prohibition regarding engagement of con- tractor by appropriate Government. Since the job was very casual nature and it hardly required 5 to 6 persons to be engaged per day thr claim of the per- sons that they have worked into underground mine is incorrect. In such circumstances the management has prayed that the demand of the sponsoring union is fit to be rejected. In such circumstances the man- agement has prayed to give an award against the demand of regularisation of the concerned persons.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties let us see whether Ilhe concerned persons have worked! into underground mine iii permanent and parcnnial nature of job under direct control and supervision of the management and if there is relationship nf em- ployer and employees between the concerned persons and the management of Jarangdih colliery ?

6. The management has examined two witnesses to support its case. MW-1 — S. Thaknr wiho was under- manaaer at Jarangdih colliery from 1981. He has proved a work order Ext. M-l in the name of2046 THE GAZETTE Or- INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART IJ—SEC. 3(ii)] Munna Singh, Contractor for construction of venila|tion stopping etc., which was to be completed in six months only. He has also filed agreement between the contractor, Munna Singh and the management which has been marked Ex,t.( M-2. He has also proved bill for performing the job by the. said contractor, Munna Singh which has been marked Ext. M-3. This bill is to be the extent of Rs. 1,07.286.96 p. There is an- other work order Ext. M-1 /1 in favour of Bagga Construction for construction of 13 Nos. isolation stopping (1 M thick) in No. 3 incline/18 Seam and the work was to be completed within 1-1/2 months. The bill for this work order is Ext. M-3/1 for a sum of Rs. 1,55,157.14. This witness MW-1 has comjg to say that this isolation stopping and ventilation stopping were of temporary nature in which maxi- mum 5 to 6 persons were required to be engaged. MW-2 has proved registration certificate of the estab- lishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 which has be^n marked Ext, M-4 and the return under Contract Labour (Regula- tion & Abolition) Act which has been marked Ext. M- 5. They have also filed Cap La|mp Issue register of the colliery which has been marked Ext. M-6 series. From Ext. M-6 scries it appears that they have produced Form 4A, register of workmen doing piece-rated work. The Cap Lamp Issue Register is for the period of 1997, 1998 and 1999 i.e. after this reference has been made and 'similarly they have filed. Form 'C register of 1997-98 i.e. after the reference of the present industrial dispute which are not at all relevant. From the registration certificate it appears that estab- lishment of Jarangdih colliery has been registered in the year 1982 and thereafter the same has not been renewed. This certificate does not contain the name and address of the contractor nor the nature of work in which the contract labour is employed or is to be employed. The registration certificate does not con- tain minimum number of contract labour to be em- ployed on any day, through each contractor, because the annexure to the registration certificate has not been filed. The management has not filed the licence of the contractor. As per the settled principle of Jaw when the principal employer is not registered under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act or the contractor is not licensee, then ttn* contractor labou- rers shall be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer. A reference may be, made to the the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricitv 4Board Vs. Suresh & others reported in 1999(2) LX N 612.

tity card Ext. W-3 series gojs to show that the con- cerned persons wefe issued identity card showing them workers of different contractors. The management has not filed any paper to show that the name of the contractor whose name find place in the identity cards arc the registered contractor under the principal employers. They have not filed their licence too. The sponsoring union has also fried xetox ;opy of Cap Lamp Issue Register to show that the concerned per- sons, have been issued cap lamp issue slips showing that they have worked under dilferent contractors in. the year 1994, 1996, 1993, 1995 and 1992. These cap lamp issue slips Ext. W-l series which are in all 119 goes to show that the concerned persons have been issued cap lamp by the management of Jarang- dih colliery on different dates showing them contrac- tor workers. Besid"s that the sponsoring union has filed attendance chart prepared by the management of Jarangdih colliery to show that the concerned persons have worked under different contractors on different period. This has been marked Ext. W-2. Furthermore, WW-1 Badri Rajak has come to say that they have regularly worked from 1988 and their attendance was more than 240 days in a calendar year. They were doing permanent natuie of job and their work was being supervised by the management. He I-as claimed that cap lamp isbiic register and Form 'C will show the number of days they have worked. This has been admitted by the management's witness also, but they have not filed the Cap Lamp Issue Register or Form 'C register of the concerned period. Further WW-2 Indranath Yadav who has stated that he akingwith others had been working in Jarangdih coal mines from the year 19&8 and ihey art still working. He has proved the extract of attendance under the sig- nature of K. L. Yadav, unde^managcr of the col- liery, but the said K. L. Yadav has not been examin- ed to deny his signature hi Cap Lamp Issue slips and attendance slips. Thus, I find that the sponsoring union has been ablp to prove that the concerned work- men have been wrrking in Jarangdih colliery regu- larly in permanent nature of job into underground mine, but the management has tried to conceal the real fact. Since the so-called contractors were not pos- sessing any licences either the management has filed any contract paper with respect to the contractors named in the identity card of the concerned persons or in the extract attendance sheets therefore it appear? that the contract is sham and in fact the concerned per- sons are the workmen of the management. They arc doing permanent nature of )ob since 1988 regularly, therefore they are entitled for regulaiisation.

8. In the result, I render—

AWARD

That the demand of the aponsoring union for regu- larisation of the concerned persons named in the re- ference order is justified. The management is directed to regularise them in General Ma^door Cat. 1 within 30 days from the date of publication of the award, failing which they shall be entitled for claim wages of General Mazdoor Category-I from the date of publication of the award.

7. The sponsoring union on the other hand has filui identity card of all the concerned persons which has been marked Ext. W-3 series tc show that they have been engaged as contractor worker under different contractors, namely, Indramani Singb. some of them under contractor, Pramod Kr. Singh, some of them under contractor, B. S. Yadav, some of them under Annapuma Construction, some under Snrendra Singh and so on. That means they all have been shown as contract workers in the identity card* issued to them under different contractors. The management has not pleaded that except M/s. Bagga Construction and Munna Singh they have engaged any other contractors In the contract job. Rather their case is that they nave not engaged any other contractor, but the iden-

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer2047 List of workers working in under ground mines and tub repairingj Jarangdih colliery of M/s C CL Jarrangdah.

[No. L-20012(3&2)/"2-IRO]

Name of workers

SI. No

2

~T'

1. Shri Laljec Saw

^

3.

4.

5. 6.

„ Badri Rajak ,, Sewa Robidas ,, Dincshwar Robidas u Bhuneshwar Robidas „ Rameshwar Robidas „ Tulis Yadav

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

„ Tuplal Yadav ,, Aghnoo Rabidas „ Roaw Rabidas ,, Biru Rabidas „ Budhan Yadav ,, Binod Rabidas ,, Babuchand Rabidas „ Rajendra Rabidas 15.

„ Jagdish Yadav

16.

17.

18.

19.

20, 21. 22.

23.

24.

25.'

26.

27.

„ Gudha Yadav „ Mankund Singh „ Banwari Kumar „ Kishun Rabidas ,v Dineshwar Yadav „ DuJar Chand Yadav ,, Narayan Kumar „ Japan Munda „ Biranchi Gope „ Shankar Pd. Nayak „ Santosh Yadav

Address Father's name

4 3

Khetko

11

Sankar Saw Dthu Rajak

n

tt

i t

\%

Prasadi Robidas Mohan Robidas Somar Robidas Somar Robidas

n

ii

Charan Yadav Juthan Yadav Punit Rabidas

n

i f

M

(|

1 >

J]

Prasadi Rabidas Sudhan Rabidas Tirghun Yadav Kandan Rabidas Sona Rabidas

W

Somar Rabidas

Sona Yadav

It

f t

Ft

Janki Yadav Jethu Singh Santa Kumar

It

U

a

Punit Rabidas Guna Yadav Kishun Yadav Samta Kumar

Bermo 4 No* Mosai Munda Madan Gope

Khetko Jai Narayan Nayak Lapar Yadav

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

„ Kishun Manjhi „ Manik Chand Ganjhu „ Rohit Kumar „ Rasik Manjhi ,' Dashrath Karmah 33.

34.

„ Ramkishu Manjhi ,, Jagdish Manjhi 35.

36.

37.

„ Jainath Mahto „ Kameshar Mahto „ Ganesh Mahto

38.

39.

,, Nakul Mahto ,, Raghunath Marmchi 40.

41.

,' Siblal Mahto ,, Mani Mahto

Champi

Keshwar Scram

Champi Arjun Manjhi Muter Ganjhu Nakul Ram Dhaneswar Manjhi Laljce Karmaji

a

Bhima Manjh;

ii

Khetko

ii

Champi Khetko Ato Manjhi Thaku Mahto Jitan Mahto Jagarnath Mahto Hemlal Mahto Kai'a Karmchi

Narayanpur

it2048 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA : MAY 12, 2001/VAISAKHA 22, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 42. Shri Dhaneshwar Mahto 43.

44.

45.

„ Babuchand Manjhi ,t Karam Chand Manjhi „ Chandradev Marmcki 46.

47.

„ Gobind Karmachi ,, Parmeshwar Thakur 48. „ Jainarayan Gope ,, Ganga Rabidas

49. 5a 51.

tt Mohan Yadav „ Raghu Thakur

5Z

53.

54.

,, Jageshwar Rabidas „ Basdeo Ganjhu „ Ganga Nayak

55.

56.

57.

„ Rumdhan Yadav ,, Jodhan Rajak ,, Ram Surj Manjhi 58.

59.

„ Karim Mia t, Sadique Mia ,, Nagcshwar Yadav 60.

61. „ Amrit Rabidas „ Day a] Yadav

62.

63.

64.

65.

,, Laideo Singh „ Raghu Rabidas ,," Ram Lai Rabidas ,, Bishun Rabidas

66.

„ Babu Lai Manjhi 67.

68. ,, Jagdish Rabidas „ Jagarnath Karmachi 69.

70. ,, Mahesh „ Tulsi Rajak

71.

72,

73.

„ Baijnath Manjhi „ Rani Prasad Manjhi „ Ratan Lai Manjhi 74.

75. ,, Bhola Rajak ,, Hira Lai Manjhi

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

,, Dewa Singh „ Indarnath Yadav ,' Dalip Ram „ Nageshwar Ram ,, Lalan Yadav „ Vijay Ram „ Ritu Ram ,, Rameshwar Ram

Narayanpur Basira Manjhi

Champi Matla Manjhi

Khetko Champi Mahabir Karmchi La'ia Karmchi Arjun Thakur

Khetko Arjun Gopc Somar Rabidas

Bermo 4 No Khetko Juthan Yadav

it

Arjun

'>

>>

Bashan Rabidas Jaglal Ganjhu

Keshwari

Khetkp

H

Mandraji Nayak Shambhu Yadav Gudu Rajak

tt

11

Kashinath Manjhi

Hussain Mia

11

Asnapani Hayatali Mia Lupan Yadav

Khetko

ii

Kunju Rabidas

ii

n

lf

ii

J>

Sona Yadav Ratho Singh Somar Rabidas Guijari Rabidas Bijhu Rabidas Chto Manjhi

Champi

Khetko Sndhan Rabidas Shankar Karmali

Padaric China Bhygal Rajak

Khetko Charan Manjhi

Champi

u

Rameshwar Manjhi Duga Manjhi

11

)

1 i

Mutar Rajak Lcpa Manjhi Ratho Singh

>t

Khetko Jarcagdih

it

Kathara Jarengdih Baldeo Yadav Dhanwa Ram Laxman Ram Srigandu Yadav Sita Ram Gopal Ram

Late Fulu Ram Revani

84.

„ Chandradev Ram 85

86. ,, Radhey Shy am Paswan „ Ram Kumar

87.

,, KeethRam

88.

89. ,, Ruplal Soni „ Gayni Soni

90.

Late Fulu Ram Revani

Late Chalitar Ram

Late Baleshar Ram

* •>

it

Rabhunath Ram Mchgu Soni

Khetko

11

Meghu Soni2049 New Delhi, the 17th April, 2001 S.O. 977.—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 (No. I)), Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M|s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-4-2001.

[No. L-20012|389|96-1R(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section 10(1) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference No. 200 of 1997

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Mohuda Area of M[s. BCCL.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. For the Workman : Shri C. f^. Jha, Advocate. STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal. Dated, the 21st March, 2001 AWARD

By Order No. L-20012|389|96-IR(Coal-I) dated the 25th November, 1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labovr has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Mohuda Area of M|s. BCCL in dismissing Shri V. K. Khanna, Clerk w.e.f. 8-6-93 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the con- cerned workman entitled ?".

2. The brief facts ; giving rise to this industrial dis- pute is that V. K. Khanna was a Clerk employed by M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. at Mohuda Area in the Administra- tive office. The management served him a charge- she 3t dated 8(10-2-93 alleging that he is habitual absentee from duty and that on 4-2-93 he had taken away three records from the table of A. K. Singh, Sr. Personnel Officer surreptitiously alnd had kept the same concealed in the temporary residence of the water carrier outside the office premises. The con- cerned workman replied the charge admitting his guilt and prayed for excusing him as a last chance. But the management did not find his reply satisfac- tory and ordered for an enquiry to be conducted by B. K. Singh, Dy. Personnel Manager. The concerned workman was issued notice and the charges explained to him who pleaded guilty and requested for pardon. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer preceded with the enquiry and during the couise of enquiry, HabibJ Ansari, a Clerk of Administrative Deptt. produced monthly attendance register from which it appears that the concerned workman was absent for 3 days between 26-12-90 to January, 1991. Similarly he was absent for 5 days between 26-2-91 to 25-3-91, 10 days between 26-3-91 to 25-4-91, 5 days from 26-4-91 to 25-5-91, 4 days from 26-5-91 to 25-6-91, 7 days between 26-7-91 to 25-8-91, 11 days between 26-8-91 to 25-9-91, 12 days between 26>"-91 to 25-10-91, 26 days between 26-10-91 to 25-11-91, 6 days from 26-11-91 to 25-12-91. Similarly he was absent in other months of 1992 also. However, it appears from the Leave Register that the concerned workman was granted leave of absence in January 91, February 91, March, 91, April, 91, July, 91, Feb- ruary, 92 and October, 92. Thus, it appears that for some absence he was granted leave. During the do- mestic enquiry the evidence were also adduced by the management that the concerned workman has taken away three files from the table of A. K. Singh, Sr, Personnel Officer on 4-2-93 and returned the same after pursuation on 6-2-93 through one of the Peons. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge and on that basis the concerned workman has been dismissed from service.

3. According to the sponsoring union the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not justified and in any case the punishment is illegal, harsh and the concerned workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. However after the evidence were adduced by 'he management to show that the enquiry was con- ducted fairly and properly the sponsoring union has fairly conceded that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper.

4. Therefore, the point to be decided now is whe- ther on reappraisal of evidence adduced by the management through domestic enquiry the charge of misconduct is proved against die concerned work- man ? If so, is the punishment of dismissal excessive and harsh ?

5 FINDINGS :

From the evidence collected dining the domestic enquiry it is apparent that the concerned, workman bad remained absent ofi and on but his major absence from duty wa:> from 14-10-91 to 25-11 -91, But it appears from the leport of the Enquiry Officer that for this period leave without pay was granted to him. Further, it appears that he was completely absent for about 26 days between 26,6-92 to 25-7-92 and again he was completely absent from 26-11-92 to 25-1-93 for which uo leave was granted to him. The concer- ned workman except accepting the guilt has said nothing in his defence as to why he remained absent. During hcaiing of this reference also he has not offe- red any explanation for remaining absence except begging for pardon with folded handi. Therefore, I find that so liar charge of habitual absence is concer- ned it is certainly proved against the concerned work- man.

6. Now so far question of making traceless three files from the table of A. K. Singh is concerned it appears that though he had kept the file somewhere else after removing the same from the table of A. K. Singh, but it appears that he had no intention to make the files traceless because from the evidence of the Peon who lia" produced the files again to A. K. Singh, it is apparent that it was this workman who himself on quarry being made had handed over the files to, the .pepn for producing before A. K. Singh. There- fore, technically certainly he is guilty of removal of files but rn fact he had no intention to make the files traceless for some ulterior motive. Therefore, I find although the charges Ifcvelled against the concerned workman is certainty proved but in my opinion, the dismissal of the concerned workman from service is, rather too harsh and the punishment awarded by the, management cannot be upheld on judicial scrutiny. t In my opinion, if the concerned workman is reinsta- ted without back wages then it will be sufficient punishment to the concerned workman and this will improve 'his devotion for the duty.

7. Therefore I render—

AWARD

That the action of the management in dismissing, the concerned workman V. K. Khanna witlTeffect from 8-6-93 is not justified. He is entitled to be reinstated into service but without back wages aad jionsequontial benefits. The management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman into service with- out back wage? and consequential benefits.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001 S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 ol the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court, Chennad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in, relation to the management of Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd., Chennai and then- workman, which was re- ceived bv the Central Government on 23-4-2001.

[No. L-29012|47f98-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 12th March, 2001

PRESENT :

K Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 529|2001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I. D. No. 132'9") BETWEEN :

Shri P. Jayaratnan, Salem.

.. . Petitioner 11 Party

AND

The Chairman cum Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. . .. Mpnagement| II Party APPEARANCE :

. ., None For the Petitioner For the Management . . Shri R. Viduthalai, Advocate Reference : Order No. L-29O12|47|98-fR(M) dt 16-11-98, Covt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on this day the 12th March, 2001, upon perusing the records and the material papers onl record in the presence of the counsel for the TI Party alone, this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following :—

ORDER

This refernce by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) a* =ub-section (1) md sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. in respect of dispute between Sri P. JTavaraman, Workman- and2051 the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Chennai, Management mentioned as Schedule appeared to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether Sri P. Jayaraman, Ex-Chisleman .Worked on piece rate basis is a! workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1 9 4 7? If Sri P. Jayaraman is a,.workman, whether the action of the Management of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Chennai in denying the employment to him with effect from December, 1994 is justified or not ? If not justified, to what relief Sri P, Jayara- man is entitled ?"

2. This order of reference was first made to

with acknowledgement due for the hearing on 9-3-2001. On 9-3-2001, when he case was taken up for enquiry, the counsel for the It Party alone was present and informed the Couij that petition for dismissing Industrial Dispute as abatted filed before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal is still pending and the I Party|Claimant is no more. No one had come forward to prosecute this case as L.Rs. of deceased I PartylClainumt. So, the case Was ad- journed to 12-3-2001 i.e. to-day and when this case came up for hearing, the counsel for the II Party [Management alone present. The abatement petition filed by the IT Party.Management before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal itself, as M.A- No. 5912000, has been taken on file here in this Tribunal and remuYibered as M.P. 83|2OO1. To-day alco no one had appeared before this Tribunal to prosecute this case as L.Rs. of deceased Claimant| Workman for relief which may accrue to them in, pursuance of the employment of the deceased work- man, in view of this industrial dispute. The learned counsel for TJ Party|Manaigement was heard. The entire records in this case are persued. Though the counsel for the deceased workman, earlier took. time, before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, when this ense was pending on its file for filing steps to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased workman, to prosecute this case further. He had not taken any steps But, later he had reported no instructions. So under such circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that no purpose will be served in keening further the main Industrial Dispute for adjudica- tion, as per the reference made bv the Ministry of Labour. Government of India. Hence, as it ta prayed for in the petition, by the TI PartviManage- ment. this industrial dispute No. 529l2OOt (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal T.D. No. 132|9R> is dis- missed n<; abatted by allowing the -petition filed for bv the TI Party|Mana-gement as M.P. 83(2001. No cost.

f Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed & typed bv him and corrected & pronounced bv me in the open court on this dav the 12th March, 2001.1

K. KARTTHTKEYAN, Presides Officer

New Delhi, the 24th April. 2001 lamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by ihe Central Government Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute for adjudication by that Tribunal. The same was taken on file there as Industrial Dispute No. 132|98. That Tribunal had sent notices to both parties for the first hearing on 5-1-99. The notice issued to the I Party|Claimant by that Tribunal by Registered Post returned unserved with postal en- dorsement "party is dead, hence returned". The notices issues to the Management was duly served and the counsel had appeared by filing Vakalat for the Management. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up n that Tribuual on 12-3-99. the coun- sed Sri Hariparanthaman undertook to file Vakalat for the L. Rs. of the deceased Petitioner and the case was adjourned to different dates for the counsel to file Vakalat and to take steps in this case. Subse- quently, when the matter war? taken up there on 30-6-99, the counsel undertook to file Vakalat and for steps to be taken for the L. Rs. of the deceased I Party|Workman. Again the case was adjourned permitting the L¹. Rs. to come on record by taking necessary steps. Though the case was adjourned periodically for L.Rs. of deceased workman to take necessary steps from 30-6-99 till 3-7-2000, no steps have been taken by them. So the Tanrl Nadu Industrial Tribunal was pleased to adjourn tlie case as a last chance by extending the time for taking steps till 4-8-2000. On 4-8-2000, the caunsei for the Management filed a petition before that Tri- bunal to give a closure of his industrial dispute by passing an order as abatted. Th?n again the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal hid extended time till 29-8-2000 as last chance for steps to be taken by L.Rs. of deceased workman.. Subsequently, the petition filed by the counsel for the Management to dismiss the case as abatted which was pendinc was adjourned periodically, till this ca^e has been trans- ferred to this Tribunal, xs twr order of the Central Government. On receipt of tho transfer of this case from Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, this Cmr ha*; H-vn tnViMi on file as ID No. 52912001 on -?rv>-?001 and notices were ordered to the I Partv| Oairpfnt as well as the counsel on record for IT P^rtvlVnTi-wement to be sent by Registered Post

S.O, 979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the 1281 OH2001—13.

Central Government hereby publishes the award

[No. L-29012|49|2000-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

SHRI S. K. t>HAL, OSJS (Sr. Branch), PRESI- DING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 10|2000 Dated, Bhubancslhwar, the 12th March, 2001 BETWEEN :

OCL India Limited, .. . First Party- Uajgangpur. Management

vrs.

Smt. Mary Baria, (T) President, Utkal Shramik Sangh, P | 8 1. Sector-18, .. . Second Party- Rourkela-769003. Worhman APPEARANCES :

For the 1st Party-Management : None Appears For the,2nd Party-Workman : None Appears.

ORDER

Ths Guvefmment of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) Of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred the following dispute for ad'ud'catioa vide their order No. L-29O12|49| 20"C0-tR(M),'dat"J 5-7-2000.

"Whether the dispute raised by Utkal Shramik Sangh against the management of Mis. Orissa Cement (India) Lid. alleging that the Management had obtained resig- nation of Shit. Merry Barla'by force is justified ? If *o, to what relief is the workman entitled ?

2. While making referene both the parties were directed by the Government to appear before this, Trffttfnal arid to file" their claim statement. On rprpin* of tire reference this Tribunal also issued n^tirg to both the parties.

3 On receipt of the notice from the side of Governrrt^t and from th:s Tribunal appearance wfl-s m ado on behalf of the Management whereas non"* apnears on behalf of the workman-2nd Partv. So the 2nd Party-workman was °et ex-parte, A. During ex-irirte hearing a copv of the agree-] mVrit has been filed oji behalf of the Management indicating that, the workman tendered her resig- nation voluntarily due to her certain domestic problem. In that agreement it has beer* intimated that the workman has no grievance and she wiU not raise any industrial dispute. The signature of the 2nd Party-workman also appears on the agreement. No materials have been placed before this Tribu- nal on behalf of the 2nd Party-workman that, the workman has not agreed upon. Moreover when she has alleged that resignation was taken by force owns lies on the 2nd Party-workman to establish the same. But nothing has been done by the 2nd Party-workman. On the other hand no case has been made out by the Second Party.

5. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Management has not obtained the resignation of the 2nd Party-workman by force. Hence, the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled for any relief.

6. The reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001 S.O. 980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweon the employers in relation to the management of M|s. Moon Rock Agency Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-4-2001.

[No. L-29O12/5S>/96-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI

Friday, the 16th day of February, 2001 PRESENT:

Thiru S. R. Smgharavelu, B.Sc., B.L., Industrial Tribu- nal.

Industrial Dispute No. 2 of 1997 (In the matter of dispute for adjudication Under Sec. 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 betweon the Work- man and the Management of Moon Rock AgftB (P) Ltd. Bangalore.)

BETWEEN

Shri M. K. Swami, No. 15 Sclva Nagar First Street, PponagHr, Tiruchirappalli "20001.

AND

agency. Ho woitoed there for 6 years. OB 27-SK95, E*. Wl letter of the respondent agency was sent to him with the following menage :

The Managfflg Director, Mb. Moon Rode Ages (P) Ltd. 102, Amija Chambers, Kumara Krupa Roadj Bangalore 560001.

"In view of the production work having come to a stand still, the services of Mr. M K. Swamy, be ti no longer required from 16-10-1995 . . .".

REFERENCE i

Order No Lr29012|59|96-IR(Misc) dated 31-12-1996,

Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Thus under Ex. Wl he was asked to be relieved from 16-10-95. Anyway the petitioner did not receive the letter and would say that he had received it only on 11-12-93 and start- ed addressing the Labour Enforcement Officer through Ex. W2 dt 9-1-1996 by saying that even juniors to him were not retrenched and as no charge was also framed against him it was illegal to have terminated him The reply of the res- pondent dated 21-2-1996 was marked as Ex. W3 which con- tained as follow^ -

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Friday, the 9th day of February, 2001, upon perusing the reference. Claim and Counter statements and all other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Thiruvalargal S Muthukrishnan ajid S Eiangovan, Advocates appearing for the Workman and of Thiruvalargal S Navaneethakrish- nan and S Kadarkarni, Advocates appearing for the Manage- ment and this dispute having stood over till this day for consi- deration, this Tribunal made the following -

AWARD

"He was terminated from servwes u not only because our quarries were stopped in Tamil Nadu and Tri- vandrum but It is also because of your inefficiency -and misdeeds done during your tenure as a super- visor in Marthandam. where we have specifically posted you.

The Govt. ef India has referred the following Issue for

adjudication by this Tribunal :

. . . You have collided with the contractor which ha* resulted m huge losses to the company. In 5 months you were able to pioduce only 30 cbm and when psked you were unable to give the reasons.

"Whether the termination of services of the workman Sri M. K. Swamy we.f. 16-10-95 by the manage- ment of M|§. Moon Rock Ages (P) Ltd is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2 The main averments found in the Claim Statement of

. .. It was your responsibility to- protect the equipments of the company see that they were returned back to the company after the work is over . . " the Petitioner are as follows .

Even m the letter of the respondent management to the Labour Enforcement Officer addressed on 28-5-96 it was mentioned that Mr. M K, Swamy was very irresponsible and negligent in discharging his duties while he was engaged In Marthandam quarry. That letter also mentioned that even by then the company was ready to take him to the employ- ment if he brought back their Winch and Machineries, left in the quarry It was again said that Silver Stat Gtmitet one of the Sister concern of the Respondent offered the peti- tioner a job to work in their quarry which was refused The petitioner joined at a Supervisor under the Respon- dent Agency It Is also having it* branch office at Flat No 39, Selva Nffgar II Street, Ponnagar, Tnchy-1 The petitioner worked in the above said office at Tnchy for 6 years. He received a letter dated 27-9-1995 from the employer with many false charges He was terminated from the service from 16-10-1995 t he petitioner received the letter on 11-12-95 The petitioner is seeking the help of this Tribunal to get the salary from 1-10-95 and for reinstatement with the continuity of service

3 Tho main averments found Jn the Counter Statement

•of the respondent are as follows

7 Anyway, the respondent management itself admits, that the services of the petitioner WRJ terminated w e f. M - I w l¹ on the ground of his irresponsibilities, negligence and mis- deeds. Therefore, even according to the management, there was misconduct on the part of the workman for which ho was terminated By principle* of natural justice tor any aliened misconduct there should have been an enquiry pro- ceeding for the termination put in this case, there wtt no enquiry Even before thlg Tribunal no evidence wa; let in to establish the alleged misconduct The workman was a permanent employee and according to him. be djd? not db any misdeed or negligent work Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the employer to have proifcd the alleged misconduct before this Tribunal in which case they have failed They have also no documents produced to show that there was any enquiry made against the worimaii.

8 So, the termination of the petitioner is to tee considered as illegal and he is to be reinstated, with continuity of tendce and all backwages Award passed accordingly. No costs

Dated at Chennal, this 16th day of .February, 20DJ.

S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal

I D. No. 2/97

WITNESSES EXAMINED The petition is liable to be dismissed that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition The petitioner left the work place during the third week of September 1995 when the work was temporarily stopped without prior per- mission from the management The petitioner was entrusted with the work of supervising men of Marthandam quarry one Mr Rajarathinam was given raising contract to produce granite blocks The petitioner as responsible supervisor he was to ensure work of a minimum quantity of 50 cubic metre per month In the said process he colluded with the laid Rajarathinam in his nefarious activity and produce a total quantity of 50 cbm for 5 months The petitioner never reported the reasons for low out-put He was informed that the Winch which was under his direct care, should be brought to this advice Immediately after his termination from the back to firuchy, but the petitioner has failed to pay need respondent company hs was offered a job by M|s Silver Stat Granites who was operating in some Tnchy quarries, but he did not take up the job obviously because he had already got another job The respondent company Is not liable to pay the salary from 1-10-95 Thr question of reinstatement will not arise, since the petitioner was negligent In hli duties and causing loss to the rosriondrnt company, he is not a fit person for reinstatement The respondent prayt to dismiss the petition

For PetitiofleriWorkman None.

For RespondcntfManagement None

DOCUMENTS MARKED 4 On behplf of petitioner Bx Wl to W5 wore marked by consent On behalf of respondent, no document was niarked No witnesses were examined for both (ride*

For Petitroner[Workman

Ex Wl 27-9-95 Letter of "Moon Rook Ages (P) Ltd.

Memo letler No MRA'17ft>i95-96.

Ex. W2 9-1-96 M K. S*si"y twwe " letter to Labour 5 The Point for consideration is Whether the termina- tion of service* of the workman Sri M K Swnmy w e f 16-10-95 bv the management of M[" Moon Ror1v Aqen (P) Ltd i^ Jcpal srvj justified "> Tf no* to what relief he is ert titled?

Enforcement Officer

Ex W3 21-2-96 Letter of MtoB Roefc Agra No MRA

- 6 The Point The pe'ttioner Thiru M K Swamy joined ag a Supervisor in the TJruohy toanch of the respondent'

1172|95-96.

AWARD

Ex. W4 28-5-96 Letter of Moon Rock Ages (P) Ltd.

Counter to petition MRA| 112(96-97.

Ex. W5 29-6-96 Conciliation Failure Report.

For Respondent|Management : None.

This reference by Central Government in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-

section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

between S/Sri S. Kumareian and B. Sashi Kumar. Workmen

and the General Manager, Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Mana-

valakurichi, Management, mentioned as Schedule appended to

the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Rare

Earths Ltd., Manavalakurichi in awarding punish-

ment of seven days suspension to S/Shri S.

Kumaresan and B. Sashi Kumar is justified ? If not,

to what relief the workmen are entitled 7"

N"w Delhi, the 24th April, 2001

S.O. 981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Chonnai M shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer!

is relation to the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23-4-2001.

[No. L-29012/149/98-IR(M)J

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

fiEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 9th March, 2001

This order of reference was first made to the Tamil Nadu)

Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry of

Labour as an industrial dispute for adjudication and the same

was taken on file there as I.D. No. 4/99. Notices were sent

to both the parties by that Tribunal to appear before it and

to file their representation for the hearing on 01-03-99. Though

the Respondent was represented by the counsel, the Petitioner

Union is served with postal notice sent by that Industrial

Tribunal for this case, didn't appear before the Tribunal and

remained absent. Hence, that Tribunal was pleased to dismiss

the case for default of the I Party/Claimant. Subsequently,

on petition filed by the I Party/Claimant, this case was

ordered to be restored to the file by the Tamil Nadu Industrial

Tribunal and tune was granted to the I Party/Claimant to

file thier Claim Statement on 20-10-99. From that day, the

Tribunal was pleased to adjourn this case extending time for

the I Party/Claimant to file Claim Statement, till it was

transferred to the file of this Tribunal, as per the orders of

the Central Government. The case was received on transfer

by this Tribunal from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal

in pursuance of the order passed by the Central Government

and was taken on file as I.D. No. 62/2001 on 15-01-2001.

Notice to counsel on record on either side was ordered to

be sent by Registered Post with acknowledgement due, in-

forming them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal

from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, with a direction

to both the parties to appear before this Court for hearing

on 29-01-2001.

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 62/2001

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

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section

lOOXd) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, between the Claimant and the Management,

the General Manager, Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

Manavalaiurichy.)

BETWEEN

2. On 29-01-2001, none of them was present and the case

was re-posted to 5-2-2001. On that day, the counsel for the

II Party alone was present. Both the parties were not present.

Then fresh notice to the I Party direct by Registered Post

with acknowledgement due was ordered to be sent for hearing

on 20-02-2001. On 20-02-2001 also the counsel for the II Party

alone was present. The I Party, inspjte of the Registered

Notice sent by the Court, served on him, was not present.

His counsel on record was also not present and there was

no representation for the I Party. Then again a final notice

to the I Party by Registered Post with acknowledgement

card was ordered to be issued for the hearing on 9-3-20011

i.e. today.

The General Secretary,

Indian Rare Earth* Ltd. Tech.

Employee* Association,

Manavalakurichi. Claimant/I Party

AND

The General Manager,

Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, It i" found

that the final notice issued to the I Party by Registered Post

with acknowledgement card direct for today's hearing was

served. The postal acknowledgement is also received. But

neither the party to this dispute was present. Both the parties

are called absent. The counsel on record for the I Party is

aho not present and there is no representation on behalf of

the I Party/Claimant, n Party counsel alone is present.

Manavalakurichi. Managemenl/n Party

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant: S. Amnachalam, Advocate.

For the Management: S, Ramawbramaniam

Associates, Advocates

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-29O12|I49|98-IR(M) dated 21-12-1998, Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on

09-03-2001, upon perusing the materials and records available

rind upon considering the enttre proceedings in thfaicnse, this

Tribunal pass the follower:—

4. On a perusal of the entire records in the file of this

case, it iq seen that this industrial dispute was originally

once dismissed for default of the I Party/Claimant by the

Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, when It was pending there.

Subsequently, it was restored to the file by an order of that

Tribunal on the pctitjon filed by the I Party|Claimant for

restoration. Subsequently, though this case was adjourned to

various hearing dates, extending time to the I Party/Claimant

to file Claim Statement, he didn't tam up before the Tamil

Nadu Industrial Tribunal to file Claim Statement. Subse-

quently, as per the orders of the Central Government the

case was transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Industrial

Tribunal to- the file of this Tribunal for adjudication of the

industrial dispute referred to therein. Even after the cise has

been taken on file of this Tribunal and notices were sent t

20*5

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE:

parties to the proceedings by Registered Post with acknow-

ledgement card several times. The I Party/Claimant has never

turned up and no Claim Statement has been filed on behalf

of the I PartylClaimant. No one appeared before this Court

representing the I Party/Claimant on any of the bearings

including the final hearing today. The I Party/Claimant has

not chosen to file Claim Statement 8b far.

On behalf of Management—None. On behalf of Workmen—None.

STATE : West $engal. INDUSTRY : Petroleum.

AWARD

By Order No. L-30Oll/15/2000/lR(2vI) daied 18-8-2000 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 10(l)(d) and (2A) of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dis- pute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

5. From all these things, it Is seen that the I Party/Claimant

having no interest to prosecute this case by filing the Claim,

Statement of the relief sought for as mentioned in the Schedule

of Reference by the Central Government, enables this Tri-

bunal to conclude that the I Party/Claimant has chosen to

remain absent, as there is no subsisting industrial dispute

between them and the II Party/Management now for this

Tribunal to adjudicate upon and to pass an award, that was

why he remained absent without prosecuting this case any

further. Hence, under such circumstances, there is no option

left to this Tribunal, except to dismiss this industrial dispute

for default and non-prosecution of the I Party/Claimant and

the reference has to be closed accordingly.

6. In the result, an award is passed holding that there

is no Industrial dispute now exists between the parties and

this industrial dispute is dismissed for default. No Cost.

"Whether the action of the management of I.B.P. Co. Limited in not sanctioning 2nd House Building Loan to its employee, Shri Srikanta Manna is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is Shri Manna^ entitled ?" (Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 9th March, 2001.)

K. KARTMKEYAN, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 24th April, 200J S.O. 982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of lhe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of I.B.P. Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 23rd April, 2001.

[No. L-30011/15/2000-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 34 of 2000

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of I.B.P. Co. Limited, Calcutta

AND

Their workmen.

2. When the case is called out today, none appears for cither of the parties. It appears from record that no one ever appeared on behalf of the union since the reference was registered in this Tribunal and no step was also taken on its behalf. It further appeals that one Advocate, appeared for the management only on one occasion. It also appears thai notice of this case was duly served upon the parties concerned. It is accordingly clear that the union has given up it* case and no longer interested to pursue the matter.

3. In the circumstance, in the absence of any mare- rial for any decision in respect of the schedule under reference, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose of the matter by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

4. A "No Dispute" Award is accordingly pass- ed and the reference is disposed of.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 2nd April, 2001.

B. P. SHARMA, Presidin£ Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra) Government Indusrtial Tribunal, Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the20" THE GAZETTE O* INDIA : W0 VI, 2Q0I/VA3SAKHA 22,1923 [PART If— Set. 3(fl)l employers in relation to the management of Lime- stone Mine and their workman, which was. received by the Central Government on 24th April, 2001.

rNo. L-29011/ll/97-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- trial Tribunal, Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Associated Stone Industries and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24th April, 2001.

[No. L-29012/45/90-IR(M)] B, M. DAVID, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 200]

S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Acf, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Lubrizol India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24th April, 2001.

[NO. L-30012/68/99-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Associated Stone InduStrics(K) Limit- ed Rainganjmandi, Kota in dismissing the services of Shri Hem Raj S[o Shri Gyarse, Stone Gutter, w e.f. 17-7-89 is justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitl-

m ed?"

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II. MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar.

Reference No. CGIT-2/5 of 2000

Employers in relation to the Management of

M/s. Lubrizol India Ltd., The Dy. General Manager (Human Resources), Leo House, 4th Floor, 88/C, Old Prabhadevi Road. Muinbai-400025.

AND

Their Workmen, Shri S. P. Dewoolkar, B/3, Sukhdafam Co-op. Hsg. Society, Davadayar Nagar, J. K. Gram, Thane-400606.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : S/Shri C. V. Pavaskai and S. V. Mokashi, Advocates.

For the Workmen : In person.

Mumbai, the 23rd March, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-30012/68/99/IR(M), dated 14th December, 1999, have referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Lubrizol India Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the workman Shri Suman P. Dewoolkar from the services of the company for non-purchase of the accessories of the Motor Cycle from the authorised dealer is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7" 2. The workman filed his Statement of Claim at Exhibit-5. The Management opposed the claim by fil- ing Written Statement (Exhibit-7). The workman filed his Rejoinder (Exhibit-10). On the basis of the rival pleadings my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Exhibit-14 and consequently matter was fixed for evi- dence. On 1-1-2001, the parties concerned i.e. work- man and the management settled the dispute vide settle- ment deed dated 21-12-2000 (Ex-17). Since parties concerned settled the dispute the following order is passed.

ORDER

The reference stands disposed of as settled vide purshis (Exhibit-17).

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT MUMBAI Reference CGIT-2/5 of 2000

M/s. Lubrizol India Limited,

Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. . .First Party.

Versus

Mr. Suman P. Dewoolkar.

Thane.

. .Second Party.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

The Parties above named have reached the following settlement in the aforesaid reference and pray that an Award be made in terms thereof :

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

Tt is agreed between the parties as under : 1. That the order dated May 11, 1989 terminating the services of Mr. S. P. Dewoolkar, the Second Party above named shall stand

2. Thai in lieu of demand for reinstatement and the demand for full back wages, the Second Party shall be paid yearwise, the sums shown hercunder which shall be deemed to ha\e accrued to him in the respective >ears :

|

Period Amount payable 1989-90 Rs. 19.000.00 1990-91 Rs. 22.000.00 1991-92 Rs. 25,000.00 1992-93 Rs. 31,000.00 1993-94 Rs. 35,000.00 1994-95 Rs. 37,000.00 ¹995-96 Rs. 41,000.00 1996-97 Rs. 40.000.00 . Total Rs. 2,50,000.00 (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only.} 3. That the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the Mr. S. P. Dewoolkar by cheque within seven days from the date of the Award.

4. That the aforesaid payment shall be deemed to be in full and final payment of all claims of Mr. S. P. Dewoolkar against the Company, monetary or otherwise and Mr. Dewoolkar shall have no claim against the Company cither for re-employment or reinstatement or of whatever nature.

5. That Mr. S. P. Dewoolkar shall not, at any point of time proceed with any of the litigation, demand complaints at any forum, legal or otherwise against Lubrizol India Limited and/or any of its officials. Mr. Dewoolkar shall not Initiate any new claims against Lubrizol India Limited or its officials at any forum at any time in future.

6. That the payment as aforesaid shall not attract Income-tax and shall be deemed to be covered by the provisions of Section 89 of the Income-tax Act and the rules framed thereunder in that respect.

For Second Party For Lubrizol India Limited, S. P. Dewoolkar P. V. Shimpi, Divisional Manager,

(Human Resource/Adron.) Dated : December 21, 2000.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O 986.—In pn-siuince of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieby publishes the Award of2059 the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai as shown in (he Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management M|S. Jai Somnath Transport Carrier and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 24-4-2001

[No. L-31012|2|2000-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNFXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S N. S-iundankar.

Reference No. CGIT-2|48 of 2000.

Employers in relation to the Management of Mjs. Jai Somnath Transport Carrier.

The Proprietor,

[jai Somnath Tran

AND

Their Workmen. The Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union, P. D. Mello Bhawan, Carn.'ic Bunder, Mumbai 400 038,

APPFARANCES :

For the Employer.—No Appearance. For the Workmen,—Mr. S. R. Wagh Advocate. Mumbai, dated the 28th March, 2001.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-31012|2'20O0|IR(M), dt. 26-5-2000 Jjave referred to the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

"Whether the action of the management of Mjs. Jai Soinnath Transport Carriers, Mumbai, in terminating the services of Mr. Manohar K, Koli, Ex-Bus Driver w.e.f, 26-5-1099 is lcRal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7" Pursuant to the notice of the Tribunal, the Presi- dent of Transport and Dock Workers' Union, Mum- bai, vide purshis dated 18-12-2000 (Ex-9) apprised this Tribunal that the workman has been reinstated iri service, therefore, the Union does not want to pro- cfepd with this reference and therefore, withdraw the same. The Management, vide purshis Ex-5 also in- formed that, dispute was settled out of Court. There- fore, the following o'der is passed :

ORDER

The reference stands disposed off for non-pro- secution vide purshis (Ex-9).

S N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 1281 0112001—11

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT MUMBAI Ref. No. CGIT-2|48 of 2000.

£mployer-i in relation to the Management of MJs. Jai Somnath Transport Carriers.

AND

Their Workmen.

May it please your Honour,

In the above reference, the Union begs to state that the workman Shri Manohar K. Koli is reinstated in service by the employer and, therefore, the Union prays that the industrial dispute between M[s. Jai Somnath Transport Carriers and the workman be treated as settled.

The Union, therefore, prays that the Union may please be allowed to withdraw the same.

President

Transport & Dock Workers' Union,

Mumbai.

Mumbai.

Datcci : 18th December, 2000.

S. R. Wagh, Adv. 18-12-2000 for the Union.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Di.putes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Madras Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 24-4-2001.

[No. L~33012|5]98-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRFBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURJ\ CHENNAI Tuesday, the 13th March, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthityan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 88)200I

(Tamil Nadu Industrial TiibunaJ I.D. No. 30|99) [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10(1) (d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the General Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Madras Port Trust and Dock Labour Board Employees Union, Chennai and the Management, the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Madras Port Trust and Dock Labour Board Employees Union, Chennai.

. .Claimant!I Party

AND

The Chairman,

Chennai Port Trust. . . Management|II Patty APPEAPANCE :

For the Claimant.—M/s. K. Raja, K. Marinath, Advocates. For the Management.—M. M. Shanmugam and S. Jayakumar, Advocates.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-33O12|5|98|IR(M) dt. 8-2-99, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final healing on 13-3-2001, upon perusing the claim Statement, Counter Staiement and other material papers on record and upon considering all the mate- rials, this Tribunal pass the following :—

AWARD

This reference by the Central Government in exer- cise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-sec- tion ( I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 between Shri P. Guna- sekaran. Workman and the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Management, mentioned as Schedule append- ed to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether the action of the management of Chennai Port Trust in reverting Shri P. Gunasekuran from Motor Driver (FC) Grade I to II with effect from 5-12-1995 is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ⁹"

2. This order of reference was first made to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry ot Labour, as an industrial dispute for ad- judication and the same was taken on file there as I.D, No. 30J99. Subsequent to the receipt of the notices sent bv that Tribunal, both the parties ap- peared in that Tribunal and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending before that Tribunal for enquiry, as per the order-, of the Central Government, this case has been transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication, On receipt uf the records from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, this case was taken on file as I.D. No. 88|2001 on 16-1-2001. Notices wore about to the counsel on cither side informing them about the transfer oi' this case from the file of Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal, with a direction to appear in this Tribunal along with their respective parties for enquiry on 30-1-2001.

3. On 30-1-2001, the counsel for the I Party alone was present. Both the parties and counsel for the II Party were not present. As there was no representation tor the II Party, fresh notices were ordered for II Party by Registered Post with acknowledgement card for the hearing on 12-2-2001. On 12-2-2001, when the matter was taken up for enquiry, the counsel for I Party alone was present. Both the parties and counsel for the Respondent|II Party wore not present. Since the documents on cither side were not filed in this case so far, this case was adjourned to 26-2-2001 for filing documents on either side. Thei; on 26-2-2001, neither the party to the proceedings nor the counsel on either side was present. Then fresh notice was ordered to be issued to both the parties direct by Registered Post with acknow¹edg''mcnf caid for today's hearing i.e. 13-3-2001.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry to- day, both the parties and their respective counsels were not present. Though the final notice sent to both the parties by Registered Post with acknowledge- ment due for to-day's hearing were served on them, as per the postal acknowledgement received, none of them is appeared before this Court to prosecute this case. The inaction of both the parties to this re- ferred dispute enables this Tribunal to conclude that they remained absent, since no dispute now exists for adjudication by this Tribunal.

5. In the result, an award is passed holding that no dispute exists between the workman and the management concerned, by dismissing the industrial dispute for default and non-prosecution also. No Co>-1, (D'Ctated to the Stenographer and transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open couit tliir day, the 13th March, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen'nl Government hereby publishes the Award2061 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Channai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Madras Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-4-2001.

[No. L-33012|2|95-IR1

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 7th March, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan.—Presiding Officer.

Industrial Depute No. 394|2001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 57J95) (In tlv matter of the dispute for adjudication under section JO(l)Cd) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Claimant and the Management the Chairman, Madras Pott Trust.)

BETWEEN

The President, Madras Port Trust Employees

Union.

' . .Claimant|I Party

AND

The Chairman, Madras Port Trust, . . Management| II Party APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant.—Authorised Representative.

For the Management.—Sri A. L. Soraayaji and R. Arumugam, Advocates.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-330l2|2|95-IR(Misc.) dated 28| 29-8-1995 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 7-3-2001, upon pcnising the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement and the memo filed by the concerned Workman and upon considering all the materials, this Tribunal pass the following :—

AWARD

This reference by Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section ( I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 between Suit. J. Chandra, Workman ond the Chairman, Madras Port Trust, Management, mentioned a

The Schedule reads as follows :—