The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 23] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JUNE, 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it maybefiledasa separate compilation
PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
ORDER
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001
STAMPS
S.O. 1264.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits M/s. ICICI Limited, Mumbai to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees four crore twenty nine lakh sixty thousand four hundred thirteen only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 1145611 ICICI Unsecured Redeem-
(2541)
1606 GI/2001-1 15Al rm, GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 1001 / JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART*'II—'SEC/#(fi)] able Bonds (March, 2001 Issue1) in the nature of Debentures aggregating to rupees five hundred seventy two crores eighty lakh fifty live thousand only, to be issued by the said company,
-[No. 20/2001-Stamps/F. No. 33/25/2001 ST1 R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.
ORDER
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001
STAMPS
S.O. 1265.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central (Sftvetn&^nt hereby permits" Indian Overseas Bank, Chennaito- pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees one crore twenty five lakh only chargeable on ac- count of the- Stamp duty on bonds in the nature of Promissory Notes described as Unsecured. Redeem- able, ^Nori-coYtvertible Sub-ordinated Bonds—II Series aggregating to rupees one hundred twenty five crore only, allotted on 8-3-2001, by the said Bnnk.
[No. 21/2001-iStttmps/F. No. 3.V27/2001-ST1 R. G. CHHABRA, Under Sec\.
ORDER
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001
STAMPS
S.O, 1266.—In exercise of -the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899). the Central Government hereby permits M/s. IFCI Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees three crore ninety four lakh' four''thousand eijiht hundred sixty five only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on Bonds in the nature of promissory notes des- cribed as—
(a) IFCI 'On-Tap' Bonds bearing distinctive numbers from 2000204* to '20002647 aggre- gating to nipees six crore only allotted on 20--03-20O1 ;
'(b) IFCI PPBonds (37th Series) beating distinc- tive numbers from 3710265 to 3710282 aggregating to rupees eighteen lakh 'only allotted pn 20-09-2000;
2543(d)JF£I Certificate of. Deposit bearing, dis- tinctive numbers from 002001 to 0020041 aggregating to rupees nipety three crore sixty two lakh • fifty, seven -thousand eigfa.t hundred fourteen only allotted on 2-3-2001, 21-3-2001, 27-3-2001, 29-3-2001, 12-4-200^ 13-4-2001, 18-4-2001 and 27-4-2061.
by the said Company.
[No. 22/20OJ-Stamps/F, No., 33/23/2001-ST] R. G, ,CmjABRA, Under Secy.
ORDER
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2001
STAMPS
S.O, 1267.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause, (b) of .subjection (1) of.Section 9 nf .the Indian Stamp Act, i89Sf (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits the Tamil Nadu Electri- city Board, Chcnnai to pay consolidated stump duty of Rs. two crore three lakh thirty thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on H.9 per cent TNEB Millenium Power Bonds Scrics-2|200a J2.50 per cent payable half yearly and 12.50 per cent payable Annually TNEB Twin Option Millenium Power Bonds Scries—3/2000 in.the nature of promissory notes of rupees one lakh each" aggregating to rupees two hundred three'crnre thirty lakh only, to be issued by the said Board.
[No.,23/2001-Staraps/F. No. 33/26/2001-ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.
ORpER
New Delhi,, the .28$; May, 2001 S.O. 1268.—Whereas,the Joint Secretary to the Government of India- specially em- powered under sub-sectiori (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities " A£t> 1974 (52 of 1974) issued orde^ F. No! 6 7 ^' 12j2001-Cus, VIII, dated 26-04-2001 under the said sub-section directing that Sh'ri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Sjo Shri Preni Chand Gupta, R[O F-116, Ashok Vihar, Phasc-T, NcwDelhi- 110052 be detained and kept in" custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing hini from Smuggling goods in future.
2.-Whereas the Cenff^l .Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.
3. Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section YD of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central 2544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001 / JYAlSTHA 19, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] Government hereby directs the aforesaid per- son to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this- order in the Official Gazette.
[F. No. 673|12|2001-Cus. VIII] VIJAY K. SHARMA, Dy. Secy.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Chandigarh, the 4th May, 2001 No. 2|2001-NT (Cus)
S.O. 1269.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Notification No. 33]94-Cus (NT) dated 1-7-94 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Reve- nue, New Delhi. Village Khokhar, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur in the state of Punjab is hereby declared to be a warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (No. 52 of 1962) for the purpose of setting up of Hundred percent Export Orient- ed Undertaking (100 percent EOU).
[C. No. VIII(HQ)40|2iCUSi20011 H. L. VERMA, Commissioner OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Madurai, the 22nd May, 2001 No. 03|2001-CUSTOMS (N.T.) S.O. 1270.—In exercise of powers con: ferred on me under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) read with Notifica- tion No. 33|94-Customs (N.T.) dated 1-7-94 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue, New Delhi, I hereby declare "Azagappapuram Village, Agasthceswaram Taluk. Kanya- kumari District" in the State of Tamil Nadu to be a warehousing station under the Cus- toms Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) for the purpose of setting up of 100 percent Export Oriented Undertakings.
[File C. No. IV| 16|5312001-T.21 N. SASIDHARAN. Commissioner2545 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 127J.—Ii is notified for genera] infor- mation that enterprises |industrial undertak- ings, listed at para (3) below have been ap- proved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 1O(23G) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the In- come-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that :—
(i) the enterprise|industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962,
(ii) the Central Government shall with- draw this approval if the enterprise industrial undertaking :—
(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or
(b) fails to maintain books of ac- count and get such' accounts audi- ted by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962,; or (c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2Eof the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. The enterprises | industrial undertakings approved are :—
(i) 18 MW (4X4.5 MW) Wind farm power project at Vankusawade in Satara Distt. Maharashtra by Mjs. Karma Energy Limited, Empire House, 214, Dr. D. N. Road, Ent. A. K. Nayak Marg. Fort, Mum- bai-400001, (F. No. 205]33)2001] ITA.II).
(ii) 220 MW Naphtha based power pro- ject and generation of power at Tanir Bavi, Mangalore by M|s Tanir Bavi Power Company Pvt. Limited, Skip House, 2511, Museum Road, Bangalore-560025 (F. No. 250|70]98|ITA.II-Vol.1).
[Notification No. 131|2OO1]F. No. 205)331 2001 and 2505|70|98(Col. I) ITA-TI] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.
2^ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JUN£t9,r 20Qity' JYAISTHA vl9, 1923 [PAR,X H—SEC, 3(ii>J New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 .
S.CX/121-2.*ylX is notified for general infor- mation that .enterprise, listed at para (3) bejow has bpen approved,, by the Central Government for, the purpose of section 10(2361) of the Incomeitax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E
2. The approval is subject to the condition that, :—
(i) the enterprise [industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the .provisions of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Aqtv 1961. read with rule, 2E- of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) the Central Government shall with- draw this approval if thq enterprise] industrial undertaking :—
(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or
(b) fails to maintain books of ac- count and iget such accounts au- dijted by^an Accountant, fas,requir- ed by sub-rule (7) of,rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or (Q) fails to furnish the audi^ .report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule,2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. The enterprise approved is 2X260 MW Coal fired thermal power project, at Ramagundain, Distt. Karininagar*, Andhra Pradesh of M|s. BPL Power Projects (AP) Ltd. 8-2-583]3, Road No. 9, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.
[Notification No. 132j2001|F. NQ. 205] 151 2000-ITA-II, Vol.1] KAMLESH C, VARSHNEY, Under Secy.
(Department of Economic Affairs) (Bankng Division)
New.Delhi, the, 24th May, 2001 S.O. 1273.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Section 53 of 'the Banking^Regula- tion Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank, of India hereby declares- that the prpyisions of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act shall not apply to Punjab- and Sind Bank, New Delhi for a further period of two years upto 21st January, 2003 in so far as they relate to its holding of the shares of M|s. Dynamatic Forgings India Ltd.. as pledgee.
[F. No. 151H.98-BOA1 D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.
im
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2001
S.O. 1274. In wfercise of the powers conferred by subsection (I) of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 the Central Government, in consultation with • Reserve Bank of. India, hereby nominates the following persons as directors of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Coiporation for a period1 of threti years comm-mcing on 29th May, 2001 :
1. Shri D. Sengup a.
In pursuance of'cla'uso (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with clause (ii) of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961.
Chairman, General Insurance Coipora'ion of Tndia, 170, J.Tata Road, Church-gate, Mumbai.
2. Shri Y. C. Nanda,
- d o—
Chairman,
National'Bank for Agriculture and'Rural Development,
Mumbai.
- Pr&t>hatfevi, "MiiftbalUOO 005. ↩
2548 T8P5GA2fiTtE <^ INDIA:JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART T I ^ S E C. 3tfi)l 4. Shri Mukand M. Chitale
Former President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 4/46, Vishnuprasad Society, Villc-Parle, Mumbai-400 057.
5. Prof. Ajay Shah, Asstt. Professor, Tndira Gandhi Institute of Dcvelcpmen+ Research, Mumbai.
6. Shri M. G. Bhide, Ex-Chairman, Bank of India, A/5, Bagreihrec, Shankar Ghanekar Marg, Prabhadevi, M-rfmbai-400 025.
In pursunace of clause (e) of sub- section (1) of Section 6 read with class (!i) of sub-section 2 of section 6 of the Deposit insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961
- d o—
—do—
[ F. No. 7/12/95-B.O.I. ]
RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE (Directorate General of Foreign Trade)
ORDER
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2001 S.O. 1275.—M|s. Boss Profiles Ltd., Hy- derabad, were granted an Import Licence No. 1500693 dated 20-1-98 for Rupees 22,58,11,816)- for import of Capital Goods under EPCG Scheme.
1. Mhe firm has applied for issue of dupli- cate copy of Exchange Control Purpose copy of the above mentioned licence on the ground that the original Exchange Control Purpose copy of the licence has been lost or misplaced. It has been stated that Exchange Control Copy of the licence Was registered with Collector of Customs, Chennai and been utilised for a sum of Rs. 22,43,47,0141- leaving an unutilised balance of Rs. 14,64, 802|-.
2. In support of their contention, the licensee has filed an Affidavit on stamped paper duly sworn in before Notary Public, Chennai, f am accordingly satisfied that2549 MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE the Exchange Control Purpose copy of Im-
(Department of Health) port Licence No. 01500693 dated 20-1-98 has
been lost or misplaced by the firm. Tn exer-
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2001 cise of the powers conferred under Order
S.O. J060 ( E) dated 31-12-93 issued by
S.6. 1276.—Whereas the Central Government, in D G F T, New Delhi the said Original Ex-
pursuance ot CIMLI'-JCJ )of Sub-section(l) of Section change Control Purpose copy No. 01500693
3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of dated 20-1-98 issued to M|s. Boss Profiles
1956) and in consultation with the Government of Ltd., is hereby cancelled.
Madhya Pradesh have nominated Dr. B. C. Chhapar-
wal, Vice Chancellor, Dievi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, 3. The duplicate Exchange Control pur-
Indore to be a member of the Medical Council of pose copy of the said licence is being issued
India with effect from the 8th May, 2001.
to the firm separately.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of fF. No. 01l36'22'012!AM 98[EPCG TTI153]
sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, the Cen- C.V.L.N.PRASAD, Dy. Director General of
tral Government hereby makes the following further
Foreign Trade
amendment in tfie notification of the Government of
India in the then Ministry of Health number SO. 138,
dated the 9th January. 1960, namely;
In the said notification, under the heading, "Nomi-
nated under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
3", for serial number 8 and the entries relating thereto,
the following serial number and entries shall be sub-
stituted, namely:—
8. Dr. B. C. Chhaparwai.
"Shrinath Dwar", 14-A, Ratlam Kothi,
Indore-452001 (MP).
[No. V-l L0L3/l/200UMF.(Policy-I)|
P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.
i6U5GI/J0Jl-?9 2S5& fy rtpAZ^f^E OF I N M A: JUNE 9, 2001/JYAlST|tA ' ", 1923 [PART Tt^Eer3rtta
3. Basic Seed Multiplication, and Training Gta-
Ire, Central Silk Board, Post Office-bucVii,
UP;
4. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Cen-
tre, Central Silk Board, Baripada, Mayur-
bhanj, Orissa ;
5. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Cen-
tre, Central Silk Board, Navrangpur, Orissa;
6. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Cen-
tre, Central Silk Board, Patcl Nagar, West
Bengal ;
7. Azamjahi Mill, WarrangaJ N.T.C. (Andhra
Pradesh)-;
S. Parvathi Mill (Kollam) N.T.C, Keral.i;
9, Vijay Mohini Mill, Trivandrum, N.T.C.
(Kerala) ;
JO. E>;hibition-cum-Technical Service Centre,
Central Silk Board, D-61|43 A, Kupoor
Bhawan, Sidh Giri Bagh, Varanasi-UP ;
11. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Consten-
shya Bhawan, 3rd floor, 11 Dr. U. N.
Brahmchari Road, Kolkata ;
12. Marketing Division NTC, Hyderabad (A.P.).
[No. H-1 1016 ' 1 / yu-Hindil
CHANDER BHAN, Dy. Secy.
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 22nd Mny, 2001
S.O. 1277.—Tn pursuance of Sub-Rule 4 of Rnl.-
10 of the official Language (use for official purposes
of the Union), Rules, 1976 the Central Government
hereby notifies the following offices under tlhe
Ministry of Textiles whereof more than 80 per cent
staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :—
1. Raw Material Bank, Tasar Sub-depot, Central
Silk Board, Rambhat Road, Raigarh,
Madhya Pradesh ;
2. Basic Tasar Silk Worm Seed Organisation,
Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh ;
2551MINISTRY OF INFORMAIION &
BROADCASTING
MTNTSTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS New Delhi, the 27th April, 2001
(Department of Posts) SO. 1278.—In exercise of the poweis conferred
by sub-sectkm (1) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2001 Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8" of
the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, and
1279.—In exercise of the powers con- in continuation of this Ministry's earlier Orders on
ferred by Clause (VI) of Sub Rule (1) of the subject, ihe Central Government is pleased to
Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classi- extend the tenure of the members of the Advisoiv
fication. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, panel of the Central Board of Film Ccitification at
the President hereby specifies that in the Guwahati, which was constituted vjde this Ministry's
case of a government servant serving in the orders, dated the 9th October, 1998, upto 15th May,
Department of Posts for whom the appellate 2001 or until further orders, whichever is earner.
authority is subordinate to the authority IF. No. 809/9/200O-F(C)J
designated as the Principal Chief Postmaster RAJESH SHARMA, De<-k Officer
General or the Chief Postmaster General
(other than the Chief Postmaster General of
Senior Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the
said Principal Chief Postmaster General or
the said Chief Postmaster General, as the case
may be, shall be the revising authority for
the purpose of exercising the powers under
the said Rule 29.
[No. C-ll0ll|l|2001-VPl
B. P. SHARMA, Director (VP) &52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]
(Building Section)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, tlie 25lli May, 2001
S.O, 1280.—In the Notification issued under the Directorate Office letter of even number dated 23-1-1992 in respect of the Central Govt. Gazetted Officers appointed to act as Estate Officers in the Department ol Posts, published in the Gazette ol' India tn Part II Stction 3(ii) dated 11-9-1993 and amendment i^urd vide Notification under the Directorate Office letter of even number dated 4-9-1998, published with S,O. No. 184(E) dated 19-9-1998, the following changes may be made against Ultar Pradesh Circle as follows :—
Designation of the Office it
Territorial jurisdiction SI. Name of Circle No.
Agra Region.
I. UtUi Pradesh
Assistant Director, Postal Servio.s-1. Reyonal Office, Agia.
Pobtjl Training Centre. Saharanpur.
Administt. Live OHien1 D/o Director, Postal Training (Vntk, Saharanptir.
[No. 2-119,90-Bldgs.j
RAJINDER KUMAR, ADG (Bldgs.)
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2001
S.O. 1281 .—In pursuance of sub section 2(a) of Section 36A of the Indian. Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), the Central Government is pleased to nomi- nate Shri Dharam Vir Khera, Chairman, Central Hectricity Authority as Chairman of the Central Electricity Board vice Shri Rameshwar Nath Srivas- tava who has since retired on superannuation as Chairman of the Central Electricity Authority.
[F. No. 42[2|200l-R&RJ
AJAY SHANKAR, Jt. Secy.
2353K ( I I. ( il 2 ( 1 ( 11 5 2554 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE9.2001 JVAI8HTHA19,1923 [PARTII—SecJjljj
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2001
s. o. 1282.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the land mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subs-section (i) of section 4 of the Coal Bearyig Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein:
The Plan No. Rev/4/99 dated the 22nd July. 1999 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the Office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section). Darbhanga House, Ranch! or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta or in the Office of the Deputv Commissioner, (Hazaribagh), Jharkhand.
All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/TTead of Department (Revenue), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification iu the official gazette.
SCHEDULE EXTENSION OF TOP A OPEN CAST PROJECT WEST BOKARO COALFIELD D1ST: - HAZARTflAGH
Drg. No. Rev/4/99 Dated 22.7.1999
(Showing land notified for prospecting)
Remarks
District
Thana
SI.
r Village
Thana No
Part
Area in Hectares 56.68
Acrea in acres 140.00
Toera Mandu 125
Hazaribagh
No. 1.
Total area 140.00 acres (approx.) or 56.68 Hectares (approx.)
BOITMMRY DESCRIT' TfON
A-B Line starts from 'A' and passes along common boundary of villages Toera and Padrangi and meets at point "B\
B-C-D-E Lines pass through village Toera and meets at point lE'
E"F Line pasyess uVough village Toera and meets at point T"
F~A Line passes through vil I age Toera and meets at starting point ' A'
[No. 43015/4/2001 /PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
S3*1
25%- Ttmt^wrBmyaxii^^^T^Tm _ . , jta#gi2557
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2001
S. 0.1283.— Wliereas by tlie Notification of the Government of India in ihe Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1O39(E) dated 20th October, 1999, issued under Sub-Section(l) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas(Acquisition and Development) Act 1957 (2O of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and published in Bart- II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) of the Extraordinary Gazette of India, dated the 20th October, 1999, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquired the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 895.913 hectares (approximately) or 2213.80 acres (approximately), and 355.100 hectares (approximately) or 877.45 acres (approximately) in the locality described in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government of Chhattisgarh, is satisfied that the lights to mine, quarry, tore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 664.184 hectares (approximately) or 1641.20 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto; should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 664.184 hectares (approximately) or 1641.20 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto are hereby acquired.
The Plan bearing No:SECL/BSP/GM[HjG)/Land/244 dated the 25th November, 2000 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Surguja (Chhattisgarh) or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section) Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006(Chhattisgarh).
2559SCHEDULE
REHAR EAST BLOCK-II
BISRAMKJR AREA
DISTRICT -SURGUJA ( CHHATT1SGARH)
| Serial Name of Num- the ber yillaee | Village Number | Patwari lialka Number | ||
| 1 Parsodlkala | 285 | 49 | ||
| 2 Aiijera 3 Puhputara | 14 297 | 45 45 | ||
| _4 Katkona TOTAL: 664.184 Hectares!approxmiatcly) or 1641.20 acres (approximately) | 39 | _49 | ||
1. Hot numbers acquired in Village Faraodikala (Part)
463(Part), 464 to 467, 468 (Part), 469(Part), 470 to 496, 497(RFU1), 498(Part),514(Rart)J 515 (Pait), 516(Part), 517(ftait), 5l8(Pait), 525(RHit), 538(Pait), 539fFHrt), 541(Pait), 542(Part), 543, 544 (Part), 545(Pait), 546 to 550, 551(Part), 552(Pait), 553, 554(Rart)f 555 to'671, 672(Pmt)r 673(Pait), 674(Rajt), 675(Part)f 676, 677(Part), 678, 679(Part), 68CXRitt), .6Sl(P=ut),682(Fait),683(Rart), 684(Bart), 686(tfart),699(Riit), 7(XXPait), 706(Part), 707(Part), 708 to 723, 724{Part), 725, 726, 727, 728(Pait), 729(Part),730(Part), 731 to 951, 953 to 1O25, 1O27 to 1176, 1214, 1216, 1219r 1223, 1230.
2. Plot raimbera acquired in village Amera (Part)
l(Part), 2 to 252, 254, 286 to 694, 695{Part), 696(Part), 697 to 7O3: 704(Part), 705, 706(Part),707, 708, 709(Pait), 713 to 722.
3. Plot numbers acxiuired in village Puhputara(Part)
196 (Pait), 197 to 215, 216(Rart), 217 to 220, 221(Pait)? 222(Pait),224(Purt)> 225(Part), 226, 227(Rart), 228(Part), 229(Part), 23(^Part), 328(Part), 329(Pait), 330(Pait), 334(Part).
4. Plot numbers acquried in village Katkona (Part).
l(Part), 2(Part), 3 to 9, 10(Part)( 12(Part), 14(Part), 17(Part), 89(Part), 91(Pait), 92(Part), 94(Part), 95(Part), 96(Part) 97 to 117, 118(Pait), 119(Part),131(Part), 133(Part), lS^Part), 135 to 144, 147(part), 148 to 160, 161(Part), 162 to 248, 249(Rart), 250 to 662, 663(Part)}664 to 736, 737(Part), 738(Part), 739(Part), 740 to 742,743(Part), 744 to 824, 825(Part)( 826, 827(Part), 828(Part), 831(Part), 832(Part), 833(Rart 834 to 860, 861(Part), 862, 863(Part),864(Bart), 865(Part), 868(Rart), 870(Part),871(Part),872 to 875, 876{Part), 877(Part), 946(Rait), 947(Part), 2560 THEGAZRTTEOFrNDIA:JUNE9,200IJYAISHTHA19,I923
[PART tl—-SEC. 3 (11)]
949(Rirt),950(Part), 951 to 957, 958(R*rt),OT"9(Fartl, 960(Part),1000(Fkrt), lO01(Rart),10O2(Rait), 1188( Rait), U89( Bait), 119Q(Part), 1193(BMt), 1194(fiart),1195, 1196(R*rt),1197(Part), 1198, 1199,12O0.1201(Rirt), 12O2(Part),r2O3(Part), 12O4{Rart),12O7(Part), 12O8 to 1214, 1215(Rart), 1216(part), 1437,1438.1441, 1443, 1444, 1445.
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION.
A-B-Bl Line starts from point 'A' in village Parsodikala and passes through plot numbers 672,542,538,539,541, 525,544.545,518,517, 516 515,514,551,552,554,498,497.469,463,468 and passes along Southern boundary of Ghunghutta river and meets at point *B1'.
Bl-C Line passes in village Ainera through Hot number 1, then passes along Soutliern boundary of Ghunghutta river and nipets at point X?', C-D Line passes in village Aimera along Eastern boundary of plot Numbers 254/209,211,210,235,236,239,240,241 £43,244,248,249,250,251, 252,286,595, enters in Puhputara village and passes along Eastern boundary of Hot numbers 203,202,199.196.198,197,196 and meets at point Tr.
D-E Line passes in the village Puhputara through plot numbers
196,222^21,224^25^27,216^28,229^30, enter in village Amera passes tliiougli plot numbers 709,706,704,696,695, enter in village Puliputara passes through plot numbers 328,329,330,334, enter in village Katkona and passes thi"ough plot nunibcrs 876,877,871, 870,863, 868, 864, 865, 861,833, 832,831,828,827,825,739 , 738,743,737,946,947,949,950,1001,1002,1000,958 and meets at point 'E'.
E-F-CJ Line passes in village Katkona tJ trough plot numljers 958,959.960, 663,1189,1188,1189,1190,1194,1193,1996,1197,1201,12O4,12(J2 1203,1207,1215 and meets at point "CV.
G-H Line passes in village Ivatkoiaa partially along Western boundary of plot numbers 1215,then passes thix>ugli plot ramiters 1216, 147,161,131.134,133,118,119,89,91,92,94,95,96,95.96,17,14,249, 12,10,2,1, enter in village Parsodikaia and passes through plot number 086 and meets at point IT.
H-A Line passes in village PamodikfJa iTMilially along Noitlx-na lx>uiKlaiy of Cliaixlai Nullah then j^s-ses througli plot n u m b er 7U6,7Or,700,e99,724,728,7^9,7t",(3"VT82,68], 680,684,079,084, 677,684,674.675,673,672. and meets tlie startup poini 'A'
[No. 43015/17/97/LS W/PRIW]
SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy Secy.
25611606 GI/2001—4
[PARTII—SEC.3(H)] 2562 THEGAZETTEOFWt)IA:JUNE9,2001JYAISHtttAl9,lW3 •2Ste 2564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9,2001JV AISHTHA 19,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]2565 2566 THEGAZgTTCOFiyipiA;Jlffm9,200lJYAtSHt^H^1"3S fftWH^Swc-.g^2567
2568 THEGAZETTEOFIND1A:JUNE9,2001JYAISHTHA19,1923
[PARTII—SBC.3(ii)]
2569New Delh i, the 29th May, 2001
s. o. 1284.— whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 3488 dated the 4th November 1999 under sub- section (1) of flection 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India under Part - II, Section - 3, Sub- section (ii) dated the 4th December 1999 the Central Government gave notion of its intention to acquire the lands measuring 13.70 acres (approximately) or 05.54 hectares (approximately) of lands in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And, whereas, no objection was made to the acquisition of the lands in the locality aforesaid;
And, whereas, the Central Government after consulting the Government of Bihar is satisfied that, the lands measuring 13.70 acres ^ P P f ^ ^ e l y) or 05.54 hectares (approximately) of lands described in the schedule appended hereto should be acquired.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government h e r^Y d e=]a r"s S ^l the lands measuring 13.70 acres (approximately) or 05.54 H o±X (approximately) described in the schedule appended hereto are hereby acquired.
The plan of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Godda (Bihar) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street Calcutta or in the office of the" Director (Technical) (Planning and Project), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanatoria, Post Office Dishergarh, District Burdwan (West Bengal).
SCHEDULE
jRA/JMftHAL CQAfrFIEfrDS
Drawing No. ECL/RJML/CGM/LA/72
Date the 06.02.2000
All Rights Block Number *A' (Showing lands to be acquired)
Name of Mouza
Area Remarks
District
Serial Number (Village)
Thana Number
in acres
Police Station (Thana)
01.
0.39 Part
Chhota Simra
Godda
34 BW Simra-1
0.
0.39 acre(Approximately) or 157 Hectares (Approximately) 1. Plot^s fro be acquired in Mouza Chhota S^mra:
362, 363.
IdlKi (il'2(K)l ;
257d THEOAZE1TEOFINDIA:JUNE9,2001JYA1SH1HA1911923 [9AXFil~4fc:,3{ifn
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Al - A2 Lino passes along with plot number 361 of mouza Chhota Simra number 34 and meats at Point NA2' .
A2 - A3 Line passes along with western lin* of plot number 364 of mouza Chhota Simra number 34 and meetd at point VA3*.
A3 - A4 Line passes along with northern line of plot number 368, 369 of mouza Chhota Simra number 34 and meets at point VA4'.
A4 - Al Line passes along with eastern line of plot number 371 of mouza Chhota Simra number 34 and meets at point 'Al'.
SCHEDULE
Drawing No. ECL/RJML/CGM/LA/72
Date the 06.02.2000
All Rights Block Number SB' (Showing lands to be acsquired)
Police
Thana Number Station
Name of Mouza (Village)
Serial Number
District Area Remarks in acres
(Thana)
Godda 0.53 Part
Mahagama
697
01. Dhanlcunda
Godda 3.99 Part
Mahagama
709
02. Tetaria
Total : 4.52 acres
(Approximately) or
1.830 Hectares (Approximately) 1. Plots, to be acquired in Mouza Dhankunda:
9, 10, 14.
2. Plots to be acquired in Mouza Tetaria:
19 to 24, 24/237, 26, 28, 29, 44(Part).
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Bl - B2 Line passes through southern line of plot number 18 of mouza Tetaria number 709, line passes through southern and eastern line of plot number 17, passes through eastern line of plot number 16, passes through plot number 44 and meets at point *B2'.
B2 B3 B4 Line passes through plot number 41 of mouza Totaria number 709, line passes through western lino of plot numbners 40, 38, passess along with northern line of plot numbers 37, 36 and meets at point ~B4' .
•IBTt'1 B4 ~ £5 Line. pasittB through weatern U na of p l ot numbers 3 1, 3 0, lino p a p a s* through weatern a nd southern line of p l ot number 3 2, Lino parses along with western line of p l ot number 33 a nd m e e ts at point m' •
BS - B6 Line passes along with northern line of plot numbers 68,- 69 of mouza Tetaria number 709, line passes through joint boundary line of mouna Totaria number 709, mouza Dhankunda number 697 and meets at point 'B6',
B$ - B7 I4ne passes along with wQotern line of plot number 11, 13 of mouza Dhankunda number 697 and meets at point %B7'.
B7 - B8 I4n" passes through northern line of plot number 22 of mouza Dhankunda number 697 and meets at point ~B8'.
B0 - B9 Line passes through eastern line of plot numbers 4, 8 of mouza Dhankunda number 697 and trio boundary line of mouza Dhankunda numbner 697, Kushmaha number 708 and Tetaria number 709 and meets at point 89'.
&9 - Bl Line paaaaw through joint boundary line of mouza Kushmaha number 708 and Tetaria number 709, line passes through southern and eastern line of plot numbers 27, 25 of mouza Tetaria number 709 and meets at point ~Blf.
All Rights Block Number NC' (Showing lands to be acquired)
District Area Remarks Name of Mouza Thana Number
in
Serial Number (Village)
Police Station (Thana)
acres
Mahagama Godda 2.38 Part
Mahagama
700
pi.
Total : 2.38 acres
(Approximately) or
0.963 Hectares (Approximately) 1. Plot to be acquired in Mouza Mahaaama:
1173.
Bl^UNDARY DESCRIPTION
qi - C2 Line passes long with southern line of plot numbers 1174, 1175 of mouza Mahagama number 700 and meets at point C2'.
G2 - C3 Line passes along with western line of plot number 1176 of m o uM Mahagama number 700 and meets at point C3' .
G3 - C4 Line passes along with northern line of plot number 1172 of mouza Mahagama number 700 and meets at point C4'.
__>/_
I H L . U A Z . LI i i _ Ui I N D I A. JUINII_1JUUUI J i Ab i l l iA iy, l ^ .i
[FAR1 i l- b t c . j l l l jj C4 - Cl Line passes through eastern line of plot number 1219 of mouza Mahagama number 700 and meets at point ^Cl'.
SCHEDULE
All Rights Block Number ~D" (Showing lands to be acquired)
Remarks
District Area
Thana
Name of Mouza
Number
(Village)
Serial Number
in acres
Police Station (Thana)
1.25 Part
Godda
Mahagama
712
Baliakuxmikitta
01.
1.25 acres
(Approximately) or
Hectares (Approximately)
0.506
01. 700
- - Plots to be acquired in mouza Balia Kurmikitta : 116, 117. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Dl - D2 Line passes along with southern line of plot numbers 115, 113 of mouza Baliakurmikitta 712 and meets at point "D2{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}, D2 - D3 Line passes through western line of plot number 112 of mouza Balia Kurmikitta number 712, line passes through joint boundary line of mouza Baliakurmikitta number 712, Rabiadih number 713 and meets at point *D3'. D3 - D4 Lin& passes through northern and western line of plot number 118 of mouza Baliakurmikitta number 712 and meets at point "D4'. D4 - Dl Line passes along with eastern line of plot numbers 125, 126, 98 of mouza Baliakurmikitta Number 712 and meets at point "Dl{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}. SCHEDULE All Rights Block Number NE» (Showina lands to be anauired) Mouza Thana District Area Remarks Serial Number Name of (Village) Number Police Station (Thana) in acres Mahagama Mahagama Godda 2.41 Part 2.41 acres (Approximately or 0.975 Hectares (Approximately) ↩
1. Plots pa be acquired in mouza Mahacrama :
1162/1218, 1163, 1164.
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
El - E2 Line passes through southern line of plot number 1218 of mouza Mahagama number 700, passes through plot number 1218, line passes through western and southern line of plot number 1162 and meets at point *E2'.
E2 - E3 Line passes through western line of plot number 1166 of mouza Mahagama number 700, passes through western and southern line of plot number 1165, line passes along with southern line of plot number 1169 and meets at point %E3',.
E3 - E4 Line passes through northern and western line of plot number 1189 of mouza Mahagama number 700, line passes along with northern line of plot number 1190 and meets at point "E4'.
E4 - El Line passes through eastern line of plot numbers 1109, 1111 of mouza Mahagama number 700, line passes through eastern and northern line of plot number 1112, line passes through eastern line of plot number 1113, line passes along with northern line of plot number 1114 and meets at point NE1'.
All Rights Block Number VF' (Showing lands to be acquired)
District Area Remarks
Thana Number
Name of Mouza (Village)
Serial Number
Police Station (Thana)
in acres
Godda 2.01 Part
Mahagama
692
01. Basua
2.01 acres
(Approximately) or
0.813 Hectares (Approximately) 1. Plot to be acquired in mouza Basua :
32/149.
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Fl - F2 Line passes through plot number 32/149 of mouza Basua number 692 and meets at point "F2'.
F2 - F3 Line passes through plot number 32/149 of mouza Basua number 692 and meets at point NF3'.
aw u>,ffltu& miimtmntitmmwA vm*mmtmi'.
F3 - F4 Line passes along with plot number 32/152 of mouza Basua number
692 and moots at point *F4'.
F4 - F5 Line passes eastern side of plot number 32/159 of mouza Basua
number 692, passes along with eastern and northern line of plot
numbar 32/153 and meets at point ~F5'.
F5 - Fl Line passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Basua number
692 and Murlitolc number 691 and meets at point ~F1'.
SCHEDULE
All Rights Block Number G' (Showing lands to be acquired)
Name of Mouza
Thana
District Area Remarks Serial Number
Numbar
(Village)
in acres
Police Station (Thana)
01.
Basua
Mahagama
Godda
692
0.74 Part
0.74 acre
(Approximately) or
0.299 Hectares (Approximately) 1. Plot to be acquired in mouza Basua :
32/158.
BOUNpARY DESCRIPTION
Gl - G2 Line passes through southern and eastern line of plot number 32/155 of mouza Basua number 692 and meets at point G 2'
G2 - G3 Line passes along with western lino of plot number 32/154 of mouza Baeua number 692 and meets at point SG3'.
G3 - G4 Line passes along with northern line of plot number 32/154 of mouza Basua number 692 and meets at point G4'.
G4 - Gl Line passes along with eastern line of plot number 32/154 of mouza Basua number 692 and meets at point "Gl'.
Grand Total - (Block number "A1 to Block number ~G') - 13.70 Acre3 (Approximately) or 05.54 Hectares (Approximately).
| No. 43015/6/97/1 W/PR1W1
SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
25752576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9,2001JYAISHTHA19,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (li)]
25T7 !(,()( C.I/2001-h 2578 THE GAZETTE OF WDIA: ttJKE 9,2001 JYAlSHfHA 19. \923 $for rt—fe, 3 (ilYj2379 2580 THE GAZETTE OF INtilA: jtlNE 9,20G1 WAlSltrttA 19, W3& rpj**ft*4ec. 3 M
ifttt iw
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2001
s.o. 1285.— whereas by the notification of th" Government of India in the
Ministry of Coal number S.O. 3490 dated the 15th November 1999 under sub-
section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)
and published in the Gazette of India under Part - II, Section - 3, Sub-
section (11) dated the 4th December 1999 the Central Government gave notice
of its intention to acquire the lands measuring 1451.31 acres
(approximately) or 567.57 hectares (approximately) of lands in the locality
specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And, whereas, no objection was made to the acquisition of the lands in
the locality aforesaid;
And, whereas, the Central Government after consulting the Government of
Bihar is satisfied that, the lands measuring 1451.31 acres (approximately)
or 587.57 hectares (approximately) of lands described in the schedule
appended hereto should be acquired.
How, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that,
the lands measuring 1451.31 acres (approximately) or 587.57 Hectares
(approximately) described in the schedule appended hereto are hereby
acquired.
The plan of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in
the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Godda (Bihar) or in the
office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta or in the
office of the Director (Technicali (Planning and Project), Eastern Coalfields
Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office Dishergarh, District Burdwan (West Bengal).
S C H E D U LE
RAJMAHAL CQAliFIfiLPS
Drawing no. ECL/RAJMAHAL/CGM/LA-73
Dated the 6th February, 2000
All Rights Block No. '1' (Showing lands to be acquired)
Thana
Number
Serial
Number
Name of mouza (Village)
Police Station (Thana)
District Area Remarks in Acres
BW Simra-I BW Simra-I BW Simra-I BW Simra-I BW Simra-I BW Simra-II BW Simra-II
41.00 157.58 45.00 361.11 26.43 37.24 782.95
32 33 45 47 50 17 18
Godda Godda Godda Godda Godda Godda Godda
Paharpur Bara Simra Lohandia Basdiha Harakha Chhota Bara Bhorai
01. • 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07.
Part Part Part Part Part Part Part
Total :
1451.31 Acres
(Approximately)
or 587.57 Hectares
(Approximately)
258301 Plot to be a o a u i r ed in Mouita F a h a r p u r. T h a na n u m b ar 32 ;
1 4 ( P a r t ).
02. Plots tq be aocrairad In Mouza Bara Bimra. Thana number 33 :
687(Part), 770 to 784, 795 to 811, 811/1041, 812 to 826, 826/1042, 827
to 844, 957 to 971, 977, 1030 to 1032, 1037 to 1040, 1040/1046.
03. Plots to b> aoauijcad in Mouza, Lohmdlfli Thana nundpar 45 :
404 to 410, 412 to 415, 443 to 461, 467, 468, 655 to 665, 667(Part),
668(Part), 669(Part), 681 to 684, 715, 732 to 751, 753(Part), 754 to
780, 780/842, 781 to 798, 799P, 800 to 836.
04. Plots to ba acquired in Mouza ^ffd^ha Thana number 47 :
2 to 162, 162/782, 163, 163/781, 164, 164/780, 165, 166, 166/779, 167 to
341, 341/778, 342 to 422, 422/775, 422/776, 423 to 442, 442/777, 443 to
457, 458(Part), 459 to 628, 628/774, 629 to 773.
05. Plots to ba aocniirod in Mouza Haralcha. Thana number 50 ;
961 to 966, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006 to 1016, 1017 (Part) , 1018 to 1023,
1025, 1034(Part), 1035(Part), 1036()Part), 1037(Part).
06. Plota to bo atocruirad in Mouza Chhota Bhorajj,.
Thana number 17 :
1 to 12, 17 to 19, 21, 25, 25/181, 26 to 32, 26/182, 43, 110 to 127,
127/176, 127/179, 128 to 154, 161(Part).
07. Plots to ba acquired in Mouza Bara Bhorai. Thana numbar 18:
112(Part), 113(Part), 114, 115, 165 to 400, 400/2490, 401 to 495,
495/2491, 496 to 715, 756, 759(part), 760, 765 to 824, 827, 828, 831 to
833, 837(Part), 994(part), 1102 to 1109, 1116, 1122 to 1132, 1132/2484,
1133 to 1139, 1145 to 1148, 1154, 1155, 1230 to 1481, 1485 (Part) , 1500
to 1535, 1605 to 1611, 1623, 1624, 1629 to 1632, 1634 (Part) , 1635 to
1911, 1911/2488, 1912 to 2483, 2486, 1492/2487.
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Al - A2 Lane passes through mouza Lohandia number 45, south of plot numbar
416, east of plot numbar 417, south and east line of plot number
432, east and south line of plot number 435, south of plot numbers
436, 442, 440, 463, 462, 466, 469, south and eastern line of plot
number 470, south line of plot number 799, passes through plot
number 799, south of plot numbers 653, 654, passes through plot
numbers 669, 668, 667 and passas along with southern and eastern
line of plot number 666 and meet at point "A2*.
2584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9,2001JYAISHTHA 19,1923
[PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)] A2 - A3 Lino passes through southern line of plot number 679 of mouza Lohandia number 45, passes southern and eastern line of plot nuniber 680, eastern line of plot numbers 674, 687, southern and eastern line of plot number 685, eastern line of plot number 702, passes through plot number 753, southern and eastern line of plot number 752, passes through plot number 751, southern and eastern line of plot number 731, eastern^line of plot number 730, southern line of plot number 731, eastern line of plot No. 730, southern line of plot number 729, passes along with boundary line of southern and eastern line of plot number 716, passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Lohandia number 45 and Basdiha number 47 and meet at point ~A3f.
A3 - A4 Line passes along with southern boundary line of plot number 1 of mouza Basdiha number 47, passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Basdiha number 47 and Harakha number 50, passes along with southern and eastern line of plot numbers 880, 1005, passes along with eastern line of plot number 1001, southern and eastern line of plot number 968, passes along with southern boundary line of plot numbers 957, 958, 959, 960, passes through plot number 1017, along with southern line of plot numbers 1024, 1026, passes through plot numbers 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037 and passes through western southern line of plot numbers 1040 and meets at point A4' .
A4 - A5 Line passes through joint boundary line of mouza Harakha•number 50 and Basdiha number 47 and at trio boundary line of Harakha number 50, Basdiha number 47, Verandah number 49 at point SA5'.
A5 - A6 Line passes through joint boundary line of mouza Verandah number 49 and Basdiha number 47 and meets at Trio boundary line of mouza Verandah number 49, Basdiha number 47 and Paharpur number 48 at point ^A6'.
A6 - A7 Line passes through joint boundary line of mouza Basdiha number 47, Paharpur number 48 and meets at trio boundary line of mouza Paharpur number 48, Basdiha number 47 and Taljhari number 19 at point ^A7'.
A7 - A8 Line passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Taljhari number 19 and Basdiha number 47 and at trio boundary line of mouza Taljhari number 19, Basdiha number 47, Bara Bhorai number 18 at point ~A8'.
A8 - A9 Line passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Taljhari number 19 and Bara Bhorai number 18 and meets at trio boundary line of mouza Taljhari number 19, Bara Bhorai number 18, Keshgaria number 20 at point 'A9'.
A9 - A10 Line passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Keshgaria number 20 and Bara Bhorai number 18 and meets at trio boundary line of mouza Keshgaria number 20, Bara Bhorai number 18, Chhota Bhorai number 17 at point *A10'.
m A10 - All Line passes through joint boundary lifte of Chhota Bhorai number 17 and Bara Ehorai number 18 and meets at point "All',
All - A12 Line passes along with northern boundary line of plot number 160 of mouza Chhota Bhorai number 17, along with northern and vrestern line of plot number 156 along with eastern and western line of plot number 155 along with northern linn of plot number 178, along with northern and western line of plot numb*rs 109, 108, along with western line of plot number 107, passes through plot number 161, passes along with northern line of plot number 35, along with eastern and northern line of plot number 33, along with northern western line of plot numbers 79, 183, 41, 42, 44, 24, 20, 15, 16, passes along with northern said eastern line of plot number 14 and meets at point "A12 •.
A12 - A13 Line passes along with joint boundary line of Chhota Bhorai number 17 and Bara Bhorai number 18 and meets at trie boundary line of mouza Chhota Bhorai number 17, Bara Bhorai number 18 and Paharpur number 32 meets at point "A13*.
A13 - A14 Line passes along with joint boundary U na of mouza Paharpur number 32, Bara Bhorai number 18 and meets at trio boundary line of mouza Paharpur number 32, Bara Bhorai number 18, Bara Simra number 33, meets at; point VA14 '.
A14 - A15 Line passes along with joint boundary line of mouza Paharpur number 32, Bara Simra number 33 and passes through plot number 14 of mouza- Pharpur number 32 and meets at trio boundary lin"=" of mouza Paharpur number 32, Bara Simra number 33, Chhota Simra number 34 at point A151.
A15 - A16 Line passes along with joint boundary line of Chhota Sifnra number 34, Bara Simra number 33 meats at point A16.
1606 Ul/2001—7 2SJ6 THEGA2ETTEQyiNDIA:JUNE9,2Q01JYArSH'mA19,1923
[PAR! II—SEC. 3 (iift A21 - A22 Line passes along with southern line of plot numbers 686, 663, 662, 661, 653, 652, 651 of mouza Bara Simra number 33, passes through plot number 687 along with southern and eastern line of plot numb"r 769 along with western and southern line of plot number 789 along with southern line of plot numbers 787, 786, 785 along with eastern line of plot numbers 793, 794 southern lino of plot number 723 and meats at point ~A22.
A22 - A23 Line paasee through joint boundary line of mouza Bara Simra number 33, Bara Bhorai nuiriber 18 along with southern and eastern line of plot numbers 1099, 1100 of mouza Bara Bhorai number 18, along with southern line of plot numbers 1110, 1114, 1115, 1117, 1121, 1149, 1151, 1153, 1156 along with western line of plot number 1143 along with western and southern line of plot number 1144 along with southern line of plot numbers 1140, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1483, 1482 passes through plot nuttiber 1485 and meets at point "A231 .
A23 - A24 Line passes along with southern and eastern line of plot number 1485 of mouza Bara Bhorai number 18 along with eastern line of plot number 1486, line passes along with southern and eastern line of plot numbers 1499, 1492, 1543, 1536, 1537 along with eastern line of plot numbers 1538, 1539 along with southern and eastern line of plot No. 1634 along with eastern line of plot number 1633, southern line of plot number 1627 along with southern and eastern line of plot number 1628, along with southern, eastern and northern line of plot number 1625, along with eastern line of plot numbers 1622, 1621 along with southern and eastern line of plot numbers 1612, 1613 along with eastern and northern line of plot number 1614, along with eastern line of plot numbers 1615, 1604, passes through plot number 994, passes along with eastern line of plot number 855, 826, 829 along with southern, eastern line of plot number 830, along with eastern line of plot number 834, passes through plot number 837 and meets at point ~A24'.
A24 - A25 Line passes along with eastern line of plot numbers 764, 761, 753, of mouza Bara Bhorai, passes through plot number 759 along with eastern line of plot numbers 758, 757 along with eastern line of plot number 755, along with southern line of plot number 717, along with eastern and northern of plot number 716, passes through side by side Simra-Boarijore Public Works Department road along with eastern and norther line of plot number 163, 164 line passes along with eastern line of plot number ,161, 130, 127 along with eastern and northern line of plot numbers 126, 125, passes along with eastern line of plot number 124, 116 along with eastern and northern line of plot number 117, line passes through plot numbers 113, 112, passes along with northern line of plot number 109, passes along with eastern line of plot number 111 and meets at point VA25'.
A25 - Al Line passes through joint boundary line of mouza Bara Bhorai number 18 and Lohandia number 45 passes along with eastern line of plot number 403, passaa along with eastern and northern line of plot number 402, passes along with eastern line of plot number 307 and meets at point 'Al'.
fNo.430l5/5/97/LW/PRlW]
SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
25872588 THEOAZETTeOFr^JDIA:JU^fE9,200mflA^SIW1HAf",t"23 rFAkrif"~"ft-.y$fH2589
New Delhi, the 3oth May, 2001
s.o. 1286. W h e r e as it apfx OJS to !h< '..Vntr-UCi^v^nmient tliat coal is likeh to lx* o b t a i n ed from tlse binds m e n t i o n ed sit tin: S c h e d u le herein a n n e x e d:
Now. ihrrr-ibrer. in exeici^e <~>f t he JTO%V" IS c>ririir'-iT<"d bv sntv--vrTinT\ 11) of s e c t i on 4 of lite Coal Beai ui^, Aix as (Attjiusttiun wild LVvcluiJiiK.-iit) Act. 1957( JO of VJ&7) flTereinatter retiMTfd to as t he HMH! Art) i\w C e n t r al t ^ w - i i u n c ut iieix=by given rioii"' of its a u d i t i on to },tx^t ibr aJ t h e r e i n.
The p l an Ix-arai^ n u m b e r: SHC'L/PSFVOMfPiAVi / I A N D/ J.:5KJ1 Mr\\\ 2'XX> of t he an a covered In* this notification c an lx* u w p e c t rd in tlif <• Jtfic^e t>t t he Collector, U m a n n. (Madhva Ptadesiti ot us t he Office of t he Coal Controller. I. Council H o u se S t r e e t, Kolbitn - 7"") tjtjl or m i he ". jfti
All pv!"sotti t n t e i v s t rd in t l r- l a nd co^/crrd b' t h iu nnt'tl'"^i"Mi ^]>,'jll d e b v er a ll t n a p s. c l i a r ts a nd wtlifr d o c u m e n ts ir-lencu to in ?>ui>stA u on iT\ o^ S r r t i on \S, r>f ttv- ^airi Art 1 r? tfir nftV^r-it i-t^b'Ur^-/K^ftrl r,f i\\tr' LK.[ u" ' t i l ii ^ i l i O ti sj i t in <€?tiii i
<2306 TMEOAZFhiEOPntoIA:Jtiffe9,2001JYAi^mi*1W,1'*2i tPWH-4fit3#|
-Wirdiiir
• Johtlld Air a
LJisLncl- Uiuaria (Madliva Pi at If-si JJ
R an No' ShCL/BRP/Gi:viF-lHj/L,MKi/^ *H Dated irv- i v^ _?<*1O (siiovunu Liu; land no tilled ioj pjusix-t Until
RfttiaDcs
1 Jistnct
1 TaliaiJ
Village
i
i
Ajra m liccuuc ^.
1 (if-ncral 1U Ulltx I
Serial ' TILUTIIX;I|
i
|. . _ _
5(XJ
; 2 i1 3 I
- 1^1 rt 1 ' 1 1 BaiidJjafMznrh "I liaudliaogaih [ Banrlliaogaj-Ji^ Umana L Uniana 1 Uniaiia ; Full 1 I* lit l~ U8 | 419 1 724 1 HO. i^ (A) Kota F\it}uua Scniana L.LXX) liectaies (Apfjiuxuiiatc-H) ' JR 158o.91 Ac !TotaJ64 Eoiuxlatv Descupuoii A-AI-D Line starts li-om {x>nit 'A" on the numnjuii lx>»md3ue;h vilJa^t' Ivota and meets at pouit B'. B-C-D Line i^assea along the Efistem boundaiy orvOLigcs Kota and FAitpixra and meetH at {x>ini U. D-E-F Line i^asses alotig the Southerns lx>undaiv of villages PLitpma and Scinaria and meets at point "T\ F-O-H-I Line passrs thorough village Semana and meets on the coimuoii boLUxlaiy of villages Seiuaiia 6& PuLpiua antl Point. V. I-A Luie passes along the Western boundary of villages Putpiua and meets at tlie starting |ioin± 'A\ ↩
[No 43015/16/2000-PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy2591
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2001
s. o. 1287.— Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 257 dated the 6th February 2001 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962). (herein after referred to as the said Act), the Central'Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transport of petroleum products from Chennai to Madurai through Tiruchirapalli in the State of Tamil Nadu by Petronet CTM Limited;
2592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9,2001 JYAlSHTHAt9,1923 _ [PAKT n^-$fec. ? (li)]
And, whereas, copies of the said gazette notifications were made available to the public on 16.2.2001;
And, whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;
And, whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule Appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) ot section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of that1 section, the Central Government directs that the Right of User in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on this date of publication of this declaration in the Petronet CTM Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
State : Tamil Nadu
Taluk: Virudhachalam
District: Cuddalore
Area
Sub-Division no
Survey no
Are Sq mtr Name of the Village
Hectare
1
2
3
4
5
6
99 10
0
05
78 No.22 AIVADUGUDI
[File No. 25011/1/2001-OR-I] S CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.
2593IMHi Gl/2001—K 2394 , , ,>,. ™Ql^tteOPINpIA:JONE",200tJY^gimui"tl"3 ft>ARTH_S*cJ(il)l2595 25% THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9.2001 JYAlSHTHA 19,1923 Wm i\—$ec. 3 2599
2600 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JUNE9,2001JYAISHTHA19,1923 [PAKrII-~SEc.3(ii)]
mi | M X, < il -( l 1"- '" 2")2
tm OAZErrp o rI N D IA • Ji.TsJr:<> xm JYA1SHTHA.I*>, urn IPARTit—si.;. 3 m im< 36W
'T^GAJfeTtEOFINDlA IUI*g9T200iyVAt^THA 19,1^3
'|WtB-3"fy3
[PARTII—SEC, 3(ii)l 2<$07
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2001
s, o. 1288.— . Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum (crude) from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan, pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam - Chaksu. Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System."
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sunil Sharma, Competent Authority, Salaya-Mathura Pipeline (Augmentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 33, Muktanand Nagar, Gopal Pura Bye-Pass, Jaipur^a^oij^aNv—
Encl: Schedule 2608, _ _ __ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 9,2001 JYAlSHTHA 19,1923 {PAR* H-^Str 1 (lift
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : BEAWAR
District: AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Sq mtr
Khasara No
Hectare Are
Name of the Village
5 1
2
4
3
50 BADIYA SHYAMA
80
0
02
65
79
0
00
00
66
0
08
67
04
50
0
21
68
0
02
04
10
65
0
64
0
00
33
49
63
03
0
62
0
05
89
162
0
02
70
21
161/2
0
01
09
163/1
0
00
164
88
0
06
171
0
00
20
170
0
02
18
69
168
0
09
169
0
02
16
251
0
15
68
252
0
09
60
253
0
09
60
20
314
0
00
433/2
02
20
0
432/1
03
58
0
05
56
431
0
430
0
05
15
446
0
07
10
559
0
15
63
07
72
551
0
71
552
0
05
730
0
07
18
50
726
04
0
725
0
06
00
321
0
08
11 BADIYA JAGGA
322
0
00
20
318
0
12
50 •mi 1 I 2 I 3_L 0 0 80 75 52 0 80 0 317 319 316 315 547Min
546 732
731
489
0
20 46
4 I 10 00 11 10 02 10
0
13 18
00 00 05
11
JALIYA-I
497
496
498
510
518 519
509Min 520 521 528 529
1053/1-
1057
1052/1
1051
1050
1049
1043
1042
1041
859
863/1
862
868
869
960
962
959 957
958 952 I d i i fi t i l / I M l Ol Id
53
35 33 31
09 04 10 10
39
03
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51
01
79
00
29
00
19
06
85
03
99
01
12
88
09 13
48
01
05
00
00 03 04 04 02 10
00
04
15
14
00
03
77 20 20 20 12 20 26 03 20 29 66 94 20 09 05
04
95
05
45
11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2610 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA: JUNE 9,2001 JYAlSrfTHA 10,1923
[PART II—SEC 3(ta)J1 I 2 919 920 I 4 | 03 06 00 921 5 19 30 20 76 03 913 914
916
915
906
905
904
93
46
09
00
05
40 47 06
03
SHIVNATHPURA
94
92
128
129
130
285
286
284/1
384
403
385
387
392
393
462 09 02 00 14
54 48 61 00
66
40
21
91 65 47 26 07
01 00 01 03 10 01 16 18
12
03
99
00
50
30
BHOJPURA
460 264 266 267 272 275 276 274 273 271
331
332
333
340 11 02 08 16 01 09
01
00
30 7C 87 26 8£ 27 12 81 63
00
20
00
26
04
44
07
36
00
21
07
03
09
32
I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07
02
0
012611 1 I
KESHARPURA (PARSA)
I 4 | 00 00 18 08 06 03 01 05 09 05 01 00 05 00 05 05 04 01 00 00 05 04 02 00 02 02 05 00 04 01 07 00 01 12 00 01 05 00 01 06
5 80 63 50 64 77 77 92 88 43 60 45 60 50 60 54 70 25 38 95 35 85 20 70 48 70 20 50 20 65 00 48 40 30 00 20 00 30 30 65 30
I 2 | 337 335 336 400/1 405 415 416 634 632 628 636 630 629 635 79 80 82 83 84 85 71 70 69 68 57 58 59 60 62 55 54 63 513 514 515 665 666 667 663 664
I 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.-^^^^ ,
^ . tHK GAZETTE OFINdlArJONE 9,2001JYAISHTHA19,1923
'fPAwrH—Si" vl ft)}1 I 2 I 5 FT i I 4 I 0 518 655 0 00 04 0 0 00 04 526 528 529 645 644 639Min
638 637
634 631
630
629 617 604 603
599
597
595
20 00 40 42 15
70
0 0 0
60
0
03 01 06 07
40
03
42
0 0
03
40
0
56
0
03 05 35
0
30
06 01
95
07
0 0 0
02
0
08
68 90 02
0
85
0
0
0
NOONDRI MALDEO
1043 994 995 1042
1027
1026
1024/1
1025
1022
1010
1011 877 841/1
842
866
865
844
851 859 860 0
02 03 14 01 05
0
0
0
02 00 03
00 00 00 13 97 20 10
03
50
90
03 01
48
0 0 0 0
21
40
0
01
0
09
0
11
0
00
0
02
0
08
0
03
05 01
29 90 55 71 81 45 74 58 00
0 0 0
03
83
0
02
22 'S6B<1 I 3 I 4 I 00 0 I 5 78 83 I 2 I 861 769 768 731 767 766 765 763 762Min 760 759 758 751 757 755 754 756 553/1 552/1 151/1 152 150 162 163 165 166 190 171 172 185 178 179 180 177 174 175 176 69
65
62
33 26 80
06 40
03 05 02 01 07 00
12
03
92
02
03
07
02
00
03 09 60 51 65
00
01
25
20 54
00 03
00 02
04
05
02
82 74 85 16 40 80
10
05
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60
0
40 51
60
0 0 0
51
00
05 07 01 03 04
00
86 50
03
04
0 0 0 0
02
0
02
0
0
02 04
0 0
0
00 01
14
0
0
01
70 25 20 25 15 75 10 20 20 2614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9,2001 JYAISHTHA19,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)J5 1 I 2 I 3 | I 4 | 0 64 37 01 0 63 81 09 0 36 37 01 04 0 35 60 34
47
0
01
0
995
51 SEDARIYA
01
80
0
09
996
0
998
08
52
03
0
999
20
1015
06
30
0
03
1011
0
45
1012
05
0
01
1014
70
0
1010
01 07
0
00
0
05
1019
25
1009/1348
0
01
20
1029
00
20
0
04
0
1030
38
04
0
1033/1
23
0
1269
19
46
1271
0
05
18
1272
0
05
09
0
1273
00
40
1276
0
08
33
1277
83
0
08
1278
0
00
20
30
1279/1
0
11
1280
00
0
20
1282/1
85
0
02
0
02
1283/1
18
1284/1
0
01
95
0
60
1285/1 Min
03
1286/1
0
03
30
1291
0
10
88
1294
0
02
80
1163
0
12
00
1160
0
11
14
1159
0
02
44
1158
32
0
01
1157
0
08
00 2^135 I 2 I 3 I 1 4 I 00 13 08 02 25
65 02 64 00 04
0 0 0 0 0
BALAR
1156 1149 1148/1 Min 1147/1Min 495/2 496/2 497/2 498 481/2 480 482 475 474 469 470 472 471 445 444 443 439Min 438Min
20 20 62 96 95 74 12 56 20 31 42 58 24 40 9V 76 60 53 61 34 37 00 78 90 20 30 49 60 00 44 44 47 05 30 40
00 00 00 01 02 00 05 03 00 16 06 01 01 04 . 05 03 04 03 00 01 01 03 01 00 08 16 13 02 02 04 04 04 04 07 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 312/2 311/1 311/2 310 308 306 309 232 225 226 233 224 223 222 220 219 178 2616 _ __^_/rtm GAZETTE OF INDIA Jt)^&,2(X)l jVAISHTftA 19,1923 ^Atrrg—SEC 3^)1 1 I
I 2 |
I 3 I 4 |
I 5 GARHI THORIYAN
218 180 181 182 183 193 194 903 902/1 902/2 1428 1427
1433 1434
SENSPURA
1461 1460 1625 1624 1626 1622 1628 1640 1641 1642 1644/1 1645/1 1647 1658/1 1659 1660/2 1661 1687/2 1685 1684 1683 1681 1680 1679 650/3 313
00 06 05 05 05 07 02 06 00 04 06 03 01 04 00 10 01 11 00 01 13 00 00 00 00 04 04 01 02 01 00 00 06 00 07 10 00 08 03 04
24 18 20 00 05 40 40 87 95 72 45 50 30 11 20 58 90 00 25 10 00 20 20 20 39 06 90 18 45 09 50 89 99 20 41 07 90 14 21 50
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-r*J-i W .1.J4.1 ' ' J V * " " " ^ " ' " "W "' " - 1 )"$ t I 2 •
USADIYA
LASANII
08 03 03 03 00 03 02 02 03 02 02 00 03 00 05 04 05 07 01 0!
00 03 02 04 08 01 10 00 07 01 00 00 17 00 02 08 02 00 05 05
00 35 53 27 20 19 00 70 60 60 25 20 00 25 50 00 40 41 73 83 32 59 78 06 54 00 00 40 20 34 60 40 75 00 60 54 53 60 20 00 08
314 316 317 318 319 468/1 467 466 464 465 130 128 24 25 27 60 68 70 755 762 763 764 765 766 647 645 646 579 582 585 584 602 603 616 615 522 521 509 508 504 496
0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IftOft Cil/2001 — II 2618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. JUNE 9,2001JYAT3HTKA19,1923
IPMW II—S; r 3 (">} -1 1.06 MANDAWAS 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
f\ I
01 03 00 04 00 00 01
SUHAWA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
560 949 977 978 975/1 981/2 981/1 997 996 1883 1858 692 704 705 702 701/1 703 696 698 697 719 718 730 722 723 729 733 736 745 744 743 742 791 790 794 798 797 795 796 816/1 817
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03 09 07 00 06 02 07 00 00 03 00 02 01 02 03 00 00 03 04 00 03 03 03 04 01 02 03 01 00 06 00 01 01
5 12 50 58 30 00 81 20 50 00 3" 79 20 65 94 60 25 80 35 65 70 50 40 05 48 30 60 10 40 45 50 20 65 65 45 78 50 80 17 20 50 42 z619
L_i_
1 2 818 819 822 821 824 825 826 831 832 836 837 838 843 466/2 891 892 890 889 1028
1018 1020 1012
1011
1010
1000
1115
1114
1117/2
1118
1119
1120/1899
1122
1121/1
1120
02 00 01 01 02 02 02 01 02 02 01 02 03 10 12 01 05 05 03 10 00 . 00 06 01 02 00 03 00 01 02 Q2 00 06 00 03 04 06 03 02 •00 02
90 40 75 10 45 45 35 85 30 25 45 00 50 00 00 29 50 32 05 80 20 95 38 00 45 70 50 20 15 50 00 40 70 40 50 1Q 40 25 69 81 70
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1146
1145/1
1159
1161
1160/1
1160/2
1163
"*" i^^mnmwTmui:mm9.-ii"iJYAsmwitw,mi fr*tcrn-too.3 1 I 2 I 3 I I 4 I LAKHEENA
0 0 P
0 0 0 Q
q6
10 03 05 06 02 13 00 10 03 12 11 07 00 03 02 04 1Q 04 00 03 02 03 03 00 Q2 01 01 00 01 00
940 941 942 943 944 923 922 945 968 967 987 988/2 990 1005/2 989 1004 1003/2 1062 1060 1061 1056 1057 1050 1053 879 872 827 826 825 831
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 Q 0 0
36 20 22 76 82 39 38 71 48 13 20 86 70 40 26 50 10 7Q 20 00 10 65 op 50 50 29 36 29 40 20
[No. ^L-25Q11/8/20PI OFV-(]
S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy!
2621MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2001
S.O- 1289.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Contra! Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between th,e employers in relation to the management of LlC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-5-2001.
[No. L-170I2/43/95-IRCB-IDJ AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT : Shri B.G. Saxena. Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGTT: 164/2000 Employers in relation to the management of L.T.C. of India
AND
Thoir Workman Shri S. K. Galphado
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, N^w Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudiction vide order No L-17012/43/95/JR(B.TI) dated 10-2-97 on the fol- lowing schedulo.
THE SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corportion of India, in re- moving Shri S.K. Galphade, Prob. Asstt. from the service with immediate effect vide order dated 27-04-92 is legal, justified, proper and proportio- nate to the gravity of the offence? Tf not, to What reliof the workman is entitled to?" 1606 GI|2001—12.
The workman Sh. Sandipan Kamaji Galphade was employed in Life Indusrance Corporation of Tndia as peon. He was promoted from record clerk to Probationary Assistant. During the year 1990 and 1991 ho was working as Probationary Assistant in the Prabhani Branch of Life Insurance Corpora- tion of India.
It is admitted by both the parties thai on 14-03-91 the workman wasAvoj-king as Probationary Assistant and he was doing the despatch work. He was main- taining the record of purchase of stamps and the use of postal stamps. In tho chargetsheot dated 14-03-91, it was alleged that the workman Sh. S. K. Galphade manipulated the entries in tne despatch register and postage stock register on six occassion8 i.e. 2-3-90, 6-9-90, 11-9-90, 14-9-90, 21-9-90 and 7-8-90* Tho amount involved in tho entries of postal stamps was Rs. 84, Rs. 480, Rs. 138, Rs. 434, Rs. 4, Rs. 156 etc. The total stamps used during the year 1990 and 1991 for which no account was maintained was valued Rs. 33, 773.25 paise.
In the chargesheet the details of the valuation of the stamps which were not incorporated in the registers were given. For the manipulation of va- rious entries the details were mentioned in the charge- sheet specifically regarding the loss caused to the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
The workman has alleged that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and according to the principle of joatural justice. The punishment awarded t° him i.e. his removal from service is not justified. Due to over Pressure of work he could not make all the entries of the envelops which were despatched to the policy holders and did not make entries in the postage stock register and despatch register. The irregularity of Rs. 4 and Rs. 80 is very minor. Ho therefore can be considered negligent only. He had not com- mitted any theft. His appeal was dismissed by Ap- pellate Authority after a period of six months which was not proper.
The management stated that the chargesheet was given to the workman on 14-03-91 for various ir- regularities including falsification of records and misappropriation of funds. All the details were given in the chargesheet regarding the amount in- volved. Show cause notice was also issued to him on 30-12-91, proposing the penalty of removal from service and the final order was passed by disciplinary authority on 27-04-92. The workman's appeal was rejected by Appellate Authority on 16-1-93. During enquiry the workman was provided the help of his defence representative. On his request Sh. K. B. Gote, Higher Grade Assistant was allowed to assist workman during the enquiry. Shri M. A. Moham- mad was appointed as Enquiry Officer and all tho relevant documents and records were made aval 26:2 fHE GAZETTE OF INDIA: TUNE 9, 2OOI/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PAM II—SEC. 300] able to the workman during the course of enquiry.
The workman had summoned eight witnesses, but only two witnesses Sh. J
Both the parties have submitted documentary evidence and have a'so produced o 'al evidence in this C.G.I.T. Court.
On behalf of work-nun the statement of workman r-hri Sandeep Kamaji Gaiphade was recorded in the court of C.G.I-T. No. 1 at Mumbsi. The witres^ <• was cross examined On 04-06-99. On behalf of management of LIC Shri S. N. Gachhe hns filed affidavit and he was cross examined by Shri R. N. Pathne, President Western Zone Insurance Employees Association. The cross examination of this witness was recorded on 03-10-2000.
Both the parties closed their evidence. They have submitted written arguments and also addi- tional written arguments. The repscntativi; of the parties did not argue the case orally.
I have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence produced on record and the arguments submitted by the parties.
The workman Sh. S. K. Galphtidc was corss examined on 04-06-99. He admitted in cross exami- nation that the enquiry WPS held against him before imposing the punishment. During enquiry he vas given assistance cf Sh. K.P. Gote- lie "ays that he and" his defence representative K. B. Gote had signed the enquiry proceedings which were recorded iia.ily. He also admits that his wi!nesses were allowed to be examined. lie doe^, not know why other witnesses did not attend the enquiry. The enquiry proceeding wert recorded without ;my correction, scoring • or overwriting. This v'taess therefore clearly says that he W'IS given full opportunity to defend himself dur- ing the enquiry proceedings. He and his friend Shri K B. Gote attended the enq>iirv proceedings. He does not w\\ anywhere in ciorr-examination that th- enquiry' w-'s not fair.
Shi i S. N. Gachfre, the Administrative Officer of LIC also Matnd in his cross-examination that Gal- pkedc was given one months time to submit the reply of show cause notice. Only one chargesheet \\dr drawn cigriin^t him. The six witnesses did not rppcii] ID depose in favour of the workman.
In die .ibo\e circumstances, it is evident that the enquiry wai ccuiducted fairly by the Enquiry Officer UMII the workman was provided full opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry pioceedings were also recorded in his presence. His defence representative Shu K. B. Gote also attended tht enquiry proceed- ings with him.
The enquiry report is on the UU which shows that the workman was given lull opportunity to explain the Ui irges of manipulation of records and temparing the registers. He had admitted that he was prepar- ing the vouches for the purchases of stamps. He also emitted that the stamps v>eie in his custody. The despatch register wis dso being maintained by him. The workman during the enquiry could not explain ho'v ihe stamps valued Rs. 28,976:50 paisc were u^ -d by him in despatching em clops during the rele- vant period mentioned in the chargesheet.
In Ihe aforesaid circumstances it is cleur that work- man had S'*cn all the documents which were submitt- ed timing the enquiry by the management, but he could not explain Ins conduct. The Enquiry Officer also calculated the pmount and found that the charge of misappropriation of stumps valued Rs. 28,976.50 p >jse ^as proved agnnsi him* Tt shows that the Enquiry Officer himself checked the record i.e. des- patch legister and the postage stock register for as- certaining the amouM of stamps misappropriated. Thnre h nothing on recoid to show that the Enquiry Officer did not conducted the enquiry fairly.
In the above circumstances the enquiry was con- ducted by the Enquiry Officer fairly and according to the principles of natural justice.
TI.e punishment of removing the workman from SL-n'ce in the aforesaid circumstances was therefore justified The delay in the disposal of appeal by the Appellate Authority doe* not an\ way vitiate the -nquiry proceedings. The punishment awarded to the workman is therefor just and proper. The work- men is not entitled to
ORDER
^ The action of the management of Life Insruance Coipuration of Injiti in removing Shri Sandeep kamaji Galphade, Prob. Assistant from service w.e.f. 27-4-92 is legal, justified and proper. The punish- ni?,ni awarded to him is also justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.
Tl]e reference is answered accordingly.
Nagpur, Dr. 30-3-2001
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer2623 New Delhi, ihe 10th May, 2001 S.O. 1290.—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, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the In- dustrial Dkpuic between the employers in relation to the management of Pinjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 10-5-2001.
[No. L-12O13|59|98-IR(B-1I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Office duly signed by the concerned workman alongwith his representative raising the present industrial dispute and the management of the bank through Shri Sidharth Kapoor, Sr. Manager Personnel, HRD Division, .Head Office, New Delhi and Sri Rakesh Gautam, Manager Personnel, HRD Division, New Delhi. The terms of settlement dated 21-4-2001 arc as under :
1. That Sri K. K. Nigam would report at RO : Agra by 28th April. 2001 for his further posting at BO Kamalganj. In this event of bank considering administrative transfer of Sh. K. K. Nigam from BO Kamalganj as clerk, his transfer to Kanpur Region will be considered by the bank.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 129 of 1998
In the matter of dispute between : — Joint Secretary, National Confederation of Bank Employees, 128/301, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur
And
Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Birhana Road, Kanpur.
2. That Sri K. K. Nigam would be treated as absent from his duties from 16th October, 1993 i.e. the date on which lie was relieved for reporting at Regional Office, Gorathpur for his further duties till he reports for his further duties at Regional Office, Agra and he would not be entitled to any benefit mone- tary or otherwise for the period of his above absence except that the above period of absence would be reckoned for the purpose of superannuation benefits as a special case.
3. That both the parties to this settlement i.e. the Management of PNB and PNB Staft* Association (UP) alongwith Sri K. K.. Nigam would file an application before Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, as per Annexure to this Settlement in the pending alleged Industrial Dispute No. 129/98 for pawing of 'No Dispute Award1,
AWARD
1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. 12013/59/98/1R (IM[) dated 20-7-98, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in transferring their work- man Shri K. K. Nigam on the ground of being surplus in accordance with their scheme dated 16-9-93 ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled."
2. In the instant case today is the date fixed for disposal of the application moved by the workman Management and the concerned workman moved a joint application requesting the tribunal to pass a 'No Dispute Award' in the case as they have arrived at an amicable settlement over the dispute referred to this tribunal by the Government of India. They have also filed a copy of settlement dated 21-4-2001 4. Ii any doubt or difficulty arises regarding interpretation and implementation of any provision of this settlement the matter' shall be taken up only at the level of Punjab National Bank,.HRD Divisional, Head Office and PNB Staff Association (UP) ior discus- s;on/settlcmcnt.
5. It is agreed that both the parties would submit a report of implementation of this settlement to the concerned authorises by 19-5-2001 fa.ling which it shall be presumed that this settlement stands implemented.
6. Both the parties agiec to forward copies of the settlement to the authorities prescribed under the Industral Deputes Act, 1947.
3. I have gone through the al'oresa;d terms of settlement dated 21st Day of April,'2001, carefully and I have no hesitation in holding that now there remains no dispute bcteeen the parties on the refe- rence made to thii tribunal for adjudication by the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. Accordingly the 2624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAlSTHA 19, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)]
dated 20-7-98, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
present reference is decided in terms of settlement dated 21-4-2001 referred to above and as there re- mains no dispute between the parties 'A No Dispute Award' is given.
4. Reference is answered accordingly.
R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in transfering their work- man Shri Anil Srivastava on the ground of be'ng surplus in accordance with their scheme dated 16-9-93 ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled."
2. In the instant case today is the date fixed for New Delhi, the 10th May, 2001
disposal of the application moved by the workman. Management and the concerned workman moved a joint application requesting the tribunal to pass a 'No Dispute Award3 in the case as they have arrived at an amicable settlement over the dispute referred, to this tribunal by the Government of India. They have also filed a copy of settlement dated 21-4-2001 duly signed by the concerned workman alongwith his representative raising the present industrial dis- pute and the management of ihe bank through Shri Sidharth Kapoor, Sr. Manager Personnel, HRD division. Head Office, New Delhi and Sri Rakesh Gautam, Manager Personnel, HRD Division, New Delhi. The terms of settlement dated 21-4-2001 are as under :—
S.O. 1291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra] Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman which was received by the Centra] Govern- ment on 10-5-01.
1. That Sri Srivastava would report rd RO : Agra by 28th. April, 2001 for his further posting at BO Kamalganj. In the event of bank considering administrative transfer of Sh, Srivastava from BO Kamalganj as clerk, his transfer to Kar.pur Region will be consi- dered by the bank.
[ No. L-12013/57/98-IR (B-II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURC
BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial dispute No. 131 of 1998
2. That Sri Srivastava would be treated as absent from his duties from 16th October, 1993 i.e. the date on whkh he was relieved for reporting at Regional Office, Gorakhpur for his furt3it;r duties till he reports for his further duties at RegionaJ Office, Agra and- he would not be entuled to any benefit mone- tary or otherwise for the period of his ebovo absence except that the above period of absence would be reckoned for the purpose of superannuation benefits as a special case.
In the matter of dispute betwoen : Joint Secretary, National Confederate of Bank Employees, 128/301, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur
And
3. That both the parties to this settlement i.e. the Management of PNB and PNB Staff Association (UP) alor.gwith Sri A. K. Sri- vastava would file an application before Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, as per Annexure to this Settlement in the pending alleged Industrial Dispute No. 129/98 for passing of 'No Dispute Award'.
Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Birhana Road, Kanpur.
4. If. anyi doubt or difficulty arises regarding AWARD
1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification No. 12013/57/98/IR (B-II)
interpretation •< and implementation of any provision of this settlement the matter shall be taken/ up. only at the level of Punjab NationaliBitHk, HRD'.Division, Head Oflke 262$
BETWEEN :
and PNB Staff Association (UP) for discus- sion/settlement.
Sri P. Yadav Rao, H. No. 21-58/A, Vivckananda Nagar Colony, Diliukhnagar, Hyderabad
. .Petitioner
AND
5. It is agreed that both the parlies, would ciibmit a report of implementation of this settlement to the concerned authorities by 19-5-2001 failing which it shall be persumed that this settlement stands implemented.
The Dy. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Pioneer House, 6-3-653, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 482.
.. Res ponden 6. Both the parties agree to forward, copies of the settlement to the authorities prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
APPEARANCES :
M/s. V. Hari Haran and A. Chandra Sckhar, Advocates for thePetitioner. Sri AUuri Krishnam Raju, Advocate for the Respondent.
AWARD 3. T have gone through the aforesaid terms of settlement dated 21st Day of April, 2001 carefully and I have no hesitation in holding that now there remains no dispute between the parties on the refe- rence made to this tribunal for adjudication by the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. Accordingly it is held' that the present reference is decided in terms of settlement dated 21-4-20011 referred to above and as there remains no dispute between the parties 'A No Dispute Award' is given.
4. Reference is answered accordingly.
Dated : 4:5-:C01
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in its letter No. L-I201i2/96/99/IR (B-IIj> dt. 6-7-99 has made a reference to this Tribunal under -clause (d) of Subsection (1) and Sub-Section'2
R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the management Zonal Office at Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad in terminating his service of P. Yadav Rao, Sub- Staff is legal and justified 7' If not, what relief a workman is entitled to ?"
After appearances of the parties, they, filed their
prayed pleadings,
New- Delhi, the 11th May, 2001
S.O. 1292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of .1947), the Central Government hereby publishes ihe award of Ihe Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the. emp- loyers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and-their workmen, which was'received by the Central Government on Ilr5-2GO1.
[ No. H2012/96/99-IR (B-II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-l AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L.,
Industrial Tribunal-I.
Dated 9th day of April, 2001
2. Claim statement averments are briefly stated as under : That the workman discharged his services > atisfau only, while, so he was terminated from service illegally and arbitrarily. That he was issued with a charge sheet dt. 7-5-96 alleging that he submitted a false Transfer Certificate without having any study in the High School,, for whi&h he submitted his expla- nation. A domestic enquiry was ordered, to prove the ch'iiges levelled against him. He sought for per- mission, to engage an advocate to defend-him in the enquiry and he had to file a writ and also writ appeal. In the writ appeal the High Court was pleased to direct the respondent" 10 permit him to engage a lawyer to represent his ease, still it was not allowed. None of the officers of the bank have come forward to defend him in the enquiry as they-appre- hended action from the management' in case they support him. The presenting officer and the witness of the bank are all qualified persons and he was put to handicapped. Enquiry Officer was not conversant with Telugu language, similarly the petitioner was not conversant with English language. The enquiry proceedings were recorded in English. A translator was appointed but it was an eye wash. Basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent has imposed the punishment terminating his services.
Industrial Dkpute No. 46 of 1999 26i6 THE GAZETTE Of" INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)1
his evidence on the date of enquiry, on which date the neither appeared nor produced any defence witnesses. On all these dates of enquiry, the workman was present but refused to sipn the proceedings. As per the directions of the Hi^h Court the enquiry had to be completed within 3 months, so the enquiry officer submitted his report dt. 8-11-96 to the management and a copy of the report was sent to the workman through a letter No. 1440/284(17)IRS dt. 9-11,-96 which he received the same. The management accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal. The workman sent a letter dt. 1-3-97 on which personal hearing was fixed on 25-3-97 and on which date he alongwith defence representative Sri N. R. Srinivas made submissions. A final order dt. 19-5-97 was passed confirming the proposed punishment of dis- missal of the workman. He preferred an appeal vide letter dt. 10-9-97 and the appellant authority had disposed of the appeal confirming the punishment, vide proceedings No. 54/PD/IRDW/DA, dt. 28-9-97 marking him letter dt. 1-9-97.
5. The petitioner workman committed gross misconduct in making a false statement relating to the document pertaining to his employment enclosing a transfer certificate to the effect that he is qualified for the appointment wlrch is a misconduct under clause 19.5(M) and (J) of bipartite settlement so it is prayed to dismiss the claim and confirm the order of dismissal passed by the management
6. The point for adjudication is whether the petitioner workman is entitled to the relief as claim- ed for ?
3. The respondent filed the counter and denied of the material allegations. That the petitioner knowingly made a false statement in his employment application which Act is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank under clause 19.5(M) and (J) of bipartite settlement; for which he was charge sheeted. Along with application he submitted a copy of transfer certificate bearing No. 80496 admission No. 430 dt 18-9-71 purported to have been issued by the Head Master Government High Schoo], Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad mentioning that he joined in first class on 13-6-68 and studied up to Vlllth Class with Telugu Medium and qualified for promotion to next higher class. The date of birth is 12-11-53 and left the school on 30-4-67. Basing on his application he was temporarily appointed as Attender for a period of six months vide appointment order dt. 11-1-84, issued by the Regional Office, Hyderabad, thereafter on 18-2-84 the workman submitted the prescribed application O.G. (85) for regular employ- ment filling the above information along with the necessary certificate, Sybsequcntly workman was confirmed in permanent service vide letter dt. 13-7-84 issued by the Regional Office. Subsequently the schoo] records were verified wihich revealed that the Transfer Certificate dt. 18-9-71 submitted by him was not a genuine one. Thereby he was issued with charge sheet calling for explanation. The workman approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and filed the W P. 13923/96- As per the directions in the Writ Peljtion the workman was supplied with documents and an enquiry officer was appointed on 22-2-96. Again petitioner filed a writ appeal to allow him to engage a lawyer to defend his case before enquiry officer but his request to engage a lawyer in domestic enquiry could not be considered as per the rules and informed that he would be given with Assistance of Officer petitioner filed W.P. 18994/96 which was dismissed by the Hon'b|c High Court, while dismissing a writ the petitioner was given-liberty to ohoose an officer to whom he prefcis he would like to represent in the domestic enquiry.
7. By an order dt. 11th day of September, 2000 this Tribunal held that there is no infirmity in the domestic enquiry proceedings much less any tenable grounds exist to set aside the domestic enquiry pro- ceedings as alleged by the workman. However with- out prejudice to his rights and to appreciate the evidence on merits and as to the propoitionality of the punishment under Section 11A of Industrial D;s- pute Art, it was posted for final hearing.
8. During the final aiguments on the side of the management the documents relating to the domestic enquiry were marked as Ex. Ml to M 28 for appre- ciation of the contentions and to consider the merits and demerits of the case.
9. Even during the final arguments, the learned counsel for the workman has again raised the same plea that the workman was denied with an oppor- tunity to engage defence counsel and so he could not cross examine the witnesses who are qualified persons. So denial of such an opportunity amounts to violation of the principles of natiual justice and thereby the entire pioceedings are to be vitiated.
4. That on the date of hearing i.e. on 20-7-96, the workman appeared and signed the proceedings. It was again adjourned to 9-9-96 at the request of the workman as he intends to engage a defence represen- tative. On 8-10-96 workman expressed that he would bring bis defence representative and sought time. While the deposition of MW1 was recorded the work- man walked out of the enquiry without cross exami- ning him. His cross examination was deferred till 24-7-96, on which date the remaining witnesses MW2 to 4 were examined and the cross examination was kept open till 25-10-96 and on the same day MW5's evidence was recorded. The workman showed dis- inclination to cross examine the witnesses so evidence was treated as closed. The workman failed to lead2627 10. Tbi; aspect luts been discussed in the preli- minary order dt. 11-9-2000 in which it was held that domestic enquiry proceedings are valid and tint the principles oi Natuial Justice are not violated as such the reasons givui therein hold-i ,^ )J and OIK: jg.un this point not be decided at all.
of appointment issued to tho delinquent on 9-8-82, Ex ME S is the letter of appointment dt. 14-6-83, EK. ME9 is a tejiooMry appointment loLtcr dt. 2-1 U 82, ME 10 is the memo No. 25393/RO/PS/8/84/APT dt 11-1-84 issued by the bank, ME 11 the application for employment dt. 18-2-84 submitted by the delin- quent, ME 12 declaration of fidility and secrecy submitted by the delinquent, Ex. M13 is a Medical Certificate of evidence submitted by the delinquent, M 14 is a letter of confirmation dt. 16-7-84 issued by Bank. Further he stated as per ME 11 O-G(85) submitted by the delinquent he understands Telugu and Hindi languages, so also he can speak and write English and Tciugu languages.
11. While coming to the merits of the case on the basis, of evidence let in through MW1 to 4 and the record it is nocessary to go through it, elaborately to find out whether tho allegations made in the charge sheet are proved or not. Ex. M2 is the minutes of enquiry in which day to day enquiry steps were re- corded by the cuquiry officer noting down the ob- jections raised by the delinquent and the ruling given there on foitOvving the rules and directions. E\. M3 contains the depositions given by the witnesses which disclose the following facts-
12. MW 1, S, Raju who deposed that he issued Ex. ME 17 calling for the explanation of the delin- quent for the transfer certificate produced by him at the time of submitting his application and that District Educational Officer Hyderabad in his letter 'dt. 9-1-96 had submitted a report on 23-1-96 in- 'forming that he verified the r'^ords of concerned school and as per the admission register admission No. 430/1277, dt. 13-6-53 stands in the name P. Sudhakar Swami S/o Venkata Rajaya whose date of Birth is 12-3-39 and he joined in the VII class on the basis of High School Aimore. Gosha Mahal Government School is having classe-. from Vlth onwards only and there is no admission of first class in that school as such the transfer certificate in ques- tion sent for verification is not genuine one. The commissioner of police Chutta Bazar was also ad- dress in tho matter.
15. MW 4 Nagender Nath Assistant Peisonnol Manager Syndicate Bank, who deposed that on the instructions of Zonal Office he investigated the matter to find out tho genuineness of the certificate submitted by the delinquent at the time of appointment. He identified Ex. Ml to M2 relating to the personal file of the delinquent. Further stated that he addressed a letter to the Government Boys High Gosha Mahal Seetaram Bagh Hyderabad to submtt a report about the disputed Transfer Certificate submitted by the delinquent. Thereafter he visited the school on 27-10-95 and the Head Master informed him that the delinquent (Yadav Rao) was not a bonaflde student of its institution and tho Transfer Certificate bearing No, 80496 with admission No. 430 was not in respect of the delinquent. Further stated that ME 11 D.G(85) was submitted bydeliquent in which he mentioned that he passed VIII class in 1970 from Government Boys High School Gosha Mahal Hy- derabad and the Transfer Certificate was not genuine one, and from tho information gathered from Dis- trict Educational Officer- the information submitted to the delinquent is a falso one so on explanation was called for about the non-genuine Transfer Certificate submitted by him. MW5 S. M. Chandra School Assistant Government Boys High School Gosha Mahal Hyderabad stated that E.x M 16 is the letter sent by the Incharge Head Mistress tojthe Bank and as per the Serial No. 430 of Transfer Certificate No. 80436 produced by the delinquent is not tallying with the details as noted in the admission register which relates to Prakash S/o K. Rajaiah whose date of birth is 18-3-54
13. MW2 M0. Riyazath Hussain ha-, deposed that the school Head Master sent ME 15 letter dt. 27-10-95 to the Bank as to tho authenticity of ME 2 transfer certificate which was sent to the school. As per the admission register of the said school the admission No. 430 the Transfer Certificate bearing No. 80496 noted in Ex. ME2 with the name Y. Yadav Rao S/o S. Malaiah does not tally and the said SI. No. belongs to the candidate of T. Sudhasha Swami S/o Ramanijai with date of Birth 12-3-39, who joined in VTT cla:.3. Ex. ME2 details are not at all tallying and that same was not issued by the said school.
16. Basing on the above evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted and he had discussed the evidence of the witnesses and documents thread bear. On the basis of the evidence on record he gave the findings that the charges arc proved and that the delinquent knowingly made a false statement about the Transfer Certificate at the time of his employment, which is a misconduct attracting clause 19.5(M) and (J) of i e bipartite settlement.
14. MW3 Chaiiapati Raju Managor PSSWVV Hydera-had who deposed that Ex. Ml to M14 docu- ments arc the documents pertaining to the filejof delin- quent. Ex. MWI is anapplicarion dt. 21-1-31 sub- mitted by the delinquent for appointment. ME2 is the transfer certificate submitted by him, ME 3 is caste certificate, ME 4 is a conduct certificate, ME 5 & M 6 are the Conduct Certificates ME 7 is a letter 2628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2 0 0 1/ fYAISTHA 19, ,1923 [PART I I ^ - S E C. 3(U)] 17. Ex. Ml to M24, M26 marked at the time of the final arguments clearly indicatesjthat a fair op- portunity was given to the workman while holding the enquiry and the evidence on record is satis- factory to confirm that the charges have been proved against the delinquent relating to submission of false Transfer Certificate while submitting application for employment to the Bank, The act or omission is a misconduct as per 19.5 (M) anil (J) of bipartite settlement. There is no iota of truth in tho version of the delinquent. During the arguments it is aruged that the disputed Transfer Certificate (Ex. ME 2) does not relate to n'm a nd n's genuine certificate was sup'press'ed. and that he was falsely implicated to get rid of him from the service. The defence setup is untenable and it v>as a ruse to wriggle out from the circumstances. Nothing prevented the workman from producing the genuino certificate to establish that the dispute transfer certificate k, not that of him- The documents produced by-him- self stare at-him pointing out an accusing finger and thare is no hesitation to hold that the workman had committed misconduct attracting 19.5 (M) and,(J) of bipartite settlement. Therefore the management is justified in imposing the punishment The appel- lant authority delinod to ^show lenience in its punish- ment.
18. The next aspect for consideration is whether the punishment j-s either proportionate or dispropor- tionate to the gravity of ;thc misconduct that was proved against the workman.
19. No doubtSection 11(AJ of IndustriaJ Dispute Act, requires indulgence and to interfere with the punishment imposed. Also to exercise discretion sympathetic grounds where the punishment is dis- proportionate jto the gravity of the charges of mis- conduct in which he was involved cither knowingly or unknowingly.
20. dt is a. settled law that when the management on the.basis of the findings .of the enquiry officer holds :that'thedielinquent is guilty of misconduct and imposes (the punishment of either dismissal or removal from service, the Tribunal or Labour Court while adjudicating the dispute would seldom interfere with the punishment unless circumstances warrants for it. In a .decision reported in union of India vs.M. Bhaskar AIR 1956 Supreme Court Page 56 it was held that if a person was found guilty that he secured appointment'by applying fraud, the employee is not entitled to tfhe equitable relief. Similarly in another case reported
(1) Dist, Collector & Chairman Welfare Society vs. T. Sundara Devi AIR 1998 SC page 111.
(2) In Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar AIR 1993 SCC page 655.
(3) Kerala Solvent Extract vs. Unnikrishnan 1994 (2) LLJ (SC) page 888.
Iiiithc result, award is passed dismissing the claim by confirming the impunged order of dismissal dated 19-5-97 passed by the respondent.
Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on the 9th day of April, 2001.
SYED ABDULLAH. Industrial Tribunal Appendix of Evidence
On the validity of Domestic Enquiry :
Witnesses Examined Witnesses Examined for the Petitioner: for the Respondent:
WWI P. Yadav Rao MW1 K.L.N. JosM Documents marked fo.r the Petitioner:
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent:
Ex.Ml Charge Sheet, dt. 7-9^96.
Ex.M2 Proceedings of the enquiry.
Ex.M3 Enquiry report submitted by MW 1 Ex,M4 Bunch of the documents produced before the enquiry officer.
Ex.M5 List of the witnesses submitted to the Enquiry Officer by Management's represen- tative.
By Consent:
Ex.M6 Xerox.copy of appointment order to MW1 as Enquiry Officer.
Ex.M7 Xerox copy of .representation dt. 1-7-96 submitted by the petitioner.
Ex.M8 Xorox copy of the letter dt. 5-7-96 issued to the petitioner regarding refusal of engaging Advocate.
Ex.M9 Representation dt. 5-8-96 made by the petitioner to the Asst- General Manager of the Bank.
Ex.MlO Letter dt. 22-8'-96 from the AGM to the Petitioner regarding intimation to the petitioner.
Ex.Mll Representation dated 4-9-96 of the peti- tioner to A. G.M. regarding order of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in E.W.P. No. 13923/96.
2629ETT.M12 Xerox copy of the order dt 20-8-96 in WA No. 967/96.
Ex.M13 Letter dt. 7-9-96 addressed to the petitioner regarding High Court's order about enquiry.
Ex.M14 Letter dt 9-11-96 intimating the findings of the enquiry officer to the petitioner- ExM15 Representation dt. 5-12-96 submitted by the petitioner to the Dy. G.M. regarding enquiry.
Ex.M16 Xerox copy of the dismissal order dt. 27-2-97.
Ex.M17 Representation dt 1-3-97 made by the petitioner to the Dy. G.M.
Ex.M18 Letter dt 14-3-97 of the Dy. G.M. to the petitioner regarding personal hearing granted to the petitioner.
Ex.M19 Xerox copy of the proceedings of Dy. G.M,/ Disciplinary Authority dt. 25-3-97 regarding proceedings of hearing.
Ex.M20 Letter dt. 19-5-97 enclosing the proceedings of the Dy. G.M.
Ex.M21 Letter dt. 4-8-97 addressed to the petitioner intimating the personal hearing before the appellate authority on 14-8-97.
Ex.M22 Letter enclosing the proceedings of the G.M.(P) on the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
Ex.M23 Grounds of appeal dt- 10-7-97 preferred by WW1 to the General Manager Personal.
Ex.M24 Xerox copy of the order of High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 13923/96 dt. 16-7-96.
Ex.M25 Order copy of the High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 18994/96 dt. 10-9-96.
Ex.M26 Order copy of the High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 1357/96 dt. 20-11-96.
Ex.M27 Order copy of the High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 4956/97 dt. 19-3-97.
Ex.M28 Xerox copy of the order in W.P. No. 13093/97 of High Court of A.P. dt. 25-6-97.
Aiter domestic enquiry held valid:
NIL
Now Delhi, the 11th May, 2001 S.O. 1293.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industria Tribunal, Hyderabad as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Earoda and their workman, which was leceivcd by the Central Government on 11-5-2001.
[No. L-12011/121/99-IR(fl-II)] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I
AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Sri Syed Abdullah, B Sc, B L.,
Industrial Tribunal-I,
Dated : 10th day of April, 2001.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 6 OF 2000 Between : The Joint Secretary, Bank of Baroda Stafi Union, C/o Bank of Baroda, Governerpet, Vijayawada.
...Petitioner/Workman And
The Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Centra] Oflice-3, Walchand, Harishchandra Marg, Mumbai-400023.
... Respondent/Management Appearances :
N. Rushandar Reddy, Advocate for the. Petitioner. T. Vishwanath Shastry, Advocate for the Respon- dent.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by its Order No. L-12011/121/99/IR(B-II), dt, 21-1-2000 referred following Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d) to Sub-Section 2(A) of In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda Vijayawada Region in not giving Additional Service Weightage to Sri U.S.R. Murthy redeployed Ex-Serviceman is justified?" If not, what relief the workman is entitled for? Both parties appeared and filed the respective plead- ings.
2630 tfffe GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9, 2001/ JYAIS'THA 19, 1923 [PART II—S*c(3tH)] 2. Facts, stated in the claim statement are as undor ;
The petitioner is a Joint Secretary of Bank of Baroda Staff-Union, Hyderabad, which is affiliated to All India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation recognised and NCBE. This claim is filed on behalf of Sri U.S.R. Murthy Workman herein. The aggriev- ed workman prior to joining in the respondent Bank had served in the Indian Air Force for 15 years and is a pensioner. The workman joined the respondent- Bank as Shroff-cum-Clerk on 10-11-82 and since then discharged his duties satisfactorily. The work- man is eligible for 2 years Additional Weightage of Service as he is an ex-serviceman and reemploycd. Though for reserved vacancies some circulars were issued by the management for giving the benefit of Additional Service Woightage-, but ihose circulars were not notified and made known to the workman by the local managers of the Bank. The banking division bad issued a policy letter effective from 28-1-83 for giving weightage of service for out of cader promotion to ex-servicemen on the basis of their service in the defence forces- But the same was not implemented, similarly the subsequent amendment given by the Government of India effective from 13-6-86 was also not notified. The workman came to know from other sources for the first time in 1997 that Additional weightage of 2 years service he is entitled for. Whenever special allowance are as- signed for additional duties for posts such as Special Assistant, Head Cashier, Computer Operator, Agri- cultural Assistant, Steno etc., and whenever Addi- tional duties are assigned, the criteria being followed by the Bank is based on the length of service reckoned from the effective date of joining.
3. That the post of Assistant Head Cashier fell vacant on 11-2-98. Some Senior Staff were not willing to take up the said post, so it was given to the workman which he accepted and has been working in the said post. This assignment was given by the management on their own but not against the option of the woricman much less on the strength of given the benefit of 2 years of Additional Weightage of Service but it was given in usual course based on his seniority and reckoning the length of service. Fur- ther the workman was given assignments of Higher Special allowances on temporary basis for 155 days between 20-2-98 to 9-11-98.
4. In the month of September, 1998, 4 vacancies of the post Automatic Ledger Posting Machine (in short ALPM) arose for a new branch at Benz Circle Vijayawada and the workman offered himself for the above post but the management over looked his seniority and appointed P, Kashi Vishwanath who joined in the service later to the workman i.e., on 3-8-84 and Smt K- Usha Kumari who joined Banks service on 28-12-84, allegedly on the ground that workman is not eligible to have services weightage, since he had already availed. It was a clear breach of trust by the management- Though, the work- man had been making representations from time to time dt. 15-12-98, 24-12-98, 10-5-97, 10-2-98 and 9-11-98 to provide him the government guidelines on the issue for service weightage and to make a clarification on it. But there was no response. The union representatives had also espoused cause of the workman in the matter but he was not given the post of ALPM Operator at Vijayawada Branch. Thus the service weightage entitled to by the workman was denied. The said post carries additional allow- ances of Rs. 410 p.m. which was given to juniors and thus injustice has been caused to the workman which was on account of inter union revalry. As per the practice, the management had to follow the principles of seniority both in inter cader movement and intra cader movement by taking option of the workman. He was not given promotion and depriev- ed of the benefit.
5. The union representatives have taken up the matter with the ALC (C) Vijayawada but the ma- nagement did not agree for arbitration in the mat- tei.
6. Hence prayed to pass an Award directing the respondent to grant the reliefs i.e.,
1. ALPMO Allowances with retrospective effect from 11-11-98 on which date the vacancy arose.
2. To post him in Benz circle Branch of the Bank Vijayawada where the vacancy existed.
7. Denying the above allegations, the manage- ment in its counter has raised the following factual aspects.
8. As per the guidelines of Government of India in respect of re-emp'oyment of ex-serviceman, in Public Sector Banks Clause 6(3) in Chapter TTI of the compendium of Government guidelines the pro- cedure is as follows :
"Bank may allow for the purpose to seniority for promotion on their ex-servicemen employees recruited against the reserved posts in the clerical and the subordinate cadre weightage for the period of services rendered by them in the Armed Forces • in the ratio of 5:1 subject to a maximum of 2 years after they rendered at least 3 years actual- service in the bank after re-employment This benefit will be available to have only once during their career".
2631—'— — • *' — — — • — — 9. The above guide lines also provided that dption to be availed for the benefit of weightage of service either for appointment against special allow- ances carrying post then the subrdinate/clerical cadres or lower rung officer cadre. The workman had availed the said benefit and accordingly Additional Service weightage was given to him and there by all t;he allegations made by him are false. It is also false to state that the workman was not appraised Of benefits. Initially he joined as a Shroff-cum- Clerk and later he was appointed to the post of Assis- tant Head Clerk, which carried an allowance Rs. 214 now revised to Rs. 331 which post was given to the workman as per his letter dated 5-2-97. As the seniors above the workman have refused the post of Assistant Head Cashier, the same was offered to the workman as per his turn and by adding addi- tional weightage of 2 years he got his turn, else he would not have got the said post.
10. When the post of ALPM arose and since the workman's seniority with weightage for service as ex-serviceman was already considered assigning him the post Assistant Head Cashier, he was hot given the said post which was filled up by assigning to seniors as per Banks settlement. The question of resolving the dispute for the post of 'ALPM' Operator does not arise as the posts were already filled up and hence prayed to dismiss the claim-
11. The point for adjudication is whether the workman is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?
12. The dispute under reference on the issue is :
"Whether the action of the management of the respondent Bank is not giving Additional Services Weightage to Sri U-S.R. Murthy re- employed employee without considering is justi- fied".
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?
13. In a nut shell, the dispute is that the manage- ment had not given 2 years Additional Weightage of Service as is applicable to Ex-Serviceman on re- employment of the workman in the Bank and the said benefit which was effective from 13-6-86- The claim of the workman is that had the 2 years service weightage was given to him he would have got one step ahead in his inter cadre movement apart from getting several other intra cadre benefits and since the management had denied him the benefit, though entitled and thereby prayed to grant the relief of allowances payable for the post of ALMPO assisgn- ment retrospectively w.e.f. 11-11-98 on which date the vacancy arose at Benz circle at Vijayiiwada.
14. Where the stand taken by the management is that the Additional Service Weightage of 2 years of the workman was taken into consideration reckon ing the seniority of 2 years. After taking his option special allowances post was offered and he joined in special allowance post of Assistant Head Cashier on permanent basis. The Central Government guidelines were followed and in pursuance of it the workman had exercises his option and that he cannot claim the benefit of exercise the option once again for the second time.
15. The Union representative who was authorised by the union under Ex.Wl authorisation gave evi- dence as a sole witness (i.e. WW1) and filed the docu- ments Ex.WWl to WW30 in respe;t of the stand. taken for the workman. The factual aspects mide in the claim statement have been retr ated in the Oral evidence of WW1.
16. The Management examin;d its personal manager as M f/l to rebut the evidence, who during his evidence reitreated the facts raised in the counter and also filed Ex.Ml to M7 to ju3tify the stand.
17. The main issue involved in the dispute is whether the workman was either given or not the additional service weightage of 2 years as per Central Government guidelines as is applicable to Ex- serviceman on redeployment of service in the Bank which is effective from 13-6-86. According to WW1 the workman was not given and that it denied with the benefit by the management and thereby the work- man to be awarded with ALPMD allowance retros- pectively i.e., from 11-11-98 on yards.
18. To resolve the dispute, the respective evi- dence let in by the parties reqji'es appreciation ani read with the docunsnts Ex. Wl to W3} and Ml to M7 filed by them, For the sake of bravity the follow- ing terms which are commonly used in the discussion are used in 'short' as under :
(1) Additional Service-Weightaga 'ASW' (2) Assistant Head Cashier Post (AHC-Post) (3) Automatic Ledger Posting Machine Post (ALPM Post)
19. The workman being an ex-serviceman and reemployed in the respondent's bank in the reserved vacancy and joined in the post of Shroff-cum-Cl"rk on 10-11-82 and on completion of 3 years service as per Central Government guidelines (Co/ered by Ex- W13) he is entitled for 2 years additional service weightage as a result of wiich is sorvice is to be counted from 10-11-82 onwards for the purposes of seniority and or future promotion which is not under dispute.
20. The evidence adduced is that the workman was not informed of the benefit he is entitled for mucbless called for the option for promotion to 2632 H$ GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9, 2001/JYAJSTHA 19, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(li)J
exercised his option, while he was offered with the post of Assistant Head Cashier and the option was duly exercised. Also asserted that as per clause 7.6 of MOA at para 529 of Suastri Award for special allowances post also Additional Service Weightage to be applied and the management has right to supercede the seniority of any employee under said clause, and thereby Ex-service employee is not eligible for Additional Service Weightage for the second time when ho had accepted spscia' allowances post as mentioned in Ex.W 1.1 circuit!?.
22. The representative of the Employees Union Hied written arguments in support of the relief sought for, in which ho raised the following points:
1. The stand taken by the Bank is that "A.S.W." is available for the first assignment only and that the workman had optad for the post of "A.H.C." so he is not eligible for the second time is not correct for the reason that the workman was not specifically ap- praised that he was offered with the post on the basis of 'A.S.W or alternatively and that no, option was called for as required under Para l(a) and (b) of Ex,W19.
2. That either in Ex.M3 or Ex.M4, no mention is made about "ASW" and that no proof is produced by the Management for having called for the option of "A.S.W." from the workman while assigning the post of A.H.C.
3. Fui'thar, tlw stand taken by tha Bank itself
would be wrong from the evidence of MW1 who de- posed that if the assignment of any special allowances was given on the basis of A.S.W. he cannot be there-
after given temporary assignment of special allowances and on the contrary, it is undisputed fact that the workman was given temporary assignment of various special allowance1 on 153 occasions subsequent to his assignment of A.H.C. Post.
4. That; till 3-3-'199l A.S.W. used to be given on promotion exercises but subsequently the Govern- ment of India had clarified that the benefit of A S.W. is to be extended while giving the assignment of Special Allowances also. In para 1 of Ex.W18 by which there is a plurality of posts which is significant in conveying the intention of the Government not to restrict A.S.W for one special allowance post.
special allowance post even though he submitted representations Exs. W2 to W5 from time to time- right from 2-11-98 onwards. More so ovon on 2-11-98 when a promotional post of ALPMO (Auto- matic Ledger Posting Machine Operator) arose at the Benz Circle Branch Vijayawada on which date the seniority was overlooked by promoting the ju- niors by name one Kashi Vishwanathan whose ap- pointment was on 3-8-84 and Smt. Usha Kumari appointed on 28-12-84, WWl's evidence is that the management had not produced the Written option exercised by the workman, Even though he gave representations it was not considered Ex.\V6 reply sent by the Bank is not a Clarification al all. Also asserted that as per v/\ 7 the Additional Service Weight age ennnot be restricted to assignment of special allowances post ?nd that he is entitled for the benefit until a regular promotional post is assigned. Further, the benefit of Additional Service Weightage occurs continuously for all promotions, also justice cannot be done to Ex-Servicomen, Ex. Wl 8 circular issued by the Bank is emphasized supporting his stand, It is his evidence that in para (1) of Ex.W18 it is noted as 'Posts such as Special Assistant and other special allowances carrying posts' by which plurality of posts is to be taken not© and the Government had not restricted the Additional Service Weightage for a single assignment. And as per Ex.W19 para 3(A) is if Ex-Serviceman opts, for ASW for a post of higher allowance like .special Assistant, the Weightage has to be given while reckoning the seniority for assisgn- ment of duties attracting "Lower" special allowance on a regular basis till he getes first such "Higher Assignment", thus vindicating the continuity of additional service weightago for special allowance optes and thereby whenever the Ex-service employee had to exercise his option a special column to be provided in the application to exercise his option Else, if Ex-Serviceman is selected for the assignment of duties attlracting special allowances the option for ASW is to be called for, that while given the assignment of Assistant Head Cashier post to the workman, no option totter was taken from him and 2 years service weightage was not reckoned. It is also stated that even after assignment of Assistant Head Cashier post to the workman, he was given special allowance (Higher) assignments on 150 oc- casions during the period 20-2-98 to 8-11-98 which shows that the benefit of additional service weightage was not counted, as it was not a promotion. WW1, in his cross-examination admitied that the workman was given the assignment of Assistant Head Cashier Post w.e. f. 11-2-98 which he accepted it on 14-2-98 which post carries special allowances but he states that no option was exercised by the workman.
5. That inspite of serving of a letter Ex.W6 by the union, to the Management for deputing the work- man hercinafor the training of ALPMs Post and at that stage the Management corrected itself and started to follow the correct seniority upto 8-1J-98 and he was offered temporary assignment and at that time the workmen was given temporary assignment of ALPM Post ahead or Mr. P. Kasi Viswanathan, Mrs- T. Usha Kumari and Mr. N. Vankateswar Rao. But subse- quently at the behest of the vested interests working in 21. MW1 through his evidence lias prouu-jed E.xM3 and M4 to show that the workman had2633 the Personnel Department, the Management had taken a different stand that option is to be exercised only once and it cannot be changed and irrecoverable which is misinterpretation of the circulars Ex.W7 andEx.W18.
of posts as noted in Ex.W18, he is entitle to the benefit and (?) That the A.L.P-M. Posts which arose on 2-9-1998 by which date the workman was eligible for promotional post, and since it was denied offering it to two juniors, he should bo given the benefit retrospectively w.e.f. 2-9-1998.
25. For the determination of the controversy involved in the case, and to appreciate the impli- cation of circulars Exs.W13, W17, W1S and W19, it is necessary to go through the guidelines given in those circulars. For the sake of convenience, the list of the circulars is noted below:
EX.W13:
"The Ex-Servicemen may be allowed to opt for availing of this benefit either for appointment against the special allowance carrying posts within substaff/clerical cadres or for promotion from substaff to clerical cadre or from clerical to lowest rung of officer's cadre.
However, once the ex-servicemen avails of this benefit for appointment against any special allowances carrying post he will not be eligible to the same benefit at the time of his consideration for promotion from one cadre to another. The Ex-serviceman are required to exercise the option for the purpose at the time of first available opportunity and the option once exercised will be final and no change therein would be allowed later, whether or not the officer is successful in that exercises,"
Ex.W16:
23. As against the above c ontentions of the Union, the Managements counsel had argued orally and also submitted written arguments in reply'to the contention i.e., (1) there is no secrecy with regard to tbc circulars, orders and the sams was made available in the Bank and in the Union Office. So it is unbelievable that the circulars were suppressed from Circulation. (2) That the Government of India's guidelines were followed in assignment of the Post of A.H.C. as per the letter dt. 5-2-97. So the argument that the workman was not considered for A.S.W, is frivolous^ (3) When four vacancies of ALPMs Posts were available at the Branch office Benz Circle, Vijayawada, the seniority of eligible employees was considered and since the workman's seniority was considered giving A.S.W. Weightage at the time of special allowances post of A.H.C he cannot claim 'A.S.W.' twice. Ex.M3 which was accepted by exercising his option Ex.M4 the next promotional posts were offered to other eligible employees. It was done as per the rules and circulars. The claim of the workman that A.S.W- to be given to him for the second time also and the benefit cannot be restricted is not correct in the light of Ex.W18 Circular itself. (4) Further as per the settlement of stafi, issued (Amendments) 1984 for which the Emp- loyees Union was also parly, the additional weightage in service of two years is to be given for graduation, one year for C.A.I.I.B. ParM and two years for C.A.LLB. ParMI by reckoning the seniority for the purpose of assignment of duties attracting special allowance post. (5) Since the workman's qualification was only Pre-University Course (PUC) and Ex- Servicemen as per the eligibility A.S-W. was given w.e.f. 10-11-82, whereas Mr. P. Kasiviswanathan and Mrs. Usha Kumari who joined the service on 3-8-84 and 28-12-84 respectively having the qualifications of graduation with C.A.LLB., they were given three years of weightage and (6) that the workman having availed Ex. Servicemen weightage in service which he availed from February, 1998 for an assignment of Special Allowances Posts of A.H.C, he cannot be equated to the post of A.L.P.M. Operation.
.24. From the above contentions, it is evident that the gravemen of the grievance of the workman rests on three points- (1) Though the workman is entitled for A.S-W, w.e.f. 20-11-1982 as per Exs.W17 and W18 circulars, he was not given the benefit, and that the availment of assignment of additional allowances post of A.H.C. and acceptance of it with effect from February, 1998 by the workman will not bar him f ov future promotion and by interpreting the plurality
"We are to advise that in terms of Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Econo- mic Affairs (Banking Division) letter No. F.No. 10/49/84-SCT(B) dated 21-3-1991' the benefit of weightage to defence service for the purpose of appointment on permanent basis against special allowance carrying posts within the cadre or for promotion from one cadre to a higher cadre is available to the rc-employed ex-serviceman at tho time of first available opportunity only. Also in terms of Government of India letter No. 202/ 17/2/93- ST(B) dated 14th May 1996 this benefit may be availed by the re-employed ex-servicemen for the purpose of temporary appointment to an allowance carrying post or officiating post and afterwards for regular promotion to the next higher cadre from the post to which he was ini- tially re-employed. In view of the above once an employee has availed of the benefit of weightage to defence services for cntrustment on permanent basis to a special allowance carrying post, fie cannot avail the benefit again for ontrustment on a permanent basis to a post carrying a higher Special allowance." 2634 TMB GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9, $001/JYAISfHA 19, 1923 [PART TI-^SBC:. 3(ii)] Ex. W17:
conditions contained in the letter ibid will remain unchanged."
Ex.W19:
"The ex-servicemen employe has to avail the option in the first available opportunity, which would be irrevocable."
"References have been received a seeking the clarification whether the benefit of service ren- dered in the Army for the purpose of reckoning seniority once availed for being considered for selection to an allowance carrying post on tempo- rary basis can again be availed of for a regular promotion to a higher post from the post to which the Ex-servicemen was re-cmployed. The matter has been examined and it is clarified that the benefit of seniority on the basis of past service in Army has to be availed only once in the carrier of the Ex-servicemen. However, the intention of this Division's circular of 21st March, 1991 is not to come in the way to those who avail this benefit for the purpose of temporary appoint- ment to an allowance carrying post of officiating post and afterwards considered for regular pro- motion to the next higher grade from the post on which he was initially re-employed. In case, howyv-jr, the allowance carrying post is given to the re^femployed Ex-servicemen on permanent basis, then this benefit will not be allowed again for next promotion in the Bank."
Ex.W18:
"Sir, I am directed to refer to this Division's letter No. 10/49/84^S(B) dated 13-6-80 and lette"r No. 6/16/80-SCT(B) dated 6/7-8-90 regarding grant of weightage for defence service to the Ex- S"rvicemen re-employed in public sector banks & Financial Institutions the purpose of promotion etc., and to say that representations have been received from ex-servicemen ro-employed in public sector banks/financial institutions requesting for allowing them to avail themselves of the benefit of weightage for the purpose of appointment to Special Assistant and other special allowance carrying posts. This benefit is presently available only when they ar" considered for promotion (for inter-cadre promotions) from sub-staff and clerical cadres.
26. The workman herein was not examined as witness even though he was an affected person. No reason is given as to why he was not examined and and his examination was necessary for eliciting the truth and actual facts. The examination of the workman was necessary, more particularly with reference to Exs.M3 and M4 letters, an offer and acceptance in respect of the exercise of the option of 'A.S.W.' The representative of the Union (WW1) in his evidence has pointed out that in Exs.M3 and M4, there is no mention about 'A.S.W.' and that no proof is produced for having called for the option of 'A.S.W.' from the workman while assigning him the post of 'A.H.C. The said contention that the work- man had not exercised the option of 'A.S.W.* falls to ground by examining the very contents of Exs.M.3 and M4 read with Ex.WlO reply dated 8-5-1997 sent by the Management to the workman. Ex. Wl 3 Circular dt. 13-11-1991 with regard to the benefit of A.S.W. given to Ex.Servicemen on re-employment and the exorcise of option for the purpose of promotion given no room to have any doubt as to exercise the option at the time of accepting the post of A-H.C. by the workman. In Ex.WlO reply dated 8-5-1997 it was made clear that the option of weightage to be exer- cised at the time of promotion to higher post or at the time of applying for special allowance posts. Irrespective of the fact that A.H.C. post is not a promotional post, yet'A.S.W.' is to bo exercised either when special allowance post was offered or at the time of regular promotion and since tho workman had exercised his option under Ex.M4, it is deemed that he has availed the benefit of 'A.S.W.' when special allowance post of A-H.C. was offered to him. No doubt Ex.Wl9 refers to mention in a separate column of the appliation form to enable the Ex-servicemen to exercise the option of A.S. W. and that for the simple reason that either in Ex.M3 or in M4 the word 'Option' is not noted, it does not loses its importance of exercise of option. Exercise of option is an act which may be expressed or implied. Therefore the contentions that at the time of submitting Ex-M4, the wo rkman had not exercised the option of 'A.S. W.' is untenable. So also the attribution that the manage- mont had not communicated the circulars to the Ex-serviceman or the Union is nothing but a lame excuse for the sake of allegation. In fact, the emplo- yees Union has an affiliation with the Federation in connection with its Union activities and so it is not believable that union had no knowledge of the Circu- lars in respect of the exercises of option of A.S.W- The matter has been examined and it has been decided that in partial modification of the letters ibid., ex-servicemen may be allowed to opt for availing of this benefit either for appointment against the special allowance carrying posts within sub-staff/clerical or for promotion from sub- staff or from clerical to lowest rung of officers cadre. However carrying posts he will not bc eligible to the same benefit at time of his consi- deration for promotion from one cadre to another. The ex-servicemen are required to exercise the option for the purpose at the time of first available opportunity and the option once exercised will be final and no change there in would bo allowed later, whether or not the office is suci^ssful in that exercise. Other terms and 263?
Appendix of Evidence:
Witnesses Examined Witnesses Examined for the Petitioner: for the Respondent;
WW1 K. Markandaya Sarma M.W1 K. Shankran
Documents marked for the Petitioner :
Ex. WI Authorisation given to WW1, by the concerned workman Sri V. S. R. Murthy.
Ex. W2 Representation submitted concerned
workman Sri V. S. R. Murthy.
Ex. W3 Representation submitted by the concerned workman viz., V. S. R.
10-5-97 Murthy.
Ex. W4 Representation submitted by the concer- —— ned workman viz., V. S. R. Murthy.
10-2-98
Ex. W5 Representation submitted by the concer- — ned workman Sri V. S. R. Murthy. 10-5-97
Ex. W6 Representation given by the union to the — Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, 2-2-98 Vijayawada.
Ex. W7 Representation given by the union to the ——— Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, 12-11-98 Vijayawada.
Ex. W8 Representation made by the union to the — Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vijaya- 14-6-99 wada.
Ex. W9 Representation of the union to the
A.L.C., Vijayawada.
9-11-98
Ex. WI0 Letter regarding the Service Weightage — to Ex-Serviccman. 8-5-97
Ex. Wl 1 Representation submitted by the union — to A.L.C., Vijayawada. 26-2-99
Ex. W12 Representation submitted by the union 27. Further, the second contention is that even assuming that the workman had exercised his option as per Ex.M4 he cannot be disentitled to have 'AS. W when next promotional vacancy of A.L.P.M. Post came for filling it. In view of the fact that in para 1 of Ex.W18 there is a mention of plurality of post- The said contention does not hold any water. Para 1 of Ex.W18 is the claim made by the Union which was reiterated and in para 2 after considering the claim a direction was given by the Government, A plain reading of Paras. 1 and 2, makes it crystal clear that the benefit of 'A.S.W may be exercised as against the Posts referred to therein and the option is irrecoverable and also that once it was availed the employee will not be eligible for the same benefit at the time of his next promotion. While exercising option, the employees are cautioned to exercise it deligently. Therefore, under no stretch of any in- terpretation it can be said that the workman had no^ exercised his option of 'A.S.W.' covered by Ex.M4 and that the benefit of A-S.W. will continue even for future promotion. It may be that an account of exigency of work in the Bank and when other senior employees of the same batch of 1982 have not accepted the special allowance posts temporarily! the workman might have discharged the duties of the assignment of additional allowance posts for 153 occasions and so also A.L.P.M's Posts ahead of two juniors, he cannot have any right to claim for the 'A.S.W for the second time and claim the post of A.L.P.M. Post. It may be that the workman on account of his exerviceman's service and by virtue of the weightage, his seniority had commenced from 10-11-1982 and that Mr. p. Kasi Vishwanathan and. Mrs. Usha Kumari who were appointed to him subse quently in 1984 are juniors to him, but by virtue of the 3 years weightage and higher qualification, they got the Post of ALPM. The Management had followed the relevant Rules and Circulars and rightly promoted them to the post of A.L.P.M. Ex.W6 is a representation sent by the union to consider the work, man and others for the training of A.L.P.M. posts and by means of which no seniority can be claimed to the workman.
to A.L.C., Vijayawada.
12-4-99
Ex. W13 Circular regarding Ex-Serviceman re- —• employed in public sector banks weigh- 13-11-91 tagc to defence service for the purpose of
promotion.
28. For the aforesaid discussions and on consi- deration of factual aspects and evidence on record, the workman has no right to claim A.S.W. for the second time and also to c'aim for the post of A.L.P.M. retrospectively. The claim made by the workman is devoid of merits.
Ex. W14 Extract of the settlement dt. 18-4-94
between the bank and the union.
29. In the result, Award is passed dismissing the claim by upholding the action of the management as justified.
Ex. WI5 Representation submitted to A.L.C. (C), — Vijayawada regarding weightage for
8-1-99 Ex-Servicoman.
No costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and passed the Award on the 10th day of April, 2001.
Ex. W16 Bank's letter to all the branches regar- ding Ex-Serviceman re-employed in Bank SYED ABDULLAH, Industria Tribunal
5/6-5-99 service weightage.
2636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9,< 2001/JYAISTH& 19, 1923 [PART D-^EC.'3(ii)l Ex. WI7 Circular cf the Bank regarding weigh- —— tagc to defence service re-employed in 28-5-96 promo'Jop.
Ex. W18 Guidelines of the Govt. of India Minis- — try of Finance, Department of Economic 31-3-91 Affairs (Banking Divn.) regarding weigh- tage to defence service for the purpose of" promotion.
Ex. W19 Circular of the Bank on the weightage to —— defence service for purpose of pi emotion. 11-9-92
Ex. W20 Letter of the union to the Sr. Branch Manager to provide seniority list.
Ex. "W21 _ Representation of Sri V. S. R. Murthy —..____— regarding payment of Temporary/pro- 6 8-99 motion allowance.
Ex. W22 Xerox copy of the sheet showing the payment of temporary allowance for the month of Jan., 1998.
Ex. W23 Xerox copy of the sheet showing the pay- ment of temporary allowance for the month of December, 1998.
Ex. W24 Letter addressed by the petitioner for „— payment of temporary allowance. 26-10-98
Ex. W25 Memo issued to V. S. R. Murthy concer- _ _ — __ ned woikman for not joining in the 12-10-98 deputation post.
Ex. W26 Letter given by the concerned workman _——- to the Bianch Manager to Ex. W25. 20-10-98
Ex. W27 Letter issued to V. S. R. Murthy dspu- . - ting him to Benz Circle Branch. 22-8-98
Ex. W28 Representation submitted by the con- _ .— ccrned workman to the Senior Branch 21-10-98 Manager.
Ex. W29 Representation submitted by the concer- —. ncd workman regarding refusal of depu- 29-2-98 tation order.
Ex. W30 Representation made by the concerned _ workman to the Senior Branch Manager 19-11-98 regarding his assignments.
Documents marked for the Respondent/Management :
Ex. Ml Minutes of conciliation.
Ex. M2 Letter given by workman examining . option for special allowance post. 5-2-97
Ex. M3 Offir letter issued by the bank. Ex. M4 Acceptance letter of the workman to Ex. M3 (on Ex. M3).
Ex. M5 Letter given by the workman for the post of ALPM Operator for second time.
Ex. M6 Letter given by the workman requesting for written letter for assigrment of Special Allowance post en temporary basis.
Ex. M7 Reminder of the workman to Ex M. 7.
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2001
S.O. 1294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- trial Tribunal, Alappuzha as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas B?nk and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-5-2001.
[No. L-I2012/57/99-IR (B-II)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Office
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
(Dated this the 24th day of March, 2001) PRESENT :
Shri M. N. Radhakrishna Menon Industrial Tribunal
I. D. No. 27/99(C)
BETWEEN The management of Indian Overseas Bank, The Chief Regional Manager, IOB, Regional Office, Vettukattil Buildings, Cochin
AND
The workman of the above concerned represented by the Shri P, S. Rajeev, Palanikunnathil House, Thittamel, Chengannur, Alappuzha.
Representations :
Sri P. B. Suhasranamar, Advocate, Eraknulam. For Management2637 Sri Vinod R., Advocate, Prasanthi, Jjisie Hospital Road, (jochin-l8.
.. For Workman
AWARD 1. The Central Government has as per order No. L-12012/57/99/IR (B-II) dated 18-6-1999 refer- red this industrial dispute between the above parties i\i respect of the following issues for adjudication, to this Tribunal :—
"Whether the action, of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in relation to their Chengan- nur Branch in terminating the services of Shri P. S. Rajeev, a Messenger with effect from 13-7-1998 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The claim of Sri P. S. Rajeev, the workman involved in this dispute is tha,t he has joined the Cl.engannur branch of the, management Bank in January, 1993 as a Messenger. He was employed a i^inst permanent and regular vacancy to do perma- in nt nature of works. Though he was appointed against the vacancy of a Messenger, he was asked to discharge the duties of Clerk, Cashier, etc, He was very hand working and was very sincere to his job. Ho has been requesting the management to regularise him in service. He was paid .only Rs. 20 per day for the first for months, which was enhanced to Rs, 30 per day. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 50 per day which was continued till the termi- nation of service. Though he was discharging the duties of a permanent and regular employee, he was not granted the wages and benefits of the permanent and regular employees.
3. The workman had worked in the Bank for piora than 5 years. While so on 13-7-1998s he was illegally retrenched from the services of the Bank in an arbitrary and illegal manner. No notice or Wages in lieu of notice was given to him. Thus the retrenchment is violative of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. On enquiries, it was revealed that the workman was retrenched due to over qualification. The stand of the manage- ment is that since the workman has passed S.S.L.C. in 1992, he has become over qualified to attend the job. This is arbitrary. The workman has worked \n the management Bank for a continuous period of rnore than -240 days immediately preceding 12 months 6f termination of his service. Thus his termination is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the work- man prayed for passing an award declaring that the action of the management in terminating his service \s unsustainable and directing the management to Reinstate him with full backwages and consequential benefits.
1606 GII2001—14.
4, The case of the management is that their actions are legal and proper. The workman was engaged in their Chengannur Branch on daily wages basis in the leave vacancy intermittently for various periods. Therefore he is not eligible to get the privileges and wage benefits of the permanent and regular employees. Being a Nationalised Bank in a public sector, the management has to strictly abide by the rules and guidelines prescribed by the Govern- ment of India. Such guidelines prescribed the quali- fications and method of recruitment of Sweepers and messengers. The candidate have to be called for from the Employment Exchange and they have to conform to the prescribed qualifications. The candi- dates should have a minimum age of 18 years and maximum age of 25 years. The educational quali- fications prescribed is a minimum of 5th standard passed and must not have studied above 8th standard. Therefore his request for regularisation was not favourably considered by the management.
5. The workman was over qualified for the reason that he has passed 10th standard. His name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and there- fore he could not be considered for selection. There is no termination of service of the employee as alleged. The claim of the workman that he had worked in the management Bank for a continuous period of more than 240 days immediately preceding 12 months of the termination of sorvice is incorrect. His engage- ment was purely on a casual basis. Such an employee has no right to claim regularisation under any law. Therefore his disengagement is not vitiated in law. Therefpre the management prayed for passing an award accepting their contentions and dismissing the claims of the workman.
6. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and Exts. Wl and Ml to M3 scries 1 to 258.
7. From the rival contentions of parties, the issues that arises for my consideration is whether the termination of the workman from the service of the management Bank is vitiated by any of the legal provisions of law and whether he is entitled to any reliefs.
8. The point :
The claim of the workman that he was working in the Chengannur Branch of the management Bank from January, 1993 as messenger and his services were terminated by the management on 30-7-1992 in an arbitrary manner. He has got continuous' service as contemplated in Sec. 25-B of the Industrial Dis- putes Act as he has worked for 240 days immediately preceding 12 months of his termination of his service. Thus Ws termination amounts to retrenchment as per Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is violative of Sec. 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Indus- 2638 t HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, SOOl/ZYAISTTftA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(fl)] trial Disputes Act and hence his termination is ille- gal and unsustainable. It is the contention of the management that the workman was only a casual employee engaged on daily basis in the leave vacancy intermittently for various periods. His claim that he has worked for nlorc than five years in the Bank is incorrect. There is no illegality in the retrench- ment as alleged. He has not worked for 240 days immediately preceding 12 months of his termination. There is no violation of See. 25-F or any other sections of the Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore the claim of the workman has no basis and hence unsustainable.
9. I have considered the rival contentions of parties in the light of the materials on record. Ext. M3 series 1 to 258 are the vouchers produced by the management, which evidences that the workman was employed by the management in their Chengannur Branch from 1-1-1993 to 30-5-1998. There is no material on record to make out that the workman has -worked on any day subsequent to 30-5-1998. There- fore the claim of the workman that he has worked up to 13-7-1998 is not based on any material on record. Therefore it has to be concluded that the termination of service of the workman is not on 13-7-1998 but on 30-5-1998 as evidenced from the Ext. M3 scries vouchers. Thus the real dispute between the parties is the legality of termination of service of the workman from 30-5-1998. I have scrutinised the Ext. M3 series vouchers 1 to 258 and it is found that the workman has been engaged very frequently from 3-1-1993 to 30-5-1998. I have scru- tinised the vouchers with specific reference to 12 months immediately preceding 30-5-1998, i.e. 1-6-97 to 30-5-98 and I find that the workman has worked for 259 days within the said block of 12 months as per the following details elicited from the vouchers marked as Ext. M3 series I to 258.
No. of
Date of vouchers
SI. No.
Wages paid Details of Exhibits
days worked
Ext. M3 series
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
(1) (2) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9) (10) (12) (14)
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
30-5-98 23-5-98 16-5-98 2-5-98 25-4-98 18-4-98 11-4-98 4-4-98 27-3-98 21-3-98 14-3-98 7-3-98 2-3-98 28-2-98
(17) (18) (19) (20)
4 6 6 4 6 5 4 6 5 6 6 5 4 4
200 300 300 200 200 250 200 300 P.50 300 300 250 200 200 SI. No.
Wages paid Date of voucheis
No. of days worked
Details of Exhibits
(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60)
22-2-98 7-2-98 2-2-98 31-1-98 24-1-98 17-1-98 10-1-98 3-1-98 27-12-97 20-12-97 13-12-97 6-12-97 1-2-97 29-11-97 22-11-97 15-11-97 6-11-97 1-11-97 25-10-97 18-10-97 9-10-97 8-10-97 6-10-97 4-10-97 27-9-97 20-9-97 12-9-97 6-9-97 30-8-97 16 8-97 8-8-97 2-8-97 26-7-97 19-7-97 12-7-97 28-6-97 21-6-97 21-6-97 14-6-97 7-6-97
15. 16 17. 18.- 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32^ 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.
5 5 1 4 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 6 6 4 1 2 5 6 6 5 6 4 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 5 1 5 5
250 250 25 200 250 300 250 250 250 300 300 250 250 250 200 150 200 250 300 300 200 50 100 250 300 300 250 300 200 300 250 300 200 250 300 250 250 50 250 250
259
12,925 Total days worked in 12 months from 1-6-97 to 30-5-98 is 259.
10. Sec. 25.-B of the Industrial Dispute Act defines the term continuous service as follows :
Sec. 25-B
Definition of continuous service :—For the pur- pose of this chapter—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service; including service2639 which may be interrupted on account of sick- ness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) Where a workman is not incontinuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be >n continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) One hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman during a period of six calender months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to bo made, has actually v, orked under the employer for not less than—
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
11. Sub Sec. 2 of the above Section provides that if a workman has actually worked under the •mployer for not less than 240 days for a period of one year preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, then he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year. In the present case, the workman has Worked for 259 days which is more than 240 days in an year immediately preceding his termination. Therefore it can be concluded that he has got continuous service of one year as contemplated in 3"c. 25-B of the Industrial Dispute Act.
12. Sec. 2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act defines the term retrenchment as follows:
Sec. 2(00)
" "retrenchment1' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punish- ment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation of the contract of the employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein or;
(c) termination of the service of a workman On the ground of continued ill-health:" 13. Above section define retrenchment as th c termination of service for any reason whatsOever except termination as a punishment by way of dis ciplinary action, voluntary retirement of workman, superannuation, termination due to non renewal of contract, termination invoking stipulation under the contract of employment and termination of ser- vice on the ground of continued ill health. In the present case, the termination of service does not come within any of the excluded categories and there fore, it can be concluded that the termination amounts to retrenchment. The workman has clearly pleaded that his termination amounts to illegal retrench- ment, and the stand of the management is that the termination is not an illegal retrenchment. The management has no case that the termination does not amount to retrenchment at all. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the termination of the work- man in the present case is retrenchment as contemp- lated in Sec. 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 14. Next aspect is to bo considered as whether the retrenchment of workman is legal and proper. Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman. Said section is quoted below for convenient reference:
15. Sec. 25-F :
"Conditions precedent to retrenchment of work- men:—No workman employod in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employee shall be retren- ched by that employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in wirting indicating the reasons for re- trenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excels of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government, (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate 2640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JfclNE 9, 2001/JYAlSTHA 19, 1923 [PART It—SEC. 3(ii)] Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
16. Above section provides that a workman employed in any industry who has continuous ser- vice for not less than one year shall be retrenched after observing certain conditions precedent. The first condition is that he shall be given one month's notico in writing indicating the reasons for retrench- ment and the period of notice has expired Or the workman shall be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice. Further he shall be paid retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part in excess of six months. It is further stipulated that a notice in the prescribed manner as to retrenchment shall be served on thc appropriate Government or specified authority in the Government. It is settled law that the conditions precedent are mandatory and the conditions subse- quent are directory. The management has no case that they have complied with the conditions precedent set out in Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act while retrenching the workman. Thus they have manifestly violated the above mandatory conditions in Sec. 25-F. Consequently the retrenchment is pet se illegal and void abinitid. Thus in the eyo of law there is no termination of service at all. Conse- quently the workman shall be deemed to be in service as if there was no termination at all. Needless to say that the workman is eligible to reinstatement with full backwages and other financial benefits.
17. The workman was given Rs. 50/- per day which is a paltry amount. He is eligible to minimum of the pay eligible to a messenger as per the Bipartite settlements in force from time to time and while computing to back wages, this norm shall be followed by the management. The management has been utilizing the service of the workman for five years prior to 30-5-1998. He was given only pittance of an amount as wages. In view of the employment for a continuous period of five years, he has sought for his regularisation in service through Ext. Ml representation. It is seen from the Ext. M2 that the workman is certified to be honest and hard working, and is fit to be regularised. It seems the management was not pleased with his request for regularisation and that was the immediate provocation to terminate his service. Even though he has been working for five years continuously to the satisfaction of the management, they have terminated his services without even issuing a written order. The reasons for his retrenchment are also not informed to him. In my view, it is arbitrary and unreasonable. 18, The counsel for the management has argued before me that the qualification for appoint- ment of messenger is below 8th standa rd and th" applicant has passed SSLC and he is not a candidat e sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore his service cannot be regularised. It is pertinent to note that for employing workman for pittance of wages for years together above norms did not stand in their way. When he pleaded for rogulari- sation, such please are raised, and his services are terminated abruptly. This approach of the manage- ment is arbitrary and Unsustainable. The workman was not a trespasser and remained in service for five years not in an unauthorised manner. The manage- ment has no case that he has misrepresented his qualification and age and obtained employment by any fraudulent means. He has been employed conti- nuously for five years and thereafter his services were terminated without observing the mandatory conditions of law. Service Rules do not supercede the mandatory provisions of the chapter V A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, for vio- lation of mandatory provisions of the chatper V.A of the Industrial Disputes Act where S. 25 F is inclu ded, the service Rules can not be raised as a valid defence. My conclusion is justified by S. 25.J of the Industrial Disputes Act which Spells out that the provision of chapter V. A will haVe effect not with- standing anything Inconsistent thete with contained in any other law including the standing orders or Service Rules. Therefore his termination cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the workman will be entitled to reinstatement and other conse- quential benefits.
19. In the result an award is passed holding that the termination of service of the workman of the management bank is arbitrary and Illegal and the workman is eligible to reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other consequential benefits in this regard-and directing the management to roinstate him in service with continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits.
(Dated this the 24th day of March 2001) M. N. RADHAKRISHNA MENON, -Industrial Tribunal
APPENDIX
I. D- No. 27/99 (C)
Witness examined on the side of the Management:
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the workman:
WW1 :P. S. Rajeev
Exhibits marked on the Management:
Ml : Photocopy of the P&L Register from 4-1-93 to 13-7-98 maintained by thc management bank.
2641AND
M2 : Letter dated 20-3-98 sont by the management bank from Chengannur branch to the Regional office, Ernakulam.
The Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P) Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow
M3 : Payment vouchers (series)
AWARD (1 to 258 Nos.)
Exhibits marked on the side of the workman:
Wl : Copy of application dated 20-3-93 sent by the workman to tho Regional office of the Manage- ment flank.
By reference No. L-4l012|273[9MR (B-I) dated 14-3-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dis- pute between the Divisional Organisation Secre- tary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union, Lucknow espousing cause of Lai Muni Ram and the Divi- sional Mechanical Engineer(P) Northern Railway, Lucknow for adjudication.
The reference is re-produced as under :
"Whether the action of Sr. D.P.O., Northern Railway, Lucknow in termination of services of Lai Muni Ram w. e. f. 4-10-1981 was legal and justified. If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?" New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001
S.O. 1295.—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, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-5-2001.
[No. L-41012]273]99-IR(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
2. The cause of Lai Muni Ram, the workman, has been espoused by the Organization Secretary, Uttar Railway Kaiumdwri Union, Mr Parvez Alam. In brief the case of the workman, Lai Muni Ram, is : that he Was appointed as cleaner in Loco Shed, Northern Railway, Lucknow on 13-3-1979 against a regular vacant post and worked continu- ously, in the same capacity, upto 3-10-1981 i.e. for a total period of 743 days; that on 4-10-1981, his services were dispensed with abruptly, without any notice, compensation etc.; that the provision of Article 311 and statutory safeguards provided under Section 25-F I.D. Aci, were not followed by the management, in illegally terminating his servi- ces; that subsequent to his termination the manage- ment appointed some of his juniors and also recruited cleaners from the open market from J9S2—90 but did not consider his claim despite re- peated requests; that the management did not comply with the circular letters No. 8952, 11119|95 and other circulars issued by the Railway Board from time to time directing consideration of all those casuul workers for rc^ularisatton who worked continuously for 120 days or more, in bet- ween the years ] Q78-4;l.
Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar,
ADJUDICATION
I.D. No. 25|2000
BETWEEN
3. The workman, thus, claim his reinstatement with back wages and compensation arising clue to loss of prevlllage passes and PTOs and medical facilities etc. The amount of compensation has not been quantified in the claim statement.
The Divisional Orgnisation Secretary, Uttar Railway Ka.amcharl Union, P.O. Harchandpur Garhi Kanora (Premwati Nagar) Takiya Wali Maszici, Lucknow (Espousing cause of Lai Muni Ram)
4. The management, on the other hand, lias refuted his claim staling that he was never emplo- yed legally as a cleaner in the Loco Shed. Northren Railway, Lucknow by any competent authority and his alleged engagement was not found approved, ar cleaner or substitute or casual labour. It is further stated that hjs name is not found in the record oi 2642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/ JYAISTHA 19, 19i3 [PART II—Sfic. 3(ii)] the management, to justify his claim of appoint- ment on the post of cleaner at any point of time. It is stated that a number of persons got enrolled with the management in the years 1978—81, who were removed by the Railway administration, after due verification by the vigilance.
5. The management further pleaded that provi- sion of Section 25-F of the l.D. Act, is not attrac- ted in the facts and circumstnees of the case, particularly when the workman claims appointment against the post of regular cleaner and not casual labour or daily wagei.
6. In support of its case, the workman relied on circular letters relating to screening of the Loco Cleaners and Khalasi in the class IV category of the years 1988, 95, 97. Some other odice letters alongwith list of successful casual labours on screening for puiposes of regularisation, in class IV category, beside undated certificate issued by the Foreman stating that the workman Lai Muni Ram, worked for 743 days from 13-3-79 to 3-10-1981. Apart, the workman has relied on a number of pay slips, to prove payments of regular salaries. These slips relates to year 1980-81. Some representations by the unions have also been relied.
7. The workman examined himself and one Saidurahman to prove his status.
8. The management filed photo copies of the orders passed in W.P. 5640(SS) of 1997 General Manager, Northern Railway Vs Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and Vijai Kumar, in W. P. No. 5621 (SS) of 1997, award dt. 4-2-97, and letter dt. 13-10-1997. A copy of award of l.D. No. 48[83, and copy of award dt. 27-9-88. relating to 44 workmen in l.D. No. 68|86 have also been filed. The management exa- mined Mr. Nirmal Kumar Verma, AME, Northern Railway to substantiate its version.
9. Before adverting to discuss evidence lead by the parlies, it seems appropriate to dissect nature of claim advanced by the workman. In the claim statement, it is categorically stated that the work- man, Lai Muni Ram, was appointed on the post of cleaner in Loco Shed against regular vacancy. It is not the ca-.c that he Was engaged as casual Lbour and given temporary status on continuous working of J 20 days. All circular letters relied by the workman relate to casual labour and not those appointed on regular post against existing vacancy. Tb? claim of the workman has to be judged in light averments made in the claim statement, parti- cularly, when nothing is pleaded about his being engaged as casual labour attaining temporary status, If he was appointed against a regular post he was governed by the Railways servants disciplinary rules and not l.D. AcL The workman could not have double status, one as cleaner and the other as casual labour.
10. The case of the management is equally cate- gorical that Lai Muni Ram was never appointed as a cleaner as per prescribed proceduure and he was not paid emoluments as alleged by the workman. Pay slips relied by the workman are fictitious and inadmissible (o lortii'y ciuim,
11. The onus to prove valid appointmcut on the post of cleaner, is on the workman. This onus can not be shifted on management, particularly, when this industrial dispute was raised more than 19 years later, putting the railway management to dis- advantage in tracing their records, which in all liklihood, would have been weeded out and con- cerned officials ceased in the service on superannu- ation of otherwise. There is no Liota' of evidence to justify raising this stale claim after about two de- cades and the claim should have been thrown on this ground. However, this tribunal has to adhere principles of adjudication when the Central Government has preferred a reference so belatedly.
12. Let evidence on the issue of appointment as cleaner be scrutinised. No order of appointment has been filed, showing by whom and in what manner the workman was appointed ? According to WW-I, workman, one Ramesh Kumar belonged to his village and he worked in Loco shed. He brought with him and introduced to AME Kesheo Chandra1, who asked the Foreman to take him on work. None ui the above named persons has been examined. Such appointment procedure is unknown and can- not be relied. A certificate on plain paper Ex. Ml' has been filed to show working for 743 days. Name of the issuing authority and date of issuance is not £iven. This issuing authority has not been examined to prove £,cniiniLrac'.s of this document. Nothing is shown that the Foreman was authorised to issue Nikh certificate. The workman was appointed in a regluar scale and wats not a daily wager to require certificate of working days by way of a certificate. This document appears to have been prepared to give sequence to the case.
13. The workman was appointed on 13-3-1979 in the scale of Rs. 196—232. He could have earned increments in March, 1980 and 1981. Pay slips relied by him do not show that he was granted any increment during his service tenure. The workman filed original pay slips, alleging same were issued bv the management at the time of disbursement of pav. These slips range from 1)80 to 6|81 with mis-'ng slips. Tn all the slips basic pay of Rs. 196 pm. is shown. Initials ol the issuing authority, office stamps[seals are nol given. The possibility of forging these recripts connot be out hence th© ouus is on the workman to prove their genuineness. Serial numbers of the bpok or receipts arc not prin- ted. Particulars arc not filled or indicated. These receipts cannot be relied unless th"ir jjtnuinonos* by some cogent evidence is proved. Their serial numbers also vary to raise doubt. The workman has2643 temporary status. His evidence, which was held un- reliable, indicate his appointment in a pay scale of 196-232 and not as casual labour. In the said cir- cumstances, he is not permitted to take advantage as casual labour.
18. It is not proved by cogent evidence that the
Lai Moni Ram was appointed as cleaner or he worked as such. Tn the said background, it can not be held that the workman was appointed as regular cleaner in accordance with due procedure, and he contnued in service as alleged. Accordingly, he is not entitled to any relief.
19. The award is answered against the workman.
stated about regular deductions from his salary, but none of their receipts have such entries. Mr. N. K. Verma, As;tt, Divisional Mechnical Engineer has been examined by the management. He has stated payments to the workman of the shed arc made by "tube payment system". This system re- quires signature and lumc of the person who fills envelop and also particulars of the supervising officials with their initials. The workman lias not filed any envelop bearing signatures of the officials as stated above. If the workman, could retain such old documents, he must have the envelop etc. which have not been filed. In the snid background, these payments receipts are held not reliable to prove appointment and payment of salary etc.
Lucknow
4-5-2001
RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 14. The management witness has further clari- fied that all such documents are weeded out after five years. Lists prepared about such weeded docu- ments are weeded after another five years. Since these papers are said to be more than 18-19 years old, there are no records available with the railway. This highly stale claim has put disadvantage on the He gave his application fo appointment on management. The workman has failed to prove genuineness of these documents and so the plea of his appointment on the post of cleaner seems to be wrong.
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001 15. The workman in his oral statement is cate- gorical that he was not appointed as casual labour. 13-3-1979 and was appointed on the sam date. He was not asked to appear in written test etc. He was not issued any gate pass or casual labour card or medical card. This witness could not say about the Foreman who had issued certificate Ex. M l. All these replies, if taken in totality, go to show that the case of the Workman in getting appoint- ment on the post of regular cleaner, is unfounded. It has also been observed that the documents in- cluding the pay slips relied by him as corroborative evidence are fictitious and unreliable.
S.O. 1296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal Palakkad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Indian Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was recoived by the Central Government on 15-5-2001.
fNo. L-12O12|212|99-IR(B-m AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 16. As observed earlier, the onus rested on the workman to prove his appointment, continuity on the job and his termination from service without following due procedures. The management has categorically denied appointment of the workman, his continuity in service. In the said situation, the question of abrupt oral termination does not arise.
(Saturday, the 28th April, 2001)
PRESENT :
Sri B. Ranjit Kumar, Industrial Tribunal.
Industrial Dispute No. 146|99 (C)
BETWEEN
The Chairman, the South Indian Bank Limited, Head
Office, Thrissur.
(By Adv. M. Venugopalan)
AND
Shri Arumughan, S, 7 Salwkku Subbiyar Lane, Thavittu
Senthai, Madurai-625001.
17. The workman has relied on a number of case laws 1981 Supreme C'out Cases (L&S) 478 Mohan Lai Vs. Management of M|s. Bharat Electro- nics Ltd., 1981 SCC (L&S) 490 SS Moghey and others Vs. Union of India and others; and 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 Robert D'Souza Vs. Executive Engineer. Southern Railway and others. All these case laws are not relevant in this case. These cases related to casual labour, then- status under the statute and legal implications of their abrupt termination and other unfair labour prac- tices. In the present case, the workman is categori- cal in not working as casual labour, or his deriving
(By Adv. Sreckumar Puthezh.ith) 2"*fr 1HBXBAZETTE OF rNUIA: JU>ffi. V 2 0 0 1 / f ^ A I ^ l ^^ 3923 [PA"T.J3^""c.t3
AWARDI
The Goveinment of India, Ministry of Labour as per Order No L-12O12|212|99|1R (B-I) dated 30-8-1999, rofei- icd the following issues for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of the South Indian Bank Ltd., in dismissing Shri S. Animughan, Head-Clerk, The South Indian Bank Ltd., Keclapa- guthy Blanch, from the services of .the Bank w.c.f. 21-4-1998 is justified? If not, what relief the work- man is entitled to and from what date?" 2. The contention of the workman Sri S. Arumughan as set out in his claim statement dated 17-5-2000 and rejoinder dated 27-10-2000 is that he had rendered 32 years of loyal seivice under the management, hnt he was dismissed from service for certain malpractice-; committed by the Manager of the Keelapaguthi Branch of the Bank. It is sub- mitted by the workman that he was not allowed to take the assistance of another person to defend his case in the enquiiy proceedings, which is a clear violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It i" further submitted by him that one day the vigilance officer asked him to come j and see him in Karur I odfle, but he did not oblige and' hence he got angry and he colluded with the Enquiry Officer and took revenge on him,
3. On the other hand, the management would submit in its written statement dated 29-7-2000 that the workman was allowed every opportunity to defend himself and in the enquiry he was defended by a union representative. It is further submitted by the management that five witnesses were examined on the side of the workman and there was no violation of any provision of law or principles of natural justice in dismissing the workman from service.
4. The first point to be considered is whether the domestic enquiry held into the charges against the workman is proper. A perusal of Ext, Ml enquiry file shows that the workman participated in the enquiry throughout with the assistance of his representative Sri K. J. Anthonis. Both the woikman and his representative have signed the enquiry proceedings on all the days. The management examined three wit- nesses in the enquiry in support of the charges against the workman. AH these witnesses have been cross-examined on behalf of the workman. I he star witness of the manage- ment is Sri N. V. Jose who had conducted a vigilance en- quiry into the charges against the workman and submitted a detailed report which has been produced and marked in the enquiry. This witness has been cross examined on five days. The workman has also examined five defence wit- nesses in tlie enquiry. The workman (WW1) himself has admitted before this Tribunal that Sri K. J. Anthonis was the President of the Employees' Association and he had cross-examined the witnesses in the enquiry on his beha3f. WW1 has further stated that Sri Anthonis had defended the cases of a number of employees. Therefore, the contention of the workman that he was not permitted to have the assist- ance of a defence representative is found to be not correct and I hold that the domestic enquiry held into the charges against the workman is strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice,
5. The second point to be consideied is whether the findings •of the Enquiry Officer are correct. The allegations levelled against the workman as per chargesheet dated 19-12-1994 are as follows :—
1. That on 21-3-1992 while extendinfi IRDP loan Nos. 13A to 21 by the branch you prepared the slips for drawing the insurance subsidy amount to the tune of Rs, 1252 relating to these accounts and for credit- fnn this amount to one Savings Bank Account No 1238 in the name of one Sri M Rajendrnn, who is doing sweeping work at th? branch and vou vonr- self posted the rrcllt slip to the snid Savings Bank Account with the fraudulent intention of misappro- priating this amount. Thereby you misused your official position.
2 That on 27-3-1992 while extending IRDP loan No". 22 to 33 by the branch you prepared the slips for drawing the insurance subsidy amount to the tune of Rs. 1684 relating to these accounts and for cre- diting this amount to Savings Bank A 'c. No. 1238 in the name of one Sri M Rajcndran, who is doing sweeping works at the branch and you yourself posted the credit slips to the said Savings Bank Account with the fraudulent intention of misappro- priating this amount. Thereby you misused your official position.
3 That on 9-4-1992 while extending the IRDP fully Secured Loan Nos, 35 to 48 you prepared the slips for drawing the insurance subsidy amount to the tune of Rs. 1056 relating to these accounts and for crediting this amount to one Savings Bank Account No. 1238 in the name of one Sri M. Rajendran, who is doing sweeping work* at the branch and you yourself posted the credit slip to the said Savings Bank Account with the fraudulent intention of mis- appropriating this amount. Thereby you misused your official position.
4. That while closing the accounts mentioned in charges NOH. 1, 2 and 3 you failed to collect interest for minimum period thereby caused serious loss to the flank.
5. That the loans mentioned in charge No. 1, 2 and 3 were closed on the same day v>f extending the loans, The subsidy amount pertaining to these loans were drawn by debiting branch Trichy" thereby these loans were extended for the purpose of disbursing subsidy amount. The slips for the aforesaid trans- actions were prepared by you. Thus you facilitated extending of loans for the puropse of disbursing sub- sidy amount.
6. That on 2-5-1992 by misusing your official position you punuaded Sri M. Rajendran to withdraw from the aforesaid S. B, Account (No. 1238) an amount of Rs. 3000 vide cheque No. 125549 which include a portion of the insurance subsidy amount credited to this account as stated in charge No. 1, 2 and 3 and you received the said amount. Thus you mis- appropriated a portion of the insurance subsidy amount.
7. That on 7-7-1992 by misusing your official position you pursuaded Sri M. Rajendran to withdraw from the aforesaid S. B, Account (No. 1238) an amount of Rs. 590 vide cheque No. 125704 which include a portion of the insurance subsidy amount credited to this account as stated in charge No. 1, 2 and 3 and received the said amount. Thus you misappropriated a portion of the Insurance subsidy amount.
8. That whils extending the following loans in the below mentioned names bv the branch you prepared the slips for debiting the loan account and for credit- ing the loan proceeds, after deducting an amount of Rs. 1060.70 towards parties' insurance contribu- tion, to the Savings Bank A/c. No. 228 in the name of Mr. Manickam Pillal. Thus you facili- tated the extending of undue accommodation in the account of Manickam Pillai. Thereby you mis- used your' official position.
26ft
Date of loan
Loan No.
SI. No.
Name of the party
Loan amount Rs,10.3.1992 FSLIRDP 9/91-92 1111 (l}(2) *""
10/91-92 11/91-92 J2/91-92 13/91-92
(3) <4) (5)
9. That on 22-2-91 you misappropriated Rs. 17,087.05 out of the principal and subsidy amount of the fol- lowing IRDP loans by crediting the aforesaid amount to your Savings Bank Account with the branch.
M. Kalklas M. Manic kam K. Pandjyan V. Rasu P. Kali
12,500 12,500 12,500 8,200 8,200
Naiiw of the party
Loan No.
"si.
Date of loan
22.2.91
it
20/90-91 21/90-91 22/90-91 19/90-91
No. (I) IRDP FSL (2) (3) (4)
10. That on 4-3-1989 you alongwith Sii Rcthinam and Sri S. Marunutliu pursuaded Sii M. Rajendran whi) is doing sweeping works at the branch, to withdraw an amount of Rs. 8500 from his Savings Bank Account No, 1238 being the proceeds of DRI loans (3/98 dL 4-3-89 and 3/89 dt 4-3-89) credited to this account vide payment orders (6/89 and 7/89) and also Sri R. Somasundiam to withdraw an amount of Rs. 690O from his Savings Bank Ac- count No. 19 being the proceeds of two DRI loans (1/89 dt. 4-3-89 and 4/89 dt. 4-3-89). Out of this amount you misappiopriated a total amount of Rs. 3900 viz. Rs. 1900 by way of credit to your Savings Bank Account with the branch and Rs. 2000 by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 415674 dated 4-3-89 drawn in your favour on branch Madurai.
11. That on 4-4-1989 you pursuaded Sri M. Rajendran who is doing sweeping works at the bianch to with- draw from his S. B. Account No, 1238 an amount •of Rs. 5000 which in the proceeds of t>Rl loan No, 9|89 for Rs. 5000 extended by the branch in the aforesaid name, accepting a different address. This cheque amount was icccived by you, Rs. 1000 in ensh and Rs. 4000 as demand draft No. 415691 drawn on branch Madurai in favour of your wife. Thus you misappropriated the proceeds of DRT loan No. 9/89 for Rs. 5000.
12. That on 19-1-1988 branch Keelapuguthy, while you were working as Head Clerk at the branch you got extended DRI loan 1/88 for Rs. 5000 in your wife's name who is not eligible for DRT loan at con- cessional rate, under a farce address. Thus you' mis- represented material facts.
1'3. That on 19-1-88 you misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3200 out of the loan proceeds of DRT loan 1|88 for Rs, 5000, stated in charge No, 9, by way of Mail Transfer (No. 734917) for the said amount to Bfanch Madurni to the credit of your account with the branch.
14. That on 18-11-1991 while you wer" officiating at the branch you fraudulently extended gold loan No. 652/91 for Rs. 10 000 in the name of one Kalidas, stating that he has SB Account with the branch but there- is no- such account w'*h the branch and there- by you misused your official position.
15. That you misnpnror>HBted th" proceeds (if cold loan Nn 652/91 referred to in c^arce No. 14 which was I'xtTidfd by you on 18-11-1991 in the name of one Kalidas.
16. That on 8-7-92 while you were officiating the brunch vou frniii1"'pnt1v ^xtended ftoM Inon "No 117IQ2 for Rs "'70H in the name of one ^ T Mnlaicbninv. •rtntitip that he h<>s SB Ac*nn"t with the brunch b'lt th""" K no ouch account with the bnnch and thereby von misused vour official position.
1606 GTI2001—15.
Loan amount Subsidy amount
7500
V. Ponnambalam V.M. Mohammed Sultan M. Shahul Hameed M. Ramasamy
7500 7500 7500 '
3750 2500 2500 3750
17. That on 8-2-92 the proceeds of the gold loan No. I17|92 referred in charge No. 16 were credited to your SB. Account with the branch. Thus you mis- appropriated the proceeds of gold loan No. 117|92 which was extended by you on 8-2-1992 in the name of one S.T. Malaichamy.
IK. That on 27-7-91 the pioceeds of the gold loan No. 284)91 for Rs. 12,600 extended by branch Kaniya- lampatty'in the name of Sri V. Ponnambalam, to- gether with an amount of Rs. 1800 remitted by you, were credited to your Savings Bank Account with Keelapaguthy as per M.T. No. 788947 sent by you and thereby you misappropriated the- proceeds of the said gold loan.
The aforesaid acts alleged to have been committed by ycu amount to misuse of your official position, misappropriation, misrepresentation, gross negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss and are also prejudicial to the inteiest of the Bank."
6. As already observed hereinabove the management has examind three witnesses to substantiate the charge and the workman examined five witnesses in his attempt to prove his innocence, The management has also produced relevant docu- ments in the enquiry in support of the charges. The Enquiry Officer has meticulously analysed both the prosecution and defence evidence and found that the workman is guilty of all the charges. I have gone through the entire evidence, both documentary and oral, available in Ext. Ml enquiry file and I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the Enquiiy Officer.
7. It is contended by the workman that he joined the ser- vices of the management as a Peon on 25-4-1966 and later promoted as Clerk on 23-11-1973. He was again piomoted as a Head Clerk on 25-10-1987. He has also stated before this Tribunal that he was awarded with Merit Certificate and SIB star, The management has not disputed these statements of the woikrnan.
8. It may be true that till 1990, the workman had not committed anv misconduct and the management hud appre- ciated his service by nWarding Merit Certificate, STB star etc. However, from the evidence available in Ext. M1 enquiry file, it is seen that he was involved in various malpractices from 1991 onwards These malpractices were not one-man rhow Other cmnlovcp inclrrljnp the Brinch Mfluaecr and Sub-StafP were also involved in these illegal activities Some of the loans referred to in the charge-sheet dated 19-12-94 wew craned while the vorVmnn was nfflci.itin/7 ns Brarich Mpnneer Therefore he cannot blame and pretend Innocence and the then Branch Manaeer alone. Tt his come out in evidence in the domestic enquiry that the workman had received the monetary benefits arising out of these loan transactions.
Q The fnithT rnnfentinn of the wwVmnn that he had ^HVISTI tri" Bni'ich M'ir>->iTer i n' to rlo "jnch mnlpract'Cc:. but the Mannifr compelled 1v'"n to nremre pnyslirs vfflich"rs eic. in connection wi'h the rti"niit"l loan transactions cannot be believe. As rightly pointed out by the management, if he 2646 TH$ GAZETTE OF INDTA ; JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA It), 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was anted by the Manager to pciform such illegal acts, ho could have brought it to tho notice of the high-r ups or could have complained at least to his union. Admittedly, he had not complained at least to his union. Admittedly, he had not done so. At the same time, as alicady observed hcrcinabove, he enjoyed the beneiits ansing out of these illegal transactions. The management had taken prompt actions against all the three delinquent employed including the workman heiein and all of them were dismissed from service.
10. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the workman that the management has not taken any criminal actiori against the workman. Tt is not necessary for the management to take criminal aetiou to maintain discipline in the establishment it is for the manage- ment to decide whether criminal action should be taken. Merely because no prosecution case was registered against the workman, it cannot be held that the workman has not committed any offence or the misconducts alleged against him do not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The management initiated piopcr disciplinary proceedings by holding a domestic enquiry and on the basis of the findings rendered in the enquiry he WHS dismissed from service after giving him the second shovvcausc rolice.
11. The next point to be considered is whether the dis- missal of the woikman is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. It may be tine that he had rendered unblemished service from 1966 to 1990, but it is seen that his character had been completely changed from 1991 onwards and this has ben clearly proved in the domestic enquiry. The various allegations proved against the workman would amount to serious economic offences. The workman herein along with othri two employees misnppiu- priated the subsidy amounts frern the government which were intended to be paid to the needy rumi population whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 10,000. Therefore, it would be seen that he had cheated not only the manage- ment-bank, but also the government. In the ensea detected. the Insurance subsidy was not remitted to the Insuiance Company, but the same is seen credited to the account of the sweeper of the Branch and later the said amounts were with- drawn and misappropriated. This is not single tiansaction. A large number of such illegal loan transactions had taken place as detailed in the chargesheet dated 19-12-1994 issued to the workman The management is n financial institution dculLpff with public money aid the post which the wolkmnn wa" holding was a sensitive pmt Having rfttard to these fads, it cannot be hrid that the punishment of dismissal mefed out to the workman is excessive -nr rl'spronortinnnte. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere wilh the said punishment. 12, In the result, an award is paised holding that the action Of the munnfjcnr'nt of thr South Indian Bank TJmiled in dismissine Sri S. Arnmuchnr. He-id-CJerk from its ser- vices with effect fintn T-4-19QR i\ iVtinVd and tie is not entitled to any relief. The reference order is answered ac- cordingly.
Dated this the 2Rth dnv of April, 2001.
B. RANJIT KUMAF, Industrial Tribunal
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on the side of Management Nil.
Witness^ examined on the side of workman.
WW1—Sii Animughan.
Documents marked on the side of management Ext. Ml—Enquiiy file.
Documents marked on the side nf workman
Nil.
New Delhi, the 17th May 2001
SO. 1297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Central Government hcicby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which WJS received by the Central Government on 16-5-2001.
[No. L-12012/309/97-lR(B-ri]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORB THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIRUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer,
Reference No. CG1T: 52/2000
Employers in relation to the management of the SUto Bunk of India
AND
Their Workman Shri R. M, Ghodichor.
AWARD
The Central Govenmcnt, Ministry of Labour, New DeJhl by exercising tho powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adiudication vido order No. L-12O12/309/97-IR(B-O dated 16-02-2000 on following schedule,
SCHEDULE
"Whether theaction of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri R. M. Ghodichor is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman (s entitled ?"
Shri Radheshyam Mahadeo Ghodichor has submitcd his Statement of Claim that he was working as Messenger in various branches of State Bank of India in Bhandara District since 19-10-84. Ho was working regularly from 19-10-84 to 02-02-85. Again he was taken on job in May 1991 and continued in service till 3f>09-l996, His service was termina- ted w.e.f. 30-09-96 and he may be reinstated.
The State Bank of India has disputed the claim on the ground that the woikman R. M. Ghodichor was working purely on temporary basis as Messenger. He did not complete 240 days in any calendar year. Each branch of State Bank of India is separate and his posting in different branches can not be clubbed together. He is not entitled to any relief as he was not appointed according to rules. His services were not required after 30-09-96. He was not a regular employee. I have heared the counsel for both the parties and have perused the evidence on record.
The Statement of Radheshyam M. Ghodichor was recorded on 29-08-2000, Tn his Cross examination he has stated that he was working as temporary workman. He has not filed any papor in the court to show that he was working regularly. It is suggested to this witness that he- has not signed any attendencc register as he was not given any permanent job. He does not know whether waitins list in which his name figured was effective upto 31-03-97 or not. He does not know whether the other nine employees mentioned by him2647 in his affidavit are in the service of the bank or not. He k manufacturing bidi for his earning.
The slatement of Shri V. S. Kumar, Manager (.P&HRD) of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur was recorded on 9th January 2001, He has stated that the worker who are employed on daily wages do not mark their attendance ifr any register. Only permanent employee mark attendence On the register. No attendence register of the workman is available in State flank of India. He does not know whether the workman was employee from 19-10-84 tc> 02-02-85 or not. Nobody has been employeed of the bank in place of Workman R. M, Ghodichor. This workman was not appointed y the bank. The list of the workman who were on waiting ! st has come to an end and is not effective after 31-03-97. Another employee of the bank Shri Jayant A. Deshpande deposed that R, M. Ghodichor was called for work when- dver any work was available. The Branch Manager can not appoint his subordinate staff. The workman was not given any appointment letter. No monthly salary was paid to him.
Tllus from the statement of the workman it is not cle;ir that how many days he worked in each calender year prior to the date of his termination.
The statements of the officers of the bank examined in the court namely Shri V. S. Kumar and Shri Jayant also do not show that the workman R. M. Ghodichor worked for riiore than 240 days in any calender year prior to the date c(f his termination.
The counsel for the-workman has cited ruling AIR 1986, Supreme Court, Page No. 132, H. D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India. This ruling is not applicable in this case because the. workman has not worked for more than 240 days in any calender year.
The counsel for management has submitted ruling 1991 Labour and Industrial Cases 578, Supreme Court Ashwani Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar. In this* ruling it is field that the employee whose entry in service it illegal being ill total disregard of recruitment rules or being not on existing vacancy can not claim for regularisation.
In other ruling ATR 1992, Supreme Court 789 Delhi development Horticulture Employees Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, it is held that the employees who have put in more than 240 days service also can not dlaim regularisation, only on this ground that they have Worked for 240 days.
In view of the above facts and evidence on recorj (he Workman has not proved through any reliable evidence that he has worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break prior to the date of his termination. He is therefore not entitled any relief. The termination of the service of R. M. Ghoiliclior by Ihu Stute Jtur.k o- India Is ihfrrf. rt' legal and justified.
ORDER
The action of the management of the State Bank of India in terminating the services of Radheshyam M. Ghodichor is Ifcgal and justified.
He is not entitled to any relief.
The reference is.answexed accordingly.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer Nagpur :
Date; 12-04-2001
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001
S.O. 1298.—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, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure ini the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-5-20O1.
[No- L-12012/231/99-IR(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. CG1T : 15/99
Employers in relation to the management of Jammu A. Kashmir Bank Ltd.
AND
Their Workman Shri Mohd. Sufian.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudicaiton vide order No, L-12012/23]/99-IR(B-I) dated 24-09-1999 en following schedule
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of Management of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., through it's Branch Manager, Nagpur and Managing Director, Srinagar, Kashmir in retrenching/terminating the services of Mr. Mohd. Suflan S/o Abdul Rashid w.e.f. 03-02-99 is legal, proper and justified ? If not so what relief the laid workman is entitled ?"
Mohd. Sufian had submitted Statement of Claim that he was appointed with the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Sadan Branch No. ] at Nagpur from 19-08-86 on the salary of Rs. 15001 per month. His service wag terminated on 03-02-99.
He claimed that he had passed B. Com. examination in April, 1996 from Nagpur University and was appointed as a Clerk. The order for termination was issued to him on 02-02-99 and his service was terminated w.e.f. 03-02-99. He is out o£ employment and may be reinstated.
The management of Jammu A. Kashmir Bank had submitted that ho was not employed according to procedure prescribed for appointment of the bank employees.
He was appointed on daily rate basis to assist the other staff of the bank. He was not given any regular appointment. There was no vacancy. He had not acquired the minimum qualification i.e. Graduation. He passed B. Com, in the year 1997. He did not appear in any written test or interview. His name was not sponsered by Indian Banking Personnel SejTices or the Employment Exchange. He discontinued the the work as his service* were not required.
I have heard the arguments of Counsel for both the parties and peru"ed the oral and documentary evidence pn record.
5648 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA: JUNE 9, 2601/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [£ART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Mohd. Sufian has submitted his certificate that ho was authorised to Collect, Deposit and Clearing the Cheques. This documi-nt W-l docs not bear any dute, so it is not clear as to when this certificate was issued to him. The name of the Officer is also not clear in this certificate.
The statement of Mohd. Sufian was lecorded on 14-02-2000. In his cross examination ho has stated that he had not sub- mitted any ceitificate for passing B. Com. examination. On the date of appointment he had not passed B. Com. In August 1996 he did not pass the final examination of B, Com. He does not know when he informed the bank in the year 1997 that he has passed in B. Com. examination.
He had not moved any application for appointment in Jammu & Kashmir Bank in August 1996. He had not received any appointment letter. He has no document to show that he worked continuously from 19th August, 1996 to 2nd Februaiy, 1999. He did not appear in any cxaminption of the bank. The vacancy was not published in any Newspaper. He did not appear m any Written Test. He does not know what is the pay scale ot a Cleik in the bank. He did not deposit any Cash Security or any Surety Bond in the bank at the time of Ms appointment. Ho did not enter his attendence in any register.
From'the Statement of the workman Mohd. Sutian it is therefore clear that he was not appointed on the post of Clerk in the bank according to rules. He was not qualified for appointment as Clerk from 19-08-96. He was not getting the pay of Clerk.
From the side of management the statement of Shri Kidar Nath Dhar was recorded on 13-11-2000. He stated that Mohd. Sufian was working in the bank as a casual worker. He was piad Rs. 50 per day. The legular employees get their salary according to the rules and their Salary Register is maintained. Mohd. Suflan had not appeared in any examination of the bank /or his appointment. Ho did not appear In any interview.
From the statement of above witness, it is clear that Mohd. Suflan was not getting the pay of the Clerk. He was not appointed against any clear vacancy. He was paid at the rate of Rs. 50 per day when he worked. Ho therefore can not be considerod a regular employee of the bank. He can not claim any benefit from his illegal appointment. He~therc- fore can not be reinstated in the service. ,
The counsel for workman has cited ruling 1998 LLJ I page 1165 Supreme Court, Uptron India Ltd.- and Shammi Bhan & another. This ruling is not applicable in this case because this ruling is regarding the appointment of a pornia- nent employee. There was no fixed term contract of service between employer and employee. The workman had not entered in any contract with the bank in this case and was not a permanent employee of Bank.
Another ruling 200O 1 LLJ, Management of Horticulture Department of Delhi Administration and Trilok Chand and another has been cited. In this ruling It is held that Horti- culture Department was an Industry. The workainn had worked for more than 240 days. Theie is nothing on record to show that Shri Sufian had worked for 240 days In any calender year, hence the ruling is not applicable in this case.
The management has submitted 1998 II CLR 842, Keval Bana Gopal Mali and others Vs. Dhuble Mynicipal Council. In this ruling it is held that the workman who WCro not employed on sanctioned post and had not appeared in any interview or test can not claim their reinstatement. They were rightly dismissed from service.
From the above facts and evidence on record it is clear that Mohd. Suflan was not employed agajnst clear vacancy. He did not appear in any test or interview. He was a casual worker. His- service was therefore discontinued by management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank w.e.f. 03-02-99. His disconti- nuation of service by the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Is legal, proper and justified.
ORDER
The action of the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. thro.ugh it's Branch Manager, Nagpur and Managing Director, Srlnagar, Kashmir In discontinuing the services of Mr. Mohd. Suflan S/o Abdul Rashid w.e.f. 03-02-99 is local, proper and justified.
The workman" Mohd. Sufian is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.
The reference is answered accoidingly.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer Nagpur :
Dated: 2-5-2001
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001
S.O. 1299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers In relation to the management of Reserve Bank of [ndia and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-5-2001.
[No. L^12011|48|99-IR(B-I)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANMEXUREi
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST- RIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
REFERENCE NO. CGIT : 50/99
Employe) s in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India
AND
Their Workman Shri Mukcsh Manohar Karwade and 12 others namely
(1) Shri Gulab Kashinath Saharc
(2) Shri Suryabhan Motiram Arataayre
(3) Shri Madhukar Ocorao Masram
(4) Shri Shesfirao Ramaji Sonwanc
(5) Shri Vithoba Zingarji Kumbhare
(6) Shri Edword Anthony Ebrahim
(7) Shii Ramkrushna Shamraoji Masram
(S) Shri Sanjay Rsijaram Bhandarkar
(9) Shri Sadnshiv Gulabrab Mangate
(10) Shri Gyaneshwar Namdeorao Wadme
(11) Shi i Ramesh Manveer Thapa
(12) Shri Bhaurao Ramaji Tekam 2&d
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- Section ( 1; and bub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has rc/erred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22O12]415|99|1R(CM II) dated 29-2-200017-3-2000 on followiriR schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Reserve Bank of India rep. through, Manager, RBI, Nagpur in not regularising]absorbing the services of Shri Mukesh Manohar Kaiwade and 12 others (as per annexure attached) us their regular employees with all consequntial benefits accruing thereon is legal and justified? If not, to what relief for the said workmen arc entitled and horn what date?" Mukesh Munohur Karwade and 12 otheis have submitted Statement of Claim on 4th February 2000 that, they are working in Reserve Bank of India for last 10 to 15 years und their services were not regularised. They have stated that Reserve Bank of India is the principle employer but they are being treated as the employees of Contractor. Their employment through Contractor is an unfair labour practice and they should be paid wages at par with the regular emp- loyees according to the schedule of wages applicable to Reserve Bank of India.
Reserve Bank of India through its Assistant General Manager (Personnel), A. L. Nitnavare submitted written Statement on 23rd March 2000 and contested the case. It is alleged by the Reeserve Bank of Tndia that all these workmen arc neither the employees of Reserve Bank of India nor the Reserve Bank of India is the employer of these workmen, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, who has raised this issue is not the Trade Union recognized by Reserve Bank of India |nor it has its following among the employees of Reserve [Bank of India.
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is not applicable in this case because the Contractor had net engaged more than 19 labourers. The labourers are supplied by the Contractor on the terms and conditions of the agreement, for supply of labour and transport executed between Up Mana Prabandhak, Mudra [Dy. Gen. Manager Cy. (Pig. and Admn.)] and the Contractor and the rates of each work done by the labourer and the rates of wages for that work are approved by the schedule of duties to be performed by the Contractor of mazdoor. It is the choice of the Contractor to send any person of his choice for the work entrusted to him. The labour charges are paid by the Cont- ractor directly.
"fhc management has submitted the copy of agreement fiom 1st April 1998 to 31st March 1999 executed between R. G. Chandak and A, K. Pandya, Dy, Gen. Manager Cy, (Pig. and Admn,) Reseive Bank of India, Nagpur. Similar agreement was executed from 1st April 1998 to 31st March 1999 between Mukund G. Chandak and A. K. Pandya, Dy. Gen. Manager Cy. (Pig. and Admn.). Another agreement for supply vi labour and transport was executed between Contractor M. P. Singh and V. S. Shouche, Dy. Gen. Manager (Pig, and Admn.) for the supply of labour and transport from 1st July 1999 to 31st March 2000.
The above agreements are Annexure i and II. From the above agreements it is therefore clear that the Reserve Bark of India has betn giving the contract for supply of labour and tiansport to different Contractors at different times and it is the work of the Contractors to supply the labour to Reserve Bank of India for loading, unloading, carrying, weigh- ing and stacking treasure boxes and bags. The Contrac- tors were informed that within twelve hours of the receipt of wiitten or verbal notice from the Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India. Issue JDepartment, Nagpur, they will supply as many motor lorries and mazdoors as may be required by the Reserve Bank of tndia for the work men- tioned above.
The Contractors will have to supply the labourers even after outside ordinary business hours. They can also be directed the supply the labourers on the days recognised as "Public Holiidays" under the Negotiable Instruments Act or any other Act or Notification of the Government of India or Government of Maharashtra,
Tn urgent cases, Deputy General Mnnnger mny by giving three hours notice only, can asked the Contractor to supply motor lorries and mazdoor,
The rules for loading, unloading of various boxes con- taining the currency notes and the coins were also given in the approved schedule of duties. The rates differ for different types of work such as Rs. 17.40 paisc was Ihe rate to un- load the boxes from railway wagon's convey in the lorry from Nagpur Railwiy Station to Bank's Vault. The rate for taking out the filed remittance boxes from the over- night vault weigh and stack them to other vault was Rs. 6,60 paisc. So different rates of wages were given for different type of woik.
From the above teims of agreement it is clear that the iibove contractors were paid different amounts for different type of work.
The Contractor1! were not only supplying mazdoors but were also supplying the lorries for transportation of Currency boxes. The mazdoor were therefore working under the super- vision of the Contractor. The Contractor was responsible to pay wages to the labourers. The Reserve Bank of India was making payment to the Contractor. No payment were made In ihc workmen directly.
2650 t HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUN£ 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1913 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)j In these circumstances it is evident that Mukesh M. Karwade and 12 other mazdoor are not the employee of Reseive Bank of India, Nagpur. There is nothing on record to show that th^y had worked for 240 days in any calendar year.
In these circumstances Mukesh. M. Kaiwade aud 12 others are not the regular employees of Reserve Bank of India and their claim for regularisation of service is absolutely baseless.
The counsel for the workman has submitted ruling AIR 19S6, Supreme Court 132, H. D. Singh Vs. Reserevc Bank of Jndia. This niling is not applicable in the present case, 'lhe statement of 5>nu N, Ranganathan shows that these mazdoor were rot called for any work regular by the bank. He has also stated that loading and unloading of the boxes of curiency note etc. is not a regular work BO regular emp- loyees weie not engaged for this work. Generally one year's contract is given to one Contractor for supplying mazdoor. Loading and unloading wotk is iaken from the mazdoor only one or twice in a month.
The gatepass or metal token issued to any person does not show that he is an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, Metal token or gatcpass aie issued just for the entry or exist of any number of persons from the bank premises. Anybody who entcis in the premises has to obtain the gutepass for the entry. This is only for the safety of the bant premises.
Tn these circumstances, the above noted ruling is not applicable in this case, The copy of a&ard dated 10-6-99 in reference No. 2] 12 of 1998 of State Bank of Indore and their workman is also of no use in this case. Shri S. B. Fatise, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. Court No, 2 of Mumbai has passed this award.
Jn view of above facts und circumstances of case, it i\ hold that the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur is not regularising/absorbing the seivices of Shi i Mukesh M. Karwade and 12 others as their regular employees is legal and justified. These workman are not the employees of Reserve Bank of India and can not claim regularisation in service. Tbcy are casual workers of lhe Contractor who are being paid by the Contractors for the work done bv them as and when required bv the Reserve Bank of Tndia,
ORDER
The fiction of ttv management of Reserve Bank of India rep. through Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Nagpm in nol rcgulariNing/absorbini? the services of Shri Mukcsh Manohnr KiirwaUe and 12 others -is the regular employees of Reserve B;mk of India is legal and justified.
The above noted mazdoors are not entitled to any othe\ relief.
The reference is answered accordingly.
NAGPUR. Da led : 3-5-2001.
B. O. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Dellii, the 17lh May, 2001
S.O. 1300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Induslral Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tiihunal, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Citi Bank and their workman, which was received bv the Cential Government on 16-5-2001.
L'NO. L-12O12!919Q|IR( B-3) |B-D] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI KESHAV SHARAN SRIVASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUST- RIAL TRI3UNAL, NEW DELHI
T. D. No. 37190
In the rnattci of dispute between
Shii C.P. Kapoor and Others through Maha Sachiv, Citi Bunk Employees union, 8y8, Nai Saruk, Delhi-110006.
Versus
The Management of Citi Bank N.A, through its Upadhyaksh, Jeewan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
APPEARANCES :
Shri S. K. Tandon for the Union.
Shri Ashok Kapoor in person.
Shri Dinesh Agnani for the Management.
AWARD
The Central Govei nment in the Ministry of Labour vide its onlci No. L-l2O12|9|yO-TR(B-3) dated 5|6th April, 1990 has leferred the following industrial dispute to this Tribu- nal for adjudication as per the Schedule given hereunto :
"Whether the action of the management of Citi Bank, New Delhi in not allotjng the p'^st of Authorised Signers 1o Sh. C.P. Kapur, Shri Ashok Knpoor, Shri B.F. Bhatty, Shi i S.K. Tandon, Shri Ramesh Anand and alloting (o Shri Ashok Bhasin and Shri Ashok Saxena though junior to them was justified ? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to?" 2. Statement of claim, written statement and rejoindet weie exchanged between the parties.
3. The allegation made in the statement of claim in short is lhat employees of the Citi Bank were classified in three endres which were as under :
(a) Officer Cadre composing of Vice President, Asstt Vice President, Manager, Asstt. Manager.
(bj Workman Cadrc|\wnrd Staff includes Clcrks|Spe- cial AsiistantJCashierlauthorised s'uigei etc. on whom the service condition? under the provisions of Sastry Award ns modified upto Oate arc applic- able ; and
(c) Sub-staff which includes Peons/Head Peons etc. As regards the woifcrmn ci'die shown in clasi 'B' afore- said it is alleged that their service condition* were governed by the provisions of Sastry Awird as modified npto date.
4. It is further alleged that nccrndins to the risks and lesponsibililies some of the functions pcrfoimerl bv the workman staff attracted higher wages by way of iprcial allow- ances. As r^v r i w r n nn of S^fry Awird mndifiVd by snh- seournt "irltlcTTiciitR the 2651
5. It is again alleged that the workman who are paities in the case and also other workmen all shown in para 2.3 of the statement of ciajn were senior to Shri Ashok Bhasin and Ashok Saxeiu on the ground of the date of their joining as mentioned in the same para 2.3 of the statement of claim. The bank without assigning any reason to the workman had abruptly allotted ths post of authorised signer to SjShu Ashok Bhasin and Ashok Saxena w.e.f. 9-3-89 who were junior to the workman. Said action of the Bank was illegal and against the principle of natural justice. It also amount un- fair practice under section 2
A. That S|Shri B. F. Bhatty, Ashok Kapoor, Ramesh Anand, S K. Tandon and C. P. Kapur br treated as Authorised Signess from the date the juniois aie promoted and posted r.s such;
B. That these workmen be given arrears of wag^s|allow- ances alongwifh other benefits like P.F. etc. for the period the juniors aie being paid; and
C. That the employer be directed to pay Special Allow- ance conlinuously to al! the nbove workmen by treating them as Authorised Signeis from the date the juniors were promoted;
D. Any other bensfits which this Hon'bh Tribunal may deem fit and proper alongiwth suitable costs.
6. The Bank has filed its written statement and dnied the workman's allegation. The Bank has stated that the cidre of Authorised Signer was earlier in fact was that of an Officer| Supervisory position. The Bank has denied workman's contention that appointments as authorised signer were den on the basis of seniority and it is alleged that in fact it was filled on the basis of suitability and as per terms of the Bipartite Settlement only tho"e persons could be appointed as authorised s"gner who in the assessment of the Manage- ment are found suitable for th r o< The relevant chuse of the agreement has been mentioned in the written statement and it is reproduced herein para 2 of the written statement and it is quoted bejew :—
"The Eink- can appoint as Authorised signer any emp- ] o v" who has comrjleted 17 years of service as a e'erk However the Rank mav pnrjo'nt 3nv clerk who ihf"lv with the prior consent of the coirerred individual emnlovee" The Bank has admitted that the appointment of Shri Ashok Bhasin and Ashok Saxena as authorised signer w.e.f. 9-3-1989 but has stated that they were ippointed OP the grourd of the suitability which was onlv criteria required for the appointment. The Bank has denied that there was inv unfair labour practice in this respect. The Bank has denied that the workmen are entitled feu the relief c'airned by them.
7. In the rejoinder workmen hfvr relte-a*ed the allega- tions made in the statement of claim.
8. The workmen co'ild no" lead evidence ir the case. On behalf of the Bank only an affidavit of Shri Rajeshwar Kumar was filed but he could not be produced for cross- examination. Vide order dated 4-10-1993 case was reserved for an award on the ground of non-appearance of the parties. Workmen application toi setting aside Older dated 4-10-93 was rejected vide order dated 21-2-95. The review appli- cation moved on behalf of the workmen for the leview of the order dated 21-2-95 was also rejected vide order dated 17-5-2000.
9. In view of the circumstances narrated above I proceed to decide the wse on merit. After having considered entire facts and circumstances of the case I find that the work- men have miserably iyi'ed to .substantiate their claim by any evidence. No evidence either documentary or oral has been adduced on behalf of the workman in the case at any point of time. The burden of pioving the allegation of the work- man that appointment as authorised s'gner was made on the basis of seniority only was on them. They have not dischar- ged their burden. Mere allegation made in the statement of claim unless supported bv any evidence cannot be accepted as truthful.
10. In view of the fact I do not find anv illegality in the Bink's action for promoting to SjShii Ashok Bhasin and Ashok Saxena were authorised signers. The term of refe- rence thus I find can be decided in affirmative. The work- ment I find are not entitled for any relief.
15th Moy, 2001.
}1. The awaid in the case is given in the like manner.
K. S. SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001
S.O. 1301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmnet hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Govrenment on 16-5-2001.
[No. L-41012/13O/97-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 30th April, 2001
PRESENT :
K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 497/2001
(Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I D. No. 74/98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10(l)(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman Sri G. Chandian and the Management, Southern Railway.) 2652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/rYAISTHA' 19, 1923 [PAR? H—SEC. 3(tt)]r
BETWEEN
Shri O. Chandran. . . .. Workman/1 Paiiy
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Divisional Office, Mechanical Branch, Southern Railway, Madrar 3.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Personnel Branch, Madras Division, Southern Railway, Madras-3.
3. The Chief Mechanical Engineer,
General Manager Office, Southern Railway, Madras-3.
. . .. Managemcnt/H Pmty APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : Sri T. Fennwalter, Advocate. For the Management: Sri G. Kalyanasuntlanim, Advocate.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-41012/130/97-IR(B-l) dt. 23-2-98 Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 18-4-2001, upon perusing the rcfeicnce, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and documentary evidence filed on the side of the Management maiked by consent on either side and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Fcnnwalter, advocate for thp Workman and Sri G. Kalyanasundaram, advocate for the Management and this dispute having stood over till this date foi con- sideration, this Tribunal passed the following :-—
AWARD
This lefereflce by the Central Government in exorcise of the poweis conferred by Clause (d; of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Sectiun 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of dispute between Shri G. Chandran, Workman and the Southern Railway, Madras, Management, as Schedule appended to the order of reference.
The Schedule reads as follows:—
"Whether the actiou of the Southern Railway in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on Shri G. Chandran, Ex-Khalasi with effect from 31-8-93 for his unauthorised absence during the period from 4-5-91 to 13-8-91 is justified or not? If pot justified, to what relief Shri G. Chandran is entitled ?" 2. This order of reference was first made to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal as an industrial dispute for adjudication and the same was taken on file by that Tribunal as I.D, No. 74/98. On receipt of notices from that Tribunal, both the pai ties appttafed with their respective counsel and filed the KSpective Claim Statement and Counter Statement! When the matter was taken up for enquiry in that Tribunal, orders has been issued by the Central Government to transfer the case from trie file of that Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal, Accoidingly, this case has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal and on receipt of records, the case was taken on file on 16-12-2001 in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 497/2001. Notices were sent to counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this, case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal with their respective parties, to prosecute this case. On the first hearing on 7-3-2001, the counsel on either side were present and documents filed on the side of the Management were marked as Ex. Ml to M9 by the consent of counsel on either side. On the repre- sentation made by the counsel on either side as evidence in this case is closed on either side, the matter was posted for arguments of counsel on either side at their request to 9-3-2001. Subsequently, on the notic" to produce documents uivn by the counsel for the I Party to the counsel for the II Party, additional documents were filed by the IT Party/ Management and they were marked as Ex. M10 to Ml5 vviLh the consent of both the counsels. Then after hearing the arguments of counsel on either side on 18-4-2001, the case was posted for oiders to this date.
3, ("he brief particulars in [his industrial dispute between the parlies aie as follows :—
The 1 PartyiWoikmun (herein after referred to as Peti- tioner) Shri G, Chandran was initially engaged as casual labour on 14-2-1976 and on completion of 120 days, he was Slanted tempoiary status with effect from 14-6-1976. Subse- quently, he was empanelled as legular Khalasi on 7-12-1978. Later, he was promoted against one of the reclassified post of Khalasi Helper with etfect from 1-1-1984. He was given increint-nls regularly except during 1991 and 1992 as ho had absented himself from duty. The Petitioner was issued with charge memo for being unauthoiisedly absent from duty fiom 4-5-91 to 13-8-91. An enquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the charges against him weie held ns pioved and he was imposed wtih penalty Of compulsory retirement with effect from 31-8-1993. 4, fi ts alleged in the claim statement of the Petitioner that in the enquiry nobody was examined and t>ome ques- tion WCJC put to the Petitioner, No enquiry proceedings wcie lccoided or provided and the Petitioner was rrot issued with any copy of the enquiry proceedings. He was not issued with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In the cnqiuiy nobody was examined as prosecution witness to suppoit the charges. Hence, it is illegal enquiry. The order dated 18-8-1993 was issued to the surprise of the Petitioner for his compulsory rerjiement, The Petitioner preferred an appeal and the vimo w.'s dismissed by an order dated 31-5-95. 7hen he filed a isvision petition to the Chief Mechanical Engineer which \uis ait/o dismissed. Though the Petitioner is entitled to pension which has not been pnid to him till this date. Tee appeal he filed to tee General Manager was also dismissed by the order dated 26-10-95. The punishment im- posed aRtvinst the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and merits interference under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Various other workmen in the Railways, who have absented for a long period are still in service. Fur- ther, once his misconduct is considered and he has permitted to resume duty, the question of furthci punishment amounts to double jeopardy and the same is illegal. The manner in which the enquiry has been conducted is conhnry to the basic principles of natural justice -and the consequent punish- ment is illegal. The procedure ad-opted by the Management is contrnrv to the statutory Railway rules and principles of natural iustice. Hence, this Hon'hle Tribunal mny be pleas- ed 1o ditect the ResnondcntlManaijement to reinstate the Petitioner in service wi"h h
5, Ihc allegations in the Counter Statement aie that the Petitioner while reporting foi duty on 13-8-91 had produced d private medical certificate dated 9-8-1991 issued by a Doctor at Arakkonam, wherein it had been stated that the Petitioner Sri G. Chandian had taken treatment for head injuiy from 4-7-91 to 9-8-91. As per extant rules, an emp- loyee repotting sick in a hospital other than Railway Hospital, is required to submit a medical certificate withir 48 hours. This provision is applicable only when the employee is resi- ding outside the jurisdiction of a Railway Medical Officer which shall normally be tflken to mean within a radius of 2 5 kms. of the Railway Hospital. As the Petitioner has failed lo follow the said rules, he is- tint entitled to any privilege that could be extended to employees who produce private medical certificate. In the circumstances, the initiation of disciplinary action against the Petitioner is juiHfied. The Petitioner was imposed with penalty of compulsory retire- ment from service with effect from 31-8-93. He appealed apainst the penalty only on 10-2-94. Though the appeal was time barred, the Appp1We Authority considered his appeal and oonfirnuT the ncnnity. Subsequently, the Petitioner sub- mitted a Revision Petition to *h° Comment Authority after n lapse of riuht months However, the Revision Petition WTS also rnnsiH'Tfd and the ncnalty was upheld. The Peti- tioner nyain submitted a mcioy petition to the General2653 Manager's open pourt which was not considered favourably. The Petitioner who was incharge of maintenance of rakes had by his unauthorised absence for a period of over three months, caused avoidable inconvenience to the administra- tion. When an employee unauthorisedly absent himself, his service? arc not automatically terminated nor penalty impos- ed. The procedure laid down in the Railway Servants (Dis- cipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 is duly followed before arriving at any final decision for any ofTencs committed by un esnployee. Besides, the Petitioner who w.is allowed to join c^uty on hii resumption from unauthorised absence was im- posed with a pen uty o[ compulsory Tctiiemcnt only after following the lnid down procedure. The Railway administ- ration had exercised its powers well within the framework of its rules and tho penalty imposed is wholly jutAilied as the petitioner was given evcrv rcusonable opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal' rrny dismiss this Case,
6. The points for my consideration ave—
Respondent has contended that as per Rule 503 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, leave cannot bo claimed by as of right and leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority and as per Rule 511 of Indian Railways Establishment Code, the Petitioner has to make an appli- cation for leave and as per tho Rule 521 of IREC, the Petitioner should submit application for leave within 48 hours along with a sick certificate from Registered Medical Piactitioner and that in this case, the Petitioner has not followed the above rules and had produced a private medical certificate dated 9-8-91 issued by a Doctor at Arakkonam, stating that the Petitioner had taken treatment for head injury from 4-7-yi to 9-8-91. As per Ex. M1 in the com- munication letter ADRM has observed that, during the enquiry, he had stated that he had stomach problem whereas in the appeal IKT has mentioned that he has got asthnjatic pioblem. He has also not submitted any representation against enquiry repoit which WJS sent to him on 9-7-92. From this, it is clear that the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was sent to the Petitioner and for which he has failed to give reply, '
(1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management is contrary to the basic principles of natural justice? and
(2) Whether th- action of the Southern Railway in im- posing the punishment of compulsory ictiiemcnt on Shri C, Chamiran, Fx-Kh^lasi with effect from 31-8-93 for his unauthorised absence during the period from 4-5-91 to 13-8-91 is justified or not? If not justified, to what relief Shri G. Ohandian is entitled?"
Point No. 1 :
7. Ex, M12 is the xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings. The Maagcment has produced original enquiry file for the perusal of this Tribunal, From the perusal of the enquiry proceedings, it is seen that on 27-11-91, the enquiry officer has put questions to the charge sheeted employee, tho peti- tioner herein and he has recorded the questions he put to him and the answers, the Petitioner gave for those questions. When he was asked by the Enquiry Officer as to whether he was prepared to attend the enquiry along with the defence helper, lie has stated that he was prepared to attend the. enquiry and ho has also informed Ijim for another question that he was received the charge memo dated 26-10-91, The day's proceedings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in English had been read over and translated in Tamil and accepted by the delinquent employee as correct. In token thereof, in every page of the enquiry proceedings along with Enquiry Officer, chargesheeted employee. Petitioner herein hns also subscribed his signature. When he was questioned by the Enquiry Officer as to whether he understood the charges, leplied 'yes'. Then when he questioned him for nominating defence helper to defend his case, he said he had not nomi- nated anybody by saying 'no'. When he was asked as to whether he required any defence helper to defond his case, he said 'no' and further when the Enquiry Officer put to the ' Petitioner, the charge sheeted employee as question No. 8 as 'do you accept the charges framed in SF5', he answered that 'I accept the charges in the memo'. He hau also admitted for another question that he did not apply for leave and bad not reported sick in Railway Hospital. When he was questioned to state, the reason about his absence, he has stated that due to unforsecn circumstances, he was forced to abstain from duty. First it started from his stomach problem, so he thought of getting treatment at his native place and while getting treatment, his house needed some repair in the roof and while he was on the roof repairing, he fell down accidentally, that also needed some treatment. So his absence was prolonged and further there was a partition in his family property among his three brothers and himself and in addition to that his wife was suffering from abortion and all these above said reasons made him to stay away from his duties. When the Enquiry Officer asked him as to whether he would like to say regarding his enquiry, he replied that he don't have anything to say further. For another question, as to whether all facilities were offered to defend the case, his answer was that he was offered all the facilities to attend the enquiry and there was no compulsion or any sort of threat or anv such Ihinft during and in the course of enquiry and he had replied according to his conscious and free mind and he was satisfied of that enquiry. All these things recorded by the Fnqniry Officer dm ing the rnquiry were vouchered as correct by the Petitioner by subscribing his signature as a charge- sheeted employee. In that there is an endrosement to that effect that the proceedings which was recorded in Enfflish language bv 1he Enemiry Officer was rend over and translated to the charcesheeted employee in Tamil and.accepted him Tic cr>""p'-t and h" had also received v c ry of thtit proceeding The Enquiry Oftlcr has given his report, a xerox copy of the sime is Ex. MI 3. The reason for his Undines has BIEO been i;iv-n in thnt report. He Ms stater) therrin that fhr muster roll of emnlover proved the unauthorised absence, of the employee from duty from 4-5-91 to 13-H-91 and the The Petitioner/Workman who was employed as Khalasi by the Respondent/Management was compulsorily ictired from service with effect from 31-8-93 on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent during the period from 4-5-91 to 13-8-91. A Penalty Advice dated 18-8-93 was issued to tho Petitioner, a xerox copy of the same is Ex. M-14. A xerox cOpy of the Muster Roll for tho said period of absence of the Petitioner i.c. 4-5-91, to 13-8-91 is Ex. M10. For his unauthorised absence for the said period, a charge sheet dated 10-9-91 was issued to him with Annexure to Standard Form No. 5. a xerox copy of the same is Ex. M i l. In the Claim Statement, it is simply stated that to the great surprise of the Petitioner, he was issued with an order dated 18-8-93 being compulsory retirement. It is also his allegation in the Claim Statement that in the enquiry no body was examined and some questions were put to him and no enquiry pro- ceedings were recorded or provided and he was not issued with any copy of enquiry proceedings and that he was not issued with Enquiry Officer's findings and in the enquiry to support the charges, nobody was examined as prosecution witness. But in the Counter, the Respondent has stated that an enquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down under Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the charges against him were held as proved and he Was imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 31-8-93. It is further alleged that the Petitioner who was allowed to join duty on resumption from unautho- rised absence was imposed with penalty of compulsory retire- ment only after following the laid down procedures in the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in his written arguments has stated that the Management has not conducted any enquiry inconformity with the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was called upon to resume duty after the absence of three months, due to sickness and the entire period of sickness has been covered bv medical certificate. The medical certificate issued by a Railway Doctor was also given by the Petitioner to the Competent Authority before resuming duty and only after that he was permitted to work for a period of two years and suddenly without any notice, the Petitioner was terminated from service on a false allega- titfm of unauthorised absence. Tt is further contended that thb absence was due to his sickness and the entire period of lepve has been covered by the medical certificate and the
1606 0112001—16.
265* '^fiJE GAZETTE O? tNDIA: JUNE 9, 2001/fYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PA"T II—Sltf. ?mi delinquent has also admitted by giving his answers to questions 8 to 10 and this has also brought out in evidence fiom the LM 446 maintained in the office and ultimately he bus stated lhat the Petitioner Sri G, Chandran, C &W Khalasi, T. No. 1977 had absented himself unauthoriscdly from duty fiom 4-5-91 to 13-8-91 without proper authority or following Railway Medical Attendance Rules and thus violated Rule 3(l)(ii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966, are proved. A perusal of the entire enquiry file produced in original go to show that the Management has followed the rules prescribed for the administration without any laches, affording proper and ample opportunity to the Petitioner, charge^hceted em- ployee, to defend himself in the enquiry, The file contains a letter dated 23-2 97 written by the Petitioner himself to his superior which reads as follows :—
"I beg to submit that I met with a roud accident at Arakkonam and undergoing private medical tvfat- ment in a private nursing home, As my condition was- very bad and nnconcious, I could not inform to office in time and Doctor advised me complete bed rest. As >-uch T could not at'end to work from 4-5-91 to 13-8-91. I request you to kindly excuse me for the absence and treat the period of absence as leave due to me,"
representation against the enquiry report which was sent to him on 9-7-92. It is seen from the records that the Manage- ment has sent a report of the Enquiry Officer under Registered Post with acknowledgement card under Ex. M14 informing him that the Disciplinary Authority will take suitable decision, after considering the report and if the Petitioner wish to make any representation or submission he' may do so in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days of the receipt of that letter. In Ex. M15, the Disciplinary Authority has stated that the Petitioner could have easily contacted his controlling supervisor or his depot incharge either in person or through post about his inability to attend his duties. He never -made any of the attempt as above. The enquiry report wus acknowledged by him on 9-7-92 and he has not made any representation or submission against the enquiry report. Further it is seen from the records Ex. Ml, M3 and M5, the Petitioner had availed appeal provisions and also revision provisions before the authorities and then he sent a Mercy Petition before the General Managers Open Court pleading mercy under Ex. M6 and all these authorities have rejected the request of Petitioner for re-appointment. So, from fall these things, it is evidently clear that the Petitioner was given all particulars to defend riis case. So, the contention en behalf of the Petitioner that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the Management in not affording the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence before the Management is Incorrect. Tt Is clearly stated by the learned counsel for the Respondent as per Rule 503 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, leave cannot be claimed as a right and leave, of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority and as per Rule 511 of Indian Railway Hstablishment Code, the Petitioner has to make an applica- tion for leave and as per the Rule 521 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, the Petitioner should submit his appli- cation for leave within 48 hours along with the sick certificate from Registered Medical Petitioner. From the- available re- cords, it is evidently clear that the Petitioner has not followed nny of the said Rules, but produced a private medical certi- ficate issued by a Doctor at Arakkonam, that too for a lesser period than the period mentioned as unauthorised absence in ' the charge memo issued to him. As the Petitioner himself ~ has admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer, there was no necessity for the Enquiry Officer to examine any witness for the Management. Pending enquiry only the Pctiioner was allowed to join back to duty. Subsequent to the finding given by the rEnquiry' Officer that the charge against the Petitioner has_ bf-cn proved, the Disciplinary Authnrifv has unnoted rjunishment, after following the principles of natural justice find after nlTordm? reasonable opportunity for the Petitioner to put forth his representation about the proposed punish- ment. As it h decided by the Supreme Court in a case reported DS 1996 II LLJ 519 'compulsory retirement differ from both dismissal and removal both in its nature and effect, It ii not considered, pnma facr end rn-se ;i pumpmen;- and does nM attract the provisions of Article 311, It is neither a punish- ment nor a stlemn. Tn this case, the Petitioner has given mmpnlsoiy retirement not as a punishment. Further, in Ex. Ml5 the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority d$- Pennltv Advice dated 18-8-93, it is stated that the Petitioner i" cnmpnisorilv retired from service with effect from 31-8-1993 fANi with full benefits and his period of absence is treated as absence only. So under such circumstances, it is evidently clear that the enquirv conducted by the Management in respect of the charjresheet issued to the Petitioner for his alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence is not against the principles of natural justice. Thus, T 'answer the point accordingly.
Point No, 2 :
In view of my findings in the earlier issue and on the- basis of the materials available in this case, I can come )o the conclusion that the action of the Southern Railway by passing an order of compulsory retirement on Shri G Chandran, Ex-Khalasi with effect from 31-OS-1993 for his unauthorised absence during the period 4-5-1991 to 13-08-1991 is justified and hence the Petitioner|I Partv workman Shri^ G. Chandran is not entitled to any relief. Further, it is seen that the action taken by the Management against the mis- conduct of the Petitioner/Workman is not excessive or dis- proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner. Thus, I answer the point accordingly, The Petitioner while reporting for duty after his absence has given a letter to the Management stating that he was not able to attend duty from 4-5-91 to 13-8-91 as he was undergoing treatment by a private Doctor for acute head injury treatment and now he fed better and hence he may kindly bo allowed for duty. The medical certificate said to have been issued by Dr, Manoharan of Arakkonam has been enclosed with that letter which is dated 9-8-91, wherein it is stated that Sri O, Chandran took treatment under him for head injury fiom 4-7-91 to 9-8-91 and he has recovered from his illness and lit to lesume duty from 10-8-91. In the letter he gave to the Management about his reporting for duty, an endorsement was made directing him to meet the D.M.O. As such he appeared before the DMO and got the fitness certificate for duty. The DMO has after examination of Sri G, Chandran opined that he is fit for duty on 13-8-91, So from these materials available by way of documentaiy evidence, it is clearly seen that the contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement as well as his counsel in the written arguments that the Management has not conducted any en- quiry inconformity with the principles of natural- justice is incorrect. Admittedly, for the alleged head injury, the woik- man has not taken treatment in the Railway Hospital, Further In the Claim Statement itself, the Petitioner has not averted that he sustained head injury and has taken treatment in a private nursing homo and was bed ridden and only due to that he was unable to report to duty. On a perusal of the enquiry proceedings Rx. M12, it >s seen that brfoic the Enquiry Officer, the Petitionei/Workman has stated that he was absented for duty due to unforseen circumstances and he has mentioned four reasons for his inability to report for duty for the entire period of absence as—(1) he had some stomach problem and was getting treatment at his native place, (2) when he was attending to the repair work in a roof of his house, during that period of ailment, he fell down accidentally and took treatment for the same, (3) ho was obliged to be there for partition of their family property amongst himself and bis three brothers, and (4) he had to be there, since his wife suffered an abortion. Even before the Enquiry Officer, he had no) stated that due to the fall from the roof, while effecting reparis, he sustained head injury and was obliged to be hospitalised in a private clinic at Arakkonam and a Doctor by name A. Manoharan treated him and also gave him a medical certificate to lh.it effect dated 9-8-91. Though he has chosen to produce that medical certificate issued bv the said Doctor when he repoits back For duty on 13-8-91, he has not mentioned all these things, when he was enquired by the Enquiry Officer about his unauthorised absence on 27-11-91. Further, as it is seen from the records while preferring an appeal against the punishment imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority, h^ has mentioned flint he has got asthmatic problem, though he has stated during the enquirv that he had stomach problem. Neither before the Enquiry Officer nor alongwith his appeal to the Appellate Authority, he had -produced any documentary evidence for his illness, tn the appeal order itself, the Appellate Authority has pointed out that the Petitioner has not subnrttcd any
8 In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management/!! Party, Southern Railway in passing an! order of compulsory retirement on Shri G. Chandran, I Party/Workman, Ex-Khalasi with effect from 31-08-1993 is justified and hence the I Party/Workman concerned is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by hiip and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court om this day, the 30th April, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Kxamined:
On either side: None
Documents Marked:
For the I Party/Workman: NIL
For the II Party/Management:
Ex. Ml 31-05-94 Xerox copy of confirmation of Appel- late Order to the Petitioner.
Ex. M2 20-08-94 Xerox copy of appeal for reconsidera- tion.
Ex. M3 11-10-94 Xerox copy of reply by DRM for the second appeal dt. 20-8-94.
Ex. M4 11-10-94 Xerox copy of Revision Petition of the Petitioner.
Ex. M5 26-04-95 Xerox copy of reply to the Revision Petition,
Ex. M6 02-06-95 Xerox copy of Mercy petition.
Ex. M7 2/5-6-95 Xerox copy of reply to the mercy petition.
Ex. M8 26-10-95 Xerox copy of letter of Chief Personnel Officer to the Petitioner.
Ex. M9 26-10-95 Xerox copy of Service Register.
Ex. M10 26-10-95 Xerox copy of Muster Roll.
Ex. M il 10^09-91 Xerox copy of Charge sheet.
Ex. M12 10-09-91 Xerox copy of enquiry proceedings.
Ex. M13 10-09-91 Xerox copy of the findings of Enquiry.
Ex. M14 10-09-91 Xerox copy of acknowledgement card for letters to Petitioner.
Ex. M15 18-08-93 Xerox copy of penalty advice.
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001 S.O. 1302.—Tn 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, Nagpur as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between tile employers in relation to the management
'2655 of Central Railway, Nagpur and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 16-5-2001.
[No. L-41012|92|92-IR(DU)|(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERN- MENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CG1T : 150|2000 Employers in relation to the manage- ment of The D.R.M., Central Rail- way.
AND
Their Workman Shri Raju Natthuji Meshram
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-41O12|92|92-1R(DU) dated 15-11-93 on following schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether tlie action of the management by terminating the services of Shri Raji Natthuji Meshram, Khalasi is proper and justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"
The workman Sh. Raju Natthuji Meshram, Khalasi has submitted statement of claim that he was appointed as Khalasi in Central Rail- way w.c.f. 19-07-79. 'He was working under the control of Inspector of Works, Central Railway, Nagpur. At that time he was issued service card bearing No. 278466. While he was in service he was sent for medi- cal examination on 07-04-1984. After his medical examination he was carrying out his duties and was getting monthly rated wages and house rent allowance etc. His service was terminated on 9th January 1987 orally. No enquiry was conducted against hjm. He was also not served with any notice. He claimed reinstatement with continuity in service.
;Tflie management of Central Railway, Nag- pur through its Divisional Personnel Officer submitted written statement. Management!
2656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JUNE 9, iOOi/ JYAlSTHA 19, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] contested the case that the workman was not appointed on 19-07-79. No service card bear- ing No 278466 was issued to him.
The management however, admitted that workman Sh. Raju Natthuji Meshram worked as casual labour from 01-02-83. He was given monthly rate of wages w.e.f. 19-12-83 after passing B.I. Medical Examination on 07-04-84. He was not allowed to work from 09-01-87. No enquiry was conducted against the workman and no notice was given to him prior to his termination.
The management has taken the plea that workman had obtained service card No. 278466 fraudulently. The Thumb Impix-s- tion on service card did not telly, with the thumb impression of medical certificate. As the service card was not genuine the em- ployee's employment appears to have been obtained by fraud.
On behalf of the management the statement of Sh. Ashok Bhauraoji Shendc, Thumb Im- pression Expert was recorded in C.G.I.T. Court No. 1 at Mumbai on 04-03-97. Sh. Raju N. Meshram, workman also submitted his affidavit on 11-10-2000.
The management was given opportunity to cross examine the • witness on 10-11-2000. Nobody turned up to cross examine the wit- ness from the side of management, hence the cross examination was closed.
The written arguments were filed by the counsel for the workman on 27-11-2000. The tnianagement also submitted written argu- ments on 02-01-2001. After that 12-01-2001, 08-02-2001 and 28-02-2001 were fixed for oral arguments. On 28-02-2001 the counsel for the workman did not appear to argue the case. The case was adjourned to 30-03-2001. On this date counsel for management did not turn up to argue the case and the case was adjourned to 11-04-01.
On 11-04-01 the counsel for the workman argued the case. Nobody appeared to argue the- case from the side of management of Central Railway.
I have persued the written arguments sub- mitttd by both the parties and have pjrused the oral and documentry evidence produced by the parties.
The main reason for the termination of the services of the workman by the manage- ment is that the workman had obtained the service card by fraud. The management says that the workman was not in service from 19-07-1979.
The statement of Sh. Ashok B. Shende, Thumb Impression Expert shows that the time keeper had told him that the signature on the card and the stamps on the card were suspecious. He had no occassion to examine the original stamp with the stamp on the ser- vice card of the workman. He had taken thumb impression of the workman and he compared the speciman thumb impression with the thumb impression on the card. In cross examination he further says that he has not recorded the pattern of the thumb impression on record and also the pattern of speciman thumb impression taken by him. He further says that it is true that identification and comparision of the thumb impression can be made only-on the basis on type of pattern. He is not trained for examination of hand- writing. He did not examine the signature of the subordinate inchargc on the service card of the workman, who is alleged to have issu- ed the service card.
The statement of this witness therefore docs not prove as to who had issued the ser- vice card. The service card was therefore not prepared by the workman. It was issu- ed by the Rail Path Nirikshak, Madhaya Rail- way, Phoolgaon.
There is nothing on record to show that the statement of Rail Path Nirikshak was record- ed prior to the termination of the service of the workman.
Moreover this disputed service card was not the basis of employment of the workman. Even if' the service card was not genuine, the workman was not responsible for it. Because the service card is always issued after the workman gets employment. No workman gets employment on the basis of service card.
Keeping aside this fact the management had admitted that the workman Sh. Ra"iu N. Neshrnm worked in Central Railway from 01-02-83. T W, the management docs not say that the workman got employment from 01-02-83 on the basis of service card which is alleged to have been issued in July 1979,2657 It is admitted to the management that the Raju N. Mcshram worked in Central Railway as casual labour from 01-02-83. He was given monthly rate wages from 19-12-83 after passing medical examination which was done on 07-04-84. It is therefore clear that work- man Sh. Raju N. Meshram worked as casual labour in Central Railway, Nagpur from 01-02-83 to 09-01-87. According to the admission of the management the workman therefore remained in service for about four years as casual labour in Central Railway.
In these circumstances the workman has served in. Central Railway for more than one year. No enquiry was conducted against the workman before termination. In the*" circumstances his termination may be con- sidered retrenchment from the service.
According to the Section 25 (F), no work- man employed in any industry who has been in contiuious service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched oy the employer untill :—
(a) the workman has been &ivcn one month's notice in writing indicat- ing the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice.
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every comple- ted year of continious service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
In view of the above facts and circumstan- ces and the evidence on record the workman Raju N. Mcshram was in continuous service of the Central Railway from 01-02-83 to 09-01-87. He is therefore entitled to be paid the retrenchment compensation under section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The reference is therefore partly allowed.
ORDER
The reference is partly allowed. The work- man Sh. Raju N. Meshram shall be treated as retrenched from service. He shall get ret- renchment compensation under Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for the period from 01-02-83 to 09-01-87.
The workman is not entitled to any other relief.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Nagpur
23-04-2001
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New' Delhi, the 18th May, 2001 S.O 1303.—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, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of lndore and their wrokman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-5-2001.
[No.L-12012|194|97IR(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (MP)
Case No. CGIT|LC|R|119|98
Presiding Officer :
The General Secretary,
All India State Bank of lndore Employees Congress, Hardev NiWas, Sanwer road,
Ujjain. Applicant.
VERSUS
The Assisianat General Manager (P).
State Bank of Tndorc, Head office,
5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
lndore. Non-applicant., 2658 THE CAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/ JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(U)1
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of May-2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry ot Labour vide order No. L-12O12|194|97-1R(B.I.) dated 16-6-90 has referred the fallowing dispute lor adjudication by this tribunal—
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of lndore in promoting ju- niors by ignoring senior Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay and not paying him special allowance is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for ?
2. The workman filed an application praying to dismiss his claim in the instant case as the manage- ment has. already promoted him to the higher rank for which the present dispute has been reten td for adjudication. The workman does not want to press his dispute any more.
3. In view of the aforesaid application of the workman, no dispute exists between the parties. Hence no dispute award is passed.
4. On the above said reasons, it is held that the workman has bsen promoted by the management and therefore now he is not entitled to any promo- tion as claimed by him in this case.
5. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Preiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th May, 2001 S.O. 1304.—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, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ef India and iheir workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 17-5-2001.
[No.L-120]2|280l8Q|IRB-III|(B-m AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERN- MENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No. CG1T|LC|R]62]9O Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai Shri Yashwant Singh, S|O Shri Amarsingh Raghuvanshi. 316, Colony Nagar, lndore (MP). Applicant. Versus
The Regional Manager, State Bank of India. Divisional Office, 163, Kanchan Bagh, lndore. • • Non-applicanl.
AWARD,
Delivered on this 10th day of April, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-12012|280|89- 1RB-III dated 19-2-90 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of lndore in treating Shri Yashwant Singh Raguwanshi as having retired voluntarily from the service of the bank vide their letter No. RM.l.STAFF! 11813 dated'2-7-88 in terms of para XVI of the bipartite settlement dated 17-9-84 was justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled to and from which date ?" 2. The case for the workman is that in the month of Dec. 87, he had filed an applica- tion to the management for transferring him from Inddre to Jaipur. Subsequently as a result of the objection by the members of his family, he filed an application on 1-1-82 to the Branch Manager, Mill Area for cancell- ing his application for transfer to Jaipur. On 4-1-88, he presented himself for duty but the Branch Manaivr of Mill Area did not allow him to continue and informed that he shall be relieved as per order of Regional Manager to join at Jaipur. The Branch Manager also directed him to apply for ad- vance to meet the transfer ^xpemes. The Branch Manager did not pay any head to his recmest and relieved him to join at faipur. Prior to passing the order for transfer to Jaipur, the workmen had already applied 2<559 for cancelling his application in this respect. The management never accepted his request and registed to join at Jaipur. He had also sent an application to the Regional Manager to consider his case sympathetically but to no effect.
transfer order dated 31-12-87 to join at Jaipur. The workman never attended oflice after 1-1-88. The letter dated 13-2-8S was sent to the workman at his recorded address vide registered AD. This letter was received undelivered as the workman was not available in the said address. As per terms of para-XIV(4) of bipartite settlement dated 17-9-84, the service of the relieving letter addressed to his last recorded address is deemed as good service and therefore the first party was relieved from Indore. After the workman was relieved on 13-2-88, he should have addressed all his applications, ii any, to Jaipur branch. The workman re- mained absent unauthorised for more than 90 days from 13-2-88. He was given 30 days notice in terms of provisions contained in para XVI of the bipartite settlement dated 17-9-84. The management gave a notice to the workman on 11-4-88 advicing him to re- port to duty within 30 days failing which the consequence will follow as per bipartite settle- ment. The said notice was also returned un-delivered by the postal department with the remark that the first party was not avail- able at the time of delivery. The workman did not report to his duty within 30 days from the receipt of his notice and therefore he is deemed to be have voluntarily retired from service as per the provisions of XVI of bipar- tite settlement. TVie workman was advised to this effect vide letter dated 23-7-88.
A. The management further alleges tfnt the applicants services were never terminated, but under the provisions of relevant settle- ment he was deemed to have voluntarily re- tired from the Bank service. He has receiv- ed all the retirement ben^fiis from The Bank. The workman is not entitled tn anv benefit under Scc-25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The provisions of Sec-25-G of I.D. Act 1947 does not apply to a case of voluntary retirement of an employee His cas^ is also not covered undei the provisions of Scc-2(o)fo) of I.D. Act, 1947. The workman is not entitled to rehT-t'itcwent with hick wn
5. The following issues arise for decision
in this case.
2"60 ^C;;"AZETtE OF ittDJX^. JtNE <>, 2001/ JYAISlt^V W, 1523 [PART H - S EC '3^)1 2. Whether the workman is entitled to
reinstatement with back wages ?
3. Relief and costs ?
House No. 316. Colony Nagar, Indore. By this address the Bank had sent a notice as per registered post dated 11-6-88 Exhibit M-6 to join his duly at Jaipur within a period of as addressee was not available.
6. issue No. 1.—Admittedly the workman was employed as Daftry in the Mill Area branch of State Bank of lndore. On 21-11-87, 23-11-87 and 3-12-87, the workman applied for transfer from Jndore to Jaipur. On hr, request the management of State Bank of Indore transferred him from lndore to Jaipur. The workman was directed to join there as per transfer order. In lieu of this transfer order the workman was relieved on 13-2-S3. After the relieving order the workman did not join at Jaipur. The workman was directed to present himself at station road Branch o( the Bank at Jaipur, But he failed to join his duty till 11-6-88. The workman also didnot inform the Bank for reasons of his not join- ing at Jaipur till 11-6-88. He also did not file any application for leave during the perioj of his absence from duty. In this way he re- mained absent from duty unauthoriscly.
7. Management witness Shri R. B. Tripiilhi
was posted as branch manager of !he Bank "X relevant time. The workman was also work- ing as Daftry|peon under him. He states thai on his own request he was transferred to Jaipur. He did not join bis dntv at Jaipur us per transfer order. He also never reported to duty at Mill Area branch office on 1-1-88 and onwards on any day as claimed by him. He remained absent ^hron^out till ] 1-6-HR He never filed an application for sanctioning the leave. In this w;iy he de^hcmtelv absent- ed from dntv without any authority. TV notice was also sent to the workman as per registered poct by h;s laft rddn:es HVPH in the office to report the duty but the notice was returned unserved with an endorsement that the workman was not available at the time of delivery of the letter. In view of this fact the Bank rightly prcsmued thai, th- workman is not desirous to continue nnv more on the employment of the B:aik. As p,-; provisions of para-16 of biparlite settlement dated 17-9-84 tjbe workman w>s deerurd to have be^n voluntarily retired from tin1 service of the Bank w.c.f. 11-1 88. Thi* w i t i r "" also states tint the workman never filed ;-nv application in the Brnk ^rrrcssin^ ui-' desire not lo 'jo on transfer to Jaipur.
9. It has been repeatedly stated by the workman that he used to go to the Branch ollice ol the Bank but the Branch Manager did not allow him to join. If the Branch Manager did not allow the workman to join at Jaipur then it was the duty of the workman to approach the competent authority of the Bank personally to acquaint him with the situation. The workman was living at Indore itself and therefore there was no inconve- nience in approaching tjhc competent authori- ty for the rcdressal of his grievances. I fail to understand why the workman didnot think it proper to resort to the same. The work- man could have easily applied for sanction of leave as per rule in case he was not allowed by the Branch Manager to join his duty. It was incumbent on the workman to go to Jaipur and to join the concerned office as per transfer order. In case of not allowing him to join at Jaipur by the Branch Maiia- per of t!he Bank the workman should have approached the Regional Manager it Tndore to put his grievance in respect thereof. The workman didnot think it proper to adopt thi, course. It appears that the workman r rd deliberately absented himself from duty with- out any authority. Had he been interested to continue ;n the employment of the Bank, he 'houKI have actively taken the proper steps to e;rt- his grievance redressed by the compe- tent tmlhorUv. He remained negligent in this resp2661 per registered post by hfe address of Indore. The workman admitted to have received this letter of the Bank by which (She workman was deemed to have been voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 23-7-88 Ex. W-12, W-17. This letter was addressed by the same address as previous letters of the Bank were addressed to frm. This circumstance ilso goes to sh-^w that the workman has delivcrately avoided to receive the notice of the Bsnk Ex. M-6 by which he w>s directed to join at Jaipur within the p^rior* of 30 chvs. Tikinjr ther * facts int^ consideration, if the bank passed the order of voluntarily retirement as per clause X"ST of the bipartite settlement dated 17-O.S4, (il cn the Bank cpnnot be said to have co'^vTiittcd pny error in passing such orders.
10. Tn the circumstances of the case, the Bank rishtlv held tha* the worVmin vohmtnrv retired from the services of the Bank. The requirem?nt of class XVI or the biparfife settlement has been correctly followed by the BinV in this case. An enauirv would have been necessity if the workman hnd sub- mitted his explanation which was not accept- able to the B.ink or contended that he did re- port to the duty but was not allowed to ioin by the BanV. The vorbrum was properly served with Eor-'c's notice Ex M-XVI to join his duty within ?0 dzy, it Jninur and even then he did not think it proner to comply with the same. It clearly goes to show that be was not interested in continuing his job held by him. In view cf this fact, the Bank was absolute1 j justified in trcntin? the workman as voluntary retired from :>erv'ee. No pre- judice or iniuslice has been caused to the workman. Tssne No. 1 is answered accord- ingly.
11. Issue No. 2.—In view of the foregoing reasons, it is he]d that the Stale Bank of Indore had riejhtly held the workman as voluntarily retired, from service as per provi- sions of class XVI of bipnrtite settlement dated 17-9-8^-. This order does not suffer from any illegality. The workman i" not en- titled to any relief as claimed by him. Th" reference is accordingly answered f>c^ins* +h>* wnrVrrr-< "nd in favour of the management.
K. M, RAI- Presiding Officer 1606 0112001—17.
NLU DCP-" the lltfc May, 2001 S.O. 1305.—In pursuance of Seciton 17 of the Industrial Dii-putss Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of tlie Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Lobour Co'-irt, Mitmbai as shown in the Anncxurc, in the mdu'sfrul dispute between the employers in relation to the Mumbai Port Trust and their workman Witch was received by the Central "Government on the ?5-4-200.
[No. L"31012|13|98|IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :
Shri S. B. Panse Presiding Officer,
Reference No. CGIT-21150 of 1998 Employers >n rtlation to the managemftnt of Mumbai Port Trust.
The Chairman, Muinbai-38.
AND
The>r Workmen.
Shri Ramkrishna Sivram Dadekar Saikripa Bldg., D. Wing, 3rd Floor, Room No. 72, Uintukhadi Poad. Mumbai-9.
APPEAR A.NCTS
For the Employer.—Mr, Umesh Nabar Advo- cate.
For the Workmen.—Mr Jaiprakash Sawant Advocate.
A'Tumbai. dated 30th March, 2000 AWARD PART-n
Now the issues that remained for my considera- tion and my findings there on are as follows :—
Twites Findings 3. Whether the acMon of the No. man ^ m e rt of MBPT in dismissing the workman 2662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] GacLkar from his service is justified ?
4. If nt.l, to what relief the As per order workman is entitled to 7 below.
REASONS
2. Ramkrishna Sivram Gedekar (in short wort- man) was in continuous employment of Mumbai Port Trust (in short the employer) in its Chief Mechau'cal Engineers Department in the capacity of Motor guard driver. He was served with a charge- sheet da;ed 27th February, 1985. It reads as fol- lows ;—
"That Shri Ramkrishna Shivram Gadekar, Motor Car'Lorry|Jeep Drivet. T. No. 536, BPT Workshops, CME's Department was tem- porarily working in the Electrical Establi- shment Southern Division from 18-5-1987. On 8-7-1987, when he was posted from duty in the day shift ana was detailed for overtime on vehicle (jeep) No. BLB 4505 of the E.E.S.D. in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. h* tu.i). another vehicle, viz. d Mctadoor No. MAS 8537 belonging to the same sec- tion, to Coniainer Yard at the junction of 12 Victoria Dock and ONGC without the orders of his superiors or of the employees who were supposed to use the vehicle for official purposes. He took the vehicle to the said plate on his own accord, without even informing anybody. The vehicle so taken was parked near the container yard.
At this place on the same day at about 7.45 p.m. the police toiled an attempt of theft by some miscreants who had opened a container No. CATU 256749(4) and were trying to remove bales of raw silk. The police arrived on the scene and on tteeing this, Shp Gadekar drcve away his vehicle No. MAS 8537 with two persons jumping into it, one of them being known to the police as n dock thief.
Shn Ramkrishnr; Smvram Gadekar were subse- quently arrested by the police on 9-7-1987 on the charge of being an accomplice in the atfempted theft case in the dock on 8-7-1987. The vehicle Metador No. MAS 8537 was also impounded by the Yellow Gate Police Station in the above case. The vehicle was subsequently released on fur- nishing an Indemnity Bond for Rs. 1,00,000 by the administration.
From the above it is clear that Shri Ramkrishna Sh'vram GadekT, Motor Car:Lorry|Jeep Driver T. No 536m B P.T. workshops has committed the misconducts punishable under Regulation Nos. 22(2) ( b ) ( c) and (g) of the Bombay Port Trust Rules and Rcculations for Non-Scheduled Staff which reads as under :—
C) An employee may be suspended, demoted asd|cr reduced in grade, removed I dismiss- ed, without notice or any compensation in lien of notice for any of the following acts or omissions .—
(b) Abetting, conniving at or attempting or committing of thefij fraud or dishonesty in connecting with port Trust work or property;
(c) Causing loss of or damage to Port Trust peoperty or property in the custody or lying in the premises of the Port Trust.
(d) Habitual breach of any law or procedure applicable to the establishment.
He has also failed to maintain aboslute integrity and devotion to duty. He has thus com- mitted the misconduct under Regulation No. 3(1) of the B.P.T. Employees (Con- duct) Regulation 1976 which reads as under :—
"Regulation No. 3(1)—Every employee shall at all time, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty,"
And he has thus rendered himself liable to be proceeded against departmental^ under Regulation" 8 and 12 of the B.P.T. Emp- loyees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1976."
3. By Part-T Award dated 2-11-99, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that :
"The domestic inquiry which was conducted against the worKman was as per the Prin- ciples of Natural Justice in respect of the charges under Regulations 22(2) (b) and (c) and not under Regulation-3(i).
The findings of the inquiry officer in respect of misconduct punishable under Regulation 22(2) (b) and (c) of the BPT Rules and Regulations from non-schedule staff are not perverse, but they are perverse on respect of Regulation 3(i) of the BPT Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976.
4, Ramesl, Gadekar (Ex.-26) affirmed that, that his appeal and his review petitions were not properly considered by the authorities. He also contended that the procedure contemplated under the Mumbai Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1976 were not followed. Intact what is affirmed by him relates to Issues Nos. 1 and 2. Now that part of his affidavil cannot be consi- dered at all.
5. d d e k or nffirnied that, he did not cause any loss to the management and had become a victim of the circumstances. He had suffered lot on account of dismissal and the punishment which is awarded to Irn- is very huge and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. There are no adverse remarks against him and his service record is unblemished. He accepts the position that when the action was taken by the Discinlinory Autbor'tv the Metropolitan Magisrates Judgments was not before it, but, he produced that Judgment alongwith his appeal.
6, The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in his Judgment dated 12-9-1997. in paragraph-8.1 observed that prira^ facie the evidence goes to show that all the accused had common intention of com- mission of offence and by their presence and by their various acts it seems that they abetted each other to the commission of theft.
7. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after con- sidering the evidence on record at the end of the Judgment in paragraph-15 had observed that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 have no hand in the alleged incident. They must get benefit of doubt and in the result he acquitted them. The workman get acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.
8. The Tribunal by Part-I Award have come to the conclusions that the workman is guilty of Regu- lations Nos. 22 ( 2 ) ( b) and (c) ot the Bombay Port Trust Rules and Regulations for non-schedute staff, the Ciuuses (b) (c) aie material. They reads as follows :—
(b) Abetting, conniving at or attempting or committing of theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with Port Trust work or pro- perty;
(cj causing loss of or damage to Port Trust property or property in the custody or lying in the premises of the post trust.
9. The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate had come lo the conclusion that thfre was abettment for committing theft by the accused which includes the workman.
10. From the evidence it reveals that the vehicle of the port trust bearing RTO registration No. MAS 8537 was impounded by the Yellow Gate Police Inspector in the Police case and the vehicle was sub- sequently released on furnishing an indeminity bond of Rs. l' lakh by the administration. Those there was loss to the Port Trust property.
11. The workman was dismissed from the service by the order dated 16ih July, 1991 Looking to the charges proved which I have stated above I find that the dismissal from the service is very serious punish- ment. 7'he part of the punishment is to be modifi- ed. While reinstating in service he wil] not be en- titled to anv mcne1ar\ reJiefs from the date of the dismissal till his reinstatement. It can be seen that this period is about ten years and the money lost ivvUl be sufficient for teaching him a lesson that he should not indulge in such activities again. In the result I record my findings on the issues accordingly land pass the following order :—
ORDER
The action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in dismissing the workman Shri Ramkrishna Shivram Gadekar from the service i" not Justified.
The management is directed to reinstate him in sen ice in continuity.
The workman is not entitled to any monetary re- liefs from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement.
Dated : 30-3-2000.
S. B. PANSE, PreEiding Officer
S"63 New Demi, the 2.3rd May, 2001 S.O. 1306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of th" Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 194/), the Central Government hereby publishes the awaid of tliw Ceniral Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dxsput* between the employers in relation to the managcmenl of O.N.G.C. and tneir workman, wMch was received by ifac Central Government on 22-5-2001.
[No. L-30012J24I2000 IR(M.'|
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERN MEN > INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th May, 2001
PRESENT:
K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 57|200O
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10()])(d) and sub-section 2(A) of tht Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman Sri P. M. Bailasubramanian and the Management of ONGC, Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri P. M. Balasubramanian, S|o Marimuthu.
. . .. Workman [I Party
AND
The Regional Director, Cauvery Project, ONGC, Chennai.
2. The Deputy General Manager (P & A), ONGC Ltd., Niravi, Karaikal,
. . .. Management^! Party APPEARANCE :
For the Workman: M|s. R. Srinivas, Maithili Srinivas N. Sathish Babu, Advocates.
For the Management: Sri P. Arulmudi, Adv.
2664 tflfe GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAlSTHA 19, 1923 [VA^t H—SEC. 3{iO] REFERENCE:
Order No. L-30012|24|2000-IRUvi) tit. 18-8-2000, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 26-4-2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement, oral documen- tary evidence let in on either side and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of the cqimscl on cither side and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed, the Mowing :—
AWARD
This reference by the Centml Government in exer- cise oi the powers conferred by Clause (d) uf sub- section (1) and sub section 2(AJ of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of dispute between Sri P. M. Balasubramanian, Workman and the Regional Director, Cauvery Project, ONGC, Chernai, Management, mentioned as Schedule appen- ded to the order of reference.
The Schedule reads as follows ;—
"Whether the termination of Sri P. M. Bala- subramanian by ONGC, Neravy, Karaikal from employment is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is he entitled 7"
against him. The 2nd Respondent passed an order dated 13-12-95, refusing to accept the explanation and terminated the services of the Petitioner with effect from 7-12-95. The Petitioner was offered com- pensation and notice pay. The Petitioner had accepted the same without prejudice to his legal rights. When the Petitioner was working as Assistant in the Shop, Amutham Angadi at Ahnaivadapathi under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Coiporn'ion, Thiru\a:ur There was a theft of rice and sugar on 4-12-1988 and this was repotted lo the Sub-Inspector, Koradachen, who in turn filed a cu-.c No. 156(83 under section 457 and 380 of IPO. TIK1 caurge sheet in that case was made and the Petitioner was relieved from that shop, lhe Petitioner wus acquitted from the criminal case N.i. 185 7/89 duLed 27-11-1996 by the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. When the cat.e was registered in the year 1982. The Petitioner was selected by the 1st Respondent as term ba;>cd security supervisor in 1988. At that time, the Petitioner had not concealed any material fact. The Petitioner had not suppressed, any material facts to enter into public service. Various representation given by the Petitioner to the olTice of the 2nd Respondent yield no result. Then he filed a Writ Petition No. 12972J99 before the High Court of Madras, seeking for a direction to the Respondent to consider his representation dated 9-7-99. But the High Court peimitted hini to seek his remedies under Labour Unactrnents and allowed the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition to seek appropriate relief. Later the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the A&stt. Labour Commissioner, Central II, Clhennai, but the conciliation attempt by the authority ended in a failure. On the basis of the failure repoit, the Govt. has referred this matter as an industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
2. On receipt of this order of refeitM^ as an in- dustrial dispute for adjudication by tlie Government of India, Ministry of Labour, this case has been taken on file as T.D. No. 57|2OOO. Notices were ordered to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal and to file their respective claim with documents. On receipt of notices, both the parties appeared through their counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement with copies of documents in support of their stand. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, one witness, the workman himself has examined as WW1 and 7 documents wer; marked as Ex. Wl to W7. From the side of the Management, one witness has been examined as MW1 and 4 documents were marked as Ml to M4. After the evidence on either side was concluded, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on cither side were heard.
3. The facts of this industrial dispute are briefly
as follows :—
4. It is further rJleged in the Petitioner's Claim Statement tlhat the impugned order is contrary to the statutory orders of the Respondent, since th; Res- pondent have not conducted any enquiry, as required under law. The Respondent is an industrial establish- ment and as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, the Respondent huve not complied with the man- datory conditions prescribed under Fection 25N of the I.D. Act. The Respondent cannot punish the Petitioner for his past conduct and the Petitioner has not suppressed any material fact at the time of re- cruitment. Inasmuch as the Petitioner had been acquitted is the ground case no stigma can be attached for his conduct. The Petitioner had put in seven years of unblemished record of service and the punishment of removal is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. Hence, this Hon'bfe Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding the termination order of Petitioner's service dr. 13-12-95 is unlawful and illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with frill wages and continuity of service and aill oilher attendant benefits.
The I Party/Workman (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner") Shri P. M. Balasubramanian was employed as term based security supervisor on daily wages basis by the Respondent|Managemem. He wa-" employed by the Respondent in the Niravy Complex from 1-11-88 to 7-12-95. The Petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 16-10-95 by the Respondent! Management stating that his character ?-nd (us antece- dents were verified by the district notice authorities and 't was reported by them that hie is not suitable for Government service ond he was called upon to submit his explanation within ten days of the roreipt of that notice, failing which he would be removed from service of ONGC without anv further notice. The Petitioner submitted bis explamHon to the Management on 13-11-95 deiyinp the filiations
2665oi this Petitioner adoressed to them, has submitted ins enquiry ieport uaicol /6-4-iyyD. A xerox copy
Ox uic tMiiiio ij xix. Wi. iu uuu icuer nit, jJiau*u
criminal case, any arrest, any conviction, any deten- tion etc. in order that the Respondent would weigh his integrity and character tor employing him in their Corporation as a security personnel in the Security Department. Tlhe Petitioners records very clearly shows that he lacks the same which he regimes as one of the security personnel to the Respondent Corpo- ration. The Respondent Corporation shockingly knows about all the material particulars of t)he Petitioner only through verification report received from the Police authorities. After thoroughly going thiough and ascertaining bad antecedent of the Petitioner, parti- cularly about his criminal case regarding theft of* rice and sugar of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies, Corpoidtion at Tiruvarur, while he was working there, the Res- pondent lost confidence on him as a security super- visor. The PctiLionier has been given reasonable 'oppor- tunity to show cause as to why he should not be ter- minated from service by the Respondent foi his sup- pression and concealment of material particulars deli- berately and want only, when he was offered employ- ment in the Respondent Corporation. He was directed to furnish about the criminal case, if any. The Peti- tioner, in fact, lhad not utilised the cppcrfunily cfTcred to him and therefore, the Respondent have no othu option but to terminate him from the services of the Respondent Corporation, as committing theft of pro- perty of previous employer of the Petiticner is a very serious one, especially the said offence was committed by a person who had been employed by the Respon- dent Corporation as a security personnel. Non-em- ployment of the petitioner is justified and in fact, the same is his own making. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner deserves no sympnthy or mercy taking into consideration the material facts and peculiar circum- stances of the case. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute as the same is devoid of merits.
6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the Petitioner/Workman had examined himself FIS witness WW1 and 7 documents were marked on his side as Ex. W1 to W7. On the side of the Mana^emeni, Per- sonnel and Administrative Officer, ONGC has been examined as MW1 and exhibits M1 to M4 were mark- ed. On conclusion of evidence on either s'de, the counsel on either side have advanced their respective arguments.
7. The point for my consideration is : whether the termination of Sri P. M. Bdlasubramanian by the ONGC, Neravy, Karaikal from employment is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is he entitled ?
Aoo6 ILih, &AZL11E OF INDIA: JUNE 9, 2 U ) 1 /J lAISiiiA 1&, 1923 [PART II-—SEC. 3(ii)]
jtorrn tor ius cviueuce recoxuta as \ vWl in ihe Court, ne ilab ingin-u dS 1". ±V1. jDdldaUOldllldilian . ludji
Siiortb, aiib p~auiyi.vi in Hoi 41 iii~ iiduit ui bigiuiig aijce material paruculars only through venlication receivea ixuin me pouce auuiouiieb. wnen a question wab put to me reuuoner in me erobs examination oy trie j.itdjjouuti.i a wuuiiaci Uy bliOvviiig iiiiu me ungiiuu
tuways> wiui o ne nuucU i o. nis n a m e. JOUL boins-uines ducauuion iOim, wjrncn contains ru" pnoiogiapn, me
tii £u£,utu da j.vi. .DdidjUs.'l
tlllica, lie UaCU to Mgll db Jf. 1V1. JDalabUUidllldlildil . iStit aucatauuli lUilii tu U1C ivCajJUiiu^uijiviaua^L-iia^ut auu 11
dil uii,>t, a a i i u u cu ^^laLOics
UiJjJut^U SifeilatUXC, dVuiitiiOie ill i-A. iVii MlUV>b Uldl Uie in tne a|ue&iauon rorin. i he iwandgemeni witness one
bi^xiaiUiC JVJL. jjiaidauuiuiiiailiall iu JCA. ivil ULiwalauull jvir. ir'ai^iidbdiatny, Personnel & AuiiniiibiidUve umcer
luiiil ia a ai^iiatuie ui luc jreuuOiiCi. diuiie diiu l it Oiuy
i t t u . Ui a-vdiutuxe Wan me IVicUla^tillWit Hop Uopoa^U
luai tne anginal auesidtiuii loiiii auuiuuiea by me
• r c i u o u ei an r. i v i. j m d i a a u o i a i i i d i i i a ii is J Z A .. I V XI a mi
ill iiwi i u l lu dt p a ge HO. <+ 111 HCiii rNU. 1Z., uc lias £ivc
taiawei <*a i\O l ui ail lite v^aciica duu. WiiCil tlicy u & cu
iid^ bi^u^u it. r ur tile rcainjiib oebt KIJOWII IO IUIII, on iicio uepooeu heie in tne court as vvwi uidi me ongaidi auesiduon ioiiii coiiidiiib nis pnotogiapn was not buorrnueu oy hioi ana ne nat. not nucu up me COiUiiluo 111 uie 4tiC5idUOil iOiiil. X>Ut lie llao Jtdiny dii- lnitiea tnaft uie pnoiogiupn coniains in the ongnial auesiauon loriu ib ais paotogidpn. no it goes wnuout baying mat this auesiauon ioim Jbx. Ml was suomited 10 uie iveajjoiiaciitiividiidgiiiieiit oy me ir*enuouci mia-
beu by auoacubirig tne pdiucaidrb uicicin. isut me r e n-
uoiiut nas diieguu m nib cidim diaiemeni mat ne nad
ij.ot supres&ea ox coiicetuea any niatenai lacib, wnen. he
Wab beieeteu by the it>i nebponuent aa teim Dabeu be-
cunty bupcrvibor. ric iida diiegea in his ciaim ^taie-
mem tnat the caae against him was toially false, he had very good chance ol acquittal and it is not a case ot material suppression or any iacls to entei into puolic service. However, the Respondent has hied ilieir Counter Statement alleging that the Feationer v, as given attestation lorm io lurnisL about his past record pamcularly about any criminal case to weigh his integrity and character for employing him in the cor- poration as a security personnel in the security depart- ment and the Petitioner has deliberately a,nd with ulte- rior motives suppressed and concealed the material particulars about the criminal case. The Petitioner has not chosen to hie any reply statement denying the ajlegations stating that he has not submitted any attes- tation iorm as mentioned in the Countex Statement and thereby furnishing any particulars about his pre- vious conduct. In iix. Ml, Attestation Form in column No. 12(1) particulars about his previous in- volvement in cases particularly criminal cases have been asked and they wanted to give particulars ot such cases. In all these things, he has answered as 'nil'. But as per the report Ex. W2 and W3 judgement, it is seen that he has involved in a criminal case, that too a theft case when he was working as Stock Assistant in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. Further, he has also not stated dbout his previous emloyment as constable in Tamil Nadu Police and he has given a reason as to why he resigned his job as constable that his parents became ill. From all these things, it is seen ihat the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts about the antecedence, which was brought to light by an enquiry conducted by the* Police authorities of the District and submitted a report under Ex. W2. The allegation in the Counter Statement that the Res-
• pondent wanted to emoloy a person as security per- sonnel in the security department with integrity and character and the Petitioner's records very clearly show that he lacks the same, catnnot be considered as in- correct one. Only en the basis of character and antecedence of the Petitioner found to be adverse on enquiries made by the District Police Authorities Ex. W2 a report was given by the Police authorities to the Management, on their request, ai memo under Ex. Wl was given by the Management to the Petitioner to ieport about me "nteccuenes 01 me reiiuoncr, me Jr'oiicc uepauniem enquiieu aoout tne reliuuner and bent a repoiL aated zo-/-iO ana the xerox Cv,py 01 me same *& J^X, wz. in the cross> examination, me peti- tioner as WW1 nas stated mat iSae signature suobenoed at page JNo. 4 01 tne attestation tonn in trie column 'signature of the candidate' is not his signature, it is iUb evidence thait he put his signature in the criminal case proceedings as *M. iiaiasubramanian' and he signed so, iili the disposal ol the criminal case. In hx. Ml attestation lor at Page No. 4 in the column ^signature of the candidate', the .signature in English is available as 'M. Balasubramanian, when this signa- ture is put to this witness, WW1, the petitioner herein, he deposed that it is not his signature. It was dated 26-10-1993. The learned conusel for the Respondent v.hile cross examining this WW1 has shown a leave letter dated 21-8-1993 to the Petitioner and asked about the leave letter and signature contained therein. The Petitioner had admitted that it is a leave letter dated 21-8-93, he has given for one day's leave he applied and! the signature in English as 'Balasubramanian' in that leave letter with date 21-8-93 is his signature. When a suggestion was put to him during the cross examination by the counsel for the Respodent that the signature in the attestation form and his admitted sig- nature in the leave letter MEX are one and the same, he denied the suggestion as incorrect. The learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Petitioner about his signature available in his vakalat. Claim Statement and the leave letter MEX and has stated that except the initial 'P' hia signature in all these documents are similar to the signature in the attesta- tion form. The Petitioner has denied that sugges- tion also. While examining MW1, the Respondent | Management has marked leave letters given by the Petitioner Balasubramanian seeking leave for certain days. Xerox copies of the .e leave letters are Ex. M2 and M4 series (7). In all these documents^ he has signed as 'M. Balasubramanian' and below that he has mentioned as 'P.| M. Balasubramanian'. All these signatures resemble that of signature available in the attestation form Ex. Ml. So for the reasons best knowntothe Petitioner he has denied his signature under Ex. Ml attestation form. He has also filed one LA. 2912000, a petition seeking direction from this Court to the Respondent to produce original docu- ments and ajlong with that petition, the Petitioner has filed an affidavit. In that affidavit, this Petitioner has put his signature as 'M. Balasubramanian'. Those sitjnato"" ajlso resermble the signature available in Ex. Ml as 'M. Balasubramanian'. In the deposition2667 Documents Marked:
For I PartylWorkman:
Ex. No. Date Description
Wl 16-10-95—Xerox copy of Show Cause
Notice.
W2 26-07-95--Xerox copy cf S. P. Repdrt to ONGC regarding the Petitioner's character.
W3 27-11-96—Original copy of Judgement in
CC No. 1857|89.
W4 13-12-95— Xerox copy of Termination Order.
W5 09-01-97- Xerox copy of Petitioner's re- presentation on with enclosures to the Man- agement.
W6 02-06 99— Xerox copy of Petitioner's repie- sentatun with enclosures to the management.
W7 06-09--99—Xerox cdpy of Order in WP
no. 12972199.
For II Party [Management:
Ex. No. Date Description
Ml 26-NV-93—Original Attestation Form of
Shri P. M.. Balasubramanian.
M2 05-06 92—-Xerox copv of the representation
from Shri P. M. Balasubrimanian.
M3 24-10-94—Copv of the memorandum from
the Security Officer.
M4 Series—Management Exhibits.
M4 „ (I)—01-11-93—Letter from the peti-
tioner to the Management.
M4 „ (2)—11-11-93 —do—
M4 „ (3")—04-11-93 —do—
M4 „ (4)—10-10-94 —do—
M4 „ (5)— 21-10-94 — do—
M4 Series (6)—29-04-95—Letter from the Peti-
tiaoner to the Management.
M4 Series ( 7 )— 3 J-05-95—Lette- from the Peti-
tioner to the Management.
2668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II-~~SBC. ?(ii)j as shown in the Anutxuie in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Eastern Naval Command and their workman, which was received b\ the Central Government on 15-5-2001.
[No. L-14025|5|2001-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM
PRESENT :
Sri K. Veeiapu Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., Chairman & Presiding Officer.
Daicd : 19th day of March, 2001
I.T.I.D. No. (C) 21|99
Petition filed under section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act BETWEEN
Ravada Trinadha Rao, D. No. 42-2-12, Gangaiiiia Nagar, Kancbdfapalcm, Visakti3patnam-8. .. Workman. AND
(1) The Chief Staff Officer (P&A), Eisiern Naval Command, Naval Base, Vsukhapatnam. (2) The Commanding Officer, Eastern Naval Command, INS CircarvNaval Base, Visakhapatnam.
. . Management.
This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. V. Rao, authorised re- presentative fcr workman and the Government Pleader for management. Upon hearing the argu- ments of both sides and on perusing the entire mrteriul on record, the Court passed the follow- ing :
AWARD
2669While so, it is the case of the management that they sixe used to be one automan for the Rus^ans who Used to stay in the Naval Hostel. However, ihe re- quirement 01 the auto ceased to exist, the pet'tioucr v|->> disengaged and the sei vices were discontinued a^itl later the auto was. sold to the petitioner. I hc nfanagement also lilcd Ex. Ml dated 4-11-86 issued bV the Chid Staff Oiliccr (P&A) LO the Commanding Officer, INS Ciicai's which show:, the non-public fund accounts is to be jointly operated by CO, INS Cirairs and Stall Oilicer," (Soviet Establishment), Ex. M2 is the undertaking certificate given by the petitioner for the icpairs etc. to 1,'ie auto. Ex. M3 is the no due certificate given by the workman, Ex. M4 is the form 29 of notice of transfer of ownership or vehicle No. ADH 8938 in the year 1996 tu L-C petitioner. Ex. M5 is also the transfer foim of the auto to the peti- tioner. Ex. M6 is extract it' one page iri cash book showing the petitioner was paid Rs. 1162 towards the salary for the month of July, 1994, Ex. M7 is the payment voucher of the workman w.Ji I L ^ UJ to tlie purchase of auto bearing No. ADH 8936 aL the cost of Rs. 8,000. Ex. \V1 is entry pa.s of the workman, Ex W2 is the no objection certificate i-^ued by Sub- Lieutenant (SDCA), Officcr-in-Chargj with regard to the sale of the Auto No. 8936 to the pc'uioncr at the price of Rs. 8000 and Ex, \V3 is Ihe driving licence of the workman.
(8) Thus, the material and the evidence of these facts are not very much in dispute. The only thing iing any retrenchment compensation, ewn though he served continuously for more than 5 years.
(9) The learned counsel appearing for the man- agement contends that the petitioner is n JI sponsored by the cnipioym^nt exchange nor he was appointed. in any regular post and that there .is no Auto Drivers rJost so as to continue the petitioner in service and the services of the petitioner are no longer required. The, management examined MVV1 Dr. Naval HofAel who deposed that he war- entrusted with the NJVJ! I In ad Up keep fund and the fund winch is entrusted to him is non-public fund and the same is provided to them Bind the corresponding accounts maintained by him Will be internally audited and there will not be any public auditing. There are 13 employees working in the hostel and they are all Got;inmcnt Employees and they are also having 2 civiilian bearers working in the hostel on part time basis as well as require- ment basis, whenever they require the extra services Ihey used to engage ^somc part time employees and he has to obtain prior permission from co-nmandina cjfficer and such a rule is there enabling or authoris- ing him to do so and their WUQ-S also paid from the non-public fund and the hostel pr:mi*es beings to Government and it is beine maintained by_ Mili- tary engineering services. He also depos. J in the dross-examination that the Navv Hostel is under the Administrative control of the commanding officers of TN5 Circar and the petitioner was appointed as nn 1606 QH200I—IS.
auto driver by the officer in charge trom non-public fund and he is giving this inftnmation after verifying the non-public fund cash account. He admitted that he is not producing any material to show that auto wa, purchased with the funds of Navy Wife's Asso- ciation Fund, He also admitted that the accounts are maintained by the officers of the Navy by themselves, (10) The Administrative Qffice-IJ Eastern Naval Command is examined as MW2, who deposed that the Eastern Naval Command has nothing to do with the Naval Wife's Welfare Association. The Naval Wife's Welfare Association Fund is being contribu- ted by members of the ' association and this ha,s no relevance to ths Eastern Naval Command. Ex. MB is the authorisation letter to represent the Chief Ad- ministrative Officer, Senior Staff Officer-(CP) and lie is not representing the Naval Wife's Welfare Associa- tion, He denied a suggestion put to him that Eastern Naval Command is maintaining the funds of the Naval Wife's1 Association. He deposed that he does not know whether TNS Circar is maintaining the funds of the Naval Wife's Welfare Association, Visakhapatnam. He also stated ttiat he does not know ns to how many employees arc there in that association and who is maintaining the non-public fund of the association, Eastern Naval Command. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses show that the pe.itioner wes appointed as an r>uto driver maintained by the hostel n;iy be for thr transportation of the Russian personnel.
(Mi It is the case of the management that no uppi.ntment order was given to rtic petitioner where- as the case of the workman in his claim statement that he was appointed through an appointment letter but he did not file the written appointment order. What- ever it may be, there is no written appointment order.. In the absence of which whatever version piven by the workman that he was appointed as an auto dri- ver and there is no contra material to show that the petitioner was appointed particularly for a specific purpose and for a particular period. In the absence of .which the appointment of tfhis' petitioner cannot be said that it is a co-terminus with that of the re- quirement by the management nor in any specific peiiod and it cannot 'also be accepted that ths appointment of the petitioner was only on need basis and as and when required.
0 2) Further, it is also the evidence of MW3 a "bearer in Naval Hor.iel that in "the year 1996 the ser- vices of auto lifted prior to that some of the Russians used to stay in the hostr.1 and further the hoste] is running 1 autos find the petitioner worked as auto driver for 5 to 6 years and auto was sold to the petitioner, later the services of the petitioner was terminated. In the cross-examination he stated that his ienices were regularised. He also belongs to the petitioner's union. The people who hove worked in the year 1991 in the hostel were regularised and one U. Appahi Paju and B. Raja Reddy are also bus driers nnd their services are regularised as per the orders of the Central Administrative Trihtmal. The petitioners, in ITID Nos. 16|99 and 2l!99 and him- self arc being paid same pav by the officer of the Eastern Naval Command. He denied a suggestion put to him that because some otfier employees like ?670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, ?001/ JYAISTHA 19. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(a)] the petitioner 'have approached the CcT.tr;;! Adminis- trative Tribunal for regulari .ation of their services and hence the services of the petitioners were ter- minated.
(13) Thus, here this is a case where the peti- tioner worked continuously for a, peiiod of 7 vears and odd as an auto driver in the Naval Hostel being maintained by the INS Circar, which forms an integral part of the Eaitsrn Navi'l Command. It is also admitted by the workman that (he services cf the petitioner was disengaged as the au'o was sold to him and his services were no longer required. But in view of the evidence spoken by MW3 tfnat the hos- tel is still tunning two atitus and that snuc of the drivers who worked along with th^ petitioner were regularised. Therefore, the termination of tl-e ser- vices of the petitioner without issuing any notice nor paying any retrenchment compensation which cer- tainly violates the provisions under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the termination of the peti- tioner is liable to be set aside. E\en otherwise, the reason for discharging the services of the petitioner is only the absence of work cr (his services no longer required, but there is no material placed by the management th'at there is no work for the petitioner nor his services are no longer required as the auto was sold to the petitioner, that is why, he is disen- gaged wihile they are i-unninj? two other autes. Even if the auto was sold to the petti io-ier the workman cannot be thrown out of the job without following the statutory requirement as provided under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Hence in this case-, admittedly no notice of retrenchment was "Wen f'ir fmy le- trenchment compensation was paid to the workman. Therefor*, the termination of the petitioner is n<>ainst the statutory provisions under Section 25F of the I.D. Act and also the principle, of natural jus- tice. Therefore, the removal ol the petitioner is arbitrary a^d liable to be s;t aside.
(\ 4) Of course, there is a delay of about 3 years in Ilrs '•afe in pppioaching this Tribunal after the ter- r.iinrifica cf the workman but that bv itself is not a rro^cJ to reject the relief for which the petitioner is entity and at the most the relief car be granted bv refusing the back wages and directing the payment of back *va?e" n.s laid down in the Supreme Court deci- ,;qrt TCnO;te.1 in ATP. 1999 (SC) 135! between Ajaib S"""h Vs. The Sirihind Ob-operaihe Marketing cum Fv~cesrir>R Service Society Lid. and Ar"r. The work- man's representative also cited another decision for the vim; uronosition reoorted in 2000(84) FLR 20 SC between Gurniail Sinph Vs. Principal. Govern- rnpn* r*H!;g3 of 'Eclucat;nn and Others. Wherein it >•• heM tha< the ^prm'riation of service took place in • he v e ar 1n8l T H1 f l he d i s r > u ie ™ f is r a i s ed in t he v e nr 1QRO T^fir T.orrkbins wen- pleased to hold that notwitfisf.Tndinp th" delav, 'he dispute would still rntif'tuie for aliud'ction, however he would be dep- r:-"cd of back w?pc ior purled cf de!t>y.
(15) Tire workman's reon^rmaiive Sri S. V. Rao.
Rao, 7\hn cors^nds lint the Indian Navpl Hostel is _ n'"o ?n Jndustrv and tha* the petitioner is a work- i p v i ' il (Ue Tribune] is competent to dispose of the i*i:k>-T:M] d;-pite V-^'wcer the workman and the res- oendcrt. In support of his contention, be placed reliance on a dc'sion cf Bonbnv High Court repor- ted in 1986(11) LLJ 154 between Indian Navy- sailors' Home Vs. Bombay Gymkhana Club Cate- rers and Allied Employees' Union and another wherein it is held under Sec. 2(a) (1), 2(j), 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 that the Indian Navy Sailoif' Home \is an industry within the meaning cf Sue 2fj) of the I.D. Act.
(16) As rightly contended by the representative- for workman that the Indian Navy Hostel is being maintained by the INS Ci^car which is a form of an integral part of Eastern Naval Command which cer- tainly is an industry and the petitioner is a workman in the said industry. The delay in approaching this court would naturally deprive a part of full back wages. Therefore, in the ligbt of my aforesaid dic- cussion, I hold that the lenninstion of the workman in this case h illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence both points 1 and 2 are accord- ingly answered in favour of the petitioner'workman and against the respondentlrnanagement
(17) Point No. 3 : In the result the petition is allowed and an award is passed directing the respon- dents 1 and 2 to reinstate the workman forthwith with 50% of back wages, and continuity of service. However, there is no ord:r as to co"ts and each party is directed to bear its own costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed b/ her p.iven under my hand and seal of the court this [he 19th da^ of March, 2001.
SRI K YEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :
WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR WORKMAN: FOR MANAGEMENT:
WW1 : Neelapu Kanaka MWl : Kailash Chandra Bohr a Rao
WW2 : R. Trinadha Rao MW2 : V. S. Tripati
MW3: K. Vcnkala Sastry DOCUMENTS MARKED:
FOR WORKMAN:
Ex. Wl : Entry pass of workman.
Ex. W2 : 27-2-96: No objection certificate by management.
Ex. W3 : Form of driving licence.
FOR MANAGEMENT:
Ex. Ml: 4-11-86: Office order by management.
Ex. M2 : Certificate issued by workman reg. responsible for repairs of auto.
Ex. M3 : No dues certificate to workman by management reg. Auto.
Ex. M4: Form of notice of transfer of owner- ship of auto in tine narre of petitioner. Ex. M5 : Undertaking certificate given by -workman for the repairs of Auto, Ex. M6 : Xerox copy of cash bill for the month of July, 1994.
Ex. M7 : Receipt for Rs. 8000J- towards the cost of auto-rickshaw.
Ex. M8 : Form 'F' auto of management.
New Delhi the 15th May, 2001 S.O. 130^.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the In- dustrial Tribunal Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Eastern Naval Command and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 15-5-2001.
[No. L-14025/4/2001-1RCDU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT V1SAKHAFATNAM PRESENT :
Sri K, Vcerapu Naidu, B.Sc , B.L., Chairman & Presiding Ufficer.
Daitcd : 19th day of March, 2001 I.T.I.D. (C)53|99
Petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act.
BETWEEN:
Saragadam Ramaknshna, D. No. 35-1-83, Opp : Shirdisaibaba Tample, Gavarakanchatrapalom, Visakhapatnam-530008.
. .Workman.
AND
The Commanding Officer, Eastern Naval Command, INS Circar, Nafval Base, Visakhapatnam..
. .Management.
26*1 arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire, material on record, the court passed the following:
AWARD
(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, iy47 for reinstatement with back wages arid continuity of service.
(2) The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as casual labour from 2nd April, 1976 to October, 1982 by the Base Victualling Officer] Commander of INS Circars for loading and unloading of Railway Wagons, delivery of rations!stores in IN Ships and collection of Stores from Railway Stations and he was fssued a service certificate from 2-4-76 to S-3-79. Thereafter also he worked upto October, 1982 He got a heavy vehicle driving licence. He was selected as ap auto driver and appointed on 16-3-87 through un appointment order. I here are dosone of auto drivers whd are appointed earlier, to him and subsequently also and some of them have been re- gularised on the directions of the High Court . and became permanent. The management became core of the workmen going courts of law. So the manage- ment issued the removal orders dated 13-9-91 to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-9-91 wherein it is also stated as following:
"You are requested to give yotir present address, For you may be recalled, if necessary".
The petitioner was not paid any statutory terminal benefits nor compensation in accordance with law. The management did n.ot follow the seniority. He made several written appeals to the management from 1992, 1993 and 1994. The management did not call him so he lost all int. work and Iience he filed this application.
(3) On the other hand, the management stated in its counter that the services of the petitioner as auto driver was taken out of the non-public fund of INS Circar. He was not appointed by any organisation and his services were engaged by the Non-public "trans- port Fund of Eastern Naval Command as a labour on casual basis. The Non-public fund is nothing to do with the Eastern Naval Command or the Public Fund1 of Indian Navy or the Government The employees are engaged on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion of work and so their services are termi- nated end there is no further need for his services since the auto was sold. Further the non-public trans- port fund is controlled by the Comanding Officer, INS Circars who authorised the operation officer to termi- nate the services of the petitioner on completion of his tenure. The Eastern Naval Command has nothing to do with the petitioner's appointment or reinstate- ment in Indian Navy as he was never appointed on regular basis filing the basic formalities of appointment into Tndian Navy which itself clarities that the Indian Navy has nothing to do with the appointment of the petitioner. The past service of the petitioner as casual labour has no relevance to his auto driver post. The requirement of auto was ceased and therefore, the petitioner was informed "about Ihc discontinuation. Instead nf waiting for a c;iH, the petitioner would have, tried for regular post to suit adVantaee through Ilie employment exchancc and the management is no way responsible. There is a delay
(4) On behalf of the workman two witnesses WVV1 and WW2 are examined and bxs. Wl to W3 aic marked- On behalf of the management MWs 1 and 2 are examined and no documents are marked.
(5) Heard both sides.
(6) The points that arise for consideration m this case are :
(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for rein- statement with back wages and continuity of service as prayed for ?
(2) To what relief the workman is entitled?
(7) The Representative appealing for the work- man contends that the petitioner worked as casual labour from April, 1976 to October, 1982 and his tervices were stopped without paying any terminal benefits and later he was reappointcd on I Oth March, 1987 as driver and worked till September, 19W at INS Circar. Ex. W2 is the appointment orders as auto driver and his services were abruptly terminated on 13th September, 1991 under Ex. W3 and his termi- nation, is illegal and by then he was paid Rs. 400 per month and he was also given an Identity card under Ex. W4. Subsequently he made representation!) ot reinstatement but in vain and no notice of retrenchment was given nor retrenchment compensaton was paid nnd as such, it is a clear violation of Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act.
(8) On the other hand, the learned Counsel ap- pearing lor the management contends that the ser- vices of casual labour have nothing to do with the post of Auto Driver of Ihe petitioner and to auto wtib purchased oui of non-public iund and the non-pubhc fund is nothing but the funds laised by the Naval employees tor better services and there is iot oi dirter- ence between the Non-public Fund and the Naval Fund which is of the Central Government Organisa- tion. The petitioner was not appointed through the employment e:\change. His services were not re- quired after 1st September 1991 and the Eastern Naval Command has nothing to do with the termination of the petitioner and as such, no reinstatement can be prdcred nor any back wages couM be paid.
(9) No doubt, MWl stated the said ease. He also admitted that after the termination, of the petitioner, they appointed some other drivers through employ- ment exchange on regular selection process and no one can be employed with the non-public fund on perman- nent basic and any such employment would only be on casual basis for a limited period.
(10) Ex. W2 is the xerox copy of the appointment order wherein it is stated that the petitioner is ar>- pointed as Circars Non-public Transport Auto Driver w.e.f. I6-3-S7 for a period of 3 months which may be pxtended if found suitable. The management did not file any orders extending the period of the appoint- ment of the petitioner. Hovi.evcr, Ex. \V3 is dated 13-9-91, the management iciminatcd the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1-9-91 as the 3s>tablishment will not be required and the authority has decided to rell the auto which the workman he^c been driving and the •worltman is lequested to give his pnscnt address.
as he will be called if necessary. Admittedly, there is no xunher commmcation to the workman. Ihus, here tins is a case, where the tA-titioner was appointed as Auto Driver ol Non-public Transport Fund, but hii services were abruptly teirninated by virtue of Ex. W3 order. No doubt, the management claims that the appointment made under Ex.W3 is only out or non-puDjie lund and it is not on permanent basis and it is only lor a limited period. MWl admitted in his cross-examination with regard to the service certificate Ex.. Wl issued by Base Victualling Officer showing that the petitioner workman worked as casual labour from 2-4-76 to 8-3-79. Victualling Officer for the collection of stores and issue of rations to naval employees. The office of Victualling Officer is still existing in Naval Command, Victualling Office is still receiving stores and distributing stores and Civihap employees are also there for distribu- tion of the Rations.
(11) MWl admitted that the appointment order Ex. W2 and also Ex. W3 termination order and also Ex. W4, the temporary gate pass given to the peti- tioner to enter the premises. He pleaded thait he does not know if any, notice is given to the employee workman at the time of termination of service nor any retrenchment compensations were paid to the peti- tioner. He also admitted that still they are having employees like petitoner under Non- public Fund. He also admitted that he did not hnd any record to show that the autos are no longer in existence under INS Circars. The management also examined the present admi- n strative officer-II to speak as to the difference bet- ween Public Fund and Non-public transport fund. He also said that he did not verify any records re- lating to the workman as there is no record maintained b\ Eastern Naval Command. No record is filed relating to the non-public transport fund. '
(12) Thus, here this is a case where the peti- tioner was appointed as Auto Driver in the year 1,987 and continued till 1991 and his services were termi- nated by virtue of Ex. W3 fts the establishment is closed. But the management witnesses admitted that still the non-publie tiansport fund is in existence and the employees like the petitioner arc still working in the non-public fund. MWl also categorically ad- muted that he did not produce any records relating to the workman as theie is no record maintained by the Eastern Naval Command. No record is filed rc-1 aiting to the non-public Transport Fund. Further the evidcn.ee adduced in this case establishes that the petitioner also "worked as casual labour from 2-4-76 to 8-3-79 and Ihc evidence of WW2 also that he conti- nued to woik as buch till October, 1982 and agnin he was reappoin'ed on 18th March. 1987 as driver. Thus, the services of This workman are being taken as Casual labour for the period from 1976 to 1982 and laiter as auto driver from March. 1987 to 2nd Sept.. 1991 and thereafter the services were termina- ted on the around that the ctablishment is closed. But the evidence of MWl is clearly establishes that the non-public transport fund is in existence and the Civil Pmoloyecj h'ke the petitioner are still conti- nuing in service
(13) Admittcdlv, here in this case no notice of termination is eiven or any cooperation was pfvd which amounts to violation of Sec 25F of the T.D,2673 Act. Hence I answer the point in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
(14) In the result, the petition is allowed and an award is passed directing the respondent to reinstate the workman with back wages and continuity of service. However, there is no order as to costs and each party is directed to bear its own costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 19th day of March, 2001.
SRI K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN : FOR MANAGEMENT:
WWl : Noolapu Kanaka Rao MW1 : Lt Coramandor Satish Kumar. WW2 : S. Ramakrisbna. MW2 : V. S. Tripathi.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR WORKMAN:
Ex. Wl : Service Certificate to
Ex. W2 : 18-3-87—Appointment order.
Ex. W3 : 13-9-91—Termination order.
Ex. W4 : —Entry pass.
Ex. W5 : 7-8-93—Representation of workman Reg. job.
Ex. W6 ; -—Application of workman for the post of M.T. Driver.
Ex. M7 : —Postal acknowledgements.
Ex. W8 : —Postal acknowledgement.
FOR MANAGEMENT : Nil.
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001 S.O. 1309.—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, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D/o Post ujJ1 t'icir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-5-2001,
[No. L-40012j99]98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxcna, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. CGIT : 138/2000 Employers in relation to the management of The Chief Post Master General The Post Master General The Si\ Supdt. of Post Offices
AND
Their workman Shri Abhay Manikrao Pantawane
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order no. L-400J2| 99|98]1R(DU) Dated 26-4-99 on following schedule.
SCHEDULE
'Whether the action of the management through its Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai, (2) Post Master General, Nagpur and (3) Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagpur over the issue of illegal ter- mination] removal of service of Sh. Abhay Manikrao Pantawane without giving com- passionate appointment is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?"
Sh. Abhay Manikrao Pantawane had submitted his statement of claim in C.G.I.T. Court no. 2 at Mumbai en 7-6-99. This reference was received by transfer in this court in June 2000. The workman has claimed that he was given employment on daily wages basis to the post of postman w.e.f. 28-3-94 on compassio- nate ground after the death of his father. He was given two months training and he was continued up to October 94 in the service. From 1-11-94 his ser- vice was terminated.
U is admitted by both the parties that Sh. Manikrao Sadashivrao Pantawane was working in the Post Office at Nagpur. He had heart attack on 27-10-85 and he died in hospital on 11-11-85.
The workman has stated that at the time of death of his father he was only fourteen year old. His two sisters and mother were in his family. His elder bro- ther was married and was living separate.
His elder sister Vandna Manikrao Pantawane was major and she was eligible candidate for appointment. ITierefore his mother Smt. Anusuya Pantawane made 2674 Ttjfe GAZETTE OF IND±A: JtJNfi 0, 2001/ JYAlStHA*T9, 1923 tPAfcT It—SEC. T(iij} representatioQ that her daughter Vandana Pantawanc be appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her father.
The representation for appointment to Vandana Pantawane remained pcuding with the Post Master General up to 20-9-90. Vandana Pantawane was married and on 20-9-90 she informed the department concerned that her application for appointment on compassionate ground be cancelled and the name of her brother Sh. Abhay Manikrao Pantawane be con- sidered for appointment in her place. Vide letter dated 10-1-92 Exhibit W-5, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagpur City informed Vandana that as she is not interested in the job due to her marriage, her case for appointment on compassionate ground is closed. Her application cannot be considered in favour of her brother Sh. Abhay. This paper is mar- iced as Exhibit W-l, during the cross examination of Vandana on 24-1-01.
The workman has claimed that he was appointed on compassionate ground on 28-3-94 and his ter- minaition is illegal. He therefore should be reinstated.
The management of the Chief Post Masier General contested the claim on the ground that Sh. Abhay Manikrao Pantawane was given employment on 28-3-94. He was not kept under training for two months. The Chief Post Master General, Mumbai on 13-11-92 has rejected the application of the work- mnn for his appointed on compassionate ground. The decision was intimated to the workman vide office letter dt. 27-09-94. The workman was not appoin- ted on any regular post .He was employed in leave vacancy of a regular workman. Hence he desconti- nued to work when the regular employee returned on duty w.c.f. 1-11-94. He was not terminated as he was not working on regular basis and is not entitled to any relief.
The statement of Shri Abhay was recorded in this court on 24-1-2001. From the side of management Ms. Swati Roy, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Nagpur City was examined by the counsel for the workman, she was cross examined on 31-3-2001.
I have heard the arguments of counsel for both Lhfc parties and have considered their written arguments.
Shri K. N. Sen, Counsel for the workman Sh. AK.jy M. Pantawane argued that the management has n-it submitted any appointment letter or any letter of ier- mination. He argued thai Abhay M. Pantawane v.as appointed on compassionate ground after the deuih of his father w.c.f. 28-3-94, hence his termination is illegal and he should be reinstated.
The counsel for management argued that the work- man was not appointed on any regular post. He was not appointed on compassionate ground. The appli- cation for appointment on compassionate ground was moved by the elder sister of workman Abhay. She herself withdrew the application, hence she had lost the case for appointment on compassionate ground. The workman was not terminated. He was appointed in the leave vacancy of a regular employee. His ser- vices came to an end on 31-10-94 when the regular employee joined his duty.
1 have considered the arguments of both the parties and the documents filed by them. It is admitted by boih the parties that Shri Manilrao Sadasivrao Panta- wane was working in Itwari Post Oflice. He died on 11-11-85. Shri Abhay M. Pantawane did not apply for the appointment on compassionate ground aitcr the death of his father because he was omy fourteen years old. It is therefore clear that Abhay M, Pantawanc had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time when his father died on 11-11-85. He was diercfore not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground when his father died.
llic statement of Abhay M. Pantawane dated 24th January, 2001 also shows that Jiis sister Vandana had moved an application in 1986 for appointment because his age was fouiteen in 1986 and he wan minor. In 1990 Vandana wit.hdi.-ew her application for appointment and requested that the appointment, be given to her brother Abhay in her place.
In the above circumstances Vandana; who had ap- plied for appointment on compassionate ground, lost her claim for appointment when she withdrew her application for appointment in 1990. Vandana had no right substitute any other person of her family for appointment in her place. In these circumstances her application that her brother be appointed in her place was rightly rejected by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vide order dated 10-1-92-
If the workman was appointed for a short period in any leave vacancy of another employee, he cannot claim for regularisation of his service or for rein- statement. The letter dated 27-9-94 of Senior Supdt. of Post Offices also shows that the first son of the deceased was already in service when Shri Manilrao S. Pantawane died on 11-11-85. The application for the appointment of Abhay M. Pantawane was there- fore rejected for appointment on compassionate ground.
It is therefore clear that workman Shri Abhay Ivi. Paula wane was not appointed by the Post Master General on the drain of his father on compassionate ground.
In Umesh K. Nagp-1 Vs. State of Haryana and Others 1994, Supreme Gpurt Cases, Page 138, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Compassionate Employment can not bj granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. 1 he consideration for such emplQymem is not a vcs.iod right vv hich can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of soLe bread earner. The compassionate employment cannot be claim- ed and offered whenever the lapse of time after the crisis is over."
In S. Mohan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another 1998(9)', Supreme Court Cases, Page 485 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"Such a scheme cannot at all be conceived il some other dependent of deceased is already in service. The very purpose for which such2675 scheme had been evolved would get frus- trated if a. claim on priority basis is made by a dependent of the deceased not with standing the fact that the other dependent of thu deceased is already in service." In Steel Authority of India and Another Vs. AvdJu^h Singh imd Others 2000 (1), Labour Law Journal, page 163, the Supreme Court has again ex- pressed the same view that if a member of family is already in service than the other dependent after a lapse of time cannot claim appointment on compas- sionate ground.
In Satpal and Haryana Electricity Board and Olhers ]99H, Labour Law Journal, Vol. H, Page 123, it is held :
"Compassionate Appointment cannot be granted after a long time. Compassionate Appoint- ment is not a vested right which can be ex- ercised, at any time. It is inended to provide immediate relief to the family on the death of the earning member and cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period." In the present case Abhay M. PanJawarii.' was foui- tOen years old when his father died on 1 1-1I-K5. He Was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground at the tirnc (if death of his ftlthcr. He therefore cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground.
He was not appointed on any clear vacancy by adopting the prescribed procedure for appointment ofi 28-3-94, hence his removal from the service on 31-10-94 was justified. Hs is not entitled to any other relief claimed by him.,
ORDER
The action of the management through his Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai, (2) Chief Post Master General, Nagpur Circle and (3) Sr. Suodt. of Post Offices, Nagpur in removing Shri Abhay M. Pantawane from service on 31-10-94 was legal and justified. The workman was not entitled to1 any appointment on compassionate ground. He is not entitled to any other relief.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dated : 12-4-2001.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding OfTiccr New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001 S.O. 1310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal \ Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annex- ure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cantt. Executive Officer, Cantt. Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-5-2001.
[No. L-1301l!l|99-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI VTDYASAGAR L. KAMBI.E, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE REFERENCE (IT) NO. 37 OF 1999 Reference (IT) No. 37 of 199
Adjudication
BETWEEN
• The Cantonment Executive Officer. Pune.
AND
The workmen employed under them.
]'i the matter of regulariisation of services of workmen.
APPEARANCES :
Shri Achyut N, Kulkarni for the First ' Party.
Shri P. V. Sathayc for the Second Pcrty.
AWARD
(Date : 17-4-2001)
This reference is referred by the Ccn'.rai Government in exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section CD an.! r.ub-section 2f A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the dispute between the Cantonment Executive Officer, Pune and the workmen employed under them, over the demand mentioned in the Schedule .appended to the order of refe- rence. The demand referred to this Tribunal for adjudication reads as under :—'
"Whether the action of the management of Cantt, Executive Officer, Cfmtt. Board, Pune, in not regularising 2676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JUNE 9, 2091 / JYAUTTHA 19. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3"
2. After the receipt of the order of re- ference, statutory notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the General Secretary of Pune Cantonment Karmachari Sangh representing the second party workmen, filed statement of claim at Ex. U-3 justifying the demand, and the first party management filed its written statement at Ex. C-3 opposing the demand, along with some documents. Thereafter, issue were framed bv this Tribunal and the matter was adjourned for evidence of the second party workmen.
3. On 10-4-2001, when the matter was fixed for evidence of the second party work- men, the General Secretary of the second parly union . filed a purshis at Ex. U-15, stat- ing therein that despite several vorbal mecs?ges to the persons involved in the present re- ference, no one has turned up and it is not known whether they have secured job oUe- wher:. Tn these circumstances, the General Secretary of the union is unable to proceed in the matter. It is, therefore, prayed that the present reference be treated as closed by th." union. The learned Advocate appearing for t'xc first party management has given his no objection.
•1. In view of this, it appears that the second r> r<" workmen are not interested in this re- l 'i^noc. Hence, I am constrained to dispose of rhis inference in negative, as the workmen h > >: f iited to prosecute it further. Hence. fV rynotice is answered in the negative and r>ie demand made by the second party work- i \ ii in this reference cannot be granted, in \ >v of the purshis filed by the General Scc- r^nrv of the secopJ partv union at Ex. U-15. HfiK'3 th reference stands rejected.
PUNE
17-4-2001.
VIDYASAGAR KAMBLE,
Industrial Tribunal New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001 S.O. 1311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D/o Telecom and their workman, which was received by ihc Central Government on 17-5-2001.
[No. L-40012/199/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/208/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/211/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/212/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/213/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/214/95-IR(DV), No, L-40012/2J6/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/12/96-IR(DU), No L-40012/5/96-IR(DU)t No. L-40012/3/96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/10/96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/ll/96-IR(DU), No. L^Q012/9/96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/6/96-IR(DU), No. L-4OOJ2/7796-IR(DU), No. L-400l2/4/96-lR(DU), No. L-40012/16/96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/15/96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/14/96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/13/96-IR(DU). No. L-40012/17y'96-IR(DU), No. L-40012/8/96-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. TAMIL NADU, CHLi^NAI
Wednesday, the 28th day of February, 2001 PRESENT :
Thiru S. R. Singiiaravelu, B.Se., B.L., IuJustriul Tribunal.
Industrial Dispute Nos. 48|97, and 50|97, 53 97 to, 57|97, 42|98 to 5O|98, 52(98 to 56|98 and 68 98 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l)fd) of the Industrial Disputes Act, J947 between the Workmen and the Management of Department of Telecommunicaions, Thanjavur).
In I.D. No. 48 of 1997
BETWEEN
Shri V. Rajendran, S/o Shri G. Vcnkadachala Thevar, 74, Nallur Fos^ Adichapuram (Via) Mannargudi Taluk.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thajavur-613Q0i.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/199/95-IR(DU), dated 23-7-97, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 50 of 1997
BETWEEN
Shri K. Rajamohan Rao. Velangudi, Keclapadugai (P.O.). Tiruvarur.
AND
The General Manager. Department of Telecommunications, Thanjavur-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-40012/2Q8795-IR(DU), dated 23rd July, 1997 Ministry of Labour, Government of Tndia, New Delhi.
1606 GII2001—12.
.1611 In I.D. No. 537 of* 1997
BETWEEN
Shri N. Mathiyalagun, J2, Mattu Street, Mannargudi.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thanjavur-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/211/95-IR(DU) dated 23rd July, 1997. Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.
In (.D. No. 54 or 1997
BETWEEN
Shri N. Anbalagan, Mukundaiiur P.O., Ammayappan (Via), Engam Road.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thanjavur-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-40012/212/95-IR(DU) dated 23rd July, 1997, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 55 of 1997
BETWEEN
Shri A. Karnan, Mai Kondali North Street, Koothanallur Post. Nidamangalam Tk.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thanjavur-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/2l3/95-IR(DU) dated 23rd July, 1997, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.
In T.D. No. 56 of 1997
BETWEEN
Shri M. Arumugam, 26, Pambalamman Koil Street. Nidamangalam.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunciations. Thar javur-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/214/95-IR(DU) dated 23rd July, 1997, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, 2678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUKE 9, 2801/ JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PAST II—SEC. 3ffi)l In l.D. No. 57 of 1997 BETWEEN
Shri A. Mariadoss, Matka Kowil Street, Nallur P.O.. Adichapuram, Mannargudi Tk.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thanjavur-<513001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-400l2/2t6/95-IR(DU), tinted 23-7-97, Ministry of Labour, Government of India: New Delhi.
In l.D. No. 42 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri S. Govindarajan, Kothavasal, Poonthottam, P.O. Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam District.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thanjavoor Telecom District., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. 40012/12/96-IR-(DU) duted 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour Gov- ernment of lndiu, New Delhi.
In l.D. No. 43 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri P. Saraburulum, Pozhakudi, Vanjiyur Street, Peralam, Alathur P.O. (T.N.)
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thaniavoor Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-400l2f85-IR(DU) dated 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernment of India, New Delhi.
In l.D. No. 44 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri Ruthirapathy, Thannerkunnam Post, Kootbanallur (via), Nceramangalam Tk. Thanjavoor (T.N.).
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecom., Thaniavur Telecom Distt., Thanjavur-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/3/96-IR(DU), dated 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernment of India, New Delhi.
In l.D. No. 45 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri G. Arichandran, Meletheru Puliyur, Kulikarai (P.O.), Tiruvarur, Kudavasal Tk., Thanjavoor-613001.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecom., Thanjavoor Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L- 40012/10/96-rR(DU), dt. 23-2-98 Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.
In l.D. No. 46 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri • K. Balasubnimaniam, 'ITiirukkaravusal, P.O., 'lhiruvarur Tk. Thanjavoor Dt.-613001.
AND
1 he General Manager, Telecom Department, Thanjavoor Telecom Distt,, Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-40012/ll/96-IR(DU), dated 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour Go\ ern- ment of India, New Delhi.
In l.D. No. 47 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri T. Selvaraj, Velangudi,
Keelapadugai P.O., Timvaroor, Thanjavoor Dt.-613OO1.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecom., Thanjavoor Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-40012/9/96-IRfDU), dated 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernment of India, New Delhi, h <&• In I.D. No. 48 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri P. Manikancbn, Agerathirunallur, Kattur P.O., Kudevasal, Thanjavoor-613001.
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thanjavur Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-40012/6/96-lR(DU), dated 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 49 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri P. Arumugam, S/o Periyan, Sottalvannam South Street, Pattangalam Post, Keelaveloor (via), Tiruvaroor-613001.
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thanjavoor Telecom Distt., fhanjavoor (TN)-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-400l2/7/96-lR(DU), dated 23rd February, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 50 of 1998
BETWEEN
Sliri M. G. Rajcndran, A. K..S. Nagar, SittamaJli and Post, Mannargudi Taluk, NQM Distt.-614705.
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thanjavur Telecom Distt., Thanjavur-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/4/96-IR(DU), dated 24th February, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 52 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri G. Murugesan, 2/9, D. Main Road, Velangudi, Kcelapadgai, P.O., Tiruvarur (TK)-613001. AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thanjavoor Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No, L-40012/16/96-IR(DU), dated 2nd March, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Govern- ment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 53 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri S. Selvam, Main Road, Singalacherry, Thandalai, P.O., Thiruvarw>613001.
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thanjavoor Telecom Distt.. Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/15/96-IR(DU), dated 2nd March. 1998., Ministry of Labour Govern- ment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 54 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri A. Mahalingam. Adialckamangalam P.O.,
Meletheru, Thiruvarur (TK)-613001|.
AND
The General Manager. Telecom Department, Thanjavoor Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/14/96-IR(DU), dated 2nd March, 1998, Ministry of Labour. Govern- ment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 55 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri S. Panneerselvam, Thittanimuttam, Tiruvidavasal (P.O.), Athikadai (Via), Tiruvarur, KuJavchal.
AND
The General Manager, Department of Telecom, Thanjavoor Telecom Distt., Thanjavoor-613001.
REFERENCE :
Order No. L-40012/13/96-IR(DU), dated 2nd March, 1998, Ministry of Labour, Govern- ment of India, New Delhi.
In I.D. No. 56 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri P. Ramachandran, Kavanoor. Ammaiyappan, Kudavasal TK, Thanjavoor-613001.
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Department, Thaniavur Telecom Distt.. Thanjavur-613001.
26S0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii>] REFERENCE:
Order No. L-40012/17/96-IR(DU), dated 2nd March, 1998, Ministry of Labour. Govern- ment of India, New Delhi.
la I.D. No. 68 of 1998
BETWEEN
Shri P. Ramalingaro, Ramakka Road, Tiruvaroor P.O. (TK), Thanjavoor-613001.
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Deptt, Thanjavur Telecom. Dlstt., Thanjavur-613 001.
REFERENCE:
Order No. L-400!2/8/96-TR(Din, 1'atcd 24th March, 1998, Ministry of Labour. Govern-
ment of India, New Delhi.
repeated request trom petitioner the Chief General Manager, 1 elecommunicaions by his Order directed all heads ot SSA to take back casual mazdoors whose break in service i.e. more than one year and who were terminated and or not r.dmttted for Departmental work pending. Accordingly the Divisional Engineer (<\dmn) in hjs Order No. E7|12 dated 19-9-92 condoned the break in service to permit the Maz- uocrs to do Departmental works. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner the Dept. of Telecommuni- cations in his letter No. 269|3iV2 STN dated 21-10-92 has directed not to consider the case for condonations of break in service when the break is beyond one jear. As per the direction of the Department of Telecommunications the petitioners were uot permitted to work as Casual Mazdoor. The cisucl matdoors weie talen back for duty from March 1993. The petitioners wages were paid by the A.E.|SDEs. The respondent informed the petitioners that their services were terminated from 21-11-92 and the lespondeiit thereafter re-employed the petitioners under contract basis. The petitioners services were terminated while the respondent retai- ned tLe juniors in service. The petitioners prays to nass an award holding the act of General Manager, Telecommunications, Thanjavur terminating the peti- l:vners services as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice ami reinstate the peti- t'oner with continuity of service, backwages and offaer i'*fendant benefits.
3.. The main averments found in Counter State- ntns of iCspondents in ID. Kos. 48|97, 50|97 and 53 to 57,97 arc a;> fcUows .
These disputes coming on for final hearing on Friday, the 9th day of February, 2001, upon perus- ing the reference, Ciaim and Counter Statements and all other material papers in all the disputes and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru R. Ramesh, advocate appearing for the Workmen in all the disputes and of Thiru R. Kamnakaran. Addl. Standing Government Counsel appearing for managements in I.D. Kos.48/ 97, 50/97, 53/97 to 57/97, Thiru K. Sambpivam, Addl. Standing Government Counsel appearing for Managements in I.D. Nos. 42/98 and 43/ 98, Thiru .D. Nandakumar, Addl. Standing Government Counsel appearing fo; Manage- ment in I.D. Nos. 44/98 and 45/98 aad Tnit. C. K. Vishnupria, Addl. Standing Government Coun- sel appearing for Management in I.D. New. 46/98 to 50/98; 52/98 to 56/98 and 68^98 and these disputes having stood over till this day for consideration this Tribunal made the following :
COMMON : AWARD
The Government of India has referred the follow-
ing issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of Genera! Manager, Dcpt. of Telecommunications, Tlianjavur, in terminating the services of the Casual labourers are 'justified or not ? If not to what relief they arc entitled."
2. The main averments found in the Claim state- ment of the Petitioners in I.D. Nos. 48J97, 50|97 and 5?.'9 7 to 57|97 are as follows :
The petitioners were v.ork:ng under the Respon- dent continuously for the past several years as Casual Labourers. Tbc natuie of worl. done by them were permanent and continuous nature under the respon- dent. Without the employees like the petitioners, tLe respondent cannot do the work of Cable laving, provision of Land line Panchayat Public Telephones, provision of STD public telephone, Upgradation of local Telephone lines etc. The petitioners had put m more than 240 days in a year of service and the payment of wages vouchers signed by the petitioner would reveal that they were continuously doing per- manent nature of work under the respondent. After
In I.D. No. 48197, the petitioner had worked only 18 days prior to 30-3-85. The petitioner was en- gaged as a Casual Mazdoor from 28-9-80. He has deserted work without any intimation from 19-10-80. In I.D. No. 50J97, the pelitxner had worked only 20 days prior to 30-3-S5 The petitioner was engaged as a Casual Mazdoor from 21-3-84. Fie has deset- Sed work without any intimation from 29-4-84. In I.D. No^53|97 the petitioner had worked only 135 a.xy, prior to 30-3-85. The petitioner was engaged a> v Cwi.il mazdoor from 29-11-77. He has deser- ted Hork without any intimation from June 1980. Tn I D. No. 54J97 the j.vtjtioner had worked only 12 days prior to 30-3-85. The petitioner was enga- ged as a Casual mazdoor from 17-3-84. He has deserted the work without any intimation from April 1984. In I.D. No. 55|1997, the peitioner had worked 39 days prior to 30-3-85. The petitioner was engaged as a casual mazdoor from 24-2-84. He has dteser'ed the work without any intimation from 26-3-85. Th* re^ondent'mam.gemeat in I.D. No. 56197 has adopted the Cr.unter of the respondent in I.D. No. 50|97. -la 1 D. No. 57|97, the petitioner hrd worked anh, 24 days prior to 30-3-85. The petitioner v^s engagu.' as a casual mazdoor from 1-7-79. He h\<- dej-erted the work without any inti- mation from 17-8-79. The petitioner's work was not a perrrnnem one. The work was allotted whenever necessary, purely on casual basis. The petitioners were given such type of work when regulai mazdoors were not available and when sadden urpent works were to be executed on priority basis. The peti- tioners had not fulfilled the necessary conditions* for mi getting promotion to the temporary status mazdoor. The necessary conditions are :
1. Should bt; currently employed,
2. Minimum continuous, service of one year.
3. Should be engaged on work atleast for 240
days in a year.
4. He should be icuuited prior to 30-3^85.
The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Chennai by his letter dated 18-8-92 condoned the break in service. The Dcptt. of Telecom in its letter dated 21-10-92 has directed not to consider tine cases for Condonation of break in service, when the break is more han one year. Accordingly as per the direc- tion of DOT. the Divisions] Engineer (Admn) had cancelled the original order condoning the break in service. Hence the petitioners had become ineligible to work as CasuaJ mo/dcor. As per the direction of the DOT, the petitioners were not permitted to Work as casual mazdoor. They were allowed to work n,i contract bans after March, 1993. The res- jx>ndents pray to dismiss the above Industrial disputes.
4. On behalf of pctiuoncr|workmcn in I.D Nos. 50|97, 54[97 and 56|97, Ex. Wl to W8 were mark- ed by consent. In I.D. Nos. 53)97 and 55197, Ex. Wl to W13 were mmked by consent. In I.D. No. 57|97, Ex. Wl to Wll were marked by consent. On behalf of reipondent'management, in I.D. Nos 48197, 50(97 and 53[97 to 57'97. Ex. Ml to M4 were mark- ed by consent. No witnesses were examined for K'th sides.
the respondent cannot do 1he work of Cable laying, provision of land line Panchayat Public telephones, piovision of STD public telephone, Upgradanon of local Telephone lines etc. The petitioner had put in more than 240 days in a year of service, and the payment of wages vouchers signed by the petitioner would reveal that they weie continuously doing per- manent nature of work under the respondent. After repeated request from petitioner the Chief General Manager, Telecommunications by his order directed all hepds of SSA to take back casual mazdoors whose break in service is more than one year and who were terminated and ci not admitted for departmental work pending. Accordingly the Divisional Engineer (Admn.) in his Order No. E7|12 dated 19-9-92 condoned the break in service tc permit the mazdoors to do Departmental works. To the shock and sur- prise of the petitioners the Dept. of Telecommunica- tions in his letter No. 26?|3|92 STN dated 21-10-92 has directed not to consider the cases for condona- tions of break in service when the break is beyond one year. As per the direction of the Department of Telecommunications the petitioners were not per- mitted to work as Casual mazdoors. The Casual mazdoors are taken back for duty from March, 1993. The petitioners wages are paid by the A, E|SDE's. The respondent informed the petitioners, that his services were terminated from 21-11-92 and the respondent thereafter re-employed the petitioners under contract basis. The petitioner's services were ter- minated while the respondent retained the juniors in service. The petitioners pray to pass an award hold- in? the act of the General Manager, Telecommunica- tions. Thanjavar terminating the petitioners' services, as illegal, arbitrary, and against principles of natural justice and reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits.
5. The Point for consideration is whether the action of General Manager, Department of Telecom- munications, Thanjavur, in terminating the services of ihe Casual labourers viz. fl) V. Rajendran, (2) K. Rajdmohan Rao. (3) N. Muthalagan (4) N Anbalngon, (5) A. Karnan, (6) M. Arumugam (7) A. Mariadoss, arc justified or not? If not to what relief they arc entitled ?
6. The 'Government of India has referred the fol-
lowing issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :
y
"Whether the action of General Manager, Dept of Telecommunications, Thanjavur, in ter- rmnaing the services of (1) S Govindara- jsn, (2) P Sambandam, (3) Uthirapadii, (4) G Anchandren. (5) K. Balasubra- maman (ft) T. Selvaraj, (7) P. Manikan- dan, (8) P. An.mugam, (9) M. G. Rajen- dian (io> G. Murupessn, (11) S. Selvam, (12) A. MaMingam, (13) S, Pannersel- yam. (14) P. R.-.machandran, (15) P Knmalingani of the Casual labourers are Unified or not? If not what relief they a'c entitled?1'
7 The main averments found in the Claim state-
8. The main averments found in Counter statement of fhc respondents in I.D, Nos. 42 to 50[98, 52 to 56|98 and 68|98 lespectively are as follows.—In I.D. No. 42|98. the petitioner had worked only Jl days prior (o 30-3-85. The petitioner was engaged as a Casual mazdoor from 18-3-1976. He has not reported for duty from April, 1976 to 18-9-92. In I.D. No. 43(98, the petitioner had worked only 401 days. He was engaged as Casual Mazdoor from February, 1966. He has net reported for duty from March, 1971 to 20-10-1992. In I.D. No. 44/98, the petitioner was engaged as Casual Mazdoor from June, 1978 He has worked only for 63 days from June, 1978 to February, 1979, He has not reported for duty from March, 1979 to 20-10-92. In I.D. No. 45|98. the petitioner was engaged as Casual Mazdoor from 10-3-83. He has worked only for 62 days from .10-3-83 to 27-3-84. He has not reported for dutv from April, 1984 to 20-10-92. In I.D. No. 46|98, the petitioner was engaged as Casual maz- door from 2-4-78. He has deserted work without any intimation from June. 197S. The petitioner had worked on!y for 23 days from 2-4-78 to May, 1978. He has not reportfd for duty from June 1978 to 18-9-92. In T.D. No. 47|98. the petitioner was enpiged as Casual mazdoor from 19-2-82. He has deserted work without any intimation from 15-7-83. He has worked onlv for 87 days from 19-2-82 to 14-7-83. In T.D." No. 48[98, the pcti- OA
v o r k ed o n ly f°r 15 days from 9-2-84 to *TZT 23-2-84. The petitioner wflf e n g agc 7
No. 42|98, 44|98 to 50|98, 52|98, 56|98 and 68|98. They were so marked as Ex. W2, W3, W5 and W7 in I.D. No. 43|98. The Medical certificates were marked as Cx. W7 in I.D. 42J98, 44|98 to 49|98, 52|98, to 5698 sjid I.D. 08|98. The Payment Slips were marked as Ex. W8 in I.D. Nos. 43|98, 47|98, 48|98, 49 98. 53|Q8 54J9S and 55|9S.
10. The Point for consideration is whether the action of General Manager, Dcpi. of Telecommunica- tions, Thanjavur, in terminating the services of the Casual labourers viz. ( I) S Govindnrajan, (2) P. Sambandam, (3) R Uthirapathy, (4) G. Arichand- ran, (5) K. Balasubramanian, (6) T. Selvaraj, (7j P. Manikandan, (8) P Arumugam, (9) M. G. Rajendiun, (10) G. Murugesan, ( I I) S. Selvam, (12) A. Mahalmgam, (13) £. Pannerselvam, (14) P. Rarnachaudran, (15) P. Ramalingam are justified or not 7 If not tc what relief they are en- titled ?
11. The Point.—The list of dates and events per- taining to each of the applicant regarding date of initial Riipcrntment, date of reinstatement etc. was filed OP the side of the workmen. It was not ob- jected to by the other side aud so the contents of that documtr-t marked as Ex. Cl can be construed as correct for convenience sake it can also be ap- pended to the Awar"i. All the workmen were casual mazdoots and were used to bo called during digging work for cable laying and for erection of telephone posts.
12. There was iomc break in service for each of the appliunt ami all of them except the applicant in 1 D, Nos. 43[98 and 50|98 have filed Medical Certi- ficates containing the period of their illness during the period of break in service or part thereof. Those ctitificat, t> were maiked as Ei\ W7 in all Industrial disputes.
mazdoor from 9-2-84. He hat, deserted work with- out any intimation from 24-2-84. In I.D. No. 49 98, the petitioner wai engjged as a Casual mazdoor from 21-3-84. The petitioner bad worked only for 9 days prior to 30-3-85. He has deserted work without any intimation hum 30-3-84. He has not reported for duty from 20-J0 92. In I.D. No. 50| 98, the petitioner was engaged as a Casual Mazdoor from 30-3-82, He has worked only for 60 days prior to 30-3-85. He has deserted work with- out any intimation from October 1983. In I.D. No. 52 98, the petitioner was engaged as a Casual maz- door from 25-3-82. He had worked only for 5 days prior to 30-3-85. He has deserted work without any intimation. Tn I.D. No, 53|98, the pcfi- tioncr was engaged es a Casual mazdoor from 26-3-85. He has worked only for 4 days prior to 30-3-85. He has deserted work without any intimation from 3O-3-8i. In I.D. No. 54198, Jhe petitioner was engaged as a Casual Mazdoor from 8-3-77. The petitioner hM worked only for 4 d a y, prior to 30-3-85. He has deserted work without any intimation from April, 1977. In I.D. No. 55,98, tht. petitioner wat, engaged as a Casual n w d o or from 11-3-85. He had.worked only for 15 days prior to 30-3-85. He has deserted work without any intimation from 26-3-85. In I.D. No, 56|98, the petitioner was engaged as a Casual mazdoor from 10-3-83. He had worked only for 28 days prioi to 30-3-85. He has deserted work without any intimation from 12-5-84. In f.D, No. 58|98, the petitioner was engaged as a Casual mazdoor from 4-10-80. He had worked only for 290 da\s prior tc 30-3-85. He has desert- ed work without any intimation from January, 1983. The petilioneu.' work was not a permanent one. The work was allotted whenever necessary, purely on casual basis. The petitioners w ee given :uch type or work when regular maz- doors were not available and when sudden urgent works were to be executed on priority basis. The petitioners had not fulfilled the necessary conditions for gct'ing promotion to the temporary status maz- dour^. The necessary conditions are :
1. Should be cuircntly employed.
2. Minimum continuous serevice of the year.
3. Should be engaged on work atleast for 240
days in a year.
4. He should be recruited prior to 3O-3-t)5.
L3. The workiacn h ^e been terminated on 21-11-92. On a, reading of one representation made by workmen through Ex. W5 marked in I.D. 42|98, the grounds of pttack of termination order is two fcld, one is that the ic'rnicluntni is not according to law: i'noihcr is th;.t t> the break in their services have hern condoned by the Divisional Engineer in the OflTuc of th'. General Managei, Thanjavur, and they were accordingly taken to duty on 19-9-92, they ous>ht not to have been terminated from services on 21-11-92, Per ctntra, the Management contended that there was no capaa'tv for the Divisional Engineer of "Irnnjavur Telecom. Dcpt. tc have condoned the brc-ik in servic of earh of the. applicants, as it ex- ceeds one year, that this is so due to earlier orders and Circulars, and therefore the very order of condoning break in service and the so called reinstatement made on 19-9-92 is illegal. So it was contended that none of the applicants are workmen in the eye of law, and so ihe Order of Terminal ion is only a clarification of the fan that applicants are no more a workman and that therefore there is no question of analysis of vpJidity of retrenchment arises.
2683General Manager, Telecoms. (CGMT) dt. 18-8-92 an i 26-8-92. They wore produced in all the cases and marked as Ex. Wl and W2. In some cases, the number of that exhibited document vary. Ex. Wl dt 18-8-92 is die copy of the C.G-M.T.(T. N. circle), Madras Lr. No. RET|84-a|91 dated at Madras the 18-8-92, wherein the following was mentioned :
"Requests from the Service Unions were being frequently received by this office regarding absorption of Casual Mazdoors who have entered piior to 30-3-85, but terminated and|or not admitted subsequently on the plea of break in seivice due to department- aljpersonal reasons, CGM desires that such individual cases should be examined by the Heads ol" SSA and the Casual mazdoors who have entered prior to 30-3-85, who were terminated Liid|oi not admittedshouJd be take a back for departmental works irres- pective of the length of break period pro- vided, the reasons adduced for the absence is convincing.'
Ex. W2 is the letter of CGM, Telecoinmns, Madra*"-2 to all heads of SSA|Traffic, Divns., Tamil Nadu Circle, S. I-.. C'vil|t]etiricai Madras vide Ref. No. RET|84-1|91 dated at Madras-2, the 26-8-92, where- in following was mentioned •
"Kind attention is drawn to this office Circular of even No, dated 18-8-92 regarding ab- sorption of Casual Muzdoors entered eailier to 30-3-S5, but terminated and|or not admitted irrespective of the length of break period. In the JCM Mcethig held on 31-7-92, the Chairman had decided that the break of service of any period till the date oi issue of this circular, shall be con- doned by the TDEs in case of Mazdcors already en rolls as well as those reinstated as per the above circular."
15, Thus as per Ex. Wl and W2, all the workmen entered prior to 30-3-85 but terminated on the plea of break in service should be taken back irrespective of length of the period of break in service, provided the reasons adduced for the absence is convincing. [Thus the only two conditions arc (1) the workmen should have been in service prior to 30-3-85 and (2) There should be convincing reasons adduced for the absence or break in service. Thus the Order of Re- instatement by the Divisional Engineer, Thanjavour was justified by the workmen.
It has beeu decided to modify the instructions as indi- cated below :
1, Powers of Divisional Engineer :
(i) Condonatiou of -break in service upto oae month for any reason.
l.ii) Condonation upto six months for sickness or non-availability of work provide the necessary medical ccrtiricatejdetails of lay- off are suitably prechecked.
2, Powers of CGMS :
Condonation of breajc in service upto one year can be by the Chief General Manager for any reasons on the merit of the case such as sickness, alter checking medical certificates, non-availability of work ; after checking de- tails of lay-off.
3, No condonation beyond one year is to br consi- dered, as such hen'-'elorth No cass for consideration of break in service beyond one year, need be referred to Telecom. Commission Head Quarter.
4, This order .supersedes all orders issued till date on the subject, (underline supplied by us) 17. Now we have to see the DTE's letter dt. 3O-S-89 which was referred under Ex. W4. Due to the fact not only that it was referred under Ex. W4; but also that it is preceding the Order of CGMT dt. 18-8-92 and 26-8-92 marked as Ex. Wl and W2 and lvhich should have been considered by the Divisional Engineer, Thanjavur for the purposes of reinstate- ment of the workmen.
18. The Order dt. -30-8-89 having been produced by either side was given due consideration even though it was not marked in every case (it was mar- ked as Ex. M5 in T.D. 47J98) the reason for taking inot account of the same in other ID !s that that it is a public document and admittedly an order from the Gent, of India issued to all Heads of Te?e-conununi- catioii circle. It was mentioned thereunder in ques- tion and answer form as follows :
Z634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/ JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3
present applicants. Although the reference portion of the above letter dt. 30-8-89 read so the points raised and the" clarification given therein include the question of regularisation of casual labourers engaged prior to 3Q-3-&5 and who were subsequently disconti- nued on their volition. This aspect covers the case of the present applicants. Therefore, it becomes applicable.
copy of the same was circulated to the entire admini- trative office, it is surprising as to how CGMF could pass Ex. Wl and W2 orders enabling Divisional engi- neer to condone break in service ol more than one year and it is equally surprising as to how the Divl. Engineer can follow Ex. Wl and W2 which are against the parameter provided in the above letter dt. 30-8-89. This is so because as revealed in the Medi- cal Certificates produced by most of the applicants the break in service is more than one year. Medical certificates were marked as Ex. W7 in most of the cases. Although, Ex. W4 reiterated by referring the letter dt. 30-8-89 what was conveyed under Ex. W4 was not new and it is only a reproduction of the con- tents of the earlier letter dated 30-8-89 of Govt. of India which has got force and more particularly with respect to casual labourers engaged prior to 30-3-85 like the applicants. Thus the reinstatement ordered by the Divl. Engineer and the directions contained in the supportive documents of Ex. Wl and W2 are against the letter dt. 30-8-89. Therefore, the rein- statement, order becomes erroneous and irregular.
20. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Management relied upon AIR 1993 Patna 121 where in the following was observed :
'*E\en in a case where a temporary trustee can be appointed, a duty has been cast upon the Board to see that such person is appoin- ted v.ho could be appointed in terms of the deed of endowment. (Underline supplied by u.)- Therefore, where in terms of en- dov-m.* it deed, a Mahanth of Kabir Math can be appointed only by disciples of its late founder and in order to be eligible to be- come a Mahanth must be unmarried and re- nounce the Grihast Ashram for service to the society and the Kabir Panthi followers. .".
By iv'^ng upon the above citation what was argued v'as that it is not only the appointing authority shall ! ivc the capacity to appoint bin also the person .•"^o'tici should have the necessary qualifications, m cvf r to make him eligible. In this case, the capa- c''v for passing orders of reinstatement is not there • " H t!'c Dhi'ional Engineer, due to 'superceding i'! ^ <>f Ex. W4 and the letter dt. 30-8-89 of the ri Ai. of fnJia which was referred in Ex. W4 and :"t.e 'he break in service is more than one year. It
i tkeii-fW;, the reinstat£rner.t becomes irregular.
23. The next contention of the Learned Counsel for workmen is that, since the order of reinstatements of various applicants are between 8-9-92 and 21-10-92, that is before ever Ex. W4 was passed on 21-10-92 restricting the Powers of the Divisional Engineer in condoning .the break in service, and since Ex. W4 has no retrospective effect, it was argued that Ex. W4 cannot be implemented, and that on account of Ex. W4, "it could not be said that reinstatement order is invalid. It was further argued by the Learned Counsel for the workmen that in asmuch as re- instatement order was enterior in time than the date of receipt i.e. 23-10-92 by Divisional Engi- neer. Thanjaviir of Ex. W4 order, the later is in- applicable. Whatever it is onething cannot be for- gotten namely that Ex. W4 is only the Revision of the earlier direction made on the letter dated 30-8 89 of the Government of India which was marked on Ex. M5 in I.D. 47 of 1998. The capacity of the Divisio- nal Engineer in condoning the break in service was mentioned as one year in Ex. M5, whereas it was reduced to 6 months in Ex. W4. We have already found that excepting in I.D. 43/98 and 50/98, the Medical Certificates were produced in other cases denote the break in service as more than one year. In para 4 and 3 of the Counters in I.D. Nos. 43/98 a;id 50/98 respectively it was mentioned that the worker did not turn up to duty for 9 years fiom October 1983 and 21 years from March 1971 res- pectively. Therefore, it becomes clear that the break- in service in all cases is more than one year which is against the letter dated 30-8-89 of Government of India marked as Ex. M5 in I.D. No. 47/98 and if not according to Ex. W4 which is a later modified order. It cannot be argued that both Ex. W4 as well as letter dated 30-3-1989 can have no force. True it is Ex. W4 superseed"s the earlier orders, including the direction mide on 30-8-89. But when saying that Ex. W4 is inapplicable in asmuch as it was re- ceived only on 23-10-92 bv the Divisional Engineer. Tharijavur, then it should be accepted till such time they were under the enforcement of letter dated 30-8-89 of Government of India. If the supersession is taken correct, then Ex. W4 is applicable. If the supersession is not operative til! the receipt of Ex. W4 by the Thanjavur Divisional Engineer on 23-10-92 then the letter dated 30-8-89 was on force. It is to be mentioned that either way, the Order of rein- statement suffers validitv. as it contravenes both Ex. W4 letter dated 30-8-89.
21. Thus, when the reinstatement itself is irregular vk'f i
2?. The Learned Counsel for the Workmen next contended (hat the above mentioned letter dated 30-8 89 of (he Govt. of India which was referred to in E*. W4 (Revised order) etc. was only a clarifica- tion on certain points relating to rcgularisatior of Crsuail Labourers with a minimum of 7 yors service as on 31-3-87 and that it is not applicable to the
24. We have alreadv found tint the apt>!ici"ts were casual labourers who have snbseqntnfly abstain- ed themselves from duty on their valition and so were ceased to be workmen and therefore the ques- tion of retrenchment and the applicab'litv of Section 25F wil] not arise. Thus, irrespective of the fact that tfiev had minimum cont'nuens cprvice of one vear, that they have been engaged on work at least for 240* days in a vear and thpt they were rtcmifed prior2685 to 30-3-85 the point that goes against them for regu- larisation is the non-fulfilment of another condition (in Ex. M3j that they should be currently employed. As mentioned earlier, the order of reinstatement will not come to their rescue to make them currently em- ployed because the order of reinstatement itself is against the circulars and, therefor;, invalid, 25. Thus they arc currently employed which, is one of the requirement, for regiilarisatim. So the action of the General Manager in terminating the services of the Cnsuni T ihmirers nn the oround of abstinence from duty is justified. Award passed. No costs. Ex. Ml forms part of the Award.
Dated at Chcnnai, this 28th day of February, 2001.
S. R. S1NGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal
ID. No. 48|97
WITNESSES EXAMINED For Petitioner!Workman—None. For Respondent /Management—None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED For Petitioner [ Workman:
Ex, Wl 1-9-92—Copy of the Doctor Certificate.
Ex. W2 3-6-95—Copy of the letter addressed to
the Respondent.
Ex, W3 24-1-96—Copy of the letter addressed
to the Respondent.
Ex. W4 28-8-88—Copy of the letter from Jr.
Telecom officer Mannatgudi.
Ex. W5 5-9-88--Copy of the Communication to
the Respondent.
Ex. W6 25-3-99— — d o- Ex. W7—Particulars of the petitioner.
Ex. W8 18-8-92—Copy of the petitioner from CGMT T. N. Cir
Ex. W9 26-8-92—Copy of Ihe Communication
from Respondent.
Ex. W10 21-10-92 —
Ex. W11 19-9-92—Reinstatement order.
Ex. W12 22-5-95—Representation, of petitioner.
Ex. W13 26-10-95—Minutes of Joint discussion
(Conciliation Proceedings)
For Mamageemnt|Respondent.
Ex. Ml—CGM Telecom Chennai order No. RET| 84-1187 dt. 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of Tem. status & Reguiarisation of Casual Labour Scheme.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom, Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-|89-90 dt. 10-12-90. clari- fication reg. SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
I.D. Nos. 50|97
I.D. No. 54|97
I.D. No. 56(97
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner!Workmen—None.
For Respondent | Maangemcnt—None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Petitioner)Workmen:
Ex. Wl 19-9-92—Reinstatement order. Ex. W2 22-5-95—Representation of petitioner. Ex. W3 26-10-95—Minutes of Joint Discussion.
(Conciliation Proceedings).
Ex. W4 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T. T.N, Circle.
Ex. W5 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respt.
Ex. Wfi 21-10-92 — d o- Ex. W7 1-9-92—Copy of the Doctor certificate, Ex. W8—Copy of the list issued1 by Respondent.
Fot Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom, Chennai order No. RET|84-1|87 dt. 231-1-89 Sub : Grant of Temy. Status & Regularjsation of Casual Labour Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RETJ84-1I87 dt. 22-12-89 Clarifica- tion for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84| 1189-90 dt. 20-4-90. Partial Modification & conditions in r|o SI No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom Tamil N:idu Order No. RET[84-1-| 89-90 tit. 10-12-90. Clari- fica(tion rec SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
I.D. No. 5311997
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner[Workmen—None,
For RespondentlManasement—None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
Ex. Wl 19-9-92—Reinstatement order. Ex. W2 22-5-95—Representation of petitioner. Ex. W3 26-10-95—Minutes of Joint discussion.
(Concision proceedings).
Ex. W4 3-6-95—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
TfiOfi OII2001— 20.
2686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] FJC. W7 7-9-98—Copy of the latter addressed to Respt.
Ex. W8 25-3-99 — d o- Ex. W9—Chart of No. of working days of the petition.
Ex. W10—Copy of the Doctois Certificate.
Ex. Wll 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from CGMT T.N. Circle.
Ex. W12 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W13 21-10-92 — do—
For Respondent|Managcment.
Ex. Ml C.G.M. Telecom, C'hennai Order No. RET|84-1|87 dt. 23-11-89 Sub-Grant of Ty, status of Regularisatmii of Casual Laboures Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-1|87 dt 22-12-89, clarifica- tion for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom, Tamil Nadu, Order No. RET| 84-1189-90 dt 20-4-90, Partial modification and conditions in SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-1 |8O.9O. pt. dt. 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
ID. No. 55'97
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner—None.
For Respondents—None.
DOCUMENT MARKED
Ex. Wl 3-6-95—Copy of the Communication from respondent.
Ex. W2 24-1-96—Copy of the letter addressed to respondent.
Ex. W3 24-8-98-—Copy of the communication of respondent rep Contract mazdoors Ex W4 7-9-98—Copy of the letter addressed to Respondent.
Ex. W5— — d o- Ex. W6—Chart for No. of winkine days of ihe Pet--.
Ex. W7—Copy of the Doctor Certificate. Ex. W8 9-9-92—Reinstatement order. Ex. W9 22-5-95—Representation of petitioner. Ex. W10 26-10-95—Minutes of Joint discussion (Conciliation Proceedings).
Ex. Wll 18-8-92—Copy of the iletter from C.G.M.T. T.N. Circle.
Ex. W12 26-8-92—Copy of the communication from respondent.
Ex. W13 21-10-92 —do—
For Respondent|Management:
Ex Ml—C.G.M. Telecom : Chennai Order No. RET|84-1|87 dt. 22-12-89 Clarifi- of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourer's Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-l|87-dt. 22^12-89, clarifica- tion for SI. No. I.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom Tamil Nadu order No.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-1189-90 dt. 10-12-90 clarifica- tion rep. SI. No, 1 to SJ. No. 3.
T.D. No. 57 of 1997
For Petitioner I Workman—None.
For Respondent|Management —None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For PetitioncrlWorkmen:
Ex. Wl 19-9-92—Reinstatement order. Ex. W2 22-5-95—Representation of petitioner.
Ex. W3 26-10-95—Minutes of Joint discussion.
(Conciliation proceeding's )
Ex. W4 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from C G.M T.N. Circle.
Ex. W5 26-8-92—Copv of the Communication from Respt.
Ex. W6 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent,
Ex. W7 1-6-1995—Copy of the Communication from Divl. Engineer Mannargudi to Res- pondent.
Ex. W8 24-8-98—Copy of the Communication from Jr. Telcom. officer to Respondent, Ex. W9 5-9-98—Copy of the Communication from Respt.
Ex. W10 25-3-99—Cooy of the communication from Respt,
Ex. Wll—Particulars of the petitioner For Respondent|Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom Chennuai Order Nos. RET. 84-1/87 dt. ^ - l i -W Sub. Grant of Ty Statu.s & P.cenltuisntion o1 r j . ,' I Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom, Tamil N;
Ex. M3^C.G.M. Telecom Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|81-1189-90 dt. 20-4-90 Partial modification & Conditions in r|o SI. No.1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|81-1|89~9O DL. 10-12-90 Clari- fication reg. SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
I.D No. 42J98
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner|Workman—None.
For Respondent|Managemcnt—None.
2687Documents marked
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—-Copy of the letter from C.G.M. XN. circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respt.
Ex. W3 -9-92— ^ d o- Ex. W4 21-10-92— — d o-
Ex. W5—Copy of the representation made by Petr.
Ex. W6 26-10-95—Copy of the Minutes Joint discussion.
Ex. W7 31-8-92—Copy of the Medical Certifi- cate.
For Respondentl Management :
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom Chennai Order. No. RET|84-1|87 eft. 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—-C.G.M. Telecom, Talmil Nadu order No. RET|84-1189-90 dt. 22-12-89 Clarifi- cation for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET| 84-1| 89-90 dt. 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r|o SI. No. 1. Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET 184-1189-90.pt. dt. 10-12-90 clari- fications regarding S!. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Dept. of Telecom, bearing No. 269-2918 7-STN-Vol. I.
I.D. No. 43]98
Witnesses Examined
For Fetitioner|Workman—None.
F|or Respondent|Mana|gement—None.
Documents marked
For Petitioner|Workman:
Ex. Wl—Copy of the Identification Card issued by the respondent to Petitioner.
Ex W2 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from GGMT TN Circle.
Ex. W3 26-8-92—Copy of communication from Rspondent.
Ex. W4 —do—
Ex. W5 21-10-92 — d o- Ex. W6—Copy of the representation made by Petr.
Ex. W7 26-10-95—Copy of the minutes of Joint discussions.
EX. W8—Copy of the Payment slip.
For Respondent|Management:
Ex Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai Order No. RET/84-1/87 dt. 23-11-89 Sub: Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme,
160* GJI2OO1—zl,
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-1|87 dt, 22-12-89 Clarification for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom Tamil Nadu Order RET|84-1 |89-9O tft. 20-4-90 Partial modi- fication & conditions in i|o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom, Tamil Naldu Order No. RET| 84-1189-90 dt. 10-12-90 Clarifi- cations reg. SI. No. 1.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Older of the Dept. of Telecom, bearing No. 269-29-87-STN-Vol. I.
I.D. No. 44|98
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner| workman—None.
For Respondent|Management—None.
Documents marked
For Petitioner|Workmen:
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of the Communication from the Respt,
Ex. W2 26-8-92 — d o- Ex. W3 -9-92 — d o- Ex. W4 21-10-92 —do—
Ex. W5—Copy of the representation made by Petr.
Ex. W6 26-10-95—Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussion.
Ex. W7 30-6-92—Copy of the Medical certifi- cate.
For Respondent[Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom|Chennai Order No. RET|84-1|87 tit. 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom, Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-1|87 dt. 22-12-89 Clarification for SI. Nc*. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom, Tamil Nadu Order No. RET|84-1189-90 dt. 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt'dt. 10-12-90 clari- fications reg. SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Dept. of Tele- commn. bearing No. 269-29|87-STNvol. I. Ex. M6 14-6-94^CAT order in O.A. 916)93.
T.D. No. 45|98
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner|Workmen—None.
For Respondent|Management— None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For PetitionerlWorkmen:
Ex. Wl 11-8-92—Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T.T.N. circle.
2688 TBBE GAZETTE OF INt>IA:JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART It—SEC. 3(11)] Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the communication from Respt.
Ex. W3 -9-92 — d o- Ex. W4 21-10-92 — d o- Ex. W5—Copy of the representation made by petitioner.
Ex. W6 26-10-95—Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussions.
Ex. W7—Copy of the Medical certificate.
For Respondent|Management.
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Cheniai Order No. RET 84-1187 dt. 23-11-89 sub : Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—CG.M Telecom, Tamil Nadu Order No. RETI84-1I87 dt. 22-12-89 clarifica- tion for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C G.M, Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RETI81-H89-9O dt 20-4-90. Partial modification & conditiadns in r|o SI. No. 1.
Ex M4—CG.M. Telecom, Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/94-1 /8Q-90 dt. 10-12-90. clari- fication-; rec, SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex M5 30-8-89—Ordnr of the Dent, of Telecom bearinp No. 269-29! 87 STN. Vol. I. Ex. M6 14-6-81—CAT Order in O.A. 916|93.
I.D. No. 46|9R
WITNESSES EXAMINED
Documents Marked1
For Petitioner|Workmen:
Ex. W1 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from CGMT T.N. circle.
E. W2 26-R-92—Copy of the communication from Respt.
Ex. W3 -9-92 — d o- Ex. W4 21-10-92 — d o- Ex. W5—Cor>y of the representation made by the petitioner.
Ex. W6—Copy of the minutes of joint dis- cussions.
Ex. W7—Copy of medical certificate.
For Management|Respondent:
Ex. Ml—C.GM. Telcom. Chennai Order No. RET|84-ll87 dt. 23-11-89 Sub. Grant of Ty. status ft Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex M2—r.G (Vf. Telcom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RFT/84-1/87 dt. 22-12-89 clarification for SI. No. 1.
Ex M3—COM. TH^eom. Trnnii Na|du Order No. RETI84-1'89-90 dt. 20-4-90. Partial modification & conditions in r|o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C c M Tpiccnm Tamil Nadu Or^er No. WPT/84-l/RQ-9O/nt. dt. 10-12-90, clarification regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Dept. of Tele- commn. bearing No. 269|29|87-STN vol. I. Ex. M6 14-6-94—CAT Order in O.A. 916/93.
I.D. No. 47/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Wbrkmen—None.
For Respondent/Management—-None.
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen:
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92^Copy of the communication from Respondent,
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the communication from Respondent.
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation made by petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussions.
Ex. W7 —Copy of the Medical certi- ficates.
Ex. W8 —Copy of the Payment slip.
For Respondent/Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 23-11-89, Sub : Grant of Ty. status and Regularisation of Casual Labourer's Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 clarifi- cation for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dated 30-4-90. Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1 /89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90. Clarification regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the DcDartment of Telecom bearing No. 269—29] 87 STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—C.A.T. order in O.A. No. 916/93.
I.D. No. 48/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Workmen—None.
For Respondent/Management—None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Petitioner/Workmen :
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copv of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circile.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation made by the petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Joint Discussions.
Ex. W7 —Copy of the Medical certi- ficate.
Ex. W8 —Copy of the Payment slip.
Documents for Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub: Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2--C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dated 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. I. Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. \ to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—C.A.T. order in O.A. No. 916/93.
I.D. No. 49/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Workmen —None
For Respondent/Management—None.
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen:
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent,
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex* W5 —Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussion.
Ex. W7 —Copy of the Medical certi- ficate
Ex. W8 —Copy of the Payment slip.
26*9 For Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Claii- flcation for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3-^C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dated 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI No. 1.
Ex. MA—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. I to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—C.A.T. Order in O.A No. 916/93.
I.D. No. 50/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Work men—None.
For Respondent/Management—None.
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen :
Ex. Ml 18-8-92~-Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussion.
For Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub: Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89 dated 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—CG.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
2690 WE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 9, 2001/JYAISTHA 19, 1923 [PART II-SEfc, 3(11)1 Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecommunication bearing No. 269—291 87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—CAT order in O.A. No. 916/93.
I.D. 52/98 WHNESSES EXAMINED
For both sides—None.
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen :
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of ihe letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—-Copy (if the Communications from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communications from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communications from Respondent.
Ex. W5 -—Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussions.
Ex. W7 Copy of the Medical certificate.
Documents for Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. ChennaJ Order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub: Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dated 20-4-QO Partial modifications & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-l/89-9O/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. I to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—CAT Order in O.A No 916/93.
T.D. No. 53/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Workmen —None
For Respondent/Management—None
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen :
Ex. Wl 18-8-92-Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Commutation from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex W5 —Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copj^ of the Minutes of Joint discussions.
Ex. W7 —Copy of the Medical certificates.
Ex. W8 —Copy of the Payment slip.
For Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai Order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. -Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89 dated 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1 /89-90/pt. dated JO-12-90 clarification regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M<6 14-6-94—CAT. Order in O.A. No. 916/93.
I.D. No. 54/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Workmen—None.
For Respondent/Management —None.
Documents marked :
For Petitioner/Workmen :
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W3 —Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 _Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussions. .
Ex. W7 —Copy of the Medical certificate.
Ex. W8 —Copy of the Payment slip.
20V For Management:
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dated 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari-' fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated ] 0-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dt. 24-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—C.A.T. order in O.A. No.
916/93.
Ex. UA—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3..
I.D. No. 56/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
For Petitioner/Workmen—None.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—C.A.T. order in O.A. No.
For Respondent/Management—None. 916/93.
Documents marked:
I.D. No. 55/98
For Petitioner/Workmen:
WITNESSES EXAMINED
Ex. Wl 19-8-92—Copy of the letter from Foj Petitioner/Workmen—None.
C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
For Respondent/Management —None.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of thc Communication
from Respondent.
Documents marked:
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication For Petitioner/Workmen :
from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from
fiom Respondent.
C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W5 •—Copy of the representation
made by Petitioner.
Ex. W2 26-8-92-^opy of the Communication
from the Respondent.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication
Joint discussion.
from the Respondent.
Ex. W7 Copy of the Medical certificate.
T^_ W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication
from the Respondent.
For Management :
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation
made by the Petitioner.
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No~ RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub: Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of
Joint discussion.
Ex. W7 Copy of the Medical certificate.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. W8 —Copy of the Payment slip.
For Respondent/Management •
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1 /89-90 dt. 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions.
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/83, dated 23-11-39 Sub: Grant
of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
2692 Ttffe GAZETTE OF INDIA i ftjNE 9, 2001/JYAfSTfiA 19, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order Of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—CAT order in O.A. No. 916/93.
I.D. No. 56/98
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Workmen—None.
• For Respondent/Management—None.
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen:
Ex. Wl 18-8-92—Copy of the letter from C.G.M.T., T.N. Circle.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 —Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussion.
Ex. W7 Copy of the Medical certificate.
For Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Chennai order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub : Grant of. Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 di. 30-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o Si. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-l/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 tp SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom, bearing No. 269—29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—C.A.T. order in OA. No. 916/93.
I.D. No. 68/1998
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner/Workmen—None.
For Respondent/Management—None.
Documents marked:
For Petitioner/Workmen:
Ex. Ml 18-8-92—Copy of the C.G.M.T. T.N. Circle letter.
Ex. W2 26-8-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W3 -9-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W4 21-10-92—Copy of the Communication from Respondent.
Ex. W5 —Copy of the representation made by Petitioner.
Ex. W6 26-10-95—Copy of the Minutes of Joint discussion.
Ex. W7 31-8-92—Copy of the Doctor certifi- cate.
For Management:
Ex. Ml—C.G.M. Telecom. Channai Order No. RET/84-1/87, dated 23-11-89 Sub: Grant of Ty. Status & Regularisation of Casual Labourers Scheme.
Ex. M2-^C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/87 dated 22-12-89 Clari- fication for SI. No. 1.
Ex. M3—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90 dated 20-4-90 Partial modification & conditions in r/o SI. No. 1.
Ex. M4—C.G.M. Telecom. Tamil Nadu Order No. RET/84-1/89-90/pt. dated 10-12-90 clarifications regarding SI. No. 1 to SI. No. 3.
Ex. M5 30-8-89—Order of the Department of Telecom bearing No. 269/29/87-STN Vol. I.
Ex. M6 14-6-94—CAT ord?r in O.A. No. 916/93.
2693ANNEXURE
Exhibit CM
I.D. Batch Case Nos. 48/97, 50/97, to 57/97, 42/98 to 50/98, 52/98 to 56/98, 68/98
I.D. Nos. Name
SI. No.
Date of condona- tion of break in service by CGMT
Date of initial appoint- ment in the De- partment ._ . ^ ..
3
4~ ~r~
"48/97 V. Rajondren
18-08-92
"28^09-1980" Dato of the Order of Director of Tele- communication order and dato of receipt of the order Dt. 21-10-92 by D.E./TNJ
Total Number oi years of service on contract basis after termina- tion Date of reinstate- ment by D.E. as per the order of CGMT dt. 18-08-92 and 26-08-92
5
6
7
8~ 19-09-1992
8 Years
and
28-08-92
21-03-1984 2. 50/97 K. Rajmohan Rao
21-10-1992 Order received on 23-10-1992 by D.E./ TNJ
21-10-1992
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
A. Mathialagan 07-05-1984 51/97
3.
08-09-1992
19
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
S. Selvaraj
06-08-1976 52/97
4.
19-9-1992
>)
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
N. Mathialagan
18-08-92
53/97
29-11-1977 5.
and
28-08-92
17-03-1984
N. Anbalagmi
54/97
6.
18-08-92 and 28-08-92
24-02-1984 55/97 A. Karnan
7.
19-09-1992
8 Years 08-09-1992
t%
8 Years 08-09-1992
JJ
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
M. Arumugain
13-11-1977 8. 56/97
j*
21-10-1992
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
01-07-1979
A. Mariyadoss
9. 57/97
19-09-1992
it
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
18-03-1976
S. Govindarajan
10. 42/98
21-10-1992
tt
8 Years
18-08-92
and
28-08-92
-02-1966
P. Sambandan
43/98
11.
18-08-92 and 28-08-92
R. Uthirapathy
-06-1978 12. 44/98
18-08-92 and 28-08-92
21-10-1992
JJ
8 Years 21-10-1992
tl
8 Years Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controjler of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2001