This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D. L - 3 3 0 0 1 / 99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 20] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MAY 19, 2001/VAISAKHA 29, 1923 SeparatePagingisgiventothisPartinorderthatitmaybefiledasaseparatecompilation 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 PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S O. 996 —In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section 0) 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 Punjab vide Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Human Rights Cell) Notification No 10/39/94/IHR/1077 dated 4-4-2000 hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Punjab for investigation of offences under section 364, 365 342 of the Indian Penal Code and any other offcnce(s), attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences committed during the course of same

(2075)

1364 GI/2001-12076 mm GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(Ii)l transaction or arising out of the same fact? registered with Police Station Civil Lfnes, Amritsar vide FIR No. 177/99 dated 25-08-1999.

[No. 225,27/2001-AVD.)(]

HAR1 SINOH, Under Secy

(43 of 1901), (he Cen'rj! Government hereby notices the "Balsar Distiict CncLel Association, Vals>ad" for the purpose of the said clause for assessment ycais 2000-01 to :002-03 subject to Ihc foJIowmg condi- tions, namely :—

(i) I he asscs^ee will apply its income, or accumu- late it for application, in consonance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 1 I as modified by the said clause (23 J for such accumulation wholly and exclusively to the- objects for which it is established;

(ii) the asscssee will uot invest or deposit its funds other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, fur- niture or any other article as may be notified by the Board under the third provisions to the aforesaid clause (23) for any period dur- ing the previous years relevant to the assess- ment years mentioned above otherwise)than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of its income 'n any manner to its members except us grants to any association or institution affi- liated to it: and

(ivi this notification will not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the attainments of the objectives of the assessee and separate boolts of accounts arc maintain- ed in respect of such business.

[Notification No. 26/2001/F. No. 196/17/2000-ITA-T1

SAMAR BHADRA, Under S e o. MINISTRY OF F1NANCR (Department of Revenue)

CF.NTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES Ne*v Delhi, the 6th fcbmaiy, 2001 (INCOME-TAX)

S O. 997.—Is exercise of the powers conferred by clause (23) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 207) New Delhi, the 16th March, 2001

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 998.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (23) of Section 10 ot the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of L961), the Central Government hereby notifies the "'Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai" tor the purpose of the said clause for assessment years 1998-1999 to 20QO-2QOI subject to the following conditions, namely :—-

(i) the assessec will apply its income, or accu- mulate it toi application, in consonance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) ot Section 11 as modified by the said claus"* (23) for such accumulation wholly and ex- clusively to the objects for which it is estab- lished;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund.-! (other than voluntary contiibutions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, fur- niture or anj tyther article as may be notified by the Board under the third provision to the aloresaid clause (23) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment year^ mentioned above uiherwise) than in any one or moie of the forms or modes specified in sub-scctJor (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of its income in r.ivy manner to its members except as gouts to any association or institution affiliated fo it; and

(iv) thia notification will not apply in lelauon io any income, being profits and gains ot busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the uftjinnicnK ol" the objectives of the a^essee and si'paiutt' books of accounts aie maintain-

ed in re.pect of aich business.

(.Notification No. 68/2001/F. No. 19rt/]3/9S-ITA-I]

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2001

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 999.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of Section fO of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies, the "Shree Gangadharcsh- war Trust? Rishikesh, U.P." for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumu- late for application, wholly and - exclusively lo the objects fur which it ib csUbliishcJ;

(ii) the essesses will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jeyel- lery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessec and separate books of accounts are maintain- ed in respect of such business.

(iv) the asse.ssee will regularly file its return of income before the income-tax authoritv in accordance with the provisions of the Income- tax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 70/2001/F. No. 197/116/2000- ITA-I1

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2001 UNCOME-1AX)

S.O. 1000'.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (23) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies the "The Karnalaka State Billiards Associa- tion, Bangalore" for the purpose of the said clause for assessment years 2000-2001 to 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumu- late it for application, in consonance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section .11 as modified by the said clause (23) lor t'uch accumulation wholly and ex- clusively to the objects for which it is estab- lished;

(ii) the .ifisessc-e will not invent or deposit its funds (othei than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, fur- niture or any other article as may he notified by the Board under the third provision to the afnrcsaid clause (23) for any period dur- ing the previous years relevant to the assess- ment years mentioned above otherwise) than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (3) of Section 11;

ao7$ (iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of Us income in any manner to its rnembeis except as grants to any association or institution a(U- liated to it; and

New Delhi, the 11th Apjil, 2001 (IV) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the attainments of the objectives of the assessce and separate books of accounts arc maintain- ed in lespocl of such business.

(INCOME-TAX) [Notification No 74/2001/F. No. 196/4/2001-1TA-IJ

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

S.Q. 1001.—In exercise ol the powers conferred by clause (23) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of ll)6l), the Central Government hereby notifies the "Kf-tula Football Association, Thiruvn- nanthapuram" tor the purpose of the said clause for assessment years 1999-2000 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessce will apply its income, oi accumu- late it fcr application, in consonance with the piovj iions of sub-sections (2) and (3) ol Section 11 tiS modified by the said clause (23) for such accumulation wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assess&e will not invest Oi deposit its funds (other than voluntaiy contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, fur- niture or any other article as may be notified by the Board under the third provision to the afoiesaid clause (23) for any period during ihe picviouy years relevant to the assessment yeais mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(m) the assessec will not distribute any part of its income m any manner to its members except as grants 1o any association or institution

affiliated to it; and

(iv) this notification will not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gams of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to tho attainments of the objectives of the assessee and sepaiate books of accounts are maintain-

ed in respect of such business.

I N o t a t i on No. Q5/2001/F. No. 196/9/2001 -ITA-IJ SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secv2080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAV 19, 2 0 0 1/ VA1SAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the J lth May, 2001

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1002.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central 'Government hereby specifies the "Ernakulam JCshctra Kshcma Samithi, lirnakularn, Kochi" to be a place of public worship ot renown throughout the State of Kerala and other neai by States for the purpose of the jLiid Section.

7'hc notification will be valid only for the repair/ renovation work for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002.

[Noiificaion No. 123/2001/F. No. 176/24/2000- ITA-1] SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise Madurai, the 25th April, 2001

No. 02112001 -CUSTOMS (N.T.)

S.O. 1003.—In exercise of powers conferred on me under Section 9 of the Customs Actx 1962 (52 of 1962) read with Notification No. 33/94 CustomsfN.T.) dated 1-7-94 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance^ Department of Revenue, New Delhi, I hereby declare "Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District" in tht State of Tamil Nadu to be a warehousing station under the Customs Act [%2 (52 of 1962) for the purpose of setting up of 100 per cent Kxport Oriented Undertakings.

[File C. No. IV/16/47/2001-T. 2] N. SASIDHARAN, Commissioner (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2001¹

S.O. 1004.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management alnd Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, the Central Government, hereby nominate Shri Ajay Maroo, (Chief Editor, Rahchi Express, Hindi Daily, Ranchi) resident of Express Bhavan, 55, Baralal Street, Ranchi-1 as a part-time non-official director on the Board of Oriential Bank of Commerce for a period of three years with effect from 3rd May, 2001.

[F. No. 9|17|2000-B.O.I(i)]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Ueihi, the 3rd May, 2001 S.O. 1005.—Tn exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act. 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and 5081 JNfliscellancous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, the Central Government, hereby nominate Shri Tulsi Agarwal, Businessman, resident of B - l l l, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Dclhi-110052 as a part-time non-official direc- tor on the Board of Dena Bank for a period of three ypars with effect from 3rd May, 2001.

[P. No. 9|17|2000-B.O.I(inj RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, Ihe 4th May, 2001

S.O. 1006.—In exercise of thu powers conferred by cjause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of tht Bank- ing Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Under- takings) Act, 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government after consul- tation with the reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri M. S. Kapur, presently Executive Director, Punjab and Sincf Bank as Executive Director, (whole-time director), Syndicate Baink for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 31st March, 2006 i.e. Upto the date of his superannuation,

[No. 9|5|2001-B.O.I]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

Company, subject to the following terms and condi- tions, namely.—

(1) tire said Company shall re-imburse the Cen- tral Government 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, the 4th Ma>, 2001

(2) a tribunal shall be constituted for the pur- pose of determning the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Company under condition OK'nnd¹ all ex- penditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons aprxiinted to assist the tribunal shall be borne by xhi said Com- pany and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands so vesting shall also be boine by the said Company;

SO 1007—Whereas on the i>ublication of the noti- fication of the Government of India in the Ministiy of Coal number S.O 1938 elated the 17th Angus! 2000 issued under sub-section (i) of cection 9 of the Coal Bearing Aieas (Acquisition and Development Act 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinaffei leferred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 2nd September 2000, the land and rights in or ovci the lands as described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter leferred to as the said land?) vcsfed absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of' section 10 of the said Act;

yms

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001

S.O. 1008.—Whereas n appears to the Central Geovernmnt that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Govern- ment hereby gives notice of its intcntidn to prospect for coal therein;

The pUui bearing Tso. C-l (E)IIl/FR/669-042000 dated the 27th April, 2000 of the area covered by this noti- fication can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta.

1364 GI120O1—2-584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other docu- ments referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Head of the Department (Revenue), Western Coalfields, Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpvr-440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the dale of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

SINGORI BLOCK

NAGPUR AREA

DISTRICT NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

(Plan No. C-l rE)TTI/FR/669-042000, dated the 27th April, 2000).

Tahsil

District Area in hectares Remarks Patwari circle number

SI. Nun

Name of Village nber

2

4

6 1

3

5

12

Parseoni

238.40

Dorli

Nagpur

1.

Part

Parseoni

325.40

12

Nagpur

2. Saholi

Part 12

Parseoni

250.80

Nagpur

3.

Part Singori

Total area : 814.60 hectares (approximately)

or

2012 95 acres (approximately) Boundary description :

A—B

: Line starts from point 'A' and passes through village Singori then passes along the outer boundary of village Singori and proceeds through village Dorli and meets at point 'B'.

B—C—D : Line passes along the common village boundry of villages Dorli and Waghoda then passes through village Dorli and meets and point ' D\

—A : Line passes through village Saholi then proceeds through village Singori and meets at starting point "A\

[No. 43015/2/2001-PRIW]

SANIAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy 208520"6 *fW8 GAZETTE OF INtHA - MAY 4^ 2001 / VAJSAK#£ 29, 1923 [PART W*^tow 3(0^ 208*2088 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19* 2001/ VAlSAltHA 29, 1923 P A *T II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health)

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.O. 1009.—fn exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) the Central Government, after consultation with the Medical Council of India hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

Tn the said First Schedule,—

(a) against the "Buba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot", under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the entry 'Doctor of Medicine (Ophthalmology and the 2089 entry relating thereto under the heading ' abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

M.S. (E.N.T.)

"Master of surgery (E.N.T.)

(This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after November, 1999, in respect of Government Medical College, Amritsar)

Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)

M.D. (Psychiatry) (This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after July 1999, in respect of Dayanand Medical College,

Ludhiana)";

(b) against the "Banaras Hindu University", in column (2), after the entry 'Doctor of Medicine (Endocrino- logy), and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

(Plastic Surgery)

"Master of Surgery

M. Ch. (Plastic Surg.) (This qualiflction shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after June, 1978, in respect of the Institute of Medical

Sciences, Varanasi)";

(c) against the "Bundelkhand University", in column (2) after the entry 'Doctor of Medicine (General Medi- cine)' and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)

M.D. (Paediatrics) (This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after May, 1983, in respect of M.L.B. Medical College, Jhansi).

Diploma in Child Health

D.C.H. (This qualifiction shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after May, 1982, in respect of M.L.B. Medical College Jhansi)";

(d) after "Bharthiar University" under the heading 'University of Medical Institution' [hereinafter referred to as column (1)] and the entries relating thereto in column (2) and in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :

(2)

(3)

0)

"Bharati Vidyapeeth

MBBS

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(This qualification shall be a recognised medical quali- fication when granted in or after December, 2000 in respect of Bharati Vidyapeeth Medical College, Dhankawadi, Pune");

(c) against the "University of Gujarat", in column (2), after the entry "Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology) and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely •—

(3)

(2)

"Master of Surgery (Plastic Surgery)

M. Ch. (Plastic Surg.)

(This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after March, 1990, in respect of B.J, Medical College, Ahmedabad)";

(f) against the "Guru Naoak University", m column (2), after the entry 'Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology & Venereology)' and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

0)

'Master of Surgery (E.N.T.)

M.S(E.N.T.) (This qulification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted from 1970 to 1975 in respect of Government Medical College, Amritsar");

(g) against the "Guru Nanak Dev University", in column (2), after ths entry "Doctor of Maiiciao (Psychiatry)' and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall to inserted, nansly : -

(3)

(2)

M.S. (E.N.T.)

"Master of Surgery (E.N.T.)

(This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted from 1975 to November, 1999, in respect of Government Medical College, Amritsar)" ;

(h) against the "Jaramu University", in column (2), after the entry 'Master of Surgery (Ajiato-ny), and th", entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely •—

(21

(3)

M.S. (E.N.T.)

"Master of Surgery (E.N.T.)

(This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after June, 1984, in respact of Government Medical College, Jammu)

Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)

M.S. (Orthopaedics) (This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after November, 1985, in respect of Government Medical College, Jammu)" ;

(i) against the "University of Kerala", in column (2), after the entry "Diploma in Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases' and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(3)

(2)

D.M. (Cardiology)

"Doctor of Medicine (Cardiology)

(This qualification shall be a rocQgniaod medical qual'Bcation when granted in or after 1989. in respect of Medical College, Thiruvau- anthapuram)" ;

w (j) against the "Kanpur University*', in column (2), aftor. the entey *Dactor "f Medicine (Casfvlioloftyy a il the entry relating thereto in oolu n 1 (3), tha following shall bo insented^ naawly :-~

(3)

(2)

"Magistral Chirurgiae (Cardio-Vascular

•ad Thoracic Surgery)

M. Ch, (CVTS) (This qualification ihall be a recognised modical qualification when granted in of after January, 1992, in rcsp;ct of L.P.S. Intitule of Cardiology, attached with O.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur) Doctor of Medicine (Radio-therapy)

M.D. (Radio-therapy)

(This qualification shafl bo a recognised rasdical qualification whea granted in or after November, 1982, in respect &PJ.K. Cancer Institute attached with O.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur).'' (k) after "Madurai Karaaraj University" and the cotjLe" relating thereto the following jh.aU be i n w ii d (1)

(3)

m

Diploma in Anaesthesia

"Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nasifc

D.A. D.O.

D.M.R.D.

Diploma in Ophthalmology Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis Diploma in Radiation Medicine

Diploma in Medical Radio Therapy

D.R.M. D.M.RT

Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics Diploma in Child Health

D.G.O. D.C.H.

Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine and D.O.M.S.

Surgery

D.p.H D.T.D. D.T.C.D.

Diploma in.Public Health Diploma in Tuberculosis Diseases Diploma in Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases

Diploma in Laryn gology and Otology D.L.O. D.C.P

Diploma in Clinical Pathology Diploma in Venereology and Dermatology D.V.D. D.C.D.

Diploma in Chest Disease Diploma in Psychological Medicine Diploma in Medical Virology Diploma in Hospital Administration, Diploma in Industrial Health

D.P.M. P.M-V. D.H.A. D,I.H,

Master of Hospital Administration

M-H.A. (The above qualifications "haii be recognised medical quali- fications when granted in at after June, 2000)" ;

(1) against the "Punjab University", in column (2), after the entry 'Diploma in Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion* and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following "hall be inserted, aaiaely :—

(2)

(3)

"pftetor of Medicwe (P"ycW"ry>

M.D. (Psychiatry)

(This qualification shall bo a recognised medical qualification When ' granted from October, 19ff5 to 30th June, 1999, in respect of Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana)" ;

r

I3"4 GI|2 -mi THE GAZETTE OF INCTA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, i9ij> [PAW n^jgc- 3(ipy

(m) against the "Ranch! University", in column (2), after th" entry 'Diploma in Ophthalomology' and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall be inserted, namely :

(3)

(2)

"Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics D.O.O.

(This qualification shall bo a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after 1911, in respect of Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi)M ;

(n) Against the "sauratfhtra University", In column (2), after the entry Doctor of Modicln* (Pharmacologyp.

and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following, shall be inserted, namely :

(3)

(2)

DC.P.

"Diploma in Clinieal Pathology

(This qualification shall bo a recognised medieal qualification when- granted in or after Juno, 1974, in respect or M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar)" ;

(o) against the "Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow™, in column (2), afte" tho entry 'Doctor of Medicine (Radio-therapy)' and the entry relating thereto in column (3), the following shall b* inserted, namely :

(3)

(2)

"Doctor of Medicine (Blood Banking and

M.D. (B.B.T.)/(I.B.T.) (This qualification shall bs a recognised medical qualification when granted in or after December, 1992) M.D. (Nuclear Medicine)

lmmuno-haemotology)/(Tmmuno- haemotology and Blood Transfusion) Doctor of Medicine (Nuclear Medicine)

(This qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted in or after June, 1993)".

[F. No. V. 11015/3/2001-ME (Policy-I)} P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVIATION

(Delhi Division)

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2001

S.O. 1010.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I), read with clause (g) of sub-section (3) of Section J ot the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957), the Central Government hereby nomi- nates Shri A. K. Jha, Member Secretajry, NCR Planning Board as Member of Delhi Development Authority vice Smt. Santa I. Das and makes the following amendments ui the notification of the Gov- ernment of India, Ministry of Health No. 12-173|57- LSG daited 30-12-1957, namely :

"In item No. 10, for the entry -"Smt. Sarita

J. Das, Member Secretary, National Capital Region Planning Board", the following entry shall be substituted namely, "Shri A. K. Jha, Member Secretary, National Capital Regioa Planning Board".

[No. K-11O11|2O|97-DDIA)

V. K. MISRA, Under Secy.

2093 1364GI/2001—42094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19,2001 VAISAKHA29.1923 [PART II—SBC. 3 (li)] 20952096 ^ _ __ THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA: MAY 19,2001 VAISAKHA 29.1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 20972098 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .MAY 19,2001 VAISAKHA29,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001

s.o.ioiL— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that It is necessary In the public Interest that for the transportation of petroleum products through Mangalore to Bangalore In the State of Karnataka, a Pipeline should be laid by M/s. Petronet MHB Limited;

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

Now, therefore, In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline*(Acquisltion of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of- 1962), the Central Government hereby declares Its intention to acquire the right of user in the land described In the said Schedule;

Any person, interested In the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of user therein or laying ofthe pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Mangalore Bangalore Pipeline Project, Old Deputy Commissioner's Office Compound, Mangalore-575 001, Karnataka.

2099

SCHEDULE

STATE : K A RN AT A KA D I S T R I C T: DAKSHINAKANNADA

2101

STATE: KARNATAKA DISTRICT: HASSAN

1364GV2001—6

2102

STATE: KAHNATAKA DISTRICT: CHICKMAGLUR

[No. R-31015/3/98 OR-I1 Part] HARISH KUMAR, Undcr-Secy.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 23id April, 2001

S.O. 1012.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby i publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in tho Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern'Railway and their workman, which was received by tne Central Govern- ment on 20-4-2001.

[No. L-41012/l8/92-IR(DU)/(fl-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 52 ol 1993

Sh. Asha Ram, S/o Sh. Lalu Ram, R/o Mohra Mandi, Near F.C.I. Gate No. 122, Ambala Cantt.

Petitioner

Versus

Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt-133001.

. . .. Respondent REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman : None.

For the Management : Shrl P. P. Khorana,

AWARD

(Passed on 22-2-2001)

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Noti- fication No. L-41012/18/92-I.R.(D.U.) dated 22nd March, 1993 has referred the folloiwng dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the mamigcmcnt of Northern Railway Ambala Cantt, in terminating the services of Shrj Asha Ram w.e.f. 8-10-K9 is justified ? If not What relief he is entitled to?"

2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he was employed as a Khalasi under PWI Kalka for the period from 30-5-83 to 8-10-89. Thus the workman had worked for 312 days. The workman was engaged again on 5-2-90 udner tho supervision of PWI Dhuri. His services were termianted after serving for only three dnys. He was again asked to appear before selection committee on 12-6-1990 at Subordinate Rest House for filling ut the post of safaiwal:i 1J64 (JJ/2001^6

2103 en regular basis. But the result of that committee has not been communicated to the workman till date. The juniors persons have been made regujjr in service during the year 1986. Thus the management has violated the provisions of Section 25-G of I.D. Act. The vacancies are still lying vacant under the control of PWI Kalka but he is not asked to iejoin his post. The termination of the services of the workman is illegal, void and malaftde against the provisions of I D. Act directed to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of 1947, The workman has prayed that the management be service.

3. As per averments made in written statement, the case of the management in blief is that the workman has worked as casual labour gangman for the period from 30-5-1983 to 10-6-1983 (12 days), 1-6-93 to 14-7-83 (33 days), and 15-7-83 to 13-8-83 (30 days.) during the year 1983. He has also worked for 26 days from 20-12-1986 to 14-1-1987. After that he worked for 125 days during the year 19R7. No selection was made by the management^ on 12-6-1990 as alleged by tho applicant in his claim statement. As per record the selection for deployment of carriage cleaner, safaiwala from the live casual labour register was conducted on 31-8-1991. The workmaii was also amongst those candidates who were called for deployment and who were found fit as carriage cleaner subject to medical examination, age relexation appointing authority and casual labour card as.well as the approval of General Manager was also needed. But the approval of General Manager has not been received so far. There are a number of candidates having casual service more than the service of the workman waiting in the live casual labour register for want of vacancy. The temporary status has been given to those casual labourer who has completed 120 days of service without breaks. He was temporarily engaged foi track renewal monson petrolling etc. and after completion of monson patiolling his services were terminated by the management. The management has prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed with cost.

4. The workman has filed replication in which he hai admitted that he was summoned frr re-employment. Rest of the averments made in the claim statement have been re-iterated in replication.

5. The workman has filed his affidavit (Wl) and the other documents which have been exhibited as Ex. W2 and W3, The management has filed the affidavit of Shri A, K. Ray Pcimanent Way Inspector Kalka. No document has been produced by tho management in this case. The woikmiin has deposed in his affidavit that he had worked as a khalasi under PWI Kalka for 312 days during the period from 30-5-1983 to 8-10-1989 intermittantly. He was called to appear for selection committee on 12-6-1990 and the result of said selection has not been communicated to him. The junior persons have been retained in service. But the services of the workman were terminated ignoring the provisions of Section 25-H of I.D. Act 1947. Alongwith letter dated 12-6-1986 (Ex. W2) screening list has been submitted by the workman. Rules of the selection Ex. W3 has aho been submitted along- with his affidavit.

6. The witness of the management has deposed that the workman had worked for 226. days during the period from 30-5-83 to 29-9-1987. According to him the workman had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The witness of the management could not be cross-examined because the rep. of the firm opinion that the management is proved the charges was given to him, The workman in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not completed 120 days continuously at any time. He has not given the details of working days during the period from 30-5-1983 to 8-10-1989 Therefoie, it can not be held that he had worked for 240 days within 12 calender months preceding to the date of termination of his services. As per reference order trie date of termination of the services of the workman is 8-10-19R9 Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F do not apply in this case.

7. The workman has pleaded in his claim statement that junior persons were retained in service and his services were terminated by the management. In suprj.ut of this contention the screening list has been submitted which has been attached to Ex. W2. On the persual of screening list it is noticed that it WPS pr-pared considering the date nf appointment and number of working days. Tn this list the name of tho work- man lias not been mentioned. The name of those casual 2104

labouici who had completed 120 duyb of teivice without break have been included m it. At 5enal No. I the name of Shii Krishan Lai Sharma has been mentioned The date i.f his appointment is 11-7-72 and number of working days ate 2173. lhc name of the last workman is Devi Saran. His date of appointment it, 11-7-79 and nurnbsi of working dins> are 189. But the workman had not worked for 120 days at any time continuously, the management has given tcmpoiaiy status to those casual labourers who had completed 120 davs of service without break. The screening list has been piepaied taking into consideration the position as on 31-3-1986. At that time the workman was not in the sen ice of the manage- ment. The omission of his name does, not mean that the employees junior to him were retained in service. The work- man has admitted in his cross-examinauoi that the selection was made on 31-8-1991. the result of that selection has not been communicated to him. The witness of the management has deposed that the approval of Geneia! Manager has not been received so far. Therefore, no appointment in regular cadre has been made by the management.

8. The workman has submitted the copy of Rly. Establish- ment mannual in which guide lines of recruitment and training has been given. It has been marked as Ex. W3. For regular employment four months service is essential length of service was to be considered for ".ppo< atme.it in reguldi cadre. The length of service of the workman was shorter than the last candidate shown in screeaing list. Therefoie. it can not be held that the junior pe.son; were retained in services and the services of the woikman were terminated contarvening the provisions of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. 1947. No appointment has been made in regular cadre for want of approval of General Manager. Thus the management has not violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. Besides this, in reference ordei the term relating to the piovisions of Section 25-H has not been stated.

9 Keeping in view the evidence adduced in this, case it has not been found that the management ha> violated the pro- visions of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act 19 17. Therefore, it can not be held that the termination of the services of the workman was unjustified. Consequently, the reference is answered that the action of the management m terminating the services of Shri Asha Ram w.e.f. 8-10 89 is justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief from management. The parties shall heai their own cost. Appropriate Govrnement be informed.

tlte

8. Thereafter 1 have heard the Second Party counsel and peiused all the records. The first party has remained absent.

y. In view of the finding given regarding domestic enquiiy holding that same is valid and proper, now the question that would arise for my consideration would be whether the punishment awarded is proportionate or any intcrfcience is required.

10, It is clear fiom Ihc material befoie me rind the docu- ments, that the charge against the first paity is grievous in nature and fhst party being responsible official of the bank has not maintained his integrity and the misconduct is serious because it is a case of misappropriation. The fiist paity could not convince as to how tho punishment is not pro- poitionate. I have perused all the enquiry papers and I am of the opinion that the evidence against the first party is sufficient to say that he has misappropriated the amount and committed grievous misconduct. It is seen from the records that the first party "after giving charge sheet gave explana- tion saying that he borrowed Rs. 300 fiom the customer. It is surprising that in the second reply he says that the customer on the same day subsequently he encashed the other slip also. In other words there is no consistency in the stand taken by the first party. All this would "o to show that his submissions are not fair and he is not honest in ex- plaining the charge sheet issued to him. In view of this T am of the firm opinion that the management is proved the charge and the explanation given by the first party is not correct und the misconduct is serious. I have already stated that the first party has not explained as to how the punishment, in the given circumstances is not proportionate, 11. Consideiing the mateii.i) before me T am of the opinion that (he management hai proved charges and there is no merit in this reference. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribe by her, corrected and signed by me on 18th April, 2001).

V. N. KULKARN1, Picsiding Office New Delhi, the 24th April, 2001

S,O. 1014.—In pursuance of Section 17 of (he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Ooveinmcnt hereby publishes the award of Ihe Central Govi nment In- dustrial Tribunal|Labonr Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the cmnloyei¹; in relation to the management of State Bank of India nnd thoir workman, which was received by the Centinl Gov- ernment on 23-4-2001,

[No. L-I2012/2l5/92-TR(Br>l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Office.

ANNRXURE

BEFORF THF CFNTRAl, GOVERNMfNTINDUST- RIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-I AHOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 19th April, 2001

PRESENT :

llon'ble Shii V. N. Kulkaini B. Com. LLB,, Presiding Officer.

C. R. No. 8193

I PARTY

Sii Shankrappa S|t> Rekappa Lamani, C|o Shn l.S. Uppin, No. 2K, 2nd Floor, I BX'TU Complex, NeJgin Road, Hubli.

II PARTY

Tho Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ranebanpur Branch, Dharwad.

AWARD

1, The Cciilral Government by c\cirising the powers con- ferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-Section 2A of the Section JO of the Indusirhl Disputes Act, 1947 has rcfuued this dispute vide Older No. L-12O12[215|92-1R Bl dntod 1-2-1993 foi adjudication on the following srheduk-,

SCHEDULE

"Whethei the action of the State Hank of India in treat- ing Shii Shanknrnppa, Messenger, as having volun- tarily retired from service w.e.f. 21-K-91 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief(s) the workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

2, Notices were issued to pailies and panics filed claim statement and counter respectively.

3, The First Paity w.is appointed as Temporary Messenger w.e.f. 13-7-85. He completed probationery period. He was drawing basic scale of pay of Rs. 430 to 790 per nronth in the year 198fi nnd the hrst parly belong to SC and pbyscially handicapped nnd the action of the management was not justified, so Me laiscd dispute.

4, fn the Claim Statement it it stated that some time he hud remained absent to look after his aged and old mother, he could not satisfy some of the stiff and the staff in collu- sion with the other customer made false allegation and charge sheet was given. He has not committed any misconduct. The domestic enquiry was held but that was not fair and pioper. The voluntary reliremcnt is anK absolute right of the emp- loyee. The action of the second party in \olnntarily letiring ihe applicant w.e.f. 21-8-91 by the news paper publication in Mis. Sanyuktha Karnataka daily on dated fi-6-92 amounts illegal termination of the flist party. The First Party is entitle for reinstatement. All other details are stated in parn 8 to 11 of the Claim Statement and the first party has pray- ed to pass an awaid in his favom.

5, Second Party filed counter contending that the allegations made bv the fiist party are not coned Tho first paity was a habitual absentee and used to remain absent without taVinc prior permission from the superiors. Sevenl notices w^'c issued but (he fiisi pnitv has no) improved himself. Rejimdins setvir", demils ;T? staled in parl 4 and S of the counter. The notion of the second pnrtv has also in accordant with rh" Blfvtitc Seii'ement. Such habi- tual absenteeism has to be looked into verv o-riously. Second party f'T thfsr- rcnl"ns h^s nrpy'd to ipieft the vefcicnca The action taken by the Second Partv in respect of voluntary ictnc- m 'nt is crn-cct as explained in the Cnun'rr Statement.

fi Tl ;s s-een f'^m ih'* iccnrds I In* rvftei filine iMaim sfate- ment and counier parties are nnt interested in the niogiess of 1 lie case There WHS an 'tnnlicniinn on behalf of the first party to fix the rase at Hubli and-thereafter the first TOny hi" not arneaml. 2n\ Pn>fv al i h'muinrd -ibscnt. Sufficient adjournments were t:\vcr\ but 1st partv diil not appear I liavc- <;ern the prorfurfd evidence and t)ie document'], Thr ir .\ n^e of 1993 tlierefoie, I closed the case. In view of the facts that2106 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] the parties remained absent, I feel ends of Justice will meet if I pass the following order and accordingly following order is passed.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, coireeled and signed by me on 19th April, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 1015.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Induhtwal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Arbitrator—Shi i B. R. S. Reddy, Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai as shown in the Anne.xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Repco Bank Ltd., Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-4-200 I.

[No. L-12012/94/99-IR(B-D]

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR SHRI B.R.S. REDDY, REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C), CHENNAI IN THH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEbN THE MANAGE- MENT OF REPCO BANK LTD., AND THEIR WORKMAN REPRESENTED BY THE TAMILNADU BANKS DEPOSIT COLLECTORS' UNION BEFORE:

Shri B.R.S. Reddy, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central, Chennai-6.

AND

Arbitrator.

PARTIES:

BETWEEN

Tamiinadu Banks Deposit Collectors' Union : Workman

AND

The Management of Repco Bank Ltd., Chennai: Management (2nd party) APPEARANCE:

For the Management: Shri R. Thavathurainathan, Divisional Manager.

For the Union : Shri U. P. Shetli,

Presfdent of the Union.

AWARD

By its order No. L-12012/94/99-IR(B-I) dated 1-3-1999, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour published in part II, Section 3, sub-section tf0

•'Whether the demand of the Tamilnadu Banks Deposit Collectors' Union for reinstatement of Shri P. Nedumaran by the Management oi Repco Bank Ltd., is justified 7 If so, to what relief the workman ii entitled to ?"

On receipt of this reference, this Industrial Dispute has bei:n taken on hie of tins Arbitrator on 10-3-1999 and awaited for the claim statements from the paities. Only the Union (1st party) filed their claim statement on 26-4-1999 and Ihe same is taken on record. The 2nd party since not submitted their claim statement the copy of the claim statement of the 1st paity was sent to them on 17th August 1999, requesting them to file their claim statement on or before 7th Septem- ber, 1999. In pursuance to the above the 2nd party submitted their claim statement which was received on 8th September, 1999.

The averments in the claim Statomnet of the Union (1st party) are as under :—

1. that, "Shri P, Nedumaian was appointed as a deposit dliector by the 2nd party vide then' appointment order dated 30-8-95 at their Tnchy Branch. He was collecting on an average Rs. 300,000 per month at the time of termination • of his services and was earning a monthly remuneration of Rs. 6000. The monthly earnings differ according to collection of cash towards the deposit accounts. The 2nd party advised him to stop collections orally and terminated his services without assigning any reasons. His services were terminated on 16-5-96. The 2nd party did not refund to representations submitted by Sri Nedumaran and 1st party.

2. that, the 2nd party in their leply to tho statement of complaint lodged before the RLC(C) stated that Sri Nedumaran is not an employee of the Bank and he is not governed by Sec, 2usj of I.D. Act. His service^ according to them is a contract for service and not a contract of service. According to the 2nd party that Sri Nedumaian has misused funds collected by him and he had also borrowed money. They further stated that his service was terminated invoking the terms of agreement.

3. that, ftie 1st party respectfully submits that the action of the 2nd party is wrongful.' They did not issue any memo levelling allegations of misuse of funds collected and/or wrongful borrowings from the customers ot the Bank. In the absence of proving the charges by holding an enquiry, the allegations cannot be accepted and the action of the 2nd party cannot be justified.

4. that, the Industrial TJribunal of Chennai, Kerala and Andhra have; held that the deposit collectors of Banks are part-time employees and workmen. In the case of Indian Bij ik the Chennai Industrial Tribunal and High Court have held that the deposit collector K workman. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ appeal of the Indian Bank thereby confirming the workman status of the deposit collectors. The Supreme Court has granted interim stay of the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Hyderabad coverinp 47 Banks who have employed deposit collectors. Therefore the award is yet to be implemented. However the 1st party submits that their claim is not for implementation of the award provisions. The Apex court has already confirmed the workman status.

5. that, in the light of the above rtatemrnts, the 1st party submits that the action of the 2nd party in stopping collection of funds towards the accounts of the customers and thereby terminating his services on the plea of contract is not justified and he should be taken' back in service with back wages which c:in be determined by the Arbitrator.

6.-that, the 1st party is filing a list of documents which may be marked.

7. that, the 1st party Union requests the Arbitrator lo pass orders for reinstatement of Sri Nedumaran at their Trichy Branch-withi monetary benefits."

The averments in the claim statement of the Management (2nd party) are as under:—

1. that, "the claim of the first party is false, frivolous, vexatious and is liabJe to be dismissed in hmmo. The patry of tiie tirst pan is put to strict proof of the allegations which are not specifically admitted herein.

2 that, it is submitted that Sri P. Nedumaran's case cannot be considered within the scope of 2(a) ol Industrial Disputes Act. 194/ since he was neither dismissed, nor discharged or retienched'by the Bank, but he deserted his contract,appoint- ment on his own. Further, he wan not employed for hire or reward and there is no employer-employee relationship between the Bank and himself. Besides these, he was not also in Bank's pay rolls. Sri P. Nedurnarar. was engaged only, as Daily Deposit Collector at our Trichy Branch vide our pro- ceedings Re No. 8254/88/G1, dated 30-8-95 purely on the following specific terms and conditions agreed by Sri P. Nedumaran himself :

Clause 1 : his- tenure was purely on contract basis which will neither entitle him any permanent ftmploy- ment in the Bank, ngr wry of the privileges available to other staff members of the Bank.

Clause 4: he should undertake daily deposit and N.O.S.B. collection and cover all the account holders every day in the area allotted to him, achieve the collection target fixed to him, render proper accounts and remit the collection amount into Trichy Branch of the Bank.

Clause 6: for his collodion woik, he will be paid commission of 2 per cent on Daily Deposit and 1 per cent on N.O.S.B.. cpllectioni Clause 7 : within 3 months, he should achieve a collec- tion of not less than Rs. 5,000 per day failing which appointment, may be terminated at Bank's discretion without prior notice.

Clause 14 : the contract is liable for termination at any point of time without giving any prior notice or assigning any reasons therefor, Sri P. Nedumaran has undertaken the assignment in Bank duly agreeing to the above terms and conditions. While joining the Bank he has executed art Indemnity Bond on 6-9-95 declaring that he is not an employee of the Bank and to discharge his duties faithfully. The above facts will prove that his engagement as Daily Deposit Collector in the Bank was absolutely on * contract basjs with commission payment proportionatt to his deposit collection without any hire or reward.

3. that, the contention of the petitioner that stopping Sri P. Nedumaran from work amounts to termination is baseless and against the truth. In fact, he himself deserted collection work on his own accord with effect from 14-5-96 in the wake of an interrogation about his misuse of collection amount for his personal use which came to light durinq the routine checking of collection amount with customers. It wns also found out that he had been ic the habit of taking loans from customers, abusing his connection with in the Bank, to make good short collections. He confessed on his failings to the Manager, Trichy Branch. After that on his own did not turn up for collection work from 14-5-96. With great difficulty, we collected back the collection record cards entrusted with him from his residence in the interest of customers and also to i:tve the Bank's reputation As he deserted the service in the Bank on his own accord without any notice to the Bank whatsoever, the contract of appoint- ment ceased from the date of his desertion.

4. that the nature of duty involves dealing with public iTfl^s A squires high integrity with honesty and calibre. He lacked those qualities. The question of reinstatement does

2ia7 not arise in view of the desertion, of service on his. own accord and jn the abseupe of rewired qualtfiw to function as a c o i t i on agent pf the yBajofc,

We conclude that:—

1. as Sri P- Nedumaran was engaged aa Daily Deposit Collector purely on contract basis, the term of which where duly accepted by him,

2. as he,deserted woik on his own accord without any prior intimation to the Bank, abruptly stopping the- collection, even while informal enquiries about his misdeeds were initiated; by his desertion he himself .violated, the terms ,of his contract and- caused breach of trust beside*, dislocating- the normal functioning of the Bank resulting in financial implications.

3. as he was found not possessing the essential qualities of integrity, honestly, required; for a collection agent, the question of his reinstatement does not arise.

Further, we wish to add that since his engagement with the Bank is governed by specific terras and conditions, this is not a matter to be con$jd,ered; under. Industrial Deputes Act, Hence, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed in limine."

Since the paities submitted their respective claims both were summpned to appear before the Arbitrator on 23rd September, 1999 to adduce their evidence on the Dispute. Only the reprpsentatLv© of the Management was present and the proceedings were adjourned to give the Union an opportu- nity in adhering- the principles - of natural Justice. Next proceedings were fixed for 11th October, 1999 and parlies are. intimated accordingly. Both parties wore presenf in the proceedings held on 11th October, 1999. The Union filed their documents and the same were taken on record and copies of the same were given to the 2nd party. The manage- ment sought time i for filing their detailed reply countering the contention* of the union and they were directed to file endorsing a copy to- the Union so that the Union can ateo file their reply if they so desired. Time, was allowed for the said exercise till 29-1CM999. Next proceedings were fixed for 1st November, 1999 with the consent of both parties.

The 2nd party filed their additional claim statement which reads as under :—

1. that, "the judgment filed by the Union is not at all relevant to this case, for the reason that this Bank is not governed by Banking Regulations Act. Ours Is the Co- operative Society Registered upde/ the Madras Cooperative Societies Act and Is dqemed, to be registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.

2. that, the contention of the 1st party that Sri P. Nedu- maran, was terminated from the service Is not coircct. During the course of our checking, it came io light that few of the customers informed that the Daily Deposit collector Sri P. Nedumaran is in the habit of taking loans from them to make good the Shortfall in collepdon. amount The daily Deposit Collector als,o confessed to this and debited collection work on his. own accord with effect from 14-5-1996 in the wake of an interrogation abput his, misuse of collection amonut for his personal use, Hei voluntarily handed over all the collection records beards and discontinued collection works.

3. that, Sri P. Nedumaran accepted the conditions laid down by this party that his tenure was purely on. contract ba^is which will neither entire him any permanent- employ- ment in the Bank nor any of the privileges available to the other staff members of the Bnnk.,Now he is estopped from questionirttt the proceedjrig'' issued by this party in Re No. 8254/88/G1 dated 30-8-95.

4. that, as already stated Shri P. Nedumarau's engagement with the Bank is governed by specific terms and condtii'ons, this is not n matter to be considered under Industrial Disputes Act'¹

The 1st party alf,o filed their submissions against additional claim frttttfment of the 2nd party whk!> r-ad9 as und"r :—

I. that, "the roanagem&m of the Bant .has sianed an agree- ment before the Regional Labour • CoHHoissfoiwfC) for arbitration of the dispute, under the Industrial Disputes Act,2108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART it—SEC. 3(ii)] and accordingly ihc Claim statements have been filed by the lsl party. Tne lit party is doing banking business and they have branches in more than one state. Though they have registered under the Co-op. Society's Act, all Iudiistrial relations matter arc covered by the l.D. Act. The union submit:, that the Bank cannot claim any relief under the Co-op Society's Act.

1. that, the allegations levelled by the B,uik that Sri Nedumaran Deposit collector was taking loans tium the customers or. tne aauJc tor adjusting ihe shoniall oi collection oi uauy deposits wu= not pioved agtiuubt him by holding a departmental enquiry. J'lie management did not issue even a memo culling upon inra, to submit his explanations. The Branch Manager nus taken back all tiie records from him by oral instructions and mspite of his two representations to allow mm lor collections oi deposits which ate his legular duties, the Bank did not entrust the duties. Sn Nedumaran did not misuse the collections of jash and also did not desert hit job. Ihe allegations now made by tne Bank are after thought. In stopping him from perfoimmg his duties amounts lo removal from duties and this attracts the provisions of l.D. Act.

3. that, in the light of the several judgements of the High Court and also me Supreme Cqurt (Indian Bank Case-i lyyo LLJj the deposit collectors employed in Fnvate, Co-op. Sector and Public Sectors arc worJcmeu/Part time employees and they are governed by l.D. Act provibigns The pioceedmgs of the management arc not lawful. The Union submit that the statements of the management should be rejected.

4. that, the last pioceedings wero held on 1st November, 1999, wherein both parties were present and they submitted tliat beyond what has been stated by tlictn in writing there ia nothing further to submit. Tiic management continued to content that the workman deserted his employment on his own accord and whereas the Union contended that the workman's services have been terminated by. oral oiders and no response was given even after making two representations. The Management stated that these representations need be paid no attention since the workman deserted his employment.

Thus both concluded their submissions

The points for consideration to decide the dispute arc :—

1. Whether Shri P. Nedumaran, Daily Deposit Collector, Trichy Branch of REPCO Bank Ltd., is a workman as per the provisions of Indusrrial Disputes Act, 1947?

2. Whether the alleged desertion of employment of Shri P, Nedumaran is due lo the action of the management or the workman ?

3. Whether the demand uf the Tamilnadu Bank's Deposit Collectors' Union for reinstatement of Shri P. Nedumaran by the management of REPCO Bank Ltd. is justified ? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

To decide the instant dispute, the fust two questions laiscd above were to be dealt first indepth and then only, the last question, which is the terras of the reference of the dispute can be dealt with. It is primarily because the management look the stand that Shri P. Nedunjaron was appointed in Bank after duly agreeing by him to the ttrms and conditions of appointment and also he has cxeuted nn indemnity bond dcclearing that he is not an employee of the Bank etc. and since the employment was on contract basis, he cannot claim the rights of a woikman as contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the management took the stand that Shri P. Nedumaian's case cannot be considered within the scope of Section 2(s) of T.D. Act, 1947 since he wns neither dismissed nor discharged or retrenched by the Bank. But, he deserted his contract appointment on his own and more over, he was not employed for hire or reward nnd there is no employer-employee relationship between ihf bank and himself and also he was not on the Bank's pay rolls. To the arguments of the managemejf, the workman has produced the documents such as appointment order reference No. 8254 : 88 : Gl dated 30-08-95 find two reprrientationo submitted by Shri P. Nedumaran dated 2-07-1996 and 10-09-1996 and also the letter daied 1S-12-1996 addressed by the union to the Managing Director requesting for re- instatement of Shri P. Nodunwan.

Secondly, on the issue that Shri P. Nedumaran has deserted his employment on his own volition as contended by the management appears to be an atiei thought story as tho management suDmittcd that Shri P. Nedumaran was found to have misused the collection amount tor his personal use and was also found that he had be

Thirdly, in light of the above findings for the issues raised at 1 and 2 above, it goes without saying that the undersigned is compelled to conclude that the demand of Tamilnadu Banks Deposit Collectors Union for reinstatement of Shri P. Nedu- maran by the Management of REPCO Bank Ltd. is verymuch justified and since the workman also did not adduce any evidence to prove that he is innocent on the charges levelled against him by the management. The ends of justice will meet if the workman is reinstated with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without back wages on the principle "No work—No Pay". Thus, I answer the point accordingly.

In the result, I pass an award holding that the demand of the Tamilnadu Banks Deposit Collectors Union for re- instatement of Shri P. Nedumaian by the management of REPCO Bank Is justified and the workman is entitled to the relief of continuity of service end other attendant benefits except the back wages for the period from 14-5-96 till the date of his actual reinstatement.

Dictated to the stenographer and typed by her direct and corrected on this 29th day ot March, 2001.

B. R. S. REDDY, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai & Arbitrator Documents Marked:

Vor Union (1st party):

Px. Wl Appointment Order Ret. No. 8254 : 88 : Gl dated 30-08-j995 issued lo Shri P. Nedumaran by the Managing Director, REPCO Hank Ltd. Ex. W2 Representation dated 22-''-% submitted to the Branch Manager by Shrt P. Nedumaran for collection of Deposits.

Ex. W3 Representation dated 10-9-96 submitted to the Branch Manager by Shri P. Neduraaran for reinstate- ment in the services. Orally instruction for stopping collection work from 16-5-96.

Fx. W4 Letter dated 18-12-96 addressed by the Union to the MR. Director, RSPCO Bank Ltd. requesting for reinstatement of Shri P. Nedumaran.

Ex. W5 letter dt. 22-01-97 addressed to the Bank by the President of the Union from Chennai Et. W6 Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 24-5-89 covering 17 Banks.

Ex. W7 Judgment of Chennai High Court dated 7-9-94 in Ihc case of Karuv Vysya Bunk Ltd,, United Bank of India, declaring deposit collectors arc workmen.

T.x. W8 Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28-1-1997 modifying the Award of the Industrial Tribunal with regard to absoiption of Deposit Collectors but confirming the workmen status.

Ex. W9 Older dated 1-04-1997 of the Supreme Court dismissing the Appeal of the Indian Bank against the judgment of Chennai High Court (1990 I LLT 50).

For Management (2nd Patty):

Ex. Ml Proceedings in RC No. 825-4|88lGl with the acceptance of Shri P. Nedumaran.

Ex. M2 Deed of Indemnity executed by Shri P. Nedumaran.

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2001 S,O. 1016.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Kozikode as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between- the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Travan- core and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-12012|100|97-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE

Dated this the 6th day of April, 2001 PRESENT :

Shri E. D. Thankachan, B A., B.L., Presiding Officer.

I D. (C) No. 2|98

BETWEEN :

The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of Tra-vanrore. P. B. No. 25, CaT^ut-673001

2109 REPRESENTATIONS :

Sri K. P. Asok Kumar, Advocate, Kozhikode, . . .For Worker Sri K. P. Damodaran Nambiar, Advocate, Kozhikode. .. . For Management

AWARD

As per Government Order No. L-12O12|1OO|97- IR(B-l) dated 31-12-1997 the Government of India referred an Industrial Dispute, between the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of Travancore, Calicut and their worker Smt. M.V. Thambayi, Yodanvalappil, Yayyannur to this court for adjudication and award. The issue referred for the adjudicator) was "whether rhe action of the management of Slate Bank of Travancore in ter- minating the services of Smt. Thambayi, Part-time^ Sweeper from 10-8-1995 is justified ? Tf not. to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Pursuant to the reference, notice intimating the date of posting of the case in the Labour Court v/as issued to both parties. Accordingly both sides appeared and filed their respective statements. When the case came up for evidence today, the 6th day of April, 2001 the counsel for the worker submits no instruction.. The name of the worker is called. The worker is absent. Since the worker has not ap- peared for giving evidence today, T am inclined to hold that the worker is not interested to pursue the dispute nny further and that therefore there is no existing industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated.

3. Tn the result, the; reference is answered hol- ding trill thre is nn subsisting industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated upon.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, trans- scrihed bv him. revised, corrected and parsed bv me on the 6th day of April, 2001.

E. D. THANKACHAN, Presiding Officer

.. Management

AND

Smt. M. V. Thambayi, Yodanvalappil. Thekke Bazar, Pavvannur-670087

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2001

.. Worker

S.O. 1017.—In pursunce of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 CM of 1947), the O r 2110 THE, GAZETTE OF INDIA i MAT 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II-^SEC. <3?flM the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Union, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure m the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Punjab National Bank and *heir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L42012|138|2000-IR(B-II)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2001

SO 1018—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CcDtial Government hereby publishes the award of the Labcur Court, Kozhikode as shown m the Anncxuie in the lndustnal Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway, Palakkad end their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

fNo L-41012|152]98-JR(B-II)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE

Dated this the 30th day ot M

PRESENT.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Shn Abdul Mazid S/o Shn Abdul Amin we I 28-2-99 and not considering him for his appointment in the bank in terms of the management's cfrculai dated 5-1-1993 is legal and justified / If not, what relief the wortm.in 11 entitled to and from which date?"

Shn E D Thankachan, E A . B L, Presiding Officer.

I D. (C) No 2|99

BETWEEN'

The Sr Divisional Engineer, ' ' Southern Railway, Palttkkad

. MANAGEMENT.

2111

ANNEXURE

AND

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE

Dated this the 30rh day of March, 2001 Shri K. R*Ju, S|o Kuttan, Kunnimal House, Puthiyanlrath Post, Elathur, Kozhikode-673303. Woikman.

PRESENT;

REPRESENTATIONS:

Shii E. D, Thankachan B.A., B.L., Presiding Officer,

I.D. (C) No. 5|99 Sri P. P. Balan, Advocate, Kozhikode, ., For Workman.

BETWEEN

Sri K. V. Sachidanandan, Advocate, Korhfkod*. .. For Management.

AWARD

The Chairman, North Malabar Gramin Bank, Head Office, B.P. No. 59, Bank Road, Kannur-670001.

.. Management.

AND

Shri K. Radhnkrishnn, "Drisya", Utiyathnddakn, Post Sribagilu, Kimrgod-671124.

.. Workman" Aj per Government Order No. L-4l012[152j98|IR(B-I) dated 24-02-1999, the Government of India referred an Industrial dispute between the Senior Divisional Engineer, Southern Railway, Palakkad and their workman Shri K. Raju, Kunnima] House, Puthiyantrath Po3t, Elathur, Kozhi- kode to this court for adjudication and award. The issue referred for the adjudication was "whether the action of the DPO|S. Rly|PaIghai in terminating the service of Shri K. Raju with effect from 20-7-1970 and Non-inclusion of his name in the supplementary casual labour register is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to".

REPRESENTATIONS :

Sri M. Asokan, Advocate, Kozhlkode.—Tor Management Sri Ashok B. Shenoy, Advocate, Cochin—For Workman.

AWARD

2. Pursuant to the reference, notice intimating the date of posting of the case in the Labour Cmirt wai issued to both parties Accordingly both side? appeared and submitted their respective statements. When the fcaie came up for evi- dence, today, the 30th day of March, 2001 neither the work- man nor the counsel concerned appeared to prosecute their respective dispute. The name of the workman is called, The workman Is absent. Since the wewkman has not appea- red for .givjng evidence today, I am inclined to hold that the workman is not interested to pursue the dispute any further and that therefore there Is no existing indistrlnl dispute bet- ween the parties to be adjudicated.

As per Government Order No. L-12O12|6OR|98-IR(B-I) dated 10-4-1999 the Government of India referred an industrial dispute between the Chairman, North Malabar Oramin Bank, Bank Road, Kanpur and their workman Shri K. Radhakrishn^, Utiyathaddaka, Post Sri Bagilu, Kasargode to thk court for adjudication and award. The issue referred for the adjudication was "whether the action of the .manage- ment of North Malabar Gramin Bank In dismissing the service •of the workman Sri K. Radhakrishna w.e.f. 15-1-97 is justified? If not, what relief the workman Is entitled to?" 3. In the result, the reference i" answered holding that there is no subsisting industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated upon.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him, revised, corrected and passed by m<" on the 30th day of March, 2001.

E. D. THANKACHAN Presiding Officer

2, Pursuant to the reference, notice intimating the date of posting of the case in the Labour Court was issued to both parties. Accordingly both sides appeared and submitted their rspctcive statements. When the case came up for evidence, today, the 30th day of March, 2001 neither thc workman nor the counsel concerned appeared to pnwecute their respective diispute. Thc name of the workmnn ie called. The workman is absent. Since the workman has not appeared for giving evidence today, I am inclined to hold that the workman is not interested to puriue the dispute uny further and that thcrefnr* there is no existing industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated.

3. In the result, the reference is answered holding that there is no subliming industrial dispute between the purtles to be ndjudicated upon.

Dictated lo the Confidential \ssistant, transcribed by him, revised, corrected tird pa<:'^d hv ire on thc 30th any of March. 2001

F, D. THANK \ C m N. Pr""diri;; Officer New Delhi, the 26th April, 2001

S.O. 1019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, KozWkodo as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Balabar Gramin Bai and their workman, which wa* re- ceived by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

{No. L-12012|608|98-IR(B-D] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ISM axnon -72112 TfJ B GAZETTE OF WEftA : MAY 19, 2001/ VABAKHA 29, J923 [PART U^$tt, 3,(1^1 New Delhi, the 26th April, 2001

S.O. 1020—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (11 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes (he d^ard of the Industrial Tribunal Kollain as shown In the Annexure i" the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Travadcora and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-12O12|658|98-IR(B-jI)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

(Dated, this the 20th day of March 2001) PRESENT:

Sri I.P.V. Abraman, Industrial Tribunnl,

IN

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 25|99

BETWEEN

The Managing Director, State Bnnk of Travancore, Head Office Poojappura, Trivandrum.

AND

The General Secretary, State Bank of Travancore Star?

Union, P.B. No, 5601, Trivandrum

AWARD

Th? Government of India a/? pei Order No. L-12012|658| 98]IR (B-I) dated 17-5-1993 referred this industrial disputa for adjudication to this Tribunal.

"The issue referred for adjudication, is the following :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ,of Travancore in imposing the punishment of with- drawal of Special Allowance for five years and denial of increment during suspension period upon Sri K. K. Rojan is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the said worVmnn is entitled?" 2 The union hat contended that Sri K. K. Rajan, while working as Cashier incharge of Ayiroor branch, was charge- sheeted ind placed under suspension as per order dated 7-12-1996. A .domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the misconduct alleged against the workman and the following punishments were jmposed on h'm by the discipli- nary authority,

(i) Withdrawal of special allowance with immediate effect as per clause 2J(TV)e of the sixth bipartite settlement.

(it) Reduction in the scale of pay by one stage under clause 21(lV)c of the sixth bipartite settlement.

The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as such wifhout entitlement of any benefit other than subsis- tence allowance already drawn. The suspension df Sri K,.K. Rajan was ievoked and he was posted as cashier at E.anni-ThoUomon branch on 16-7-1997. Sri Rajan had sub- mitted an appeal and the appellate authority had modified the pu'lishment as wltt-ctawal of special allowance for five years as per clause 2l('V)e of the sixth bipartite settlement • w,e.f, 16'7-1997.. Th^ period of s'u'p^nn'on was ordered to be treated as such without enfitlemeni to increment or other benefit¹! other than the subsistence allowance already diawn. Accordinjt lo the unkm, the appellate authority hfld imoosed fresh" punishments which were not awarded by the disclpli- narv authorifw. , Xh* nppel] i+e autVtrty hid ordered to ex- clude thp i>eriod of snspcrsion for t'ie purpose- of increment. Th<" appellate authority is' not expected to impose fresh punishments while d;spr>?i"j} .fir th" appellate petition filed bv the trnWovee. As per susr-THon order dated 7-'2-1996 the voitmnn Wns ^'ree'ed not tn )cav- fre Head Quarters duri'in rhe period of suipsivii' n without the prior permission of the Branch Manager. Since the suspended employee was not on duty, there was no justification to keep, him confined within the limits of the jurisdiction of his Head Quarteis and thus limiting his freedom of movement. The employee hnd given his address for communfcatipn to the Branch Manager and therefore there was no necessity for limiting his freedom of movement for communication and contract. Where the bank merely did not want to take work from the employee and the suspension did not amount to suspension of contract of service, he would be entitled to full salary for the suspension period and not the subsUtancc allowance niamt. In the ^rcumstaxicei- the suspension period need not be excluded for a w t l ng iincrement. The union has further contended that the disciplinary authority did not allow tho defence representative of the workman to appear before him and therefore the disciplinary action have become vitiated. According to the unkm the punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the charges alleged against him. In the circumstances the union seeks to pass an award setting aside the punishment imposed against the workman.

3. "the management has contended that Sri K. K. Rajan was employed as cagbier incharge at Ayiroor branch ^ the management bnnk, As per chargesheet dated 21-12-1996 the following misconduct were alleged against htm.

(a) On 4-12-1996 Sri Rajan attended office reportedly under the influence of Alcohol,

(b) On that day at about 11 A.M. he stopped cash work abrrupdy without any valid reasons, thus causing dissatisfaction and inconvenience to customers wait- ing at the counter. He also attended to manhandle Sri Subhash Chandra Bose. Asst. Mannger of the Branch under the .influence of alcohol inside the branch premises and shouted in a most despicable language at the Branch Manager and the Asst. Manaeer.

(c) Again on that duy, at around 4.30 P.M. leaving his work Incomplete he shouted at Sri Subhash Chandra Bdse reportedly under.'the influence of alcohol causing'disruption on work in the branch and in- convenience and embarrassment to other members of the staff. Because of his unruly und riotous behaviour which created an uncomfortable situation at the branch. Sri Subhash Chandra, Bose had to leave the branch and when Sri Subhash Chandra Bose waiting for the bus at the bus stand he went out of the branch entrusting the cash work to Smt Sherly Simon and attempted to manhandle the officer in public. Alter the officer left the seen in an autorickshaw, he again came to the branch and shout"d at the branch manager, deputy manager and other staff members in the presence of the public. .Thus he- behaved In an indecent and bio- sterous manner and caused irreparable damage., to tlie image and reputation of the bank. The above mentioned lapses- on the part of the employees- were gross misconduct as defined under clause 19,5 (c), (j) and (e) of the first bipartite settlement punish- able undr^r clause. 19.6 of the said bipartite settle- ment read with clause 21 (IV) of the sixth bipartite settlement 1995,

5. The woikman had submitted his explanation on 18-1-97 denying the misconduct alleged against him. As per order da'ed 29-1-1997 the disciplinary authority had ordered a domestic enquiry with regard to the misconduct alleged against the workman. The enquiry officer had conducted the domestic enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The workman was allowed to engage a union leader lo defend him in the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a find in" holding that, the charge No. 1 was not proved and charge No. 2 was proved. As regards charge No. 3, the en- quiry office found that it was partially Droved. A cop." of th# enquiry report was sent to the employee, on 9-5-1997 calling upon him to make his written submissions to fh* findings f>f the enquiry officer and as per letter dated 28-5-97, tho workmnn hpd forwardrd, , his submissions a

6. The workman was afforded an opportunity for personal hearing before the disciplinary authority on 28-6-1997. After heating the workman, the disciplinary authority had taken a decision on 8-7-1997 confirming the punishment proposed as per the preliminary order, rhe disciplinary authority had also directed to keep the suspension period as such with- out entitlement of any benefit other than the subsistence allowance already drawn. The workman had filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority had considered the contentions raised in the appeal and reduced the punishment to withdrawal of special allowance for a period of fivfc years W-e.f. 16-7-1997. The order relating to the period of suspension was confirmed by the appellate au- thority. The management has further contended that the condition imposed in the order of suspension that the work- man should not leave the Head Quarters during the period of suspension withput prior permission of the Branch Manager was a valid condition imposed with a view to secure the attendance of the employee during the enquiry. In view of clause 19.12fb) of the first bipartite settlement dated 19-10*1996. It is thi- djscietion of the disciplinary autho- rity to take a decision us to hew the period of suspension should be treated. As per clause 1.12(a) of the bipartite settlement mentioned above, an employee is duly required to be provided with an opportunity for personal hearing with regard to the proposed punishment. The bipartite settlement mentioned above does not provide for providing an opportu- nity for personal hearing to an employee with the assistance of a defence representative. The management has further contended thnt the misconduct committed by tiifl employee are serious in nature and the punishment imposed on the workman is proportionate fo the misconduct proved n gainst him. In rhr circumstances the nanatremont seeks to pass an award upholding thp punishment imposed en the work- man

7. The enquiry proceeding* and the enquiry rrport were marked as Exfa Ml and M2 respectively with the consent of the parties. On a perusal of Ext. Ml enquirv file it can be seen that the workman had participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer had permitted the workman to engage n defence representative to assist him in the enquiry. The defence representative had cross examined the witnesses exa- mined on behalf of the management. Tho enquiry officer hud permitted the workman to examine his own witness in his defence. The union has not pointed out um circum- stance which vitiates the domestic enquiry. According to the union, the disciplinary authority had not permitted the work- man to engage the defence representative for personal hear- ing before the disciplinary authority. However, the union has not pointed out anv provision in the settlement which provides that a worVmun is entitled to engage a defence re- presentative for personal hearing before the disciplinary au- thority. In the absence of any such provision in the settle- ment or the contract of service, the workman is not entitled as a matter of right to -engage a defence representative for personal hearing before the disciplinary authority. In view of the circumstances explained above I hold that the enquiry was conducted properly and in compliance with the princi- ples of natural justice.

8. On a perusal of Ext. M2 enquiry report, it can be seen that the enquiry officer had properly appreciated ihe evi- dence that has come out in the enquiry. There is nothing to Kugj-est that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse or unsustainable. In the eircumitnnce I hold that the rWingj of th." -fciMUnry nfficer is proper and twlid

2U3 was not allowed to leave the Head Quarters, during the period of suspension without the permission of the branch manager, he is eligible for full salary during _the period of suspension. However, as the bipartite settlement pmvide for keeping an employee under suspension pending disciplinary action and discretion is given to tnc disciplinary authority to take a decision as to the manner in whlth the suspension period should be treated the workman is not entitled to claim full salary for the period of suspension. The disciplinary authority had taken a decision to treat the period of suspen- sion as such and ordered that tho workman will not be eligible for any benefit other than gubsistance allowance drawn by him during the period of suspension. The appejlate authority had confirmed that order. In the circumstance the exclusion of suspension period tor increment cannot be re- garded as a punishment. In view of the ci'rcurnstances ex- plained above 1 hold that the workman is not eligible for any relief.

P.V. ABRAHAM, Industrial Tribunal

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the Management MW1. NIL

Witness examined on the side of the Workman WW1 Nil.

Documents marked on the side of the Management Ext. Ml. Register containing the enquiry proceedings. E-tt. M2 The equiry report subiriticd by the enquiry officer.

Ext. M3. Preliminary order dated 12-6-1997 passed by the disciplinaly authority,

Ext. M4. Appellate order dated 12-11-1997.

Documents marked on the side of the Workman, Ext. W1 Nil.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O 1021.—In pursu-ince of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In. dustnal Tribunal|Labour Comt, Chandigarh, ss shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of GSIR and their workman, which was received by ttte Central Government on 25-4-2001.

iNO. L-42012|99[994R(DU)] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE"

BFFORE'SHRI B. L, JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR OURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID ^917 of jW

The President, Labour Union Central Institute cf Medicinal and Aromatic plants, Bonera, Pulwama (KMR) • • Union,"1W 'fKBJTPAZETTE OF INOIA : MAY ft, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, XMt {PAKT II—$*C. 3 0 0] ANNEXURE

V|i.

Bonera, Pulwama.

The Scientist lncharge, CIMAP (CSIR) Field Station, .. Management APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Union None.

For the Management : Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No. L-42012| 99/99-IR(DU) dated 27-9-99 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the management pf CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in ter- minating the services of Shri Abdul Qayoon Mir a da% rated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is iust and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date?" 2. Whether the action of the management of CSIR. rep- resented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Shri Abdul Qayam Mir as contract labour through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to date, on perennial|permanent nature of employment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. (Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?" Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the workman deposing that the workman Is not interested in pursuing the reference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman,, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of proiecution Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19+7 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra^ Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandigarh, us shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employ- ers in relation to the management of CSIR and their work- man, which wai received by ihc Central Government on 25-4-2001.

jNo. L-420I2|100|<*9-IRfDU)]

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer BEFORE SHRI B. U JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDTGAH

Case No. ID 199 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medi- cinal and Aromatic plants, Bonera, Pulwama (KMR).

Union.

V|t

Bonera, Pulwama.

The Scientist Incharge, CIMAP (CSIR), Field Station, .. Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Union None. For the Management : Shri 1. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001

Then Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No. L-42012| 100|99|IR(DU) dated 27-9-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1 "Whether the action of the management of CSIR leprcsented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in ter- minating the services of Shri Ab. Gaflar Sheikh a daily dated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is just and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date?

2 Whether the action of the management of CSIR rep- resented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Shri Ab. Gaffar Sheikh as contract labour through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to date, on perennial|permanent nature of employment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm operation* is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman i<> entitled and from which date?" Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the workman deposing that the workman i" not interested in pursuing tho reference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry tor wont of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh 28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

SO. 1021—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Governmtnt Industrial Trlbunnl|Lnbcur Court, No IT, Mumbai, ns shown 2US In the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of M(". Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. (1972) and their workman, which wai received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-420K/15/99-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAT VERMA. Deik Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The Union filed their Statement of Claim tt ExbibH-7.

The management opposed the claim by the Written Statement

(Exhibit-9). On the basis of the rival pleading! my Learned

Predecessor framed issues (Exhibit 12). Consequently matter

was fixed for evidence. However on 5-1-2001 the onion vide

purshis (Exhibit-17) contended that the workmen concerned

have accepted voranatry retirement and therefore no dispute

remained, therefore no dispute Award be passed. The manage-

ment endorsed to that effect vide say dtd. 1-2-2001. Since!

dispute no more remains the following order ii passed :—

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. II. MUMBAI

ORDER

PRESENT:

The reference stand disposed of for non-prosecution vide

S. N. Saundankar.

purshls (Exhibit-17).

Reference No. OGIT-2/164 of 1999

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

Emlpoyers in relation to the Management of M/s. Richardson

BEFORE HON*BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II

Reference No. 164 of 1999

BETWEEN

M(t. Richardson & Cruddoj (1972) Ltd.

& Cruddai Ltd. (1972).

The General Manager (PQ,

Richardson &. Cruddas Ltd.,

Byculla Iron Work*,

Byculla,

Mumbal-400008.

AND

AND

Their Workmen

Association of Engineering Works.

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON"BLE TRIBUNAL

The President,

Association of Engineering Worker*,

252, lanta Colony,

Ramanarayan Market Marg,

Gbatkopei (East),

Mumbai-400077.

The Association submits that alt the workmen concerned

m this Disputes have accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme

and now have no claim of any nature against the company

therefore this Hon*ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass no

dispute award in this matter.

APPEARANCES:

SdA For the Employer: Mr. S. Z. Chowdhary. Advocate.

For the Workmen: Ms. Pooja Kulkarnt, Advocate,

Mumbai, dated the 21st March, 2001

(SAhadco Sambhaji Malt ye

(Secretary^

For and on behalf of

Association of Engineering Works

AWARD

Place: Mumbai

Dated: 5th January, 2001

SdA Illegible,

l ne (government ot India, Ministry of Labour, by it* Order

No. L-42011/15/99-IR(DU), dated 12-08-1999, have referred

the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

Abhay Kulkarni A Associates

Advocates for the Association.

Other Side to say

Sd|- Illegible

Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the njanaijement of Richardson &

Cruddaa (1972) Ltd., Mumbai in not regularising

the services of 22 workmen (as per annexure) is

legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the work-

men are entitled?"

ANNEXljRE

Sr. No.

Name

T. No.

Date

1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrie

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

hereby publishes the award of the Central Govemmei

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandignrh, as shown .

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employe

in relation to the management of Central Institute ft

Research on Buffalloes and their workman, which was rccei\

by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

S. S. Salve

P. M. Dhurai

D. R. Yewale

B. S. Sonavne

S. A. Diidhavadktr

A. R. Abdul R.

R. R. Yadav

B. R. Kumble

P. T. Rane

R. R. laiswar

A. B. Rajbar

L. S. Jaiswar

P. D. Jaiswar

S. Y. More

O. B. Sakoal

S. W. Salve

B. N. Kumble

I. L. Yadav

N. P, losfai

B. A. Mahatre

P. B. Kadam

K. R. Selvi

6056

6208

6087

6110

"204

6063

6067

6088

6108

6146

6179

6165

6248

6053

6230

6116

6192

6193

6237

6238

6250

6254

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

06-05-82

10-08-87

O2-O7-85

01-11-85

16-03-87

03-10-84

02-02-85

02-07-85

01-11-85

01-06-86

16-10-86

02-08-86

01-12-88

28-04-82

02-07-88

02-01-86

17-01-87

01-02-87

03-10-88

03-10-88

02-01-89

02-01-89

[No L-42011/44/9MR(Dl

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Offlc

—•- • yvgawi's. "' ~ ~~

Dispute-Iwrween th" •mployerf (n relatioQ to the Management of Rftjaiftan Atomic Ppwer Project and their worlman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

ANNEXURE BEBQR&, SHRIyrJj, X., MTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL QQVpR>JMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

[No. L-42012/ll/96-lR

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officei President, Distt, Agriculture Workers Union, 123/5, Jawahar Nagar, Hisiar.

Petitioner

Versus

Director, Centra^, Distt. for Research of Buffalloea, Hissar. '

. . .. Respondent

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workman : Shri Darahnn Singh.

For the Management: Rameet Sharma.

AWARD

(Passed on 22nd March, 2001)

The Central Government, Ministry of Lajjpur vide Notifica- tion No. L-42On/4VW-tR(D.U.) tfajed 7th December, 19931 has referred the following dispute to thia Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Central Instt. for Research of Buffalloes, Hissar in not giving the scale of Rs. 975-1540 as per their performance of worku i.or "Equal pay for Equal Woik" to Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh, Ms. Suraan and Meera is justified ? If not. what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ?"

Today the case was fixed for appearance of the workman. The rep. of the workman appeared and made Sit statement that workman doc* not want to pursue with tho praient reference and the lame may be dkfnjsted as withdrawn. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry an not pressed. Appropriate Government bo informed.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh,

Camp Hissar.

22-3-2001.

New Delhi, the 25th April. 2001

S.O. 1025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

"Whotjier the action of the management of Rajashan Atomic Power Project (N.P.C.I.L.) 3 & 4 in ter- minating the iervices of Shri Surendra Kumar Ex- Fireman l"-5-94 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman i" tnitled to?" Dispute Act, ^94; (14 of 1947\ the Central Government hereby publishes tUe award of thp Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Kota, as nhown in the Anncxnre in the Industrial an 72118 TUB GAZETTE OP INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VA1SA1CHA 29, 1023 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)} 2U9

1364 OII2001—8.

2121

"1. That a candidate was prosecuted or sub- jected to investigation on a criminal charts is a material fact> suppression of wliich, would entitle an employer to deny em- ployment to a candidate on that ground.'

2. That ultimate acquittal of a candidate, who was prosecuted on a criminal charge, would not condone or wash out the consequence* of suppression of the fact that he wai prosecuted.

3. That suppression of material fact would by itself disentitles a candidate from being appointed in service."

"(i) Whether the fact that a candidate was pro- secuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal' charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entity an em- ployer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground 7

(ii) Whether the ultimate acquittal of a candi- date who was prosecuted on a criminal charge would cdndbn or wash out the' consequences of suppression of the fact tfjat he was prosecuted ?

(iii) Whether the suppression of the material faet woulil not by itself disentitle a candidate

from being appointed in service ?"nil THE OAZETTE OF INTttA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAlSAlCHA 29, 1913 H"A"T "—SEC. 3 ins

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

SO. 1026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. I, Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Nationajl Dairy Development Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4*2001.

INo L-42012/H/97-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT.

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L , Industrial Tri-

bunal-I.

Dated, 20th day of March. 2001

Indastrial Dispute No 63 of 1997

BETWEEN

Sn A Sivaramaiah, C/o G Ramaiah, Vidyanagar, H. No. 1-9-1113/27/1/3, Hyderabad-500-044.

. Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager, Indian Immunologi- cals, Road No. 44, Jubilee Hills, H}dera- bad-033.

2. The Chairman, The National Dairy Deve- lopment Board, Anand, Gujarat State-

388 001.

(Respondent No. 2 is added as per the orders in I.A, 149/9S dated 30-12-98 H the instance of the petitioner).

Respondent.

APPEARANCES:

Petitioaer—in person.

M/s* P. Nageswar K. V. R. Choudhary and C. Niranjan Rao, Advocates—for the Res- pondents.

AWARD

Tbe Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi by its order No. 420212|ll|97-IR(DU) dated 29-9-97 referred the following Inofifttrial Dis- pute under Section 10(l)(d> and Subjection 2A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication :

"Whether tbe action of Management of M/s. N.D.D.B. Hyderabad in dismissing Sri A. Srivaramaiah from service in justified. If not what relief the workman is entitled ?" Both parties appeared and filed their respective plead- ings,¹

mode} sticndiiig orders while passing-Tdisniissal orders. At no stags he complained with Section-9A of I,D. Act. The disciplinary proceedings initiated by the General Manager Inrmuflologicals are illegal and said tbe allegations levelled m tbe charge sheet are not true. The enquiry officer appointed or Enquiry is not a public servant within the meaning of Con- duct, Discipline and Appeal rules Indian Immunologi- es], Further he acted under bias,. As on 31-12-87 the workman was entitled for the next higher pro- motion while so, the- Management dismissed him from service. At first imposed punishment of stopping yearly increments with cumulative ctfect followed ftv revetting to the next lowsr grade Junior Assistant from the post of Senior Assistant Grade-I. On ac- count of departmental enquiries and the court cases, the workman's health was effected The management served show cause notic* as nn empty formality. Therefore it is prayed to set aside the order of dismissal and to direct reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages in the in- i terest of justice.

3. The General Manager Indian InunuHotogicals filed the- Counter and briefly stated the averments as under. The petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts as such it is liable to be dismissed. As per regulations 22 the Indian Tmmunolagieals which is a subsidiary unit shall have its separate identity flcr which the regulations of NDDB fhnll not be applicable to any of its employees. National Dairy Development Board has its own service regulations of 1988 for its employees. At the time of appoint- ment of the workman itself it was made clear m the appointment order that his services shall be trans-i ferred to the 'FMD' vaccine plnut and accordingly transferred and appointed in the Indian Immunologi- cals which is a subsidiary unit of NDDB but it is independent unit having its identity and functioning independently exercised by a Management-Commit- tee. That the workman had committed certain grave serious misconduct so he was issued with charge sheets i.e.,

1. Wilful in subordination.

2. Ritious or disorderly behaviour during work hours, An Acts of subversive of discipline vide Clause 5(5) 6, 12, 20.

3. Acting in a manner prejudicial in the intere&t

of organisation.

4. Wilful in

2-125

the organisation. T&rough the *vid*noe of'MWl Ex. Ml to M35 were got marked. As a rebuttal evi- dence the workman examined himself as WW1.

9. In nut Shell; ]yfW 1 - deposed 'that he is giving failed to submit explanation. The management • had accepted tho findings of the enquiry officer.and found him guilty of the misconduct of the allegations made in the cfaaige sheet. After taking all the- relevant cir- cumstances into.account has proposed to imposes the punishment of dismissal from service. Again a show Cause notice, was issued, for which he submitted ex-

?lanation dated ¹⁹-⁴-⁹¹ raising untenable contentions,

'he management had issued another letter dated 26/27-4-91 calling for his explanation. The explana- tion submitted by the workman was found to be not satisfactory so after careful consideration of the material on record and after considering the gravity and seriousness of each of the proved misconduct, the management had imposed the punishment of dis- missal from service passing an order dated 31-5-91 which is legal, valid, bona fide and justified. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim.

•evidence on the basii of records. He filed Ex. M56 judgement in W.P. No, 7425 |9l of Andhra Pradesh High Court in which the High Court held that the service conditions of NDDB are separate from the of the Indian Iinmunolngtcals. Ex. 'W7 is the ser- vice regulations Of Indian Imiuunologicals. Ex. M55 ia the NDDB Act, .Ex. M57 is the Joining Report given by the workman. Ex. M58 is the U%, given, to the workman, Fx. Ml, M20, M22, M24, M27 are the five charge sheets served on the petitioner for his misconduct. N& explanation was submitted by the workman. The workman after attending the en- quiry on few occasions has stopped attending the enquiry. The enquiry report was accepted oy the management and show cause notice was issued to the workman proposing to impose punishment. Ex. M5] aud M53 explanations were submitted Ex. M54 is the order under which the workman was dismissed from icrvice w.e.f. 31-5-91. He further deposed that the witnesses who were examined before the enquiry officer have left the services of the organisa- tion and their whereabouts are not known to pro- duce before the Court.

10. MW2 deposed that on 7-5-90 at 8.50 A.M. v/hile he was entering into the Reception Room, he noticed the workman going into the chambers of Assistant Personal -Manager (R. Sudhakar) and after he antered, he heard sounds in the chamber and also conversation and thereafter one Chandrasekhar had brought back the petitioner outside.

11. As a rebuttal evidence the workman, while denying the allegations of the charge sheets served on him has reiterated the factual aspects made ia - his tckiim statement and the applicability of the ser-

vice regulations of NDDB Bosrd 1988 to him.

4. The Chairman of Na'iondl Dairy Development Board filed the counter and briefly stated averments are as under: M/s. Indian Immunclogicah is a unit .of the NDDB has its own legal identity so as to sue¹ and be sued on its own name and seal. The NDDB has its own service regulations of 1988 which ap- plied to its employees. As per the appointment letter, the workman his services were transferred to 'FMD' Vaccine plant and the petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order. The workman filed two Writ Petitions Vide WP No. 15829/90 and 7424/91 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in which he raised the same contentions which were rejected by the High Court and directed to the petitioner to pursue alternative remedy under I.D. Act, so all the contentions raised in the claim statement are not relevant After lapsn of eight years the petitioner had approached theHon'ble High Court. The union has not esooused the cause of tho petitioner for adjudication of the disrate as such tho dispute is not maintainable. NDDB is not i necessary party to the petition. Hence prayed to declare and pass an Award that petitioner is not en- titled for any relief as prayed for and pray to dismiss it cause.

5. The point for adjudication is whether the peti-

tioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for ?

6. As per the orders in I.A. No. 149|98 dated 3042-98 filed by the workman the Chairman NDDB was added as a proper and necessary party.

7. After considering the documentary evidence filed -by both sides i.e. Exs.' Wl to W36 and F,t Ml to M56 an order dited 16-9-9*> was passed holding that the domestic enquiry proceedings conducted by the mana- gement are vitiated, however the management was nTmitted to lead evidence to substantiate the charges levelled ap-iiivtf the workman to decide the question in issue. While the matter was pending to record fvidcrtc on Ihe side nf thr management, the mana- eement filed Writ Petition No. 27138[99 questioning the order dated 16-9-99 viliarirtp domestic enquiry prceedinff". The Hon'ble Hieb Court hns dismis- sed and upheld the order passed by this Tribunal.

12. The Workman filed lengthy written arguments in support of his contentions. In nut shell he ques- tioned the legality and propriety of the impugned order of dismissal Ex. M54 dated 31-5-91 issued by the first respondent arid the contentions are twn fold (1) That he is, the employee of NDDB as such the service regulations of conduct, discipline and appeal rule regulations .1988 of NDDB would apply but not the sen-ice conditions of the Indian Immunologi- cal .Organisation which is a subsidiary company, which cannot derive stahitory force under Section 18 of Act 37 of 87. Further Section 13B of Indus- trial Employment (Standing Order Act 1946) has exempted the NDDB to make its own service Regu- lations to the employees, so the standing orders are not applicable to him and (2) in vrew of the fact that the domestic enquiry proceed- ings have foeen vitiated, no evidence is available against the petitioner in proof of the allegations of m^conduct. Whatever evidence adduced before the Tribunal to prove the alley'ion covered by the ctmw sheet-; thrmi^b the or?i evidence of MW1 and MW2 and the documents fllerl is not a substantive e v i n ce to esftyblish the misconduct alleged against him,

8 The manapement Md proceeded to examine two witnesses i.e., MW1 and MW2 who are executive of HKD and Junior Assistant respectively working in2126 THE GAZETTE OF WMA : MA? 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)l 13. To buttres the above contentions, on behalf of the respondent 1 and 2 it is urged that the work- man is precluded from raising the very same issue about the applicability of service regulations of 1988, when the same was leiected by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 7425191 covered by Ex. M56 and the decision operates as resjudicata more parti- cularly whi;n the workman's appointment itself was with a condition that he should join in the subsidiary unit of Indian Immunological Organisation where he joined willingly, so he is estopped from rising the contentions that the service conditions of Indian Im- munological Organisation are not applicable to him. It is argued that in this regard to the evidence in pmof of the allegations of misconduct levelled in the five charge sheets covered by Exs. Ml, M20, M22, M24 and M27, the workman has not submitted any explanation to deny the allegations and the wit- nesses who were examined before the Enquiry Offi- cer way back in 1991 have at this distance of time left the service except one witness and the where- abouts of them are not known to secure them. So taking a cumulative effect of the evidence of MW2, the documentary evidence and on the preponderance of circumstance's, the court may come to a reasonable conclusion that the workman has committed gross m'scoaduct and the management has every right to discharge or dismiss an employee who was an indis- ciplincd employee in discharge of his duties, and the courts would seldom interfere with the punishment imposed by the management.

14. It is seen from Division Bench judgement Ex. M56 that the workman has raised the very same contentions that he raised earlier as to the fact that he was appointed es a Junior Assistant by the NDDB and by then Indian Immunological was neither the company nor a society brought into existence under any law, so he should be considered as an employee of NDDB which had become a statutory corporation in the year 1987 by Act 37[87.

15. The said contention was rejected by the Divi- sion Bench in view of the fact that as per the terms and conditions of appointment order Ex. Wl dated 28 6-82 which clearly reveals that his appointment w.v made for the proposed organisation i.e. "Foot and Mouth Decease Vaccine Plant" at Hyderabad. Soon after the appointment "Indian Immunological" was brought into existence as a subsidiary of the Indicn Dairy Corporation which took over the mana- gement of 'Foot and mouth Decease Vaccine Plant' fur- ther one of the condition was that his services shall be tnrtsfcrred to the proposed organisation. Though Tnd'an Immunological became a subsidiary of the NDD3 and the Foot and Mouth Decease Vaccine Plant came under the control and management of Tndian Immunological as a separate unit, still the contentions raised by the workman were rejected holding that section 47 of the Act is of no help to Mm.

1(5 When such a conclusion was arrived at hold- ing that the service regulations of NDDB are not apniicable to the workman, he is precluded and bar- red from agitating it again and not permitted under doctrine of resjud'cala. The principle of resjudi- cit'i is npplxable not merely to the provisions of C P.C. but *o all litigations. So it is not necessary to no Into details about the various contentions raised by the workman on this point.

17. The next crucial question which arise for con- sideration is that in the lacis of the case whether the charges levelled against the workman covered by the charge sheets Exs. Ml, M20, M22, M24 and M27 have been established during the enquiry before this 1 nbunal.

18. The allegations covered by the charge sheet are as under : lhat on 7th May, 1990 at 8.45 A.M. he approached R. Sudhakar, Assistant Manager questioning him why he marked him absent in the Attendance Register and that he shouted at him in a loud tone though he asked him to contact the head of the unit. Again at 9.50 A.M. he approached the same person and shouted In a loud manner, so also he shouted towards S. V. Guru departmental head and abused in a disorderly manner which is a misconduct under schedule I of Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. Clause 14(A) and 14(H). That on 10 May, 1998 4.45 P.M. when official notification was served on him by Smt. Raja Rani he refused to received and acknowledge which act is a misconduct m per clause 5(20) of model standing orders 1946. So also on 11-5-90 on 4.45 P.M. he refused to receive the official communication and acknowledge. Again on 30-5-90 at 4.45 P.M. that he refused to receive and acknowledge the official communication which amounts to misconduct. That on 12tfli December, 1990 at 10.15 hours Sri K. M. Reddy .Assistant Officer sent a letter addressed by the General Manager and a|fter reading the contents of the letter he got wild and shouted loudly and abused him and use a vulgar language which amounts to misconduct as per clause 14fA) and 14(H) of the model standing orders.

19. It is contented by the respondent thaft the work- man failed to submit any explanation to the charge sheet much less he participated in the domestic en- quiry by raising untenable pleads, •whereas the conten- tions and the workman a|re that none of the charge sheets were served of him as on 25-7-90 so he re- quested after supply of the copies on 4-8-90 and then submitted his explanation'.

20. When once the domestic enquiry proceedings were vitiated, the management cannot rely on the evidence that was adduced before the Enquiry Officer. It is on the basis of the material on record the manage- ment has to adduce evidence to prove the allegations of the charges levelled in the charge sheets and if the allegations of misconduct are proved then only the question would arise whether the punishment imposed is justified¹ or nof. Before considering the punishment, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence on record. MW1 is not a) direct evidence to any of the incidents of the allegations covered by the five clinrge sheets. Simply he filed some documents pertaining to the charge sheets, but the allegations have not been proved or established through his oral evidence and such an evidence is of no purpose at all. The next witness MW2's evidence in also equally of no use, themph he was examinee! as on eye witnes&f s to one of the incident that had taken place on 7-5-90. MW2 has deposed th.",t on 7-5-90 at 8.50 A.M. whi!? he was enterine intj the reception room he saw the workman entering into the chamber of Assistant Manager Sri Sudhakar Assistant Manaper he heard some shmits and conversation inside the chamber of thr Officer unc* nfter some time one ChandrHsekhar broucht the worVman back outside, and thereafter he was murmuring that the concerned officer 'Is he an Officer". In the cross examination he ad- mitted¹ that workman was requesting to mark his attendance and went inside the chamber, except the Said version nothing has been spoken against the Workma^i. The incident cotvtered by other charge sheets arc not at all spoken to or proved and in such a case it is deemed that the allegations are not at all proved much less established. The management can- not escape saying that the witnesses relating to the tharge sheets are not working in the organisation and their where abouts are not known. Tf that is the case Ihe benefit would go to the delinquent person.

21. On an over all consideration of the factual and legal aspects there is no hesitation to hold that the evidence on record tha|t the charges are not proved and the workman is not guilty of misconduct on any of the incidents as alleged in the charge sheets EO as to take disciplinary action and to impose the punish- ment under the impugned order.

2127 Ex. W14 Letter dt. 5-12-90 addiesied by the petitioner to the General Manager.

Ex. W15 Letter dt. 16-11-90 of General Manager along with, reply of the petitioner dt, 17-11-90 under the General Manager's letter.

Ex. W16 Letter dt. 30-11-90 tu the General Manager by the Petitioner.

Ex. W17 Hierarchy of the organ isntion.

Ex. W18 Extract of NDDB regarding Managing Committee,

Ex. W19 Copies of Balance Sheets fo- NDDB Bulletin.

Ex. W20 Letter dt. 16-5-89 addressed to the Chairman by the Petitioner.

Ex. W21 Letter doted 16-8-90 uddicssed to the Chair- man by the Petitioner.

Ex, W22 Letter dt. 16-8-90 addressed to the Chairman by the Pctitionci.

Ex. W23 Complaint dt. 12-12-90 made by the petitioner to the Police.

Ex. W24 Letter dt. 13-12-90 addressed by the petitioner to RLC(C) Hyderabad regarding applicability of service condition.

Ex. W25 Order dt. 10-2-92 in W.P No. 15829/90 and W.P. No. 7425/91 of the Hon'He High Cowt ot A.P.

Ex. W26 Relevant extracts from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in his revision application.

Fx. W27 Notice dt. 5-10-94 for production of documents filed in WAMP No 205O|94 in Revn. WAMP No. 2569, 93.

nfi/i oiconi - 92128 THE ©AZETTE OF INETA :.MAY 19, 2001/ VAJ5AKHA 29. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fll>} Ex. M12 Enquiry Pioccedinfii at. 12-12-90 jrcorded by Enquiry OfrW.

Ex. M13 Enquiry Proceedings dt. 26-12-90 lecorded 1y Enquiry Officer.

Ex, M14 Letter of the petitioner dt l7-t-91 addressed to Sri S. Gopal, Enquiry Officer.

Ex. M15 Knqulry intimation notice dt. 17-1-91 issued by the Enquiry Officer.

Ex. M16 Enquiry Pioceedingj df 19-1-91. Ex, Ml7 Enquiry lcpoit submitted by the Tnquiiy Officer.

Ex. Mt§ Letter dt. 10-5-90 from the purchase officer to the petitioner.

Ex. M19 Letter from the despatch assistant to the pur- chase officer recording refusal of the letters by the petitioner.

Exi M20 Charge Sheet dt. 11 5-90 issued to the petitioner.

Ex. M21 Letter dated 11-5-90 fiom Jr. Asst. (Despatch) to P.A. to G.M. regarding refusal of receiving lctteis by petitioner.

Ex. M22 Charge Sheet dt. 15/30 5-90 issued to the petitioner.

Ex. M23 Letter dt. 30-5-90 from .lr. Asst, (Despatch) to PA to GM regarding ief;iflcl of receiving letter by petitioner.

Ex. M24 Charge sheet dt. 3O-5.-&O issued to t?ie petitioner.

Ex. M25 Enquiry Proceedings dt, 19-1-91.

Ex. M26) Enquiry Report submitted by Rnquiry Officer.

E<. M27 Charge Sheet dt. 17/1S-12-9U rsned to fhi:

petitioner.

Ex. M28> Enquiry Notice dt. 28-J2 90 issued by the General Manager to the petitioner,

Fx. M29 Complaint dt. 12-12-90 mode by Sri, K. M. Mohan Reddy, Asst. Officer to the Gcnei;il Menager. Indian ImmunologicaK Hyderabad,

Ex. M30 Complaint dt. 12-12-90 made by Sri R. Sudhakar Asst, M.anaser (P & A) to , the General Manager.

Ex. M3I Enquiry Procfedlp-s dt. J9-1T91.

Ex, M32 Lc(te.r. of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner on 17-1-91,

Ex- M33 Lettei of th~ Enquiry Officer to the petitioner on 19-1-91.

Ex. M34 Enquiry Proceedings dt. 2-2-91. Ex. M35 Enquiry report .submitted by (he Enquiry Officer,,

Fx. M36 Letter dt. 2-3-91 of the General Manager to the petitioner regarding the show cause notice of acceptance, by enquiry repoit.

Ex, M37 Letter dt. 2-3-91 of Sri K.M.M.- Reddy, Asst. Officer to the General Mann?'.*r regarding refusal of letters by the Petitioner.

Fx. M38 Letter dt. 4-3-91 addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager.

Fx. M39 Letter dt. 4-3-91 addressed 1-v thi> General Manager to Ihc Petitioner.

Ex. M40 Letter dt. 6-3-91 of Sri K. M. Mohan Reddy, Asst. Officer, to the General Manager, Indian Immunologicals.

Ex. M41 -Lettar dt. 6/7-3-91 ^-nt hy the Orneial Manager by Rcgd. Post.

Ex. M42 Letter dt. 1.4-3-91 from the petitioner to the General Manager.

E\ M43 Lelter dt. 16-3-91 from the General M.'naqer to tho Petitioner,

Ex M44 Letter dt. 16-3-91 from the Stone to the General < Manage! regarding iefusal to leceive the letters by the petitioner.

li.\, M45 Letter dt. 16-3-91 sent by the petitioner to the General Manager for the original letters.

Ex M46 Lcttor dt. 16-3-91 sent by the P.A. to G.M. by Rogd. Post to the petitioner.

ET, M47 Letter dt. 18-3-91- .sent by the petitioner to the General Manager.

Ex M48 Letter dt. 19-3-91 addicssed to the petitioner by PA to GM rcgardinit furnishing of documents.

Ex F49 Show Cause notice dt. 15/16-4-91 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service issued by the General Manager to the petitioner.

H.T, M50 Reply dt. 18-4-91 submitted by the petitioner to Ex. M49.

F\, M51 Seoond Show¹ cause notice dt 26/27-4-91 given to the petitioner by the Genirral Manager.

Ex, M52 Lettei dt. 29-4-91 of the petitioner regaiding time to submit explanation to Ex. M51.

Ex. M53 Explanation dt. 2-5-91 submitted by the petitioner.

Ex. M54 Dismissal order dt. 31-5-91 issued to the petitioner- by the > General- Manager.

FA. M55 Copy of fhe Naiioiu] Dairy Development Board Act, 19S7 (37/1987).

Ex, M56 Xerox copy of the ordeis made in W.A, No. 24R and 249192 dt. 15-6-93 of the Hon'ble Hiph Couit of A.Pi

After the validity of domestic enquiry vitiated ;

Witness exnmincd for Witnesses Examined tor Petitioner : Respondents :

WW1 A. Sivaramayya MWt D V. Reddy,

MW? K. Anand Kunwr Documents marked for Ihe Petitioner:

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondents :

Ex. M57 Joining Report dt. T-]0-82 submitted by the petitioner.

Fx. M58 Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner issuer!- by NDDB.

New Delhi, the 25th April 2001

SO, 1027.—In pursuance,of Section 17 of the In-< diMrJal Dispute Aqt, J947 (I4.of 1947), the Centra! Government hereby, publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Cri;indi#ai h j>s '.'iown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between thg employers in relation to the

2129

management Of Indian Agriculture Research Institute and their workman, whidh was received by the Cen- tral Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42012/30/92-lR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXUR.B

BEFORE SH-RI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CEN'J RAL GOVERNMENT 1MDUSTRIAL 1 RIBUNAL< UM-LABOLJR COUR'I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 58 of 1993

Sh. lsham Singh S/o Sundra Ram, R/o Village Dabri, I.O.C.S.S.R.I.. Distvict Karnal.

, , Petitioner.

Vs.

Director, Indian Agrieultuie Research Institute, Regional Station, Kama)- J 32001.

. .. Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the vvorkrmn : Shri J. B. 'lticoru

For the management : None.

AWARD

(Passed on 6th February, 2001)

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-42012/30/92-I.R. (D.U.) dated 27lh April, 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal lor adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Agrieultuie Research Institute (Regional Sta- tion) Knrnal in terminating the services of Shri Isham Singh w.e.f. 8-6-91 is justified?, If not, what relief the Workman concerned is entitled to and from what date ?" 2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he remained employed with the management from Sep- tember, 1982 to December, 1989 on daily wages. The workman was again employed in the same capacity on 18-4-1991 and he worked upto 8-6-1991. The services rendered by the workman was found satisfactory. His services were terminated w.e.f. 8-6-91 without assign- ing • any reason or reasonable cause. The notice of tcrminaion was not given to him. The Workman had completed 240 days from the date of the termination preceding to 12 calendar months. Thus he remained in¹ ctontinuous service of the management but his ser- vices were terminated without complying with the provisions' of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947.

3. Prior to S-6-1991 his services were also termi- nated'illegally diirinp the year 1983, At that time junior person"; to him were retained in service and opportunity for re-upmploymcirt was not given to-him, though, Ihe number of vacant posts were available. Thus the manaremeni has contravened the provisions or Sections 2S-G and H of the T.D, Act, 1947. There- fore, he should h- leinstaied in service with all conse- quential relief including full bark wa,crrp, continuity of service and seniority.

4. The management has i filed its written statement making averments that the claimant workman can not be- termed as woikman since he was merely, ongaged as per job itscjunx'mcnt on -casual/temporary basis' and as such Iheic was no relationship oi workman and employer. Iherelorc, the claim of the woikman is not'maintainable.

5. Ihe woikman was eugjigod on daily.wages by the management as per job n^uirement, therefore,'.there was no question oi- any permanent employment in the Institution. He had itot worked lor 240 oays comtinu- ousiy ironi the date ol his termination preceding to twelve calendar months J During, tthe period Irom.jy87 to 199 J. he 1 herelore, the provisions of Seclion 25-r do not apply in his case.

t. He was engaged as and < when his name was sponsored by the employment exchange- and "when ever he turned up a]t'the time* of availability of-work. AJ1 the daily paid labouieis were engaged' and dis- engaged according' to the job requirement of seasdnal work. Therefore, there was no did not'rturn .up at the time of availability of work. The name of- the claimant was not sponsored by the employment exchange after the year 1991, so he could not be given "a|sual em- ployment during the said period. His claim has no nici it, therefore, it should be 'dismissed with uost.

7. In replication, the averments made in claim statement have been reiterated. The names of the junior persons have been given in replication, Tt-hals been pleaded in replication that Shri Prem Panap, Bhagwan Dass, Bagicha Singh and many other per- sons were retained in service while terminating the services of the workman. The workman had com- pleted 240 days continuous service in 12 calendar months during the year 1983 and 1986-87. But the management had not complied with the provisions of Sections 25-F, G aud H of I.D. Act, 1947, therefore, this' claim deserves to be allowed.

8. The workman- hajs submitted his affidavit. The management had filed the affidavit of Shri R. S. Ran- dhawa. He had died prior to 29-7-1998. Therefore, the allidavit of Dr. S. N. Singh was submitted by the management. But ihe representative of the manage- ment and deponent did not turn up for cross-examina- tion despite several notices were issued to the management. Therefore, the case had been pro- ceeded ex-parte against the management.

Industrial Dispute betwten tiie employers in relation to the management of Central Sheep Breeding Farm and their workman, wlhich was received by the Cen- tra] Government on 23-4-2001.

management rather than the services of the workman. Thus the management has violated the provisions of this si^c.jon. iiierefbre, the termina(tion of the ser-< vices oi the workman contravening the provisions of Section 25-G constitute illegal termination ot the services of the workman.

[No. L-42012/86/90-IR(Dl0] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. E. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 3 of 1991 10. The rep. of the workman has referred the case of Nannder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana i y 9 1 ( lj K.SJi. 690," Punjaib & Haryana in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that if the povisions of Section 25-G are not complied with by the manage- ment, the workman is entitled to be reinstated though he had not completed 240 days prior to his termina- tion. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble High Couit, the workman is deserves to be rcm^dted¹ w.c.f. 8-6-1991.

President, Distt. Agriculture Worker's Union, Village & Post Office Kheri Barki, Distt. Hissar-125 001. ...Petitioner.

Vs.

Director, Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hissar-125 001.

REPRESENTATIVES :

2131

not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date?"

2. Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Nazir Ahmed Wani as contract labour through different contractors w.c.f. 1983 to date, on perennial/permanent nature of employ- ment i.e. Security of Farm and M/s. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?

New Delhi, the 25lh April, 2001

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. None has put up appear- ance on behalf of the workman despite notice. No claim statemtnf has been filed since 1999. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want if prosecution. Appropriate Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer S.O. J029.— 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 Annexnre in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.S.I.R. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42012/101/99-IR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. ID 206 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Bonera, PULWAMA (KMR).

. . .Union.

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 V/s.

The Scientist Incharge, C1MAP (CSIR), Field

Station, Boncra, Pulwama,

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the Workman/Union- -None.

For the Management—Shri T. S. Sidhu.

S.O. 1030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunail/Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.S.I.R. and their workman, which was received by the Cential Government on 25-4-2001.

AWARD

[No. L-42012/102/99-IR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer (Passed on 28-2-2001)

ANNEXURE Then Central Government vide Gazette Notifica- tion No. L-42012/101/99-IR(DU) dated 27-9-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

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

Case No. ID 205 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Tnsfiiute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Bonera PULWAMA (KMR).

1. "Whether the action of the management of CSTR represented by Scientist Incharge. CIMAP in terminating the services of Shri Nazir Ahmed Wani a daily rated workman w.e.f. 1083 and converting him into contract labour is just and legal. If

. .. Union.

V/s.

The Scientist Incharge, CIMAP (CSIR), Field ' Station¹, Bbnera,' VtriWaina.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the Workman/Union—None.

For the Management—Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central' Government • vide' Gamtc Notifica- tion No. L-420J2/102/99-lR(DU) dated 27-9- J 999 has referred'the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

1. "Whether the action of the management of CSIR. represented'by Scientist 'Incharge, CIMAP in terminating the services of Shri Sona Ullah Malik a dailv rated workman w.e.f. 1983 and conv&rtjnjj him into-contract labour is just and legal. If not, to What relief he is entitled and from what-date-?"

New-Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1031.—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 Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.S.I.R. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-420l2/103/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. B. L. JATW, PRESIDING OFFI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURI, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 203 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Cential Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Bonera, PULWAMA (KMR).

Union

V/s.

2. Whether the action of the management of CSTR' represented by Scientist Tncharge, GfiVfAP, Pulwama iu employing Sh. Sona Ullah as contract labour Through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to -date, On perennial/permanent nature of employ- ment i.e. Security of Farm arid Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to vmat relief the workman is entitled and from Whifch date ?

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. None- has put up appear- ance on behalf of the workman despite notice. No daim statement has' been filed since 1999. It appears that workman is not interested to puwue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present •reference is Tfetttrned to''the Ministry 'for' want of prosecution. Appropriate Government be 'irtftnmed.

Chandigarh,

-28-2-2001.

B. L. IATAV, ' Presiding Officer The Scientist Tncharge, CIMAP (CSIR), Field Station, Bonera, Piilwami.

Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the Workman/Union—None.

For the Management—Slui I. S, Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Government vide Gazette Notifica- tion No. L-42012/103/99-rR(DU) dated 27-9-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

on behalf of the workman The representatrv 2 of the manai^muu luis filed the affidavit of the vKjrkman disposing thai the woikman is not inteicsted in pursu- ing the icierejee nny further. In view of the affidavit if the woikman, IJK present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution Appropriate Government be informed.

Chandigarh, 28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S,O. J 032.—In'pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra] Government Industrial TribunaJ/Labcntr Court, Chandigarh, as shown-in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.S T.R. and their workman, which was received by the Cential Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42012/l04/99-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURJE

BEFORE SH. B L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDTGARH

Case No. I.D. 198 of 1999

The President, Labour- Union Centra) Institute of Medicuaal & Aromatic Plants. Bonera, PULWAMA (KMR).

Union,

213 5 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the management of CSlRr represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in terminating the • services of Shri Ab. Ahad Dar a daily rated workman w.c.f. 1983 and; converting him into contract labomr is juit andi legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date?"

2. Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge* CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Sh. Ab.' Ahad Dar as contract labour through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to date, on perennial/permanent nature of employ- ment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief. tha¹ workman is entitled and from which date ?

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. None has put up appear- ance 011 behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the workman deposing that the workman is not interested in pursu- ing the reference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution Appropriate Govjnment be informed,

Chandigarhj

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th' April, 200?

V/s.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L JAT AV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. T D. 213 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic plants, Bonera, F'ulwama (KMR) ...Union

V|s.

The Scientist Incharge, CIMAP (CSIR), Field Station, Bonera, Pulwam-i. Management.

APPHARANCF.S :

Foi the Workman, Union,--None,

For the Management,—Shri I. S. Sidhu,

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Government vide Gazette Notification No. L-42012|110[99|IR(DU) dated 29-9 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foi adjudication :

I. "Whether t.hc Bit ion of the management of CSIR ieprcsented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in termination the services of Shri Jalal-Din-Dar a daily rated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is just and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date ?

2 Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Tncharge, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Shri Jalal- Din-Dar as contract labour through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to dtifc, on perennial |permanent nature of employment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legtil and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?

Today the case was fixed for filing of claim state- ment by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the work- man deposing that the workman is not interested in pursuing the reference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman, the present reference is retrnucd to the Mjnistrv for want of prosccuMon. Ap- propriate Government be informed,

CHANT)TGARH.

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 1034.—In pursuance of Section -17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between this employers m rela- tion to the managemrnt of CSIR and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42O12]111|99-IR(DW1 KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 202 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic plants, Roncra, Pulwama (KMR). Union.

V|s.

The Scientist Incharge, CIMAP tCSIR), Field Station,

Bontra, Pulwama.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman, Union.—None.

For the Management.—Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Government \idc Gazette Notification No L-42012illl!99|lR('DU) dated 27-9-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in terminating the services of Shri Abj Gani Ganje a daily rated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is just and legal, If no), to what relief he is entitled and from what date ?

2, Whether the acticn of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulwama is employing Shri Ab, Gfini Ganic as contract labour through different contractors w e.f. 1983 to date, on ix-rennial]permanent nature of employment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and irnm which date ?

Today the case vwis fixed for filing of claim state- ment by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the work- man deposing that the workman is not interested in pursuing the reference any further, in view of the affi- davit of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Government be informed.

CHANDIGARH.

28-2-2001.

B. L. JAI'AV, Presiding Officer NJW Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Comt, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of CSIR and their workmen, which was ieeeived by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42012|125[99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RA1 VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 201 of 1999 The President, Labour Union, Central Institute of Medical and Aromatic PTnnls, Bonera. Pulwama (KMR). . .Union.

Vjs.

The Scientist Incharge, CIMAT¹ (CSIR), Field Siation, Bonera, Pulwama. Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman, Union.—None.

J3M r,T 12001—10.

2135 For the Management.—Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Go\eir>ment vide Gazette Notification No. L-420l2|125|99|IR(DU) dated 27-9-1999 has refentd the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP iu terminating the services of Shri Mu^htaq Ahmad a daily rated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is just and legal. If not, to whni relief he is entitled and from what dtite ?

2. Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Inchargc, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Sh. Mustaq Ahmad as contract labour through Different contiacts u.cf. 1983 to date, on perennial|permanent nature of employment i e. Secunty of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is Jegal and justified. If not, to what relief 'he workman is entitled and from which date ?

Today the case was fixed for filing of claim state- ment b> the workman. None hns put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the work- man deposing that the workman is not interested iri pursuing the reference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for vrant of prosecution. Appropriate Government be informed.

CHANDIGARH.

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Dispu'es Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal'Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of CSIR and their workman,2i3s THF; GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19,2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 ^ART TI—set. T ^I which was iceen'al by fhe Central Government on 25-4-2001.

INu. L 42OI2|126|99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RA1 V F R M\ Drsic Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE S11RT B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT r.'HUSTRIAI. IRIBUNAL-CUM-IABOUR rOt. I I T, CHANDIGARH

Cdwc No. l.D. 21I of 1999

Thie President, Labour UnionT Central Institute of Medical and Aroma'ic Plants, Boncra, Pnlv-aron (KMR). , .Union,

V¹-.

The Sc'entisl Tnihaige, CIMAP (CSIR), FiU i S':-f ••- Boncra, Pulwama.

. .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman, Union -Non?

For the M mi .cement,- -Shri I S, Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 2R-2-2001)

Then Central Go^inment vide Gazette Notification No. L-42012|126|99|IR(DU) dated 29-9-1999 has rclV-red the fo'ln-ving d^puk- u> this Tr'binal for adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the management of CS1R represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in termination the 'ervices of Gh. Mohd Sheikh a daily lated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is just apnd legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date ?

2. Whether the nclkn of the management of CSIR ivpiesenied by Scientist Inclrvrge, CTMAP, Fulwamn in employing Gh. Mohd. Sheikh as contract labour through Different contracts w.e.f. 1983 to date, on perennial I permanent nature of employment i.e. S?rurifv of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legnl and justified. If not, to what Href the workman is entitled and from vhVh date ?

Today the case W;JS fixed for filing of claim state- ment bv fhe workman. None has put up appearance on brhnlf u! the v.orlnmn d:spitr notice, No claim st;itcniopt h.'\s> br.n filed since 1090 Jt appears that workman i> not invre^ied to pursue wiih the present reference. In view or Iris affidavit of the workman, the present 'eference is returned to the Mini-'rv for wnnt of rn'r^^rntion. Appronn'ate Gov- ernment be informed.

CHANDIGARH.

28 2-2001.

B, L, JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the !ndua,ia1 Orpines Act, 19-17 (14 of 1947), the C;ntr_>l Govrnnncnt hereby publishes the Award of ti e Cer/ful Government T-idustrial Tribunal|Labouu Courl, Chandigarh, as shuwn in the Anncxure in the ImluNtricl Dispute between the employers in rela- tion, to the management • f CSIR and their workmen, v/hiih \\is rec-;,'i'i 1^ 'he Cer tral Government on 25-1-2001.

[No. L-42012|127j99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RA1 \^ERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BRFORT SHRI B. L. JV1AV, PRESIDING OFFTCFR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRTAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, CF1ANDJGARH

CJSC UO. l.D, 200 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal and Aroinaitic plants,, Eon.i-i, Puiwama (KMR). Union.

V|s.

The Scientist Incharge, TIMAP fCSIR), Field Station, Bnnua. Pulwiima. Management.

APPFARANCFS :

For the Workman, Union.—None.

For the M-n'xic-mcnt.—Shri 1. S, S>idhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Government vide Gazette Notification No. L-42012'127|99[IR(DU) dated 27-9-1999 has refined the following dispute to this Tribunal for 'KljiKiication :

I "Whether the ac^on of the management of CSTR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP in terminating the services of Slri Mohd Maqbool Mir a daily rated workman w.c.f. 1983 and converting him into contrr.ct labour is just and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from whrit elite?

2137

The President, Labour Union Central Insti- tute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants Bonera, PULWAMA (KMR). •• Union,

V]s.

The Scientist Incharge CIMAP (CSIR), Field Station Bonera, Pulwama.

• • Management.

2. Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Inchargc, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Shri Mohd Maqbool Mir as contract labour through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to date, on pcrennial|pcimunerit nature of employment i e. Sccunty of Faim and Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the woikman is entitled and fi om which date '.'

ApPEARANCES

For the Workman : Union None.

For the Management : • • Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD Today the case was fixed for filing of claim state- ment by the workman None has put up appearance on behalf of the woikman. The representative of the man-igeinent has filed the affidavit of the work- man deposing that the workman is not inteiested in pursuing the reference any further. In view of tlhe affidavit of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution Ap- propriate Government be informed.

(PASSED ON 28-2-2001) B L. JATAV. Presiding Officer

CHANDIGARH.

28-2-2001.

Then Central Govt. vide Gazette Notifica- tion No. L-420l2|128|99[IR(DU) dated 27-9-1^99 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal tor adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the manage- ment of CSIR represented by Scien- tist Incharge CIMAP in termina- ting the services of Shri Mohd Akbar Dar a daily rated workman w.c.f. 1983 and converting him into con- tract labour is just and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and froiv. what date ?

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

2. Whether the action of the manage- ment of CSIR represented by Scien- tist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Sh. Mohd Akbar Dar as contract labour through different contractors w.e.f. 1983 to date, on perennial [permanent nature of em- ployment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm opera!ions is legal and justified. Tf not. to what relief the workman is entitled and fro"n which date ?"

S.O. 1038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of J947), the Central Government hereby pub lishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal)Labour Court Chandi- garh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in iela- tion to the management of CSIR and ihcir workman, which was received by the Ccntial Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L - 4 2 o n | i 2 8 | 9 9 - i R r n mi

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. Today the case wa-, fixed for filling of claim statement by the woikmcn. None has put up appciumee on behalf of the workman despite notice. No claim statement has been filed t i ne 1990. It appeals that workman r not interested lo pursue with the present re- ference. In view of the a l w e, the present re- ference is returned to the Ministry for want of pmvculion Anpro.prii.te Govl. bo 'room- ed.

Chandigarh. 2

BEFORR SITRr B L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL C.QVT, JNDITS TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMT ABOUR COURT, CHANDTGARTT

28-2-2001.

Tase No. f.D. 201 of 1900

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer213$ THE GAZEtTE OF IKEttA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAtSAKHA 29, 1923 [PART It—&EC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the ' Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CSIR and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42012|129|99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. J.D. 212 of 1999 The President Labour Union Central Insti- tute of Medicinal & Aromatic plants, Bonera, PULWAMA (KMR). •• Unoin.

V|s.

The Scientist Incharge, CIMAP (CSIR), Field Station* Bonera, Pulwama,

Management.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Union None.

For the Management : Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(PASSED ON 28-2-2001)

Then Central Govt. vide Gazette Notifica- tion No. L-42012jl29|99!lR(DU) dated 29-9-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

1. "Whether the action of the manage- ment of CSIR represented by Scien- tist Incharge, CIMAP in terminating the services of Shri Ab. Salam Mir a daily rated workman w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into contract labour is just and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date ?

2. Whether the action of the manage- ment of CSIR represented by Sci- entist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulwama in employing Ab. Salam Mir as con- tract labour through different con- tractors w.e.f. 1983 to date, on per- ennial [permanent nature of employ- mennt i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed the affidavit of the workman deposing that the workman, is not interested in pursuing the reference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman, the present re- ference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution Appropriate Govt. be inform- ed.

B. L. JATAV, Prcsiiding Officer CHANDHIGARFI

28-2-2001,

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh as shown in (he¹ Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the mangement of C.S.I.R. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42012ll30i9MR(DU)l KULDIF RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. ID|210 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Bonera, PULWA'M-A (KMR).

Union.

V|S

The Scientist Tnchaj^e, CIMAP (CSIR), Field Station, Bonera, Pulwamnl.

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Union—None.

For the Management : Shri I. S. 'Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then¹ Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No. L- 42012|13Ql99|IR(DU) dated 29-9-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication;

2139 New Delhi, the 25lh April, 2001 S.O. 1041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial! Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award-of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of CSIR ad their workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-42O12|131|99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. ID|2O7 of 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Bonera, PULWAMA (KMR). ..Union.

V|S.

2. Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP, Pulvyama in employing Sh. Aziz Bhat as contract Jabour thiougn different contractors w.c.f. 1983 to date on perennial| permanent nature of employment i.e. Secu- rity of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified? If not, to what reliet the vx>rkrnan is entitled a|nd from which date ?"

Today the caie was fixed for filing of claim state- ment by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. The representative of the management has filed¹ the affidavit of the work- man deposing that the workman is not interested in pursuing the leference any further. In view of the affidavit of the workman, the present reference is Returned to the ^Ministry for wulnt of prosecution Appropriate Govt. be informed.

CHANDIGARH,

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Union—None,

Foi tho Management : Shn I. S. Sidhu,

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Govt. vide Ga^eiTe Notification No. L- 420121132199JIRCDU1 dated 29-9-1999 hafc, referred the following dspute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion;

1- "Whether the action of tht management ot GS1R represented by Scientist lnchnrgc, CIMAP in teiminating the iservices of Shri Muzaflar Ahmed Mala daly rated work- man w.e.f. 1983 and convertng him into contract labour is just and legal. If not, to what relief he is entitled and from, what date?

2. Whether the action ot the management df CSIR represented by Scientist Incharge, CIMAP. Pulwama in employing Shri Muzarffar Ahmed Mala as contract labour through different cotractors w.e.f. 1983 to date on perennial/permanent nature of employment i.e. Security of Farm and Misc. Farm operations is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled and from which date ?"

shown in the Arwexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management oi CSiR and their workman, which was leccived by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

I No. L - 4 2 0 I 2 / 1 3 3 / 9 y / - m ( D U )] KULDIP RAI VEKMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHKI B. L. TATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID|2O8 ot 1999

The President, Labour Union Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Bonera. PULWAMA (KMR), ..Union.

V|S

The Scientist Inchargc, CIMAP VCSIR), Field Station, Bonera, Piilwama.

Management.

APPEARANCES .

For the Workman : Onion—None.

For the Management : Shri I. S. Sidhu.

AWARD

(Passed on 28-2-2001)

Then Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No. L- 420121133t99|IR(DU) da|ted 2Q-Q-1999 has referred I he following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :

1. ''Whether the action of the management of CSIR represented bv Scientist Incharge, (TIMAP in terminating the services of Sh. Gh. Hasan Bhat a daily rated workrnsm w.e.f. 1983 and converting him into con- tract labour is just and legal. If not, ,to what relief he is entitled and from what date?

2. Whether the aption of t tie management of CSIR represented by 'Scientist Tncharjse, CTMAP, Pulwama in employing Sh. Gh. Hasan Bhat as contract labour through diffe- rent contractors w.e.f. 1983 to date on peren- nial loermanent nature of employment i.e. Security of Fa|i-m and Misc Farm opera- tions is legal and justified. If not. to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?

Today the case was fixed for filine of claim id the nffidnvit of the workman denosinp that the workman is not invested in rmr- cibinp the r'-'tWence an" fiirfhor. Tn view of the affida- vit of the workman, thr present reference is returned t(i the MinrVrv for want of r>rovcufirn Annroprhte rfovt hi" informed.

CHANDIGARH.

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

2141 New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Instt. for Research on Bufalloes and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 25-4-2001.

INo. L-42012|149|92-IR(DU)] KULDIF RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. 1.0. 148 of 1993

PRESIDENT: Distt; Agriculture Worker's Union 123|5, Jawahar Nagar, Hissa|r.

Petitioner.

V|s.

Director, Central Instt. for Research, on Bufalloes, Hissar-125001

Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : Sh. Darshan Singh.

For the Management : Ralmeet Sharma.

AWARD

(Passed on 2nd March, 2001)

The Cential Govt, Ministry of Labour vide Noti- fication No. L-4?O12|149|92-I.R.(DU.) dated 7th December 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen- tral Instt. for Research on Bufalloes. Hissar k not giving wapes on the principal of "Fqual Wages for Equal Work" to Sh. Ved Parkash. workman is justified ? If not. whplf relief the workman is entitled to and from what date 7"2142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART 'II—SEC. 3*(")] 2. Today the case was fixed far appearance of the workman. The rep. of the workman appeared and m:i|de the statement that the workman does not want to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned td the Minis- try as not pressed. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

CHANDIGARH. Camp : Hissar. 22-3-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Triburral|Lataoui Court, Ajmer, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between tho employers in relation to the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and- their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001

[No. L-42O12|197|96-1R{BUJ KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer 2143 1364 GI|2001—11.

tJSfe,w Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

tr#".; W4$.-^-ln pursuance of Secton 17 of the Industrial.Disputes Act, . 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central "Government hereby publishes the Award of the': IndiKtrialn •Tribunal/I^abour Coarf, Ajmer as shows in thf. AistKxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of 'Jawtfhar Navdtliaya Vidyalaya and flieir workman, whieh ^as wqeivetf, % the Central Government on 25-4r2001.

[NiefeTM2O12jl98l9^IR(DU)]

JLVLVWMAl VERMA, Desk Officer 21452146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 IPARr II—SEC. 3(ii)1

2147

N"w Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S O. 1047.—In pursuance df Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Gentral Government Industrial Tnbunal|Labour Court, No.II, Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of M|s. Ricjiardson and Cruddas Ltd (1972) and their workman, which was received by the Central 'Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-420l2|235|98-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURK

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

PRESENT :

S. R. Saundankar

Reference No. CGIT-2]133 of 19992148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Employers in relation to the management of—

The Genl. Manager (IR), M|s. Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. (1972) Byculla Iron Works, Byculla,

Mumbai 400 008.

AND

Their Workmen.

The President, Association of Engineering Workers 252, Janta Colony, Ramnarayan Narker Marg, Ghatkopar tEast) Mumbai-400 077. APPEARANCES :

For the Employer.—Mr. S. Z. Chowdhary Ad- vocate.

For the Workmen : Mr. Abhay Kulkarin, Advo- cate.

Mumbai, dated 2nd April, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-42012|235|98|IR (DU), dated 26-4-1999, have referred to the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of M|s. Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd., Byculla Iron Works, Byculla, Mumbai in not allowing the workman, Sh.Nandkumar Rane to attend his dutes is legal a|nd justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Pursuant to the notices the workman Mr. Rane filed his Statement of Claim (Exhibit-7) and the iume was resisted by the employer M[s. Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., Mumbai vide Written Statement (Exhibit-9). On the rival pleadings of the parties. My Learned Predecessor framed issues (Exhibit-11). Thereafter, the workman Mr. Rane by purshis (Ex- hibit-14) closed his evidence and when the matter was fixed for evidence of the management the work- •man Mr. Rane vide purshis (Exhibit-18) dt. 3-1-2001 apprised that he does, not wish to proceed with the matter and that he be allowed to withdraw the same. The management vide say dated 22-2-2001 contend- ed that the workman h being given benefit of Volun- tary Retirement Scheme, therefore, they have no objection to dispose the matter. Today on 2-4-2001, on behalf of the President, Association of Engineer- ing Workers i.e. Union Advocate Mr. Abhay Kul- karni appeared vide (,ExhibiM9). He has orally contended that matter be disposed of. Since the workman Mr. Rane and the union do not wish to proceed the reference will have to be disposed of and hence the order :—

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution vide purshis (Exhibit-18).

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI Reference No. C.G.LT. 2|133|1999 Employers in Relations tc Management M|s. Richardson and Cruddas Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri. Nandakumar Maruti Rane.

SUBJECT :

Withdrawal of Reference No. CGIT|21133|1999.

Mny it please your Honour.

In the above matter, Reference Nd. CGIT : 2| 13311999 the Workman do not want to proceed fur- ther and therefore plead that the workman may please be allowed to wifhdraw the same.

Workman in the above matter

N. M. RANE

(Nfindakumar Maruti Rane) Mumbai.

Dated : 3-1-2001.

Sd|- 2149 New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 fl4 of 1947), the Cen- tra] Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govemmenl Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexure m the Industrial Dispute between the employer, in relation to the management of Telecom. Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-400i2/81/98-lR

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHRNNA1 Friday, the 30th March, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeynn, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 89(2001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 39]1999)

BETWEEN

Shii R. Rajakumaran, Tiruchcngode.

following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 4SS12|8lj98|IR(r>U) dated 16-2-1999 :—

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Salem and Chennai in terminating the services of Shri R. Raja- kumaran, Ex-Casual Labour w.e.f. 1-3-91 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

This order of reference was first made to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute for ad- judication and the same was taken on file by that Tribunal as I.D. No. 3911999. Subsequently, by the orders of Government, this case has been transferred from the file of that Tribunal to this Tribunal and was taken on file as I.D. No. 89 j 2001.

2. This case was fixed on 30-3-2001 this date as a final hearing after it has been adjourned to various dates from I6-1-20C1, the date on which it was taken on file on transfer. Though the counsel on either side wax present on the first hearing on 30-1-2001 on leceipt of notices by Registered Post, neither both the parties nor their respective counsel appeared in Court for case for the subsequent hearing on 12-2-2001, 26-2-2001, 9-3-2001, 27-3 2001 and this date 30-3-2001. From the persal of the records of this case, it is seen that the Claim Statement of the Petitioner (I Party was not filed till the case was trans- fer! ed from that Tribunal, though the counsel enter- ed appearance in ih's case for the Petitioner and tiled vakulat on the first hearing itself there on 29-4-1999 and took time for filing Claim Statement of I Party. Since neither of the parties appeared before this Tribunal today and the Claim Statement of I Party] Petitioner has not been filed in this case ever since 29-4-1999, it can be presumed that, at present there is no dispute between them or they have amicably settled onside the Court in the meantime. According- ly, 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed by him and corrected and pronounced bv me in the open court on this day, the 30th March. 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

. .Pctitioner[I Party

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle Chennai.

2. The General Manager, Telecom,

Salem.

. .Management|II Party

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner,—Sri R. Rengaramanujam, Advocate.

For the Management.—Sri V. N. Gowri Sankar, Additional Central Government Standing Ccnnsel.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercire of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of ths Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, have referred the

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001 S.O. 1049.—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/Labour2130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19,' 2601/ VATSAKHA 29, 1923 [PAHTII—SEC. 3(ti)] Gourt, Chennai, as shown in the Annexuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation fo the management of Telecom. Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001,

[No. L-40012/420/2000-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

Since on 15th March, 2001. the Presid- ing Officer was on leave, the case was posted to 29-3-2001. On 29-3-2001 neither parties and the counsel tor the I Party/Petitioner was present and thcie is no representation on either side. No Claim Statement was filed for the I Party/Petitioner, hence the case was adjourned to 9-4-2001.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 9th April, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute Na 345/2001

BETWEEN

Shri T. Ahanthan, Syo Thannaian, Kanchipirfam . .. Petitioncr/I Party.

AM)

3. As this case was fixed for to-day's hearing ue. on 9-4-2001 as final hearing for the I Party to file his Claim Statement With documents and for the appearance of the II Party/Management, none of Ithem is present today. The counsel for the I Party also is not present and there is no representation on either side. The Claim Statement with documents for the I Party wa& not filed. The I Party called absent. Since neither of the parties appeared before this Tri-* bunal today and the Claim Statement of the I Party/ Petitioner has not been filed in this case ever since the beginning, it can be presumed that at present there is no dispute between them for this Tribunal to adjudicate upon. Hence thU industrial dispute is dis- missed for default and tor non-representation. Ac- cordingly, 'No Dispute' award is passed. No Cost.

The General Manager, Telecom, Chengalpattu. . .. Management/11 Party

APPEARANCE:

For the Petttionor—M/s, M. Gnanasekar and

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed & typed by him and corrected & pronouaccd by r"e in the open court on this day, the 9th April, 20001). ' C. Prcmavathy, Advocates.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer For the Management—None.

AWARD

Tho Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exsttttoe.'of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194-7, have referred the following, dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/420/2000/IRCDU) dated 27-12+2000:,-

"Whether the termination and non-regularisation of Sri T. Ananthan by the management of Telecom Department is legal and justified ? If notj to what relitef the workman is en- titled ?"

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

SO. 1050—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes th# awaid of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Aimer, as shown in the Annexure in tlje Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of Adhishasi Adhikari, Chawani Mandal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-J3012/J/97-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer 2. On receipt of this reference by the Centra) Gov- ernment to this Tribunal for adjudication of the Sdtedtil" mentioned industrial dispnte between the pattiw,. the ease, was taken on file of this Tribunal as T.D. No. 345/2001 on 18-T-2QO1 and notroes were ordered to both the parties to be sent by Re- gistered Post with acknowledgment card fox the hearing on 14-2-2001. On that day, the, advocai" Sri M. Gnanasekar undertook to file vakalat far the I Party/Petitioner. As the. notfee sent to the IT Party was not vet returned fresh notice was ordered td be sent by Registered Po^t with acknowled cement card for the hearing 1-3-2001, gramim? time for I Paity counsel to file hf* vaitalat. Claim Statement with documents of the T Party; On 7-3-2001, vakalat for the I Pa£tv//Claimant was filed bv bis counsel and nn his nation, time- was extended for frrJujr Claim Statement with documents tfll 15th March, 200O1, 2151

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in fie Anncxure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of General Manager, Ordnance Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2001.

[No. L-14012/5 l/99-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shi: B G. Saxena, Piesicling Officer.

Reference No. CGIT: 41/99

Employers in relation to the Management of The General Manager, Ordnance Factory

AND

Their workman Shri Pradeepkumar L. Vyas.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New DcMii, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-14012/51/99/IRCDU) dated 27-10-1999 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, Nagpur in removing Sh. P. L. Vyas, Grinder, skilled from service w.'e.f. 5-8-93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the work- man is entitled ?"

The workman Shri Pradeepkumar S/o Laxman Prasad Vyas was Grinder in Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, Nagpur. He was working as "Skilled" Grinder w.e.f. 16-10-81. On 26-9-92 at about 21.00 hours he was mustering out of the Ordnance Factory after staggering shift from Gate No. 3. The Darwan on search duty requested P. L. Vyas, workman to open the cover of the Scooter on engine side. He ex- pressed difficulty in opening cover saying that, it had been fixed tight. The Durwan reported the matter to B, D. Kakde, Security Assistant on duty. On open- ing the cover of engine of Scooter one bag was found in which Impregnated Diamond Taper Cim Wheel Metallic Cup No. B &S 52383 DI/A 2J00/120 N 75B 10 which is used in Shell Machine Section was recovered. P. L. Vyas stated that he was taking out tlhig wheel for personal use New Delhi, the 25th April, 2001

S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

The recovered material was sealed in the presence of Shri P. L. Vyas, workman and ailso in the pre- sence of Shri D. D. Sharma, Foreman/Safetv Cell Orderly Officer. Shri B. D. Kakcte, SA "B'VSO on duty at Gate No. 3, P. V. Raut, Durwan/SO on duty and their signatures were obtained on the sealed nacket. The allegations are fhat the workman P. L. Vyas attempted to commit theft of the above noted wheel

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- l,r? ; L 9 ^e n H n em h c r e by Pubiis*"* the award of the

1364 GI|2001—12,21S2 THE GAZETTE OF DOHA : MAY Wr "001/ VAKAiCHA 29, Ift23 [PjM^Mfrn-Si^ 3001 In the Statement of Claim the workman P, L. Vyas stated that he was suspended on 30-9-92. Enquiry was conducted against him. One Mr. Chandxjkapurc pressurised him to confess the guilt. He admitted the allegations of theft underpressure of Security Offi- cer Shri Chandrikapure. The workman stated that the enquiry was not conducted against him properly and punishment awarded to him is disproportionate.

Shri G. Krishna Kishore, Works Manager/Adminis- tration submitted Written Statement on 24th Janu- ary, 2000. He has stated that on 26-9-92 at 21.00 hours the workman P. L. Vyas was found taking away, one grinding wheel (impregnated diamond paper metallic cup wheel) through gate No. 3 of Ordnance Factory, Ambazari in the staggering shift on his Scooter He had committed theft and was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30-9-92. Chargeshect was issued against him on 1-12-92. After completing en- quiry, his service was terminated w.c.f. 5-8-93.

Both the parties did noil prefer to produce any oral evidence in this court. They have submitted their Written Arguments. The counsel for the woikman did not argue the case orally.

The counsel for the workman represented that he has submitted Written Arguments. The counsel for management also did not argua the case orally.

I have considered the documents filed by the man- agement regarding the enquiry conducted against the workman. The workman has also submitted his/ re- joinder.

The workman has mentioned in reminder that the cooy of charge sheet was not given to him in Hindi language.

This argument is baseless as workman had him- self admitted hjs~ euilt during the encmiry. He was wfil infofrned during enquiry proceedings about the allegations for which he was facing enouirv On the o"her hand the workman was coueht while he was taking away above mentioned Grinding Wheel.

The workman has stated that somebodv else would hnve obced this wheel in his Scooter due to enmity. There is nothing on record to show that he had pnmitv with anv official rx>sfed on eatc No. 3 of the Ordnance Factory, where the recovery of the above whorl was made from his Scooter.

The workman did not produce anv oral or docu- mentary evidence regardinc his false implication The epquirv renort dated 4-5-93 of Shri Mahesh Kumar, TVTMVF. has been submitted bv the management whifih rleariv shows that the workman had confrssed hh "niilt He wn" caught on 26-Q-92 at 21 00 hour at <""tn No ^ wHV he was taking awav the above mfntfofied tm'nder wheel nn his Scooter.

P V Pwit burl (innenred as wtness during pncmirY frn*n thf <;W of management The workman did not prefer to produce any witness in his (Vfence during enquiry

Tn thf nbove circumstances the charge levelled ajminst him has been nroved. Their is no reason to WVu<- that he has boen faisciv imnlirnted Th'ir is t1^;^|>li"^T o" record to show that Mr Chandrika pupfti Seciiritv Officer had any reason^to-pre^suris^ hull to admit his guilt.

The enquiry was therefore conducted fairly and according to the principles of natural justice.

In the circuiLStances discussed above the action of the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, Nagpur in removing Shri P. L. Vyas, Grinder (Skil- led) from service on 5-8-93 was legal and justified.

In Written Argument dated 11-1-2001, the coun- sel for the management P. V. Shinde has mentioned that the workman has not produce any evidence to show that he had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Authority. Hence the order for dismissal has become final.

ORDER

The action the General Manager, Ordnance Fac- tory, Ambazari, Nagpur in removing Shri P. L. Vyas, Gnnder (Skilled) from service w.cf. 5-8-93 is legal and justified.

The workman is not entitled to any other relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated: 27-3-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001

S O. 1052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In* dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal | Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/53/91-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

AJSfNEXURE

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

Dated : 4-4-2001

PRESENT :

Hobble Shii V. N. Kulkaml, B.Com., LLB.

CR. No. 38/91 2153 I PARTY

Shri A. Naveerichandra, S/a Sri A. Vamana, Near Chakrapani Temple, N. O. Road, Attavar, Mangalore-575001.

Tl PARTY

Asstt. General Manajger, Vijaya Bank, Zonal Office, Kodialbail, Mangolore-575003.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dis putes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012]53|91-IR-BII, dated 1-7-91 for adju- dication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Vijaya Bank is jus- tified in dismissing Shri A. Naveenchandra from service w.e.f. 27-11-89 ? If not. to what lclief the workman is entitled ?"

2. In order to dispoie of this reference, few facts

are necessary and they are as under:—

5. The Second Party filed Counter, contenting thiit the application is not maintainable on question of law and facts. The First Party was not attending duties properly. The contention of the First Party that, the superior officials have assured the First Party that transfer order will be revoked is not correct. It is not conect that the Fuel Party was prevented from attend- ing duties regularly on account of ill health. In fact the First Party was not happy about bis transfer to Jakribettu Branch and with oblique motive he remain- ed absent unauthorisedly for long period and the total adbsence was for 645 days between 9-1-1984 to 21-8-1938 and the absence was in violation of the leave rules of the bank. He was charge sheeted for unauthorised absence and various acts of misconduct as per charge sheets dated 29-5-1985, 1-12-1987, 4-1-1988 and 30-8-1988. On enquiry the First Party deserved deterrent punishment but the Second Party took a lenient view and imposed lighter punishment and advised him to improve himselt but he did not change his attitude and he continued to remain absent unauthorisedly as staled in para 2 of the Counter. Regarding enquiry it is said that the first party avoided enquiry in spite of service of notice. In fact the En- quiry Officer granted time to the First Party to file Written Statement. The enquiry is in accordance with the rules and Bipartite Settlement and in consonance with Principles of Natural Justice and reasonable op- portunity was given to the First Party. It is the further case of the Second Party that on 31-1-89 he attended the enquiry and voluntarily admitted the charges level- led against him and submitted an explanation. But the Disciplinary Authority taking the previous conduct of first party and other matters rightly dismissed the first party and there is no merit in the reference. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry on 11-10-89 at Jakri- bettu Branch with due notice to the First Party. The Second Party for the above reasons has prayed to reject the reference. In para 10 previous punishments arc also shown.

3. The First Pany was appointed as Peon on 1-9-7^ at Light House Hill Road Divisional Office, and there- after he was translcrred to G.H.S. Road Branch, Print- ing and Stationery Section Bunder Branch, Light House Hill Road Divisional Office and finally he was transferred to Jakjibettu Branch on 22-5-1984. Till his transfer he was. working without any complaints. The transfer to Jakribettu was very inconvenient to him because of his ill health aud he gave representa- tions and it was assured that his transfer order will be revoked. On account of ill health first party was unable to attend duties. He had 90 days previleged leave aud 90 days of sick Wave to his credit but charge sheet was issued to him and he was dismissed from service Therefore, dispute was raised.

6. It is seen from the records that, in order to prove that the domestic enquiry was valid and legal, Second Party examined one witness- MW 1, Shri K. Jayraj B. RaJ, Chief Manager, who has given detailed evidence and documents are marked in his eviderice. He was representing the management in the enquiry. The enquiry date was fixed after giving notice to the first party. This MW1 is not cross examined and General Secretary submitted that he has no cross examination so far as validity of DE is concerned but it was further submitted that light was reserved to point out the per- versity of the finding. It is seen from the order sheet dated 3rd August, 1999 that in view of the statement made by the General Secretary, my learned predecessor has noted that separate order on merit of-DE is nut necessary and it Is held that the DE is valid.

7. All this would go to show that during the trial

the First Party has admitted the validity of DE.

4. The First Party filed his claim statement, con- tenting that he was not keeping good health and he was transferred in spite of his not keeping good health. He had 90 days of previleged leave and 90 days of sick lea's o at his credit but charge sheet was issued on 18-3-1999, alleging that the First Party is in the habit of remaining absent from duty unauthorjsedly very fre- quently without prior intimation or sanction of leave. Details are given in para 3 of the Claim Statement. One Mr. K. S. Vcnkappa Rai was appointed as En- quiry Officer. First Party informed the Enquiry Officer that he did not commit any misconduct and his absence is beyond his control. The Enquiry Officer has not considered clause 19.12(e) of Bipartite Settlement. Regarding enquiry it is said that the same is not correct and the Principles of Natural Justice were violated. The action of the Disciplinary Authority in dismissing the First Party is not correct. First Party for these reasons had prayed to allow the reference.

8. Now we will have to sec whether the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse or void, I have carefully percued all the papers of the DE and the documents marked in the enquiry.Thwe are num- ber of leave applications filed by the first party. Some leave applications are on the ground of urgent domes- tic work and some of them are on medical grounds,tlU THE WSimTB OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 LPAUT TJ^SEC, 3f(ii)l I have read the above decisions carefully. I have al- ready said that the enquiry is valid and proper a'id there is no perversity hi this finding given by the Enquiry Officer. 1 have read the decisions reported in 1995(1) LLJ 1065 in the Hon'ble High Court pf Karnataka carefully and I am of the opinion that the facts of the case on hand are similar to the fact of the above deci- sion. The learned counsel for the second party keep- ing in mind the principles held in the decision of Hon'ble High Couit of Karnataka referred above fairly submitted that he has no objection if the order of dismissal is modified to one of termination from service \ .e.f. the same date. In view of this fair submission and the principles held in the decision of High Court of Karnataka, I am of the opinion that, the ends of justice will meet if the order of dismissal is modified to one of termination.

ORDER

Accordingly lefeicnce is disposed of and the order of dismissal passed by the Second Party is modified to one of termination from service w.e.f. the same date. (Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and

signed by me on 4-4-2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer The first party has filed medical certificates. From the Medical Certificates it is clear that for minor ailments the first party went to the doctors concerned and ob- tained certificates and remained on leave without prior sanction. It is clear from the records that the first party was in the habit of remaining absent for long period without prior sanction on leave. But for the illness alleged by the first party, there is no valid explanation why he remained absent for a long period without prior sanction of leave. On going through the records, it is clear that the finding given by the Ea- uiry Officer is not pciverse. Definately such a long absent without prior sanction of leave amounts to gro*.-i indiscipline. It was argued by the learned counsel fo- the second party I hat such long absence without prior sanction of leave will cause some inconvenience in the working of the bank and it is impossible to main- tain any degree of discipline or efficiency. J have con- sidered the entire material carefully. I am of the opi- nion that, instance of such misconduct requires serious consideration. It is also clear from the records that before such long absence, the first party remained absent on many occasions and minor punishments were awarded. All the cllcgations made by the second party are not disproved by the firrt party. It is seen from the records that the first party has not examined him- self iu support of his case that he was not keeping good health and his absence was beyond his control. The first party for the reasons best known to him has aKo not examined, the doctors from whom he took treat- ment. Taking all this into consideration and 1 am uf the opinion that the second party has proved the misconduct.

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001 9. Now the next question for consideration is whe- ther the management is justified in awarding punish- ment of dismissal end same is proportionate to the proved misconduct. The learned counsel for the second party argued that Bank employee unautho- risedly remaining absent from work for a long period is serious misconduct and the dismissal order is corrci-f. In support of his arguments he relied following cita- tions :

1. 2000(1)SCC 65

Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary, Sjndi- cate Bank Staff Association and Another. Bank employee unauthorisedly absenting fror-i work for a period exceeding the prescribe J limit. In such circumstances the bank, held, rightly treated the employee to have volun- tarily retired from service.

S.O. 1053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh ai shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-12O12/34O/91-1R(B-II)] 2. 1996 Lab I.C. 754(SC)

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh Delin- quent-absenting himself from duty without leave on several occasions-punishment of re- moval from service-proper-punishment impos- ed did not warrant interference.

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHANDIGARH

3. 1 9 9 5 ( l ) LU 1065 (Kar)

CKSC NO. ID 35 of 1992

A. M. Bashwarachar Vs. Executive Engineer. Habitual absence-Gross misconduct-No mis- placed sympathy-Instances of habitual absence require to be dealt with firmly and it is very much in public interest such gross mijbe- haviour requires to be very firmly dealt with.

Shu Maku Lil, C/o Shri Sanjucvan Kumar Shastii, Arya S.uriaj Mandir, Model Town. Rohtak.

. . . Petitioner 2155

Vs.

Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, Bank Square, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh, . . .Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman : None.

For the Management : Shri Ashok Jain.

AWARD

(Passed on 27th March, 2001)

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12012/340/9M.R.B.2 dated 26th March, 1992 has leferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad BBnk in dismissing Shri Maiku Lai from the service of the Bank is justified 7 If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. Today the case has been fixed for evidence of ^ie parties. Despite several notices none has put up for appearance on behalf of the workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In the circumstances, since the workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference, Ihe same is returned to the Ministry for want of prose- cution. Appropriate Govcrnmeni be informed.

Chandigarh,

27-3-2001.

B. L, JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001 S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ban- galore as shown in the annexuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Jnanagemcnt of Dena Bank and their workman, which *vas received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001

[No. L-12012/243/93-IR(B-II)] C. GANG4DHARAN, Under Sccv.

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 11th April, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Cdm. LLB, Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 22/94

I PARTY

Ashok G. Kuintekar, represented by the General Secretary. Dena Bank Staff Union,

' C/o Dena Bank,

Zonal Office, No. 71, Millers Road, Bangalore-560052.

II PARTY

The Management of Dena Bank, Sona Towers, No. 71, Millers Road, Bangalore-560052.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause fd) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-J2012/243/93-lR(B-II) dated 22-2-94 for adju- dication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Bangalore in dismissing Shri Ashok G. KumDkar, Cashier from service with effect from 29-10-92 is justified ? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter lespcctlvdy.

3. The First Party was working in the Second Party Bank and dismissed from service w.e.f. 29-10-92 on the basis of the enquiry repoit.

4. First Party in the claim statement has contented that he was working in the bank since 1980 as Cashier. Charge Sheet was issued on 25-7-1990 and he submit- ted explanation but not being satisfied with explana- tion, domestic cnquny was held against him and on the basis of report he was dismissed from service but the dismissal order is not coirect. The first party in the Claim Statement has alleged that the Enquiry Ofiicei was biased being the Lop official of the Second Pad) Bank. He has also stated that no time was given to examine liis matters. The enquiry is not proper. Tht- Enquiry Officer has not allowed tne first party to mark documents. AH other allegations made by thf Second Party in tht churge sheet are denied. It is true while joining the bank, the first party had declared2156 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA . WATT?, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PAJIT !&-&&. 3 (ii)] that he belonged to Bttfldi Cdmmunity (Scheduled Caste) and availed concessions. He fiiio says that the entry found in the School Leaving Certificate issued by the head master to the Yrorkmart shows that belong to Hindu Goud Saraswut Brahmin Community but it is not correct The Bdndi Community is also called Devali Community among Konkani and Marathi speak- ing people. All other details are given in the State- ment. Punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. First Party for these reasnns has prayed to pass an award.

5. Second Party m the Counter Statement has staled that the first party at the time of his entry into service was required to furnish hit bio-data and also other particulars regarding antecedents, relatives etc.f and the information furnished by the first party, and- on en- quiry it was found incorrect. The first party secured employment on the strength of his declaration that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, but his School Certificates disclose that he actually belonged to Gowda 'Saraswatfu Brahmiu Community. First Party was not doing th" work properly assigned to him. He availed traVel con- cession by giving false information. Therefore, oharge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. So far as enquiry is concerned, it was hold correctly by giving full opportunity to the first party and the misconduct is proved. The allegations made by the first party about the enquiry arc not correct. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the refeiencc.

6. The Management, in order to prove the case exa- mined Mr. K. V. R. Shastry, MW 1. He has given detail evidence. According to his evidence full oppor- tunity was given to the first party and enquiry was held. This witness is cross examined by the first party. MW 1 has denied suggestion that the first party has made a request to examine another on 16-4-1991 and the same was rejected, I have considered the evidence of MW I carefully. I have considered all the documents marked in the enquiry. In the instant case my learned Predecessor has given finding to th*- effect that the enquiry js valid and proper. I have considered all the papers of the enquiiy and the report. There is no perversity in the s>ume. The First Party in spite of many chances has not examined himself to disprove the evidence of MWJ. Many of the documents are filed by the first party hjmself arc marked in the enquiry as documents. The charges are proved. In my opinion the order of dismissul is correct in view of the charges levelled against the first party. Considering all these I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the refer- ence. Accordingly T proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The ReFertoice is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 11th April, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001 S.O. 1055—In pursuance of Section 17 of *he Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-nO12/194/96-lR(B-H)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 10th April, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LL.B., Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 190/97

I PARTY:

The General Secretary, Vijaya Bank Employees Federation, 18—22, Bylappa Building. Cubbonpet Mam Road, Bangalore-560 002.

II PARTY:

The General Manager, Vijaya Bank (t.R.), Head Office, N.G. Road, Bangalore-560 001.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and sub-section 2A r>f the Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/194/96-IR (B-II) dated 2-12-96 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank in transferring Sri V. S. Jaya- ram to another branch of the bank which has resulted in denial of special allowance Is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. In order to dispose of this reference, few facts are necessary and they are as under:—

MV 3. Notices were issued to parties and. parties filed

Claim Statement and Counter respectively/

4. The First Party through Vijaya Bank Emplo- yees Federation as a raised dispute aggrieved by the transfer order by the Second Party management. The First Party in the Claim Statement has stated that he was employed by the Second Party on 31-1-1977 and he was posted at different places like ShjUong, Maljeshwaram etc. Thereafter he was post- ed to its Currency Chest at Bangalore w^e.f. June, 1986, assigning him the Special Allowance attracting duties, threat. This Special Allowance had become part and parcel ot his wages. It is further stated that on 30-4-1995 management issued an order of trans- fer from the Currency Chest to BannerghatU Branch and thereby the first party was put to great monetary loss, loss of status and loss of comfort. This transfer has also prejudicially hampered his trade union acti- vities. His transfer is mala-fide. The transfer order was issued to stall well known union activities of the First Party as stated in detail in para 5 of the State- ment, The First Party for all these reasons have pray- ed to pass an award in his favour.

6. It is seen from the records that the first party and advocate were not regular in attending the near- ing dates. The second party in order to prove his cu£.e examined ?one "Mi. %. K. Aiva, Manager as MW-1. Documents Ex. M-l to M-19 are marked. I have carefully read the evidence, and perused the re- cords. MW-1 ha$ categorically stated that a represen- tation was given by the first pwjty requesting the man- agement to transfer to a branch near to Bangalore and accordingly he was posted to head office and then to Currency Chest Bank. AEter 9 years of ser- vice the first party was transferred to Bannerghatta Branch, The first party challenged this transfer in a writ petition No. 16491 as per Ex. M-10 and that was dismissed. He has given evidence about recog- nised union. He has further stated that Special Allow- ance will be given to the employees who perform additional duties such as handling of cash, telex operating etc. and Ex. M-l8 General Rules regarding payment of Special Allowance. It is also stated in the transfer place he works getting special allowance wiU be rotated between employees. Ex. M-19 is the Cir- cular. He has further stated that the first party has put in total service of 15 years as Basgalore. There is no reason to discard the evidence of MW-1. He is not even-cross-examined by the first party for the reasons best known to him. If at all the first party has any rightful claim, he would contested the matter seriously and cross-examined MW-1 and would have adduced the evidence to disprove the case of the man- agement. The first party filed writ petition and has withdrawn the said Writ Petition. According to the Circulars and other documents relied by the Second Party it is cleared that the first party has no right in claiming Special Allowance without entrusting anv special duties. It is clear from the evidence of MW-1 and the documents that special allowance is given for certain work of the Bank and whenever cmplovee pets special work such allowance is eiven. Consider- ing all this I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the dispute raised by the first partv and accordingly T proceed to pass the following ord^r.

ODRDER

The Reference js rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and

signed by me on 10-4-2001).

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer 5. According to the Counter Statement the conten- tion of the Second Party is that the dispute is not maintainable on law and facts. There is no dispute as required imder section 2(k) of the ID Act. It is the further case of the second party that initially the first party was appointed on probation w.e.f. 3-4-1977 and he was confirmed from 30-10-1977. His first posting was in Shillong and then he was transferred to Bangalore, Malleshwaram Branch and then to head office. It is also true that the first party was working in Currency Chest for a period of 10 years and three months. The Special Allowance is given when an employee is entrusted with additional work as per clause 5.6 and 5.9 of the Bipartite Settlement. The first party was handling cash so Special Allow- ance was paid. The First Party was transferred accord- ing to the transfer policy of the hank as stated jn para 9 of the Counter. The main contention of the Second Party is that Special Allowance is given when an em- ployee is entrusted with additional work. In para 11 of the Counter Statement, the dates of working of first party in different places is Riven. First party was rightly transferred to Bannerghatta because of his long stay at Bangalore Transfer is an incidence of service. So transfer is fully legal, proper and Justi- fied. When the first party is not entrusted with spe- cial work, he is not entitled to anv special allowance. There is no right to claim such allowance, as at Ban- nerphatta he was not entrusted with any special duties which gave right for Spl. allowance His sptr- C\Q\ allowance is not a part and parcel of salary of first party. Parawise reply is jriven t>v the Second Party. Some judgements are also relied in the Counter Statement saying that the transfer policy of tfic bank is a reasonable classification which is not violative of the Constitution. The special allowance was paid to the first party onlv temporarily. There is no vested tnteresi in respect of Special Allowance. The facts of Mr. Maurice Fernandes case is not comparable to the rase of the first party as stated in the Counter. Se- cond Party for all these reasons has prayed to reject the refcMflce.

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001 S.O. 1056.—In pursuance if Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-17O12|41|92-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 136 of 1992

Sh. Prem Kumar S|o.. Sh. Bishan Lai R|o. House No. 84612, Kachi Gali Kuan Mohalla, Rohtak .. Petitioner. Vs.

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Delhi Road Model Town, Rohtak. .. Respondent. REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : None. i For the Management : Shri P. P

Khorana,

AWARD

(Passed on 28'3|2001)

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notificatiin No. L-17012J41 |92-I.R. B.II dated 8th December, 1992 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for ad- judication :

"Whether the action of the management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rohtak in terminating the ser- vices of Sh. Prem Kumar Part-time sweeper w.e.f. 20-6-91 and not giving preference to him over other person for reemploymcnt in the same capacity, is just, fair and legal ?"

2. Today the case was put up for appea- rance o f the workman. Despite several notices, none has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be in- formed. Chandigarh.

28-3-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th April, 2001 S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-4-2001.

[No. L-17O12|15I91-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 100[91

Vijay Kumar son of Shri Chawla Ram resident of H. N. B-327, Street No. 3, Nai Abadi Abhar.

• • Workman.

Versus

Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., S.C.O. 177-78, Sector—8, C, Chandigarh. Management APPEARANCES

For the workman • . None For the management, .. Shri N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 9-4-2001)

The Central Govl. vide gazette notifica- tion No. L-17012|15|9M.R. B.2 dated 27th July. 1991 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

''Whether the action of the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Vijay K u nw son of Shri Chawla Ram w.c\f. 25-7-1985 is legal nnd justified. If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date ?"

2159 New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001 S.O. 1058.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in Ihc annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab Nation- al Bank and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 19-4-2001.

[No. L-12012|145|97-TR(B-II)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDTGARH

Cose No. I. D. No. 17|98

Ashok Kumar son of Govind Ram H. No. 5011481. Mohalia Machhi Hulta Near Monohar Mandir, • • Workman. Sabana Pnnnjab.

Vs.

The General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Pa"sey Rord, Patial?. . • Managemrr¹'' APPEARANCES

For the workman : Workman in person For the management : Shri J. S. Sathi

AWARD

2. Today the case was fixed for appear- ance of the workman Despite several notices none has put appearance on behalf of the workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since workman is not interested to pursue with the present refe- rence, the same is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

9 4-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer 1364 Gl|2001—13.

(Dated 28th February, 2001) The Central Govt. vide gazettee notifica- tion No. L-120l2|145[97|IR(B.II) dated 13th of January, 1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in terminat- ing the services of Shri Ashok Kumar w.c.f. 1-1-1997 is le^al and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what dated?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filiine of claim statement on behalf of the workman. Workman appeared and imde the siafcrnent thit ha do?s not want to pursue with the pre- sent reference PS he pot the job in the bank. He2160 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : MAY 19, 2001 / VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART Tl-SEC. 3(ii)l also filed an application to this effect, and requested that no dispute award may be re- turned. In view of (he above, the present r^- feijence Is returned to the appropriate Govt. as no dispute Award Apnripriate Govt. he informed.

Chandigarh.

28-2-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 20lh April, 2001

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employer, in relation to the manage- ment of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Ccntial Government on 19-4-2001.

[No. L-12012|219|89D-II|A] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BFFORE SHRI B. I,. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRfBUNAL-CLJM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 137/89

Nazar Singh, C/o Tek Chand Sharma, 25, Saru Nugar, Civil Lines, Ludbiana.

..Workman

Vs.

Zonal Mariager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Ludhiana. . .Management APPEAR \NCES :

Kox the workman : Shri Tek Chand Sharma For the management : Shri Bishan Singh

AWARD

(Passed on 20th March, 2001)

The Ceniia] Government vide Gazcttee Notification No. L-12012/219/89-D-2CA) dated 22nd August, 19S9 has referred the following dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing from service Shri Nazar Singh is justified? If not, to wlrit relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he joined the services of Punjab National Bank in the month of March 1971 and was posted as teller at Branch Office, Dhuri. He was suspended in the month of July J983 on the charge of fraud for which F.I.R. was lodged by the bank with the police. After investi- gation, the challan was filed in the Court but the same was withdrawn by"the police.

3. The management issued a charge sheet dated 13-1-84 tor the allegation of fraud. The workman sub- mitted his explanation but the management decided to hold departmental enquiry against the workman. The appointment enquiry officer was made violating the provisions of Desa* Award and Bipartite Settlement. The proceduie adopted by the enquiry officer was not in accordance with the prescribed rules. The proper opportunity to defend himself was not given to the workman by the enquiry officer. Material witnesses were not produced by the management. The relevant record was also not filed in enquiry proceedings. The findings given by the enquiry officer was not based upon the facts and the evidence adduced in the enquiry. He recorded his findings against the workman under the influence of higher authorities. The disciplinary authority did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the.penality of dismissal of the workman was harsh and disproportionate to the commission of alleged misconduct.

4. The workman submitted an appeal to the appel- late authority but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24-7-1987 without giving opportunity to hear the workman. The orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed rules. The punishment inflicted in quite harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the claim of the work- man be allowed and the management be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service as the workman remained unemployed from the date of his dismissal to date.

5. The case of the management as per averments made in written statement is that the workman had i'oin"d the ii^-vices in the bank on 4-3-1971' as pro- bationary clerk-cum-rcashier. He was posted at Branch Office, Dhuri on 24-1-1981 as teller. During the. period from 24-1-81 to 25-7-83, the workman committed cer- tain acts of commission and ommiision whereby he misappropriated the amount of the customers of the bank and committed fraud to the extent of Rs. 1,29 lakhs. The F.I.R. was lodged by the bank with the police He was placed under suspension on 25-7-1983. The police arrested the workman and interograted him, The case No, 122 was registered by the police but the prosecution of the workman was not made and the intimation was given to the management on 6th December, 19S3. Consequently the charge sheet was given to the workman and the departmental enquiry was held against him. Seven charges were levelled against Mm. The charge Nos. 3, 6 and 7 had been proved completely whereas charge Nos. 1 and 5 had been partially proved. Charge Nos. 2 and 4 could not be proved by the management. The enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary aiithrity, who gave proper opportunity to hear the workman personally. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority served a notice on the work- man to show cause relating to proposed punishment. The disciplinary authority gave the personal hearing to the workman and heard his representative. After considering the submissions made by the workman, ihe disciplinary authority confirm the punishment of dismissal on 23-7-1987. Consequently the workman was dismissed from the bank's service.

6. The workman preferred an appeal to General Manager (Admn ) on 30-4-1987 against the punish- ment of dismissal. The personal hearing was given to the workman. After consideration of facts and circums- tances of the case and the submissions made by the workman, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.

7. The management has averred that the appoint- ment of the enquiry officer Was made following the procedure laid down in Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966. As per rules the manage- ment of the bartk has prescribed the disciplinary autho- rity and appellate authority to hold departmental en- quiry against the deliqucnt employee. Therefore, no irregularity has been committed in holding the enquiry. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is quite proportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman. The bank is the custodian of public money and the workman has committed fraud with the public and the bank, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Consequently the claim of the Workman be dismissed with cost. The management has alternatively pleaded that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is having any technical defect, the bank may pfease be permitted to lead evidence before the Tribunal.

8. The workman has filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the claim statement. But the workman in addition to the averments made in the claim statement has, pleaded in rejoinder that the hand- writing expert was produced by him on his own cost, during the course of enquiiy but the enquiry officer did not allow handwriting expert to be examined in defence. Therefore, the workman could not defend himself properly. The disciplinary and appellate autho- rity acted illegally and without jurisdiction. The alle- gations made ygainst the workman were not proved by admissible and legal evidence. Therefore, the claim oE the workman be allowed quashing the dismissal order passed by the management.

9. In this case, these are admitted facts that the workman had joined the services of the bank on 4th Match, 1971 as clerk-oum-cashier and was posted at branch office Dhuri on 24-1-1981 as teller. He was

Z161 suspended on 25-7-1983. The charge sheet daWd 13-1-1984 was berved upon him. After conclusion of tile enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 23-7-87 and his appeal was rcjectad by the appellate authority.

JO. The Workman has submitted his affidavit Ex. Wl, dismissal order dated 23-2-1987 (Ex. W l ), dis- •missal order of appeal dated 24-7-1987 (Ex. W3) and the copy of the appeal memo dated 3-4-1987 (Ex. W4) in support ol his claim. He has been cross-exa- mined by the representative of the management. Tfie management has submitted the affidavit 6i Assistant Manager R. D. Singly which is £x. M l. The manage- ment has also submitted the affidavit of Asstt. Manager Balbir Singh which is Ex. M4. The copies Of -the cir- culars dated 30-11-1983 and 13-4-1987 have also bt5h submitted by the management which have been'marked as Exs. M2 and M3 respectively.

11. The workman has deposed in his affidavit Ex. Wl that the management has not followed the provi- sions of Desai Award para No. 18 : 20(12) read with clause 19 : 14 of Bipartite Settlement in the appoint ment of the Enquiry Olficer, He has challenged that the competent authority did not appoint the enqiiiry officer, so, the enquiry is vitiated. In written arguments it has also been challenged on different grounds.

12. The management has submitted the copy of'the Bipartite Settlement dated-23-11-1983. In this alien] ttr it hav been clearly mentioned that the branch managers are empowered to give charge sheet to the workman and to suspend him. The Workman was suspotidad by the branch manager. The enquiry officer has been ap- pointed by the Regional Manager who is the discipli- nary authority as per Bipartite Settlement, therefore, no irregularity has been committed by appointing en- quiry officer and in the matter of issue of charge sheet. Tht¹ enquiry proceedings h^s been challenged on'dlfer- ent grounds in claim statement and in the affidavit of the workman. In the cross-examination, the woEkman has admitted that he was suspended by the Regional Manager, Ludhiana. Charge sheet was served upon him. He aitended the departmental enquiry anct signed all the proceedings attended by him. All the copies of the proceedings and documents were duly supplied to him. He was allowed to examine defence witnesses and tender documents. Keeping in view the admissions made by the workman it is evident that principle of natuial justice wa<= honoured by the enquiry officer and he conducted the enquiry in proper and fair man- ner. Under these circumstances the argument advanced by the reprcsenlaiive of the workman are of no avail.

13. The workman has admitted in his cross-examina- tion that the show cause notice was given to him by Regional Manager and the opportunity of personal healing was also afforded to him before parsing the final order. The punishment order passed by the dis- ciplinnry authority is self explanatory. The reasons to justify the dismissal order have been stated. Therefore, it can not be held that the disciplinary authority has acted unfairly ami illegally. He has also admitted that lie filed an appeal and the appellate authority gave him personal hearing before passing the appellate order. In the order dated 24-7-1987 it has been clearty mention- ed that what objections were raised by the workman and the grounds have also been given, upon which the order of dismissal was challenged by the workman,2162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2001/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Therefore, the order of the appellate authority is speak- ing one. The arguments made by the rep. ot the work- man m w.ittui . guments has no force.

into consideration the provisions of Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. In he context of this argument the lact of the case arc required to be considered.

14. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority is pursued. In this order dt. 2-2-1987, all the points, upon winch the icport of the enquny officer was chal- lenged, have been considered by disciplinary authority elobrateiy, bclore passing final order. Opportunity of persona] hearing was also afforded to the workman. Therefore, no irregularity has been committed by the disciplinary authority.

15. It has been argued on behair of the workman that the workman was not allowed to engage hand- writing expert ol his own choice in order to cross- examine the handw nting expert produced by the man- agement in order to prove charges levelled against the workman. Consequently he was demed the opportunity to defend hiinselt. But this argument can not be ac- cepted. The rep. of the workman has cross-examined the handwriting expert produced by the department at length. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to tfie workman in this respect. Therefore, it can not be held that the enquiry was conducted contravening the principles of natural justice.

16. It has been argued on behalf of the workman in written arguments that the material witnesses were not examined by the bank and material documents not essential to prove the charges levelled against the¹ workman. But it has not been shown that who were tho material witnesses and what were the material documents in this case. The details of alleged miscon- duct has been given in chaige sheet dated 13-1-1984. It is evident on perusal ol charge sheet that the acts and omission comnntted by the workman were on the record of the bank. Therefore, the oral evidence was not essential to piove the charges, levelled against the workman. On this ground it can not be held that the bank authorities has withheld the material evidence which has caused prejudice to the workman.

20. In the case ol the workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The management and others (AIR 1973 S.C. 1227), the Honble Supreme Court of India has held that the Sec- tion 11A has been enacted by legislature for the benefit of the employees.. On perusal cf record it is found that the order dated 24-/-19S7 was passed by Zonal Manager as an appellate authority. In this order it has been mentioned that no loss was caused to the bank by the alleged misconduct ot the workman. Besides this it is also evident that no loss was also caused to the depositors. As per the findings of the enquiry officer the charge Nos. 3, o and 7 were proved iuily but the charge Nos. 1 and 5 were proved partially. Charge Nos. I and 4 were not proved. The police authorities also did not consider to prosecute the workman in the Court of Law. The police had withdrawn the challan against the workman from criminal court. The work- man was suspended on 25-7-1983. He was dismissed from service on 23-7-1987. Thus he had faced the departmental enquiry for near about four years. This case is also pending since 1989. Under these circums- tances the workman has been facing the departmental enquiry and! trial in the Tribunal for the last near about 17 years. He is suffering mental agony for such a long oeriod. The workman has also pleaded in claim statement that he could not secure alternative employment des- pite his best efforts. The workman had joined the bank's service on 4-3-1971. Now the question arises as to whether these factors should be taken into con- sideration for exercising the powers conferred U/s 11-A ot the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the case of M.D , Orissa Agio Industries Corporation Vs. Bhim Sen Maharana and o'hers (1980 Lab. I.C. 1531) and Gujarat State Road Transport Coiporation, Ahmeda- bad Vs. Janudas Bacher Das.s (1983 Lab. I.C. 1349), the length of service of delinquent workman and his socio economic condition were considered to be relevant factois for exercising the discretion U/s. 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. In the case of Scooter India Ltd., Lucknow Vs. Labour Court (AIR 1989 S.C. 149), the charges against the delinquent in that case were of major misconduct. In this case the dis- cretion of Labour Court exercised U/s. 11-A was held proper and justified.

17. On behalf ol the workman, the case of K. B. Rai Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) S.C.T. 639 (Pb. and Haryana High Court) has been referred, in sup- port ot arguments. But the facts of this case is not identical to the case under consideration, riie workman has admitted that the copies of the documents were given to him, has cioss-c.xamined the witnesses of the bank, personal hearing was gi\en to him by discipli- nary authority as well as appellate authority. He was allowed to produce witnesses in his defence. But the facts of the cited case law indicate that some irregu- larity were committed during the course of depart- mental enquiry as have already been mentioned afore- said. This case l;iw does not help the case of the workman.

18. On the basis of the discussion made in preced- ing paragraph this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and no material irregularity has been found in its conduction.

21. In the context of aforesaid case law, the case of the workman deserves to be considered leniently. The mitigating circumstances have already been men- tioned in the preceding paragraphs. As per charge sheet the workman had committed material irregularity which constitute major misconduct. Even though the benefit of Section 11-A was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scooter India Ltd. Supra, the police did not consider to take criminal action against the workman and all the charges had not been proved agaimt the workman. He has not caused pecu- niary loss to the bank and the depositors. He has been suffering mental agony since 25-7-1983. The workman has not adduced any evidence regarding his unemp- loyment. The witness of the management has deposed in his cross-examination that he was not awaie about 19. On the question of punishment it has been argued on behalf of the woiknian thai the penalty imposed is quite harsh and disproportionate to alleged mis- conduct and liable In be set aside. If some lapses are found on the part of the workman he should be dealt with lem'ently in the matter of punishment taking 2163

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 59|88

Jagdish Kumar son of Shn Sohan Singh, 318|3, Gam Manchiwala Patti, Distt. Amritsar. " . .Workman. Vs.

the income of the workman out of 19 bighas of land. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to back wages while inflicting the substituted punishment. Under these circumstances, the powers conferred U/s. 11-A deser- ves to be exercised to take lenient view on the ques- tion of punishment. In view of the penalty of dismissal the punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect without back wages will meet the end of justice in this case. The punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and harsh to the misconduct com- mitted by the workman. The enquiry has been found fair and proper. 1 here lore, except the punishment the reference is to be answered in favour of the manage- ment.

The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 177-178, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

...Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri R. L. Chopra.

For the management : Shri Pardeep Bedi.

AWARD (Passed on 20-2-2001) 22. On the basis of the discussions made in preceding paragraphs, the leference is answered that the enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper but the dismissal of the workman from service is not justified. The penalty of dismissal is set asside and the penalty of withholding of four increments with cumu- lative effect without back wages with continuity of service is substituted in lieu of penalty of dismissal. The management is directed to reinstate the workman within one month from the date of publication of the Award. Both parties shall bear their own costs. The reference is answered accordingly. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No. L- 17012|41|87-D.IV(A) dated 8th August 1988 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Chandigarh,

20-3-2001.

B. L, JATAV, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the United Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, Chandigarh, in termi- na|ting the services Qf Shri Jagdish Kumar son of Shri Sohan Singh sub staff at their Taran Taran Branch w.e.f. 7-4-1983 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from what dattc?"

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001,

2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he was appointed as a peon during the month of May 1984 in Insurance Co. and he continued to work theie till 6-4-1985. Thus he had worked for more than 240 days during the 12 calendar months pre- ceding the date of termination of his service. He was posted at Taran Taran branch of Insurance Co. The workman was put sometimes on peon's duty and sometimes on clerical job. He had made entries in the registers of the Insurance Co. The services of the workman were terminated verbally on 7-4-1985 with- out complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and without holding any department- al enquiry against the workmen. The services of the workman were terminated illegally, therefore manage- ment be directed to reinstate the workman on the post of peon with full back wages and continuity of ser- vice and consequential benefits.

S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2001.

INo. L-17O12|41I87-D.IV(A)]

C. CANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

3. The case of the management in brief is that the •workman was engaged on casual|temporary work arising out of casualjternporary necessity of Insurance Co. at Branch office Taran Taran. No appointment letter was issued to him and no agicement was entered into with the workman. He had worked for 125 days with gaps during the period w.e.f. 26-5-84 to 2-4-1985. The payment of his earnings were made vide vouchers executed and sipned by him He had not worked w.e.f. 1-5-84 to 6-4-1985. He wafe not authorised to make entries in the books of Insurance Co. He was paid wages for the period during which2164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2 0 0 1/ VAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(iiOJ he had worked in branch office. The holding of enquiry against the workman was not necessary. The provisions of Saotion 25-F of I.D. Act were not applicable in the case of the workman. Therefore, his claim deserves to be dismissed with cost

4. The workman has filed replication in which he has reiterated the averments made in his claim statement.

5. On 1-2-2001 the arguments on merits were heard. On that duly the statement of the workman was recorded relating to his' re-employment in Income Tax Department. He has admitted that he haps been employed in Income Tax Department on 2-6-1994. Therefore, he does not want to press his claim for reinstatement but he is now pressing his claim for backwages w.e.f. 7-4-1985 to 1-6-1994.

6. In this case, the engagement of Workman' as peon in Turantaran branch of Insurance Co. and ter- mination of his services are admitted facts but there is a dispute relating to date of his engagement and termination of his services.

7. In this cape the workman Jagdish Kumar has submitted his affidavit. He has also produced the copies of conciliation proceedings dajted 25-8-87 and •12-104-9*7 which have been exhibited as Ex. Wlj and W2. The management has submitted the affi- davit Ml of its Admn. Officer Shri Roop Singh Azad (MW1) and additional affidaivit Ex. M2. It has also submitted the verification report relating to the working days of the workman which have been marked as Ex. M3.

sion made by Shri Roop Singh Azad and contended ihat the workman had worked only tor 125 days. On persual of Ex. W2 it is found than th© joint verifica- tion ot working days was made by the official of the management in the presence of the work- man. The joint verification report has been submitted by the management which is Ex. M3, This verification report was, signed by the workman and Uie verification was made on 21-8-1987 but the ad- mission was made by Law Ollicer of the management on 25-8-1987. This admission is apparently contrary to the record of joint verification made on 21-8-1987. Therefore, on the basis of admission made on 25-8-87 no reasonable conclusion can be arrived at that the worktnan had worked for 240 days in a calander year.

11. In this case workman Jagdish Kumar was. examined a|nd cross-examined on 2-12-1994. The witness of the management was initially examined and cross-examined pn 4-1-1995. He was again examined and cross-examined on 7-2-1996 on the request of the management for adducing additional evidence. The opportunity for adducing evidence in rebuttal was given to the workman. But the workman was not examined and cross-examined after 7-2-1996. There- fore, he could not be cross-examined with reference to the joint inspection leport Ex. M2. If this vertifica- tion had not beenjnade fajrly the workman would have entered¹ into witness box in rebuttal and he could raise the dispute relating to the fairness of thc^jcJint verifica- tion but he did not do so. Therefore, the finding; of joint verification report is reliable than the proceedings dated 25-8-1987 (Ex. W l ).

. n^ New Delhi, the 20th April, 2001 S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central- Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court, No. 11, Mumbai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to the management of UTI Institute of Capital Markets and their workman, which was received by the Central Go\;rnment on 19-4-2001.

[No. L-120ll|143|99-IR(B-II)] C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAT TRIBUNAL MO. 11, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S, N. Saundankar, Piesiding Officer,

Reference No. CG1T-2|23 of 2000.

Employers in i elation to the management of UTI Institute of Capital Markets.

UTT Institute of Capital Markets The Principal, UTI, Plot No. 82. Section 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai 400 705

AND

Their Workmen. The Secretary Gencial, Kamgar Congress, Sidhivinayak Building, 2nd Floor, Plot No. ?9A, Sector 19, Va<-hi Navi Mumbai Mumbai 400 705.

APPEARANCES :

For the EmpIoycrs^Mr. A. S. Ramayva Repre- sentative.

For the Workmen—Shri Bisu Thoma* ar,d A. C. Nair Representative.

Mnmbai, Dated 22nd, March, 2001.

2165

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-12011J K3l99|IR(B-II), dated 7-2-2000, have referred the following Industrial Dis- pute for Vindication.

"Whether the action of the management of Institute of Capital Market, New Mumbai bv terminating the services of (I) S|Shri Somnath Keshwad; (2) Shankar Kharc; (3) Sulab Badekar; (4) Mohadeo Surya- vanshi; (5) Babab Shirsar; (6) Prahlad Adagale; (7) Chandrakant Kiratakar; (S) Suresh Balkar; (9) Smt. Satyabanu Mane (10) Sitaram Gaikwad is justified? If not, then what relief the workmen a*e entitled to'?"'

2. On receipt of the reference this Tribunal issued notices to the union and the management. In res- ponse to that the Sccrctaiy of the Kamgar Union Mr. Babu Thomas filed Statements of Claim (Exhi- bit-5). The management opposed the said claim by filing Written Statement (ExhibiN9). Consequently the matter was fixed for framing of issues. On 1-3-2001 the General Secretary of the Union and the officer for the management vide purshis (Exhi- bit-13) apprised that they have settled the dispute amicably out of court as per the deed of settlement dated 27-2-2001. Since the parties settled the dis- pute out of court the following order is passed :—

ORDER

The reference stands disposed off as settled vide Settlement Deed dated 27-2-2001, fil- ed with purshis (Exhibit-13).

S, N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT MUMBAI Ref. CG1T NO. 2(23 of 2Q0O

Employee in relation to the management of UTI Institute of Capital Markets.

AND

Their Workmen. May it please this Hon'ble Court :

The parties in the above reference beg to submit as follows :—

The first party and the second party in the above reference have already entered info an amicable settlement which is full and final. A copy of the Memorandum of Settlement duly signed by all the parties is submitted herewith before the Hon'ble Tri- bunal. The UTI Institute of Capital Markets and the Workmen represented by the Kamgar Congress jointly hereby pray the Hon'ble Tribunal to pass an order accordingly.

For and behalf of fst Party

"UTT Institute of Capital Markets"

Sd.|- (B. D. More) Chief Administrative Officer. Place : Mumbai Date : 1st March, 2001.

Sd.|-

(A. S. Ramayya) Management Representative For and behalf of 2nd Party "Kamgar Congres"

Sd.|-

(Babu Thomas) Secretary General.

Sd|- (A. C. Nain Secretary (Kamgar Congress) Representative.

List of workmen engaged through contractor M[s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants.

Signature Sr. No. Name

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Shri Soronath Ke^hwad Shri Shanker Khare Shri Gulab Bhide Shri Mahadeo Suryavpnrhi Shri Baban Sirsat Shri Prahlad Adagale Shri Chandrakant Kimtkar Shri Surcsh Bolkar Sntf. Satyabanu Mane Shri Sitaram Gaikwud

Sd[- Sd[- sd- sd|- Sd|- Sd|- Sd|- Sd|- Expired Sd|- Sd|s

Sd|- (A. S. Ramayya)

(A. C. Nair) (Mgmt. Representative) (Union Representative) MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT Memorandum of Settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and read with the Industrial Disputes (Mumbai) Rules, 1957.

Name of the Parties :

1. Principal Employer M|s. UTI Institute of Capital Markets, Navi Mumbai (hereinafter in short referred to as "the institute'*). Re- presented by Mr. B. D. More.

2. Contractor New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants. Represented by Mr. G. B. Salunkc

Arci

3. Kamgar Congres, Navi Mumbai. Represen- ted by Mr. Babu Thomas.

Short Recital of the Case

Whereas the UTI Institute of Capital Markets had engaged through the contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants 10 contract work- men for doin" upkeep work of the Institute by an nprcenient with the contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants.

Whereas the workmen employed by the contractor had raised dispute regarding revision of wages and other service conditions followed by agitation which lead finally the contractor to discontinue his contrac- tual up-kcep services with the Institute with effect from 22-9-1993.

Whereas the contract workmen engaged by the contractor Mjti. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants raised an industrial dispute demanding for their regularisation and absorption by the princi- pal employer UTI Institute of Capital Markets before the Hon'ble Court, Thane—vide ULP No. 60511993.

Whereas the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said complaint lodged by the workmcn[union for want of jurisdiction.

Whereas the workmen through their union there- afler raised an industrial dispute with the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ceniial (III), Mumbai.

Whereas the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai who was the conciliation officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after protracted dis- cussions iccordrd failure.

Whereas the Central Government was subsequent- ly pleased to refer the dispute to the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Sion Mumbai vide IT-2|23 o{ 2000, which is pending.

Whereas the parties had prolonged discussions and negotiated a settlement on the following terms and conditions.

Terms of Settlement

1. It is agreed between the parties that of the 10 workmen, 1 workman by name, Smt, Sathya Bhanu Mane had died and the remaining 9 workmen in res- peci of whom the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble CGIT No. 2, Mumbai, shall be re-employed by the contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Ser- vices and Consultants, six of whom will be deployed for upkeep work in UTI Institute of Capital Markets at Navi Mumbai as required by the UTI Institute of Capital Markets and the remaining workmen will be placed by him in any other work(s) undertaken by him on contract basis.

2. Whorcas the management of UTI Institute of Capital Markets agrees to fe-engage the contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants effective from 1st March, 2001 on mutually agreed terms and conditions for the upkeep of the UTI Institute of Capital Markets located at Plot 82, Sec- tor 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 704.

3. It is further agreed between the parties that the 9 workmen who are agreed to be re-employed effec- tive from 1st March. 2001 shall be paid wages at not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by the Government and it shall be the responsibility of the contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants to pay the wages to the workmen effec- tive from the date of re-employment and shall be fully responsible for payment of the legal dues appli- cable to the contract labour. *

4. It is further agreed between the parties, that if anv of these 9 workmen do not join on duty on| before 31st March, 2001, the contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants has a right to employ anybody else in his place and the work- man failing to so report wilj have forfeited his right for re-einpTcymcnt.

5 ft is further agreed between the parties that the contractor M|s, New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants shall pay all the legal dues, if any, in res- pect of the services rendered by the contract work- men up to 8th September, 1°93.

6. It is further agreed that the Institute and Kam- gar .Congress will file a joint application before the Hon'bl; Tribunal along with memorandum of settle- ment and pray for an order accordingly.

This settlement is signed by the parties at Navi Mumbai, this 27th day of February, 2001.

For and on behalf of the UTI Institute of Capital Markets

Sdl- B. p. MORE Chief Administrative Officer UTI Institute of Capital Markets Plot No. 82, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. For and on behalf of the Workmen "Kamgar Congress" For Kamgar Congress

Sd|-

Sd|- Secretary General Treasurer For and on behalf of The Contractor M|s. New Bombay Multiple Services and Consultants.

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2001 S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer¹; in relation to the management of Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central'Government on 23-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/l49/96-IR(B-II)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

1364 OII2001—14.

2167

ANNEXURE

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

Dated, the 17th April, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'blc Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com. LLB, Pre- siding Officer.

C.R, No. 228/97

I PARTY:

The General Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union, 1666 'B' Type III Sta?e, Austin Town, BDA Layout. Bangalore-560 04''.

II PARTY :

The Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, Bank of India, Bangalore Region, Jyothi Mahal. 40, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-10.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this disDute vide order No. L-12012jl49|96-IR(B-II) dated 13-5-1997 for adjudication on the following sche- dule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment in respect of Sh. D. P, Hedge is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. 1 party is present in person. Mr. Venkatesh in present for II Party. There is a letter on behalf of Joint Secretary to the effect that the I Party has taken Voluntary Retirement and he is not interested in this dispute. Today, Memo is filed by the II Party and signed by I Party, In view of the Memo I pas* the following order.

ORDER

Memo is allowed and the reference is disposed of, granting permission to withdraw the dispute accord- ingly.

HON'BI.E V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer2S66 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; MAY 4S>" 2 0 0 1/ YAISAKHA 29, 1923 [PAWJ&-tfBC,)M*)] New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2001 , S'O.' 1063.—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/Labour¹ Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, which was rec"ived by the Central Gov- ernment on 23-4-2001.

[No. L-12012'/M/2tW

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER: RUDRESH KUMAR. ADJUDICATION

I.D. ^No. 57/2000

BETWEEN

JagannaXh. Prasad C/oJJShri Ayodhya ihawd Allahabad Bank Husainganj Branch Lucknow (U.P.).

,AND

The' Rjegional Manager Allahabad Bank Regional" Office, Gonda, Gonda (U.P.).

he was posted as Clerk+cumXasbier at Jhiiahi branch of the said bank, was nerved with a cbwge sheet No. RG : VIG/JP/9807 dated 14r2-1997 by the Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, that as many- as six charges were framed against him and enquiry was .ordered by appointing Mr. _R. K. Jftia as Enquiry Officer; that the enquiry officer during the proceeding did not look into the records which were allegedly found to be interpolated by him; that the conclusion of guilt was drawn on the sole basis of confession of charges.

3. That the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 16-2-1998 to him proposing 're- moval from bank service with superannuation bene- fits as would be due otherwise at that stags and With- out disqualification from future employment'. A reply was submitted stating that his confession was obtain- ed by allurement, which could not have been relied by the enquiry officer.

4. It is also pleaded that the mistakes mentioned an the charges were in the nature of clerical errors. Also, the punishment is harsh, and untenable. His appeal to the- Asstt. General Manager/Appelate Authority, Lucknow was ailso rejected vide order No. CZEO/ VIG/427 dated 30-6-99.

5. The management, on the other hand, did not deny facts relating to appointment of the workman, issuance of charge sheet, luV confession before the enquiry officer, and removal order. The management has asserted that the mistakes were not casual or clerical but were well designed to cause loss to tfee. bank. These deliberate mistakes were well planned and were not isolated but committed in series, on various dates, indicating fraud on the part of the workman.

21W

said clarifying his-stattmant be&*o> the^Enquiry Offi- cer. It is evident that the allegations of allurement, is an after-thought.

12. Th" workman deposited money to compensate losses ta th*t bank, before the enqaiifyi This: fact conor borat© admission oft guilt. Even jn the Claim,- $tat"r* ment, the workman has .not explained charges on, merit or has denied entries in the accounts in his own handwriting. The inescapable conclusion is; that the confession of the* charge* was- voluntary*,- though* it was. inculpatory,

deposit- of Rsi 4000 was shown, in the said account on 15-9-93 out of wfatoh Ram Nath Verma withdrew Rs. 3000 on 18-3-94. Again on 10-3-94 he with-t drew Rs. 200. On 10-8-94 and 18-10-94 Rs. 1000 were withdrawn by forgery which caused loss of Rs. 4000 to the bank. Charge No. 3 also related to iSaving Bank Account No. 6075. In this account, forgery was committed causing loss of Rs. 1943 to Jhd<

9. The charge sheet mentions that the acts of the¹ workman were gross misconduct under para 19,5 (Gha & Ja) of the* Bipartite Settlement.

13. The submission of the Authorised Represent tative of the workman^ that the nature of the mis- takes mentioned in the charges were simply omission and clerical, can not accepted. The workman was fully conversant with the bank's working. Interpola- tions, changing deposited amount and withdrawals were deliberate, These faots* arfrt sufficient to' coin strue breach of- trust - and faith- and such acts-were- rightly held to be gross misconduct.

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2001 S.O. 1064.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-01

[No. L-12011/178/99-IR(B-ll)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday the 12th Febiuary, 2001 Monday, the 16th April, 2001 PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 40/2000 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(lXd) & Sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Claimant and the Management of Syndicate Bank, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union, Chennai.

: Clainiam/I party

AND

; Management/11 Party Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai. Appearance :

For the Claimant : M/s. R. Vaigai & Anna Mathew, Advocates For the Management : M/s. T.S. Gopa'an & Co Advcca'^s.

Reference; Order No. L-12O11/178/99/1R (B-li) dated 29-2-2000 of the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for deciding the preliminary issue on 15-1-2001 upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement, connected petition and Counter and other material papers on record and the documentary evidence let in on either side aud upon hearing the arguments ©f the counsel for the Claimant M/s. R. Vaisai & Anna Mathew and the counsel for the Management Sri T.S. G.opalan and this preliminary issue in this Industrial dispute, having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal pass the following preliminary order :

This reference by Central Government in the 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 the General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union, Chennai, espousing the cause of the workman Sri K.A. Satish and the Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in imposing punishment of stoppage of stagnation increment to Shri K.A. Satish, Clerk? If not, what the employee is entitled to?"

On receipt of this reference, this industrial dispute has been taken on file of this Tribunal on 4-8-2000 as Industrial Dispute No. 40/2000. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, both the parties ap- peared through their respective counsels and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter State- ment.

2. The averments of the Claim Statement of the T Party Claimant arc briefly as follows :—

The 1 Party Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner), the General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union, Chennai has filed the Claim Statement pursuant to the industrial Dispute raised by the Petition Union in the matter of Sri K.A. Satish referred to in the Schedule of reference made by the Ce Ural Government to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion. Shri K.A. Satish joined the services of the Respondent Management as a Clerk on 10-5-71. He has been discharging his duties sincerely and diligently. He became a member of the petitioner union in the year 1971 and continues to be actively involved in its activities. He is presently working in the Syndicate Bank, Armenian Street, Chennai as a Clerk. He was employed in the Egmore branch of the Respondent's branch on and from 10-7-89. The employee Sri K.A. Satish, was served with an order of suspension dated 21-1-95 issued by the Assistant General Manager of the respondent bank pending enquiry into certain alleged charges against him. The employee wrote a letter dated 8-2-95 to the Assistant General Manager of the Respondent Bank stating that he had not committed any act 2171

Investigating Officer, were examined on behalf of the respondent and Exhibits Ml to M8 wsre marked. On behalf of the employee Sri S. Oomathinayagam (DW1), Clerk, Egmore Branch, Sri G. Chandra- sekhar (DW2), Clerk, Egmore Branch and Sri K. A. Satish (DW3), charge sheeted employee, were exa- mined. One document Exhibit DE-1 was marked. The General Secretary of the petition union was the defence representative. During the enquiry, in gross violation of the proscribed procedure, the Management's witnesses were examined first and the chargeshceted employee was the last to be exa- mined. The Enquiry Officer gave his report dated 23-12-95 with the findings that the charges levelled against the employee were proved. The finding given by the Enquiry Officer are biased and not based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before him. The findings have been given by the Enquiry Officer with complete non-application of mind when there is no evidence on record to show that the employee had committed the alleged mis- conducts. There is no evidence produced by the respondent to prove this charge of absence without permission. With reference to the allegation that the employee misbehaved with the staff, the Enquiry Officer has merely relied on the statements made by the Witnesses MW1 and MW2, who wera not present at the time of occurrence The persons said to have represented by the incident the witness MWI were not examined as Management witnesses. There is no evidence to show that tho employee had said to each one of them. On the contrary, a letter jointly written by Sri Rajagopal and Smt. Vanmathy, two other letters written by Sri Pancharatnam and Sri Irudhayaraj were produced by the employee before the Enquiry Officer- He refused to accept those letters. The Management did not examine any witnesses for the alleged charge that Sri K.A- Satish behaved violently and damaged tho cash cabin- Photographs produced by the Management Ex. M3 to M8 were taken at the instance of MW2, who was not present when photographs were actually taken. Thus, there is no direct evidonc; to thj alleged incidents and the evidence given by MW1 is not corroborated by the evidence of MW2. Thero is a discrepancy in the tim-" of information given and received. This shows that allegations are false and imaginary. Contradictory statements in the evidence of MW1 have not been evaluited by the Enquiry Officer. The past record of the employe; which is unblemished has not been taken into account by the Enquiry Officer. Ho has merely relied on the statement of MW1 that the employee's bohiviour and performance has been erratic on many occa- sions. Tho Management had not produced any evidence to prove this. The Enquiry Officer had failed to consider the fact thftt the employee wa:, warranted suspension and expressed his fear that he is being harassed with an ulterior motive on false charges. While he was under suspension he was transferred to Thiruvellur, where a charge- sheet dated 4-5-95 was issued to him by the Res- pondent Bank containing that, he was absenting from duties without permission since 18-1-95; that on 19-1-95 around 12.00 noon he entered the Strong room without permission and took away some bank calendars to which the Assistant Manager Sri Anan- thanarayanan was a witness; that on 20-1-95 he went to the bank after business hours was over at 1.00 pm and requested for payment of local cheque which was agreed to by the Manager but he picked up a quarrel and abused the staff for making him wait; that he voluntarily shook the cash cabin mesh which was damaged as a result; that he caused dis- turbance in the smooth functioning of the branch. The aforesaid allegations against the employee were found to be gross misconducts under the clauses of the Bipartite Settlement namely Clause 19.5(j), 19.5(e), 19.5(c), 19.5(d). The employee was asked to give his explanation within 15 day:> thereafter. On 25-5-95, the employee gave his explanation de- nying all the charges levelled against him and stated that the allegations wan; false and baseless. He, however, stated that it was false to allege that he had remained absent pn 19-1-95 and 20-1-95 without permission and that he was on leave from 18-1-95 to 21-1-95; that he did not enter the strong room and that he did not take away any calendars; that when the cash payment was being delayed on 20-1-95 even after the Manager had accepted his cheque for dis- counting at 1.05 pm and not at 1.45 pm as stated in the chargeshect. He did ask the staff to expedite the payment; that it was false to allege that he mis- behaved with th: staff; that he did not abuse any staff; that he did not damage ths cash cabin mesh; that he did not commit any misconduct as made out in the chargeshei.t; that the suspension was un- called for and that his :xplanation may bo accepted and the charge dropped since the Branch Managor and some staff had made false allegations against him since he demanded repayment of the hand loans he had given to them- The Respondents not satis- fied with the explanation given by the omployee, constituted a domestic enquiry to inquire into the alleged charges and appointed the Enquiry Officer by an order dated 15-7-95. In the meanwhile, by an Order dated 23-6-95 i.e. after the employee gave his explanation and before constituting the domestic enquiry, the employee's suspension was lifted and he was transferred and posted to Thiruvajluvar. The enquiry was held on 22-9-95, 23-9-95 and 16-10-95 at the Zonal Office of the respondent. Two wit- neise namely Sri P. Krishnan (MW1), Egrnore Branch Manager and Sri K.K. Cbandrasekhar (MW2), 21*8 THE GAZETTE OF INWjfc : tt*¥ttW<2Qtt/V"NftMft*29, 1 923 l Fm n}-*sa&r3(M?i madeloi^ait at th""bwnch-for owtnaa howalowgi withJiiis;aiHng-wife wh&wasita.bo tafcentta th"t hos- pital awi'that it: wasr. concerted) pffiort fV6fia the par* of-th/nManager MW1 bad it few .staff tcr make those allegations, against- Win * to - harass n him,, since he demanded t repayment- of the hand loans> given to> thdrru Th* findings given- by the Enquiry Oflieer ate -baseless and-not based ioa. material fasts placed bafore him. The second, i (show caus# notice dated¹ 18K1*-96 on the (findings of the Enquiry Officer wair issued totthe leraployea; who* gav** his explanation oa".27-1^96i. Hfcwever, the -Respondent proceeded against him ,by* imposing the major punishment of- stojapage o£>hia> naxti one increment-without cumu- lative effect, by ord*r dated 25*7-%; * On 7-8-96; tho. emptoyae* purferrcd anhappqal'againstjtha order of punishment dated 25-7f96-aUegittg thfrt th" findings, of .the Enquiry Officer are perverse and it has to- bo setrasida: However, by> an >ofd"r dated' I14H9-96, thin Appellate Authority confirwefl the orders of punishment Th" punishment imposed is not £om* mflnsurated-with- the 'miscpnd

b e en J c o m m i t t e d " by t he • e m p l o y e e. T he D e p u ty

2173