This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D. L.—33001/99

The Gazette of India

No. 24] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 2001/JYAlSTHA 26, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may befiledasa

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 )

1709 Gl/2001—1

(2695)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

i Department of Economic Affairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 1st June, 200J

S.O. 1312.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates the persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Directors of the nationalised banks specified in column (1) thereof in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:

TABLE

(1)

(2)

(3)

Union Bank of India

Smt.jjJhyamala Gopinath

Shri A. V. Sardesai, Chief General Manager, RPCD, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, jMumbai.

flank of Maharashtra

Shii A. V. Sardesai

Shri ID. P. S. Rathore, Principal, College of Afti. Banking, Pune.

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

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2001

S.O. 1313.—in exercise of the powers

conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56

of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 r JO

of 1949), the Central Government on re-

commendation of the Reserve Bank of Tndia

declares that the provisions of Sub-section (1)

of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply

to the Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pratapgarh,

Uttar Pradesh from the date of publication

of this notification in the Official Gazette to

31 March 2003.

lF.No. l(U)!2001-AC]

L. C. TOORA, Under Seo-,2697 New Delhi, the 7th June, 2001 New Delhi, the 7th June, 2001

S.O. 1315.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on recom- mendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Deoria-Kasia District Co-opera- tive Bank Ltd., Deoria, Uttar Pradesh from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31 March 2003.

[F. No. 1(13)|2OO1-AC1 S.O. 1314.—In exercise of the powers

conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10

of 1949) the Central Government on recom-

mendation of the Reserve Bank of India

declares that the provisions of sub-section (1)

of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply

to the Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mirzapur,

Uttar Pradesh from the date of publication

of this notification in the Official Gazette to

31 March 2003.

IF. No. l(12)|2001-ACl

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2001 S.O. 1316.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of. Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), tb? Central Government hereby recognises, for a further period of thicc years from 14-4-2001, M|s. Therapeutics Chemicah Research Corporation located at 9 A, First Street, Second Avenue, Asliok Nagar, Madras-600 083 and having their registered office at Shiv Industrial Estate, Ilnd Floor, Krartti Veerabhai Balinakund Road, Near Byculla Goods Deport, Bombay 400 012 as an Agency for the ins- pection of minerals and ores (Group-I) and (Group- II), prior to export at Madras subject to the follow- ing conditions, namely :—-

(i) that M|s. Therapeutics Chemicals Research Corporation shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Ins- pection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under Rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores Groups 1 and II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ji) that M|s. Therapeutics Chemicals Research Corporation m the performance of their function under this, notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control) may give in writing from time to time.

[File No 5(8) 1200l-ELAEP]

P. HL DAS, Director.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & CONSUMER AFFAIRS (Department of Consumer Affairs) New Delhi, the 4th June, 2001 S.O. 1317.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby noti- fies the following branch office of Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution where more than 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :—

Bureau of Indian Standards,

Guwahati Branch Office,

5315, Ward No. 29-

R. G. Barua Road,

5 th Bye Lane, Apoorua Sinha Path, Guwahati.

iF. No. E-U012|4l2000-Hindil

I.M. SO NDH1. Dy. Secy.

1709 Gl/2001—4.

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 15lh June. 2001

s. o. 1318.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum apd Natural Gas No. S.O. 2569 dated the 17th November, 2000 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying branch pipeline for the transport of petroleum products from Kurukshetra in the State of Haryana to Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh from existing Mathura - Jalandhar pipeline.

And, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from the 8th day of December, 2000.

And, whereas, the Competent Authority in persuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government. And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification are hereby acquired.

And ^further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

Schedule Tehsil: Jagadhan

District Yamuna Nagar

Hsdhast

Name of Village

State: Haryana

Mustateel No/

No.

1

Area

Killa No Hectare

Sq. Mtr.

Are

3 4

2

17

94 5

6

23

Khurdban

107

124

60

16

27

0*

81

00

76

01 01

Potli

31/15

|3

01

77

Rapri

FatehGarh

218

H

\S

81 Rajheri

362

28

Lai Chappar

45

29

Majri

67

52

01

01

25

01

01

01

01

51

00

[NoR-M()lV-H/2(K)0OR-]| S aiANDRASEKHAR. Under SOA MINISTRY OF LAEGUR

Now Delhi, the 18th May, 2001 S.O. 1319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the In- dustrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 18-5-2001.

[No. L-12O12|426|95-IR(B-1I)1 AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA Reference Nos. 49 of 1996

Ret. No. 9(c) of 2001

Management of UCO Bank, Patna and their workman Sri. M. P. Pandey represented by the State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Patna.

For tile Management-—Sri Atul Sinha, Asci'trnt Chief Officer, UCO Bank, Patna.

For the workman—Sri B. Prasad, State Secre- tary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Patna.

PRESENT :

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

AWARD

The 11th Mny, 20(H

Initially in exercise of powers U/s 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 the Central Government by notification No. 12012/426/95-T.R. (B-II) dated 10th April, 1996 referred the following industrial dis- pute between the Management of UCO Bank and it", workman Sri M. P. Pendey reoriented bv the State Secretary. UCO Bank Employees Association, Pafna to Central Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dlirmbad f^r adjudication.—

"Whether idle action of the MaiiPsrerrtent of UCO "RmiV. Paftip. in dismissing Sri M. P. Pandey.

1709 uiami—i

271ft Head Cashier from service w.e.f. 8-11-1979 Is legal and justified ? If not, what relief it. the said workman entitled to ?"

It appears from the record that both, parties tiled their respective written statements before the Central In- dustrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. A rejoinder to the written statement of the Management wa3 also filed on behalf cf the workman. After completion of hearing when the case was pending in the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad for writing out the Award the Central Government by a subsequent noti- fication No. 12012|426]95-IR(B-II) dated 23-11-2000 in exercise of powers U/s. 7(A) read with sub-section (1) cf Section 33-B of the I.D. Act withdrew the pro- ceedings from the Central Industrial Tribunal No. II, DhanMd and transferred it to this Tribunal with a direction that this Tribunal should proceed with the proceedings from the stage at which the proceedings are transferred to it and to dispose of the same accoi - ding to law.

2. The admitted facts of the case in brief are that the concerned workman Sri M. P. Pandey joined the service in United Commercial Bank, a Nationalised Bank, in October, 1964 as a Cashier at Bhagalpur Branch of the said Bank, subsequently he was promo- ted to the post of Head Cashier in the year 1971 and was posted at Labour Branch of the Bank from where he was transferred to Tarapur Branch in the year 1974. While working as Head Cashier ft Tarapur Branch in the District of Monghyer an explanation was called for from the workman in regard to certain illegalities and irregularities allegedly commuted by trim while posted as Head Cashier at Sabour Branch, There- after the workman submitted his reply that he would be able to give reply only after he was relieved from Tarapur Branch as he was holding the key of the said Branch. Subsequently the workman was served with a chargesheet under six heads and was suspended by the Dy. General Manrcpcr vide his order dated 15-0-75 for tlhe charges enumerated in the said order. The workman on "receipt of the chargesheet submitted his replv on 18-12-3 975 in which he denied those charges levelled against him and called for certain documents in connection with the charges to which the Bank Management did not reply. Th" discifllinarv proceed- ings were initiated subsequently and Sri K. P. Lai, the then Manager of Bhagalpur Branch of the Bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Th; Fnquirv Officer started holding domestic enquiry from 15-4-1976 and asked the workman to attend the enquiry at Sabour. Tlhe workman appeared before thte Enquiry Officer and claimed to be defended by a defence representative Sri P. C. Sinuh and also claimed that the disciplinary action should not be proceeded until the defence re- presentative was provided to him. The proceedings continued on various dates until 10th Julv. 1976 when the workman insisted, for suorrtv of copiers of rfoni- ments and nfco for nrovirlinp, Sri P. C. Sineh a* the defence l^pvesenlatWe, The workman also alleged bias on tb* p ^l of th<* FnoM'fv Officer nid mndf. n fenrcscnta*ion for change ^f the Hntmirv Officer, Thf ManPcement e^¹V>irl?H witnesses and also produced orvmiTtents in support of thr chtwes. Rubspoi'pjuTv ^n additional chsree was *dded as detailed in the letter of the Mflffacfment dit*d ')7-(M<174. Roth rV. coir>s of the chnrwtfiert and the letter dated 27'-6-7'4 relating to the edditionall charge have been nraexed to2704 t B£ GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PMT II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Enquiry Officer was biased a&avnst the workman. The Enquiry Officer recorded his own version in the alleged statements of witnesses. The statements of witnesses i.ov recorded were not signed by the wit- nesses nor the same were authenticated by the En- quiry Officer. Inspite of repeated demands by the workman and also by his legal representative for the change of the Enquiry Officer nothing vsas done. The Enquiry Officer failed to maintain day to day pro- ceedings of the domestic enquiry. Thus according to the workman the domestic proceeding was conducted almost ex-partc against him and DO proper opportu- nity was given to him to defend himself. As the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment inflected by the Disciplinary Authority are based upon such unfair and baised domestic enquiry the same cannot be maintained.

4. The case of the Management on the other hand

is that all possible opportunity was afforded to Jhc workman to defend himself. The domestic enquiry wats fair and the allegation that the Enquiry Officer was b'ased against the workman had no basis. Sufficient nnd reliable evidence was adduced by the Management at ths time of Domestic Enquiry and¹ the Enquirv Officer rightly held that the charges were proved against the workman. The Disciplinary autho- rity had also provided ample opportunity to the work- man to defend himself before the punisl

5. However, the question of fairness of otherwise of the domestic enquiry no longer arises for determi- nation at present. My predecessor after hearing both the sides by his order dated 22-4-199S decided the same question as a preliminary issue. As the Manage- ment had failed to file the original papers of the domes- itc enquiry my predecessor by his said order decided that *he domestic enquiry was unfair and it was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. So now the questions to be determined are whether the Management has been able to prove the charges apainst the woiVnnn in this Tribunal, if so. whether punish- ment inflicted is proper and reasonable.

6. The following were the charees which the work-

man faced at the domestic enquirv :—

ritmefi in th^ Tinm"¹; nf fictitious TVrsnn¹' anH wroncfnllv cfrew th" said amount'! himself from the B r wh Ttfaaiipwrt thn* no Taid had rven hired fnr the mirnose and tV rsenstrfltion numbers nf •nehicVi; nr*rit:™-ipH in cnTnf of thn^e vrtiirKT^ vwrf fj/-tii;/v><: o ws T* wru- fnrthrr I'lft"/! *h-\* for ^n-1i

T^rnit+nn-vf +hf" lyorVmiri nr^ri Viic finm

W o t oT C w l (" n r i rf T I; I ? I U ' 1T t in ( • y v t i mc > n r12705 (ii) On 3-1-1972, 1-4-1972, 22-4-1972, 25-5-72 and 31-5-1972 the workman was deputed by the Sabour Branch to accompany remit- tance of cash from Sabour Branch to Bhagal- pur Branch. On those dates the Branch had hired the Jeep belonging to Bihar Agricul- ture College, Sabour for the purpose of remittance of cash. The said College charged Rs. 43.76 paise only for the use of the Jeep on 3-1-1972, 1-4-1972 and 28-4-1972 and Rs. 10 for the journey undertaken on 25-6-1972 and 31-5-1972, but thj workman dishonestly got false vouchers prepared by the said Branch Manager und clerk for conveyance charges and got them signed in the names of ficti- tious persons in token of receipt of the amount and thereby the workmen dishonestly drew a sum of Rs. 360. It is alleged that the excess amount drawn by him as afore- said was misappropriated by him.

(iii) On 8-2-1972 the workman dishonestly caused to be prepared by Mr. N. R. Choudhary a false voucher for conveyance charges said to have been incurred by him on that date in connection with the alleged exchange of notes. There is no entry at all in the cash remittance register regarding exchange of notes on 8-2-1972 and the voucher in that connection is a fictitious one.

(iv) On 10-10-1972 the workman allegedly ob- tained an advance of Rs. 1000 from the Branch which was adjusted on 24-11-1972 after lapse of 45 days by debiting from his S. B. Account. Although it was purely a loan obained by him from the Branch the workman in collusion and conspiracy with the Branch Manager Sri S. D. Thakur falsely stated in the relative voucher dated 10th October, 1972 that the above amount had been received by him against B. P. No. 130. It is discovered that no cheque had been ten- dered by him on the said date for the above amount to the Branch for purchase. The particulars of the cheque alleged to have been tendered by him were also not entered in the relative vouchers.

(v) The workman in violation of the rules of the Bank allegedly was having monetary dealings and transactions with M/s. Silk Manufac- turing Company, Bhagalpur, a customer of the Branch. On 29-9-1972 he WKongfully allowed B.P. No. 107 purchased by the Branch from the said Firm to be adjusted by debiting from his S.B. Accounts.

(vi) On 4-11-1971 B.P. No. 18 drawn on Bhagal- pur Branch of the Bank for Rs. 25 was purchased from the workman by the Branch which was later adjusted on 30-12-1971 by debiting the amount to his S.B. Account. Again on 3-1-1972 the Bills purchased A/C was debited by Rs. 25 and the amount was recreditcd to his S.B. Account 53. It is further alleged that on 16-5-1972 a sum of Rs. 50 was ^recovered on account of com- mission on B.P. No. 61 tor Rs. 10,000 cover- ing cneques or uuagaipur mancn puicuased ironi ivjys. Autar cycie Stores, it is luruier noticed that out oi &ie commission so re- covered lrom M/s. Avtar ^ycie acoies a sum oi Ks. 25 was oruy credueu to "exchange Commission A/C ami me baiance a sum ot Ks. 25 was credited m "JOIUS Purchase A / C •' in a d j u s t m e nt oi n is ti.i'. I N O. 1 H / 7 1.

iflus in collusion ana in conspiracy WHO the Manager !sr.i l>. L>. inaKur uic woi&inan aileg- ediy misappropriated a.sum oi i\s. /:> be- longing to the bank.

7. The workman has examined himseif as w.W. 1. In his deposition he has denied the caaiges. In his deposition he has said that he usea to peaorm Uie duties of Cash Kenntiance/iixchange or noies etc. on the basis oi the oraer oi the Branch Manager drx S. D. Thakur, The vehicles lor the purpose oi remittance etc. were arranged by the Manager, ine hire charges of the vehicles were paid under the oruer oi the Branch Manager and also under vouchers prepared by the Manager. He has demed thai he ever traveued by his own Motor Cycle lor the purpose oi cash, remittance, exchanges etc. He has denied that he re- quested or influenced the Branch Manager to prepare laise vouchers for any inliated amount, ihe wonunan has admitted that the vehicle of the Agriculture Uni- versity, labour was requisitioned on hire basis by the Branch Manager. The workman has admitted that he visited Bhagalpur Bank for the purpose of cash re- mittance on 3-1-1972, 1-4-1972, 28-4-1972, 25-5-72 and 31-5-1972 by the said vehicle of the Agricul- ture University. According to the workman the Branch Manager himself paid the hire charges of the vehicle. In cross-examination he has denied that there was any double payment in this regard.

8. The witness has further said that on 8-2-1972 he visited Bhagalpur Branch for the purpose of ex- change of notes by a vehicle. According to the work- man on 10*10-1972 he took an advapce for B.P. No. 130 and due to delay in receiving the receipt of the bill the amount was adjusted against his account in the Bank. The workman has denied that he was con- nected in any way as partner or otherwise with the Silk Manufacturing Company. He merely had request- ed the Branch Manager for B.P. in favour of the said Silk Manufacturing Co. The workman has said that he got a Bank draft for Rs. 25 prepared from Sabour Branch of the Bank on 4-12-1971. On 31-12-1971 the B.P. outstanding was adjusted. After such ad- justment a sum of Rs. 25 was credited in his account on 3-1-1972. According to the workman such adjust- ment and credit was made due to the Annual closure of the account. The workman has further said that the Branch Manager used to prepared exchange com- mission voucher, for B.P. etc. under his signature. In cross-examination the workman has said that it is not the duty of the Cashier Incharge to cause transfer of excess amount or to collect the amount if found less, but it is the duty of the Branch Manager to do all these things. In case of a proposal for remittance the Manager himself arranged the vehicles to carry the cash. He used to make payment on the basis of the vouchers but before making payment he used to satisfy himself about the identity of the persons receiving the payment for vehicles. According to the workman the Manager used to settle the charge, for hiring Taxi.

The workman never arranged any Taxi himself. In the register of the Hank, the remittance onry used to be entered for hire vehicle but for the purpose of exchange of any cash no such entry used to be made in that legister showing payment ot charges ot any Taxi. Similarly the remittance collected from out side of the Bank is not noted in the register indicating preparation of the vouchers for payment of hire charges. In cross-examination the workman has said that he had leceived a sum of Rs. 1000 on 10-10-72 as proceeds of B.P. 130. It is the duty of the Account Section to make entry of such B.P. hi the relevant register. He cannot say whether the Account Sec- tion had entered the B.P. in the relevant register. He has denied that as Head Cashier of the Bank it was his duty to receive cheque or instrument. According to him the Manager used to receive the same foi B.P. The workman has further said that a sum of Rs. 1000 as against B.P. No. 130 was recovered from bis account on 24-11-1972. On 29-9-1972 B.P. 107 was passed at his instance and the amount against that B.P, was also recovered from his account. The work- man has further said that he arranged a B.P. for a sum of Rs. 25 for his own account and the said sum of Rs. 25 was also recovered from his account. Such recovery of Rs. 25 from his account was made as the B.P. was on the Annual closing of account day. The workman has denied that a sum of Rs. 50 had been charged as collection charge but the same was not credited wholly in the Bank's account and a sum of Rs, 25 was credited in his B.P. account and while rest against Rs. 25 in the Bank's account.

9. Thus, on close examination of the oral evidence of the workman it cannot be said .that the workman has admitted to any of the charges. The Management has failed to confront relevant vouchers or registers to contradict the workman.

10. Zerox copies of certain documents filed on be- half of the workman have been marked Exts. W/l to W/30 on forma] proof having been dispensed with. Most of them are the xerox copies of various letters which were exchanged between the workman and his legal representative with Enquiry Officer and other authorities in relation to the question of unfairness of domestic enquiry. Ext W/3 is the xerox copy of the chargesheet. Ext. W/25 is the xerox copy of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21-4-1979 dismissing the workman. Ext. VV/31 is the zerox copy of the Logue Book of Jeep No. BRJ-1213 belonging to Agricultural College, Sabour. Ex. W /l is the zerox copy oi the order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the writ petition. Ext. W / 29 is the zerox copy of the extract of the judgment of the Additional Munsif. The zerox copy of the extract of the order of Additional District Judge, Monghyer has also been filed.

11. As I have mentioned earlier my predecessor (Central Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad) by his order dated 22-4-1998 held the domestic enquiry un- fair. In that order it was made clear that the Manage- ment was at liberty to adduce evidence for the'purpose of bringing home the charges levelled against the workman. Thereafter several dates were given for evidence of the Management but the Management failed to adduce any evidence either documentary'or oral, On 27-8-1998 the concerned workman was ex- amined as W.W. 1 and he was cross-examined by the Management oa 10-6-1999. Ihereaiter a petition was Olcd or behalf of the Management praying tor an opportunity to produce documents and to examine witnesses. Mv predecessor by his rather a lenthy order dated 22-7-1999 after hearing the parties rejected the petition ot the Management for riling documents or tor examining the witnesses to prove the charges. My predeuijbor on 2-9-1999 heard arguments of both aides and kept the Award reserved. Then the Refer- ence case was transferred and it was received in my hie on „ 3 -2-2001. A petition was also filed by the Management in this Tribunal for filing its documents and to adduce oral evidence. After hearing the parties this Tribunal by its order dated 19-4-2001 are reject- ed the prayer ior the xeasons detailed in that order.

12. Thus, the Management did not flie any docu- ment or examine any witness to substantiate the charges till the completion of the hearing of the case and till the iejection of the petition of the Manage- ment ior adducing orai and documentary evidence by my predecessor vide his order dated 2-7-1999. In spite of reiusing permission to file documents and to adduce oral evidence the Management after two months tiled zerox copies of certain documents on 2-9-1999 along with its written argument. In the circumstances those documents cannot be considered as against the workman. The said documents were filed after the close of evidence of both sides and at the time of hearing arguments. Thus, the workman got no opportunity either to adduce any evidence in re- buttal or to explain those documents said to be incri- minating against him. In the written argument the Management has tried to prove the charges referring to thosr. documents and the statements of witnesses recorded at the time of domestic enquiry. As has been mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of the Management as many as five witnesses were examined by it at the time of domestic enquiry. Nei- ther copies of the depositions of those witnesses have been filed nor any of those witnesses have been exa- mined by tin¹ Management before this Tribunal. The documents filed rt the belated stage by the Manage- ment include rerox copies of some vouchers, remit- tance register, B.P. register, Logue Book of the vehicle of the Agriculture College, Sabour, the enquiry report etc. Eveu if those documents are considered, in my view, the same by themselves would not be sufficient to prow any of the charges against workman beyond doubt in view of clear denial of the charges by the workman in his deposition. The zerox copies of the document⁶; filed by the Management have not also formally and legally been proved.

13. Thus, I find that the Management has failed to substantiate the charges even before this Tribunal. As a matter of fact it has not adduced any legal evidence in this regard, In this view of the matter I hold that he action of the Management of UCO Bank, Patna in dismissing the concerned workman Sri M. P. Pandey, Head Cashier from service w.e.f. 8-11-1979 is illegal and unjustified.

14. As to the question what relief the workman is entitled to, Sri B. Prasad representative of the work- man h fairly did not press for any back wages till the industrial dispute was raised as more than 212167 years have elapsed. The claim of Sri Prasad appears reasonable that the concerned workman be reinstated w.ei. 8-11-1979 and to be paid the back wages only w.e.f. 10-4-1995 when the present industrial dispute was raised by UCO Bank Employees Association on behalf of the workman.

15. Thus, I hold that the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service w.e.f. 8-11-1979 when he was dismissed from service but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period prior to 10-4-1995. He Will be entitled to back wages w.e.f. 10-4-1995. The Reference a answered accordingly.

Vs.

The Divisional Railway, Manager, Northern Railway, Near New Delhi Railway, Station, New Delhi. • - Management.

APPEARANCE :

For the workman : Shri Ashwani Kumar.

For the Management: Sh. P. P. Khorana.

AWARD

16. The Management is directed to implement the award within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award. This is my Award.

S. K. MISHRA, Presiding Ofticer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S.O. 1320.—In ^pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management .of Northern Railway and their woikman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-41O12|159|99 IR(B-T)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 181199

Shri Gian Singh S/o Shri Data Ram Singh do Divisional Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari. A. C. Kapoor Ahata, Ambala Cantt. Haryana, • • Workman.

(Passed on 3rd May, 2001) The Central Govt. vide notification No. L-41012|159|99|IR(B-I) dated 30-8-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of Divisional Rail- way Manager Western Railway, New Delhi in removing Shri Gian Singh S|o Sh. Data Ram Singh (Turner) from his services w.e.f. 15-7-1982 without any enquiry etc. by invoking Rule 14(ii) of Railway servants Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. Rep. of the workman appeared today and made the statement that the workman has gone abroad and the union does not want to pursue with the present reference. In view of the statement of the rep. of the Urion, present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

3-5-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer2708 tHfe GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2b01/ JYAlSTHA 26, 1923 '&&* fiM-&#/3$>] New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S.O. 1321.—In pursuance o( Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes 'he aword of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Anoexure in the- In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway, Madurai and their workman, which w?s received by flhc Cen- tral Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-41012/142(A)/98-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 4th May, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 95/2001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 43/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10(l)(d> and sub-section 2(A) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Workman Sri R. Subramani, Dindugal and the Management, Sou- thern Railway, Madurai.^

BETWEEN

Shri R. Subramani, Dindugal.

. .. Workman/I Part}

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway.

2. The Divisional Safety Manager,

Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Madurai. . . . Management/II Party APPEARANCE:

For the Workman—-M/s. K. Ilango & G. Chamki Raj, Advocates.

For the Management—-Mr. P. Arulmudi, Advo- cate.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-410l2/142(A)'98 dated 4-3-99, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 20-4-2001, upon perusing the reference. Claim Statement, Counter Statement and documen- tary evidence filed o:\ brhalf of the Workman /I Party and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Tlango, advocate for the. I Partv/Worlonan and Sri P. Aruhrmdi, Advocate for the Management/Respondent and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribu- nal passed the following:—

AWARD

Tnis reference by the Central Government in exer- cise of title powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute:, Act in respect ct dispute between Shri R. Subramani, Workman and the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai, Management, mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of re- ference.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Madurai in compulsorjly retiring the services of the Workmaa Shri R. Subra- mani with effect from 20-2-97 is justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled to ?" 2. This order of reference was made to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal as an uidustnsl dispute for adjudication and. the same was taken on file by that Tribunal as, I.D. No. 43/99. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties appeared with their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter vas pending enquiry in that Tribunal, this case has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu Indus- trial Tribunal, as per tine orders of the transfer issued by the Central Government to the file of this Tri- bunal. On receipt of records from tliat Tribunal, this case was taken on file as I.D. Mo. 95/2001 on 16th January, 2001 Notices were sent to the 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 prose- cute this case. On the first hearing on 30-1-200), the counsel appearing on either side were present and at the request of the counsel for the Management, the case was adjourned to 14-2-2001, extending tune till then for the Management to file their documents. On 34-2-2001, with the consent by the counsel on citiher side 14 documents were marked as Ex. Wl to W14. Then at the request of the counsel on cither side, the rase was adiourncd to 28-2-2001 for further enquiry and on that day, on the consent given by the counsel on either side, further documents were marked as W15 to W17. Thrn on the representation made by the counsej for the II Party/Management that they have no oral or dorumentary evidence to let in and the counsel for the I Party has also represented that the Workman has no more evidence, hence the evi- dence was closed and at the request of the counsel on either side, the case was posted to 15-3-2001 for hear- ing arguments or either side. Sub*equenily. the coun- sel on either side have filed the written arenments apart advancing their oral arguments on behalf of the respective parties and the case was adjourned to this datf for orders.

3, The brief particulars of fhis industrial dispute between the parties are as follows : —

Thr, I Party/Workman Oirrcinafirr refenrrd t2709 order dated 25-9-97. Then the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the conciliating authority, which ended in iailure. Then on submission of con- ciliation, failure report by the conciliating authority, tha Government was pleased to refer this matter as an industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudica- tion.

4. It is further alleged by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that (flic action of the 1st Respondent in compulsorily retiring from service is unjustified, arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The entire report proceeded only on' the basis of the prosecution witnesses and has failed to take note of the defence submissions. The request of the Petitioner to examined the independent wit- ness Sri Kandasamy was denied. Hence, tihe enquiry is vitiated and against the principles of natural jus- tice. The Enquiry Officer has failed to take note that there was no complaint made by Sri Malayalam Muthuswamy against the Petitioner. The Respondent has not established the charges that the Petitioner has deserted his'duty since the exact time of the incident as alleged in the charge memo has rot been corro- borated by any of the prosecution witnws. Th- cvidence of ttie defence witness that Sri Malayalam Muthuswamy was in the habit of irsulting the em- ployees and he hud also been vindictive towards them has not been taken note of bv the Erquirv OfPctr The evidence in this case does not sunpmt the charges. The enquiry was not held fair and ornr.er. The Peti- tioner has been denied a fair opportunity in present his case. Hence, this Tribunal may be pleased to prr-s an award holding thnt the otxLr passed by tlbe 1st Respondent comraharily retiring the Petitirn^r frnro SprvJc is unjustified and to direct the Respondent i pay all the benefits irrhidinn back wages due fo the Petitioner till 28-2-98, the date of his actual retire- ment.

5. The Respondent has denied all these allegations in die Counter and has stated that a complaint from the Station Master/API Station was received on 26-9-94 that Sri K. Malayalam Muthusamy, Station Master Gr. III/Akkaraipatti Station, who performed ' 6.00 brs. duty was assaulted by the Petitioner in front of the Station premises. Based on which, it was ordered for a fact finding enquiry. Accordingly, the Traffic Inspector/Inspector, Railway Protection Force Dindigul conducted fact finding enquiry on 27-9-94 and 28-9-94 and submitted their joint report along with statements of witnesses. In that ioirff report, they gave findings that the Petitioner had assaulted Sri Malayalam Muthusamv on the R nil way Feeder Road of API at about 6.45 hrs. on 26-9-^4 durin<* his duty. Thus, the Petitioner had violated Railway Service (conduct) Rules, 1966 3.1 (ii) lack of devo- tion to duty—Act of disregarded duties. Desertion of duty post & 3.1 (in) indiscipline. Based on the report, a charge memo was issued by the Divisional Safety Officer, Madurai to the Petitioner. Since the Petitio- ner has denied the charge by his written statement, an enquiry was conducted urder Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. As per the request of the Petitioner, ho was allowed to have assistance of a defener helper for perusal of the records and for further enquiry proceedings. The Petitioner had taken part in the enquiry, availing fullS?16 THE ^AaBTTl OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 3001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1S23 {PARI II~SBC. }(fl)] opportunity to put forth his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that the charges against tflie charge sheeted employee has been pioved and the act of the Petitioner is a misconduct in violation of provisions of 2.10(b) and Rule 3.1 (iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 is proved. The Dis- ciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings sub- mitted by the Enquiry Officer passed an order re- moving the petitioner from service with effect from the forenoon of 20th February, 1997. The appeal pre"erred by the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. Then, after the conciliation pro- ceedings, the matter has been referred to by the Cen- tral Government for adjudication to this Tribunal. The Petitioner's normal date of retirement is 28-2-98. Since he has already put in 33 years of qualifying service, on compulsory retirement he is entitled for payment of full pensionary benefits, as if he has retired on superannuation. His settlement of dues were made on 3-11-1998. Hence, this Hon'ble Tri- bunal may please be dismissed this indus'rial dispute as devoid of merits.

6. The points for my consideration are—•

(i) whether th" domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner/Workman v> vitiated and against the principles of natural justice; and

(ii) whether the action of the Management in compulsorily retiring the services of the Petitioner/Workman with effect from 20th February. 1997 is justified ? Tf net, to what relief, the Petitioner/Workman is entitled ?

Point No. 1 :

The Petitioner/Workman had put in more than 33 years of service in the Re<-pcndent/Manapem<*nt, Dur- ing the pllepcd period of misconduct, he was working as Pointsman at Akkaraipatti near Dirdupul He was on duty on 24-9-04 from 19.00 hrs. to 7 00 *irs. on 76-9-94 One Phri K Mplfivalnm Mntrmswunv was o-i Hnfv as Station Ma^er Gr nT/AVI-ar^rnttai nn n'Cit shift on 75/26-9-04 from 17 00 OVlocV mid- piphr V 6 30 hrs. TO 26-9-94. The Station Master nf Sri S-inViran jrove a Tnrrsape t*> th-" TVvisinpsl S •(•{.! v Oflv-er, Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Midifai on 26-9-94. a cor>v of that message is Fx. W l. In that it is stated that Shri K. Malayam Muthu- swamy, SM/III/AI performed 6.30 hrs. duty date has been assaulted by Sri Subramani S. No. 6076, Pointsman A. APT at 7.00 hrs. in front of the Station premises. After assaulting he made a complaint under PCR station at DG. Please take necessary action. On the basis of his control message under Ex. W l, a joint enquiry was held by Sri Slmdararajan, IPF/DG and Sri P. J. Johnson, T I / DG on 27-9-94 and 28-9-94, Apart from the Petitioner Sri Subramani, Pointsman/API and the Station Master and other six people were examined by them as witnesses. The deposition of Sri Malayalam Muthuswamy, one Mr. Chinnasamy, Mr, P. Karuppaiah and Sri. S. Sankaran, who gave the control message under Ex. Wl are exhi- bits W2 to W5 respectively. The findings of that Joint Enquiry Committee is Ex. W6. In that Ex. W6, the Joint Enquiry Committee gave a finding that in the enquiry it is proved that Sri K. Malayalam Muthu- swamy, Station Master Or- III/Akkaraipatti was as-

saulted at Railway Feeder Road, Akkaraipatti by S. Subramani, Pointsman, Akkaraipatti at about 6,45 hrs. on 26-9-94 during his duty. Thus, he violated 'the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 3.1 (iii) lack of devotion to duty—Act of disregarded duties, desertion of duty post and 3.1 (iii) indiscipline. Sub- sequent to that a departmental enquiry was conduct- ed, after issuing a charge memo dated 29-11-94 to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, Sri M. Mani, A P O/ MDU had conducted an enquiry into the alleged mis- conduct mentioned in the charge memo against the 'Petitioner. The enquiiy xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings of the Enquiry Officer is Ex. W8. The topy of charge memo issued to the I Party/Petitioner lhas not been filed in the Court. From Ex. W8, the (enquiry proceedings, it is seen that in the presence of the chargesheeted employee/Petitioner Shri Subra- mani, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and during the enquiry one Mr. Balaguruswamy has assisted tho^ Petitioner as defence helper in the enquiry. From the enquiry proceedings it is seen that the Petitioner ha¹, perused the documents relied upon (by the Management and he availed the services of Sihri N. Balagurusamy, PS defence helper and he got i^he photocopies of the documents. He has ako cited three persons as defence witnesses namely F. Jeeva, P. Karuppaiah and S. Sankaran were- examined as Witnesses for the Management and Sri Karuppiah and Sri Chinnasamy were examined as defence witnesses. All the Management witnesses PW1 to PW3 were cross examined by the defence helper in detail. All the days' proceedings were signed by the Enquiry Officer, chargesheeted employee and the defence hel- per apart from the respective witnesses examined both on Management side as well as Workman side. On completion of the enquiry, the Petitioner has sub- mitted his written submission to the Enquiry Officer. £ xerox copy of the same is Ex. W17. A xerox copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer is Ex. W9. After •considering the entire 'evidence let in before him both by the Management and ths delinquent em- ployee, the Enquiry Officer gave his finding stating that the charge against the delinquent employee as misconduct alleged in the charge sheet against him lias been proved and the said mirc^nduct is an act 'in violation of the provisions of GR 2.10(b> and Rule 3.Kin) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Ex. W10 is the xerox cony of the Penalty Ad- vice issued to the Petitioner/Workman by the Divi- sional Safety Officer. Msdurai. statins that the P"*i- fioicr is removed from service of Railway Adminis- tration with effect from tfbe forenoon nf 20th Febm- >iry, 1997. The said order is dated 30th January, 1977. As it is stated in that order that he can prefer an anneal, if any, to the Aopeiitote Authority within 45 days on receipt of that order Pv, Wl 1 is the xerox coftv of the appeal piven by iflie Petitioner/Workman to the Anoeilptp Authority. The, Aorrllate Authority, Divitio"!^ Railwav Mpnafrer.Mndnrai, in his order datH 75th Srntemher, 19^7 mortified Ihe pemTtv im- p r rH bv the Disciplinary Authority of removing from service to rvv cf commthory retirement with effect from ?Oth Febmarv, 1997. A xeror COPV of TUT- AnrHMe Authority's order is F.x W14 A ^enisal of 2711 by the defence helper and he has cross examined all the: Management witnesses and has examined two witnesses as his defence witnesses and he has also given a personal hearing by the Appellate Authority before ever he passed the order under E\. W14. From all these things, it is seen that the Petitioner/Work- man was given fair and sufficient opportunity to de- fend his case in the domestic enquiry and the Fn-, quiry Officer conducted the domestic enquiry in a fair and proper manner giving sufficient opportunity to the delinquent employee to defend himself fully. Thus, he has conducted the enquiry in T fair mrmnier strictly following the rules of evidence and following the rules for conducting the enquiry. Though the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of removal from service under his Penalty Advice under Fx. W10, the Appellate Authority under Ex. W14 have modi- fied it into one of tlhe compulsory retirement from service, so as to enable the Petiiioner to avail his all benefits and the Appellate Authority also have passed 'that order after Riving him an opportunity of per- sonal hearing. From all these things, it is seen lliat the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management against the Petitioner/delinquent employee is not vitiated and it is not against the principles of natural justice. Thus, in answer the point accordingly.

Point No. 2 :

Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer tihe point accordingly. Further, it is the allegation of the Respondent/Management in their Counter that after the failure of the conciliation pro- ceeding, the Petitioner had represented to the DRM stating his readiness to receive dues, without prejudice to his right to raise dispute at higher forum vide bis letter dated 24-8-98 and before that date he had not preferred any claim. Based on that his settlement dues were made on 3-11-98. This is not denied by tlu Peti- tioner. Fiom all these fillings it is seen that the Man- agement has settled the dues to tho Petitioner, after retiring him compulsorily from service, as per the Appellate Authority's order.

7. In the result, an award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to 'iny relief, as prayed for. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed & typed by him and corrected & pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 4th May, 2001).

K KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witness Examined :

On either side : NONE.

Documents Marked :

For I Party/Workman :

Fx. Wl 26-0-3-94—Xerox copy of Control mes- sage given to the 2nd Respondent by S. Sankaran (Station Master).

Ex. W2 27-09-94-^Xerox copy of Deposition of Sri Malayalam Muthusamy before the Joint Enquiry Committee.

Ex W3 27-09-94—-Xerox copy of deposition of M. Chinnasamy before the Joint Enquiry Committee.

F \. W4 27-09-94—Xerox copy of deposition of P. Karuppiaih before the Joint Enquiry '^ Committee.

Ex. W5 28-09-94—Xerox copy of report of S. Santaran, RGSM Til, to" TT/Dindigul.

Ex. M6 —Xerox copy of Findings of the Joint Enquiry Committee.

Ex. W7 2P-10-94—Xerox copy of report given by F. Jeeva to the 2nd respondent.

Ex. W8 10-10-95 to 19-08-96—Xerox copy of Enquiry Proceedings.

Ex. W9 16-10-96—Xerox Copy of the Findings of tho Enquiry Officer.

Ex. W10 30-01-97—Xero* copy of Penalty ad- vice given by the 2nd Respondent to re- move the Petitioner from his service.

Ex. W ll 11-03-97—Xerox copy of Appeal against the penalty award

A perusal of the records available in this case in- cluding enquiry proceedings go to show that the En- quiry Officer has arrived at the finding tihat the Charge against the delinquent employee has been proved relying upon the evidence placed before him poth on the side of the Management and the Work- man through oral and documentary evidence. So, it cannot be said that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and without any evidence as such tb prove the charge of alleged misconduct against the Petitioner/Workman. The report given by the Joint Enquiry Committee prior to the domestic enquiry, as a fact finding committee under Fx W7 ;>lso m> to sfiow that there is sufficient material in this case for the Management to come to the conclusion that the petitioner/Workman has committed misconduct in Violation of provisions of G R. 2. IO(b) and Rule l l ( i i i) and G.R. 2 07 and Pule 3.l(iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules. 1966. So far as the domes- tic enquiry is concerned, the 'Enquiry Office- need not bent upon to Give a finding only on the alleged charge of misconduct mentioned in the charge sheet against tlhe charpesheeted ernnlovee as proved fully under the principles of ^vid^nre Act it is suffice for r|im to romp to th^ conclusion to give a finding on preponderance of probability. On thnt basis it is seen from the records in this case thnt sufficient materials Were available b^f^rc tho E"ciuiry Offif-r to r^mc to the exclusion thnt the charp° sfiectied employee hns committed misconduct r.s niWH in the r j r w* sjieet in violation of the Rules mentioned in the Rail- way Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Though the Dis- ciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment of removal from service, the Appellate Authority con- sidering the past, long service of the Petitioner has rriodificd the punishment to (he cm; of compulsory •"iptiremem from sen ice. So from all'these things, it is se"" that the action of the Divisional Manage in compulsnrilv retiring trie service* of the workman Sri K. Subramani vith effect from 14-2-97 is justified. 1W9 GI/2001—4

Ex. W12 02-05-97—Xerox copy of Petitioner's reminder to the 1st Respondent.

Ex. Wi3 04-08-97—Xerox copy of Petitioner's letter to the 1st Respondent.

Ex. W14 25-09-97—Xerox copy of order passed by the 1st Respondent,2712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001//JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART H-^SEC. 3(11)] Ex. WI5 15-09-95—Xenix copy of duty ro^er.

AWARD

E i. W16 15-09-95-XCTOX c ipy ot Extract of

(Passed on 23rd April, 2001) station diary cJU'tcd 24-09-94 to 26-09-94.

Ex. W17 25-08-96—Xerox copy of Petitioner's

letter to the Enquiry Officer.

?T| fc^ft, 21 Tf, 2001

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12013|4|98|IR(B-II) dated 14th December 1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for ad- judication :—

TT.srr. 13?2—*faftfiro fr^K vfafrq¹*, 1947

( 1 9 47 TT 14) aft a rn 17 % spT^r^r *T %^TT

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in stop- page of checking allowance to Sh. V. D. Sharma, w.e.f. August, 1992 and onwards is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

2. Rep, of the workman appeared and filed an application for withdrawing the case as the Union does not want to pursue with the pre- sent reference. In view of the above, since the Union docs not want to pursue with the present reference, the same is returned to the Ministry as no dispute award. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

? 3-4-2001

B. L. JA-TAV, Presiding Officer S.O. 1322.—In pursuance of Section J7 of the ' Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Centra] Government Industrial "iribunal'Labour Court, Chandi garh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in jv'if'nn to the management of Central Ba:ik of In. Ha and then" workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-12013l4l"8-IR(B-IT)] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. B. L. JATAV. PRHSTTMNG OFFICER, CEN^SIAL GOVT.. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 19 of 1999

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 The General Secretary, Central Bonk of India Employees. Union (Hpryana), 129 Lil Kurti. Ambala.

.. Petitioner.

Vs.

The Regional Manager. Central Bank of India. Regional Office, Delhi Road. Rohtak-124001. . . Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

S.O. 1323.—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, Jaipur as shown in the annexure in the Indus- tjiai Dispute between the employers in relation tcr* the management of Bank of Baroda and their work- man, which was leceived by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

For the workman : Shri B. S. Gill.

For the Management : Shri R. K.

LNo. L-12OJ2|348I97-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Dhiman.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. C'GIT~B-12|98

Reference No. L-12012/348/97-IR(B-II) dated 23-2-98.

Vikash Chaturvedi SJo Sh. Kedar Chaturvedi Aged 30 years. R[o Behind Panchayat Samitt Bandikui District Dausp.

• .Applicant

Versus

Management of Bank of Buroda Through Dy. General Manager Regional Office, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur.

. .Non-applicant ATTENDANCE :

For the applicant.—Sh. S. K. Jam, Advocate. For the non-applicant.—Shri T. P. Sharaia, Advocate.

Date of Award.—9-4-2001.

AWARD

The Central Government vide order referred above has referred the following industrial dispute under clause (d) of the sub-section (1) and sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Bonk of Baroda, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Vikash Chaturvedi, Class- TV employee w.c.f. 10-11-96 without pay- ing him notice pjy in lieu of notice of one month and retieiichment compensation in violation of Section 25-F of T.D. Act, 1947 though he has completed more than 240 days of service during a year (10-11-95 to 9-11-96) prior to the date of termination and junior workman Shri Deepak Sharma and Kishal Lai Saini were employed with- out giving him any opportunity of employ- ment in violation of Sec. 25-H of the said Act is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date ""

The applicant filed the statement of claim alleging that he was appointed as Class-IV employee on daily wage from 3-1-95 in the Bank of Baroda (herein- after referred as the B?nk > and he Continued to work there upto 9-11-96 against the vacant post. His ser- vices however were terminated suddenly by an oral order dated 9-11-96. Thereafter he submitted rep- resentation dated 21-11-96 to the Deputy General Manaycv of the Bank, but with no response. He gave furl her representation but with no result. His ser- vices were terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act, 1947 ana rule-77 of the Indus- trial Disputes (Central) Rules. 1957 (hereinafter re- ferred as the Rules, 1957). It was prayed that the order of retrenchment be set aside and he may be reinstated with back v.ages with interest @ 18 per cent per annum and all consequential reliefs.

In the reply on Khalf of the Bank it was stated ill at the applicant was engaged as casual worker only to meet out casual work of the Bank and he had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It was further stated that the applicant had not made proper party in the petition where he had worked. The applicant was not appointed against any sanc- tioned or vacant post. He worked from 3-1-95 to 18-3-95 for a period of 62 days only for shifting of the record of the Bank. The applicant himself left trie job and, therefore, the issue of termination of service does not arise. Jt was denied that the applicant submitted any representation in respect of termination of his service. It was also denied that services ol the applicant were terminated in violation of the provisions of Act, 1947,

The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply reiterat- ing the facts mentioned in the claim petition. It was denied that the applicant was appointed on casual basis. It was stated that the fact that the applicant worked continuously from 3-1-95 to 9-11-96 can be ascertained from the daily vouchers of the Bank and conveyance vouchers as per the muster roll. It was denied that the applicant left the job himself.

In support of the claim Ihe applicant filed his own affidavit. The learned counsel for the non-applicant was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affidavit. The applicant also filed the affidavit of Shri Nand Singh but he could not be produced for cross examination. On behalf of the Bank affidavit of Shri K, K. Thakor, Manager (Personnel) was filed. The learned counsel for the applicant was given op- portunity to cross examine him on his affidavit. As regards production of documeuts affidavit of Shri P. C. Godha was filed. In the form of documentary evidence copies of vouchers Ex. M-l were filed.

Heard arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

The following points arise for determination :—• ( I) Whether the applicant had worked in the branch M. I. Road of the Bank as Class- IV employee from 3-1-95 to 9-11-96> and had worked for 240 days in the year pre- ceding to the dr.te of termination ?

(2) Whether Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri Kishan Lai Saini were employed by the Bank after termination of services of the applicant without giving him any opportu- nity of employment ?

(3) Whether the management of the Bank has violated provisions of Section 25-F and H of the Act, 1947 ?

(4) To what relief the applicant is, entitled?

The point;; are decided as follows :—

Point No. 1.—The applicant has stated that he wurVed in brunch M. I. Road of the Bank from 3-1-95 to 9-11-% as class-IV employee on daily wage @ Rs 40 per day. He has also stated that2714 THB GAZETTE OF iNpIA : JUNE i6, 2001/ JYAlSTHA 26, 1923 [PART ll—SEC. 3(iij] wages paid to bim uptj 9-11-96 were entered in the accounts of Uu Bank. He has fuither stated that record including salary Tip voucher and attendance register of the daily wages is kept in the Bank. The attendance of Shri Nand Singh Chauhan who was employed in the Bank was also entered in the attend- ance register. In crds e.\aminauon he has stated that payment was made to hhn through vouchers and attendance was also recorded in attendance register. He has denied that he had worked trorn 3-1-95 to 18-3-95 only and has stated that further payment was also made to him. Un the other hand Shri K. K Thakoi, Manager ^JPerjonnel) in the Bank has stated that the applicant was engaged from 3-1-95 to 18-3-95 for a period of 62 days for shifting of the records from the y-'down of the Bank to the premises of the Bank, lhe applicant had not work- ed for 240 days in a calendar year. The Bank does not maintain any record ul thf casual worker. He has stated that he has seen vouchers from 3-1-95 to 18-3-95 and after 18-3-95 there was no record as regards payment made to the applicant. The attend- ance register is maintained for permanent employees and not for casual workers. No separate record is maintained for preparing vouchers. The vouchers made available to him were seen by him. He has no knowledge about payment ol conveyance charges. He has denied that the applicant was used to go in the Bank for opening the blanch. The Officer pro- ceeding on leave in the middle of the week, used to tell the officer working in his place about the work being done by a person. He has denied that the applicant had worked ior rnort than 62 days. He has stated that the entry of the vouchers is made in the cash book. He has seen the vouchers and not other documents. There are no rules about main- tenance of attendance register of the casual workers.

The learned counsel for the applicant has contend- er! that the applicant has filed an application for pro- duction of documents. The application was allowed but the documents were not produced by the non- npplicant. Mr P. C. Godha who has filed affidavit about not maintaining the attendance register etc. was. not produced for cross examination in spite of the request made by the applicant, Shri K. K. Thakor was not posted in the M. I Road branch of the Bank at the time the applicant h(jd worked and. therefore, he cannot have personal knowledge about the work of the applicant and the affidavit sworn by him on the basis of personal knowledge has no value in the eyes of law. He has further contended that in the above circumstances an adverse inference has to be drawn against the non-applicant for non-production of the record and the applicant's statement that he worked in the Bank horn 3-1-95 to 9-11-96 conti- nuously should be believed. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-applicant has refuted the above contentions of the .Irarrted counsel for the applicant. He has contc-nded that the applicant has failsd to prove that he had worked from 3-1-95 to 9-11-96 continuously and on the contrary it is proved that he had worked from 3-1-95 to 18-3-95. only for a total period of 62 days. He has also con- tended that no advene inference can be drawn against the non-applicant for the production of the record which does not exist.

1 hereafter the applican, filed an application on ] 5-9-99. The application dated 30-7-99 and li-7-9y weio disposed Lit by order dated 29-11-99 and tlu non-applicant was directed to produce the record oi in case the same is not available to file an affidavit tu that eftect. The documents were not produced and affidavit of Shri P. C. Godha was filed on 31-1-2000. it may be stated that on filing of lhe affidavit of Shri P.' C. Godha on 31-1-2000 no prayer was made by the applicant to cross examine him. In his affidavit P. C. Uodha has stated that no regular recoLd is maintained of the casual workeis. He ins stated that appointment letter, tetmination letter, iStendancc register are not avail- able in the Bank. The above record is maintained fjr the permanent employees only. The applicant hjd worked foi a period of 62 days from 3-1-95 to 18-3-95. With reference to the applicant there is no pay slip, conveyance voucher for opening and closing of the Bank. 'Hie applicant was paid only through vouchers. Adverse inference can be drawn about non-production of record? only when the same is available with the party but fails to produce - the same. I hc applicant has stated that attendance register etc. were maintained in respect of daily wagcis. On the other hand Shri P. C. Godha and Shri K. K. lhakor have stated that no such record is maintained for casual workers. It is difficult to rely upon the statement of the applicant in this re- gard. The applicant in cross examination has stated that he was given appointment letter in writing while in the para-2 of the claim i: has been stated that his appointment was oral He has stated that he has sent 8 representations in respect of termination of his service which fact has been denied on behalf' of the non-applicant. The applicant hus not produced copy of any lepre^entation alleged to have been sent by him to the non-applicant. • It is, therefore, diffi- cult to believe that he made representations. I do not find an> i<:ason tu di'believe the statement of Shri P. C. Godha and Shri K. K. Thakor that no such record is maintained about the casual workers and through vouchers payment is made to the casual workers. On .the basis of the vouchers made available to Mr. Thakor the applicant had worked from 3-1-95 to 18-3-95 foi a period of 62 days. Although K. K. Thakor was not posted in the M. I. Road branch of Bank where the appJicmt had worked, but there appears to be nn reason ab to why the above branch of the Bank might have withheld, the vouchers as regards payment to applicant. When there were no vouchers with the Bank for making payment to the applicant after 18-3-95 question of their production docs not arise. Although Shri K. K, Thakor in veri- fication of his affidavit has stated that the contents of the affidavit are true to his personal knowledge but lateion has clarified that knowledge was derived from the record. His statement is thus based on the record and simply because he has given the above f.tntemem as icgfirds the basis of the contents of the affidavit, his statement cannot be ignored. In the rbnvc circumstances in my view no adverse inference is required to be taken against non-npplicant for non- pi oduction of record. On the basis of the vouchers through which the payment was made to the appli- cant, tin applicant had worked for 62 days only during the period frori 3-1-95 to l'8-3-95. The applicant's statement that IK had worked from 3-1-95 to 9-11-96 and worked lor more than 240 days can- not be believed. The applicant thus hag failed to As regards production of documents the applicant had filed an application nn 30-7-99. In reply to the application affidavit of Shri P. C. Godha was filed.

prove that he had woiked from 3-11-95 to 9-11-96 continuously or had workul for 240 days in the year preceding to th-j dute of his termination i.e. 10-11-96.

Point No. 2.-—The applicant neither in the state- ment of claim nor in his affidavit has stated that Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri KUian Lai Saini were employed by the Bank aftci termination of his ser- vice. There is thus no evidence that the above persons were given appointment after termination of services of the applicant. On the other hand Shri K. hi. Thakor has stated that no person has been engaged aftei the termination of the services of the applicant. Thus it is" not proved that Shri Deepak Sharma and Snri Kishan Lai Saini were appointed after termination of the services of the applicant.

Point No, 3.—On the basis of above discussion it has not been proved that the applicant had worked for 240 days in the year pieeeding to the termination of service, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 are not attracted. Violation of Section 25-H of the Act, 1947 on the part of the non-applicant is also not pioved as the applicant has failed to prove that Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri Kishan Lai Saini were given appointment after ter- mination of his service.

The learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that before retrenchment no seniority list was published as required under rule-77 of the Rules 1957 by the non-applicant and, therefore, termina- tion of the services of the applicant is illegal. Firstly, it may be stated that there is no reference about violation of rulc-77 of the Rules, 1957. Secondly, tJie applicant has admitted that he was the sole casual worker in the branch of the Bank. The ques- tion, therefore, of preparing the seniority list does not arisc in these circumstances.

On the basis of the findings given above the tct- mination of services of the applicant cannot be held to- be illegal and unjustified. The applicant is, there- fore, not entitled to any relief.

The copies of the Award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd.f-

Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

S.O. 1324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allaha- bad Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-12012/189/97-IR(B-II)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 19 of 1998

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma. Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Management : Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, Advofate with Mrs. R. Kar, Advocate. On behalf of Workmen : None.

STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Banking.

AWARD

By OiJci No. L-12012/189/97-lR (B-1I) dated 28th May, 1998 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 10(1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank, Eastern Zonal Office, 19. Neni Scngupta Sarani, Calcutta-87, not re- gularising Shri Dilip Kumar Knrmakar as special assistant is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled V'

2. The reference in question has been raised by the Allahabad Bank Staff Association on behalf of one Dilip Kumar Karmakar an employee of the Allahabad Bank and a member of the Association. According to the union Shri Karmakar was earlier attached to Calcutta Main Branch of the Allahabad Bank and was deputed to Calcutta Clearing House under the control of the Reserve Bank of India as representa- tive of the Allahabad Bank aJonffwith auother staff Shri Pradyul Kr. Dutta. The nature of job being per- formed by them in the Clearing House was of a spe- cial assistant os per bipartite settlement. It is stated on behalf of the union that the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the posts nf Clearing House Representatives were declared the posts of Special Assistant. According to the union27i6 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA -. J U NE ie, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26,1923 [PAR: 11—SEC. 3(ii)] House on usual special allowance and Shu Karmakar was asked to officiate as Special Assistant as and when required, However, the Clearing CVil ot the Caicucia Main Branch was subsequently declared as Service liianch, Calcutta on 4-J-1987 within the contioi or the Calcutta Main Branch. Shri Karmakar was also appointed as Encoder Operator of the Branch with ettect from 26-4-1989 and he also performed the duties of Special Assistant from time to time according to requirement on payment of appropriate special allow- ance in terms of the memorandum of settlement. It has been stated on behalf of the management that though Shri Karrnakar had performed the duties of Special Assistant lor a pietty long time, his duties were need-based and temporary in nature and the Bank has to iollow certain clear norms and procedure for selection of Special Assistant in the identified vacancy as pec provisions of the memorandum of settlement of 1989. Therefore, it has been stated on behalf of the management that merely because Shri Karmakar was officiating as Special Assistant from time to time Recording to the necessity, it did not entitle him to be appointed on the post ot Special Assistant against the norms and policy of the Bank in accordance with the bipartite settlement. It has been clearly stated that actually Shri Karmakar was never appointed to the post of Special Assistant as such, nor he worked as Special Assistant continuously during the period and his employment was only causal need based and inter- mitlanl. Accordingly, it was denied that there is any substance in the claim of the union regarding the re- gulation of Shri Karmakar in the post of Special Assistant.

4. Both the parties adduced evidence and produced some documents which were also admitted into evi- dence. So fur as the documents are concerned, ali the documents are not relevant, excepting for a few which shall be reteire-1 hereafter.

Shri Karrnakar was, working as representative of Allahabad Bank in the Clearing House since May, 1969. It is also iurther stated that after the order of the Hon'blc Supreme Court the management of the Bank paid a specified allowance to Siiri Karmakar with arreais oil 6th May, 1977. From July, 1977 to February, 1982 Shri Karrnakar continued to work as Clearing House Representative of Allahabad Bank. From February, 1982 to July, 1995 he was working as Special Assistant attached to Calcutta Clearing House and was drawing a special allowance of Rs. o29 per month as per bipartite settlement. In the mean time, the management appointed Shri Kannakar as Encoder Operator with effect from April, 1989 which carried a lower special allowance than the post which he was holding. It is stated that the special allowance for the post of Encoder Operator happened to be Rs. 245 only per moinh. It is stated that as per the lules foi promotion, the persons drawing lower allow- ance may opt for higher allowance carrying post. It is also stated that Dilip Kumar Karrnakar requested the management from time to time to regularise him in the post of Special Assistant in the Service Bremen of the Bank in Calcutta as he continued to function on the post of Special Assistant for a period of 25 years. In this view of the matter, the union raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Com- missioner and conciliation efforts were made, but it did not materalisc and the matter was reported to the appropriate authority and the reference was made. It is stated that the said workman, Shri Karmakar was a-ked to perform tljc duties of Special nature in ordi- nary course and not due to sudden increase of work or administrative exigency. It is also stated that dur- ing die intervening period large number of vacancies of Special Assistants in the Allahabad Bank were created and filled up, but the management did not pay any heed to the jequest of the workman concerned; Rather, he¹ was given a post carrying lower special allowance and thus loss has been cause to him and he has sufferred. So, it has been prayed that he should be ordered to be regularised on the post of Special Assistant with all other consequential benefits.

5. On behalf of the union two witnesses have been examined. Fiist witness is Shri Dilip Kumar Karma- kar, the concerned workman himseif and the second witness is Shri Suclhanshu Ranjan Saha, the General Secretary ot the union concerned. WW-1, Dilip Kumar Karmakar has stated that he was appointed as a Cierk in the Main Branch of the Allahabad Bank at Calcutta rind h; was being paid special allowance for higher responsibility being discharged by him. He has stated that he was for Urge number of years deputed ;is Special Assistant in the Clearing House for which he was getting special allowance also. In Ms cross-exami- nation he has stated that a Clerk is entitled to get special allowance of the post, if such post is a special allowance carrying post. He has also stated that he had only acted on officiating basis in the Clearing House aii'l he was not appoined on that post. He has expressed his inability in his cross-examination to point out any circular to show that any person officiat- ing on a particular post was entitled to hold that post pamanenHv. He has further stated that on a Dip Nantyan Kbatri was appointed as Special Assistant of Clearing House, while his claim was ignored, but admitted that said Shri Khatri was senior to him in service. He h^s also admitted that creation of post is management's prerogative and his only claim to the post is based on continued oiUciation for a number of years.

3. The management also appeared on notice and filed a written statement. It was pleaded, inter alia, on behalf of the management that the reference itself is not proper and valid and it is not fit to be main- tained, because it relates to interpretation of the pro- visions of the memorandum of setlement dated 22nd April, 1989 and such a dispute can be resolved only under the provisions of Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, J947. It lias been stated that it is a fact that Shri Dilip Kumar Karmakar, who was work- ing as. a Clerk at the Calcutta Main Branch, was being sent to the Bank's Clearing House for representing the Hank where Shri Pradyut Kr. Dutta had already been working. Tt is also stated that the job at Clearing House was declared as a special nature of job attract- ing special allowance and accordingly arrear allow- ances were paid to the said workman. But, later two other persons, namely, Shri Kamal Deb Mukherjce and Smi. Utpala Ganguly were appointed as Special Assistnts for representing the Bank at the Clearing House in June/July, 1977. However, Smt. UtpaU Ganguly for some reason could not be sent to the Cieainr* House with immediate effect and so Shri Pradyut Kr. Dutta had to be deputed to the Clearing2717 appeared even to cross-examine these witnesses. It is, Iherel'oie, absolutely clear that the workman accepted the policy of Voluntary retirement and received the enhanced benefits under the scheme and his career now ended and therefore the entire claim on his behalf has become infractuous. Otherwise also, it is apparent from the piovisions of the settlement that merely be- cause a poison continues to hold a post of higher responsibility on payment of special allowance, he does nut become entitled to hold that post permanent- ly, because filling up a vacancy in a particular grade or post has to be done according to the rules or policy for promotion.

WW-2 has also supported the claim of the concern- ed woiknian by i.ajiag that Shri Karmakai was legu- Jargly deputed on a post carrying special allowance as a Special Assistant and he was entitled to hold that post. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that receipt of social allowance by any employee does not necessarily mean his posting in the spcual allowance currying post and he has also further stated that the procedure for appointment or assignment ol any em- ployee* (o a.iy vpecial ptr.t is set out in the bipartite settlement itself. However, he has also stated that he could not r.ay as to exactly what particular piovision of the bipartite settlement and promotion policy was violated in this case. He said that in the agreement dated 11-1 1975 the Bank's promotion policy could be found out.

9. Jn the result, it appears that there is no merit in tlvs reference. The reference, therefore, is turned down and decided against the workman. The work- man is not entitled to any relief as claimed. Dated, Kolkata, The 9th May. 2001."

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 6. On the other hand, two witnesses examined on behalf of the management are Shri SanLar Bando- padhyay and Shri Prasanta Kumar Mondal. They have stated that Shri Karmakar wa, deputed to wort as a Special Assistant in the Clearing House on pay- ment of special allowance no doubt, but it was on the basis of the icquiremcnt from time to time. Both of them have stated that because a person works on a post of higher responsibility on special allowance, he docs not become entitled to hold that post permanent- ly. It is interesting to note that these witnesses for the management were not cross-examined and there- fore their statement;, have remained .uncontrovcrted. MW-1 has stated that Ext. M-4 happens to be the relevant part of the settlement containing provisions of special allowance and MW-2 has stated that Exts. M-4, M-5 and M-6 arc the relevant provisions of the settlement in this rcgird.

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

S.O. 1325.—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 Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. 12Q12|138[99-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE 7. Ext. M-4 is part-V of the settlement which lays down the promotion policy and acting allowance Ext. M-5 also deals with the special allowance and in paragraph 4, clause (b) it has been clearing stated that i[ a Clerk of any category is selected for acting du,y in iLrms of tho provision for acting allowance, he does not become entitled fo claim to act in a vacancy, unless authorised by the Bank in writing, nor he s^rill have a clrvtn for permanently holding the post nn full-time vacancy and it has been stated that payment of special allowance is on pro-rata basis and from the evidence it becomes clear that Shri Karmakar vvas hcing deputed to act as Special Assistant in the Clearing Department from time to time by the Bank and he was being paid special allowance for the same, but subsequently, he was shifted to another post which he held till the end.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

D A T E D: 15th May 2001

FRESENT:

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

C.R. No. 1] 1 [99 8. It is important to note in this connection that a petition was. filed at the time of argument on behalf of he management stating therein that the work- man concerned, Shri Dilip Kumar Karmakar had ear- lier applied for voluntary retirement in terms of .the instruction circular dated 28-10-2000 and the Bank accepted his request. Accordingly, Shri Karmakar was release! fr^m service of the Bank on 17-3-2001 and therefore it has been submitted that since Shri Karma- kar himseK opted for taking voluntary retirement and accepted the terms and conditions of the Bank, he has no interest left in the present case. This appears to be consistent with his behaviour that when the two witnesses for the management were examined on 1st September, 2000 and another on 30-11-2000, no one

I Party Shri G. Govindappa, C|o Shri B. Gururaj, Asstt. Secretary, Canara Bank, Contt. Br. Sudha, Cross Bellary-580 101.

II Party

The General Manager, Canara Bank, Industrial Relations Section, P&I Wing, HQ, Bangalore-2.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012]138|99jIR(B-Il) dated 29th September 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank is justified in imposing ihe punishment of reduction to" a lower stage in the time scaie of pay by one stage for one year upon vShri C. Govindappa, Clerk? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?" 1. Letter is sent by the Secretary of the First Party asking permission to' withdraw the dispute. In view of this I pass the following order.

ORDER

Application is closed as withdrawn and dispute is disposed off.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 15th May 2001).

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding; Officer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S-O. 1326.—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 Chandi- garh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the emplovers in relation to the maange- ment of Bank of Baroda and their, workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-5-2001.

[No. L-12012|173|93-TRfB-TT)j AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHR1 B. L. JATAV, FRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 138|93

U. K. Chopra C|o General Secretary, Bank of Baroda Employees Union, C|o Bar!-, tif Baroda Gandhi Nogar, Jammu Workman.

Versus

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Opp. Karan Park, G.T. Road, Kajnal

,., Management APPEARANCES :

For the workman : None.

For the m;Hvig;ment : Shri PramocJ Join.

AWARD

(Parsed on 25th April, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gar.ette notification No. L- 12O12[173|93-IR(3.2^ dated 2-Jth November 1993 has referred the following dispute to thi< Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether (he chum of Bank of Baroda Employees Union (NZ) Jammu that Shri U K. Chdpra is entitled for halting allowance for 125 days he worked at the Pathankot Branch is justified ? Tf so, whut relief is Shri Chopra' entitled to?"

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman, Despite several notices none has put up appearance on behalf of thj Union. It appears that Urnon is not interested to pursue with the present reference. Tn view of the situation, since no body is appearing on behalf of the Union, and union is not interested to pursue with the present reference, the present reference is returned to the Ministrv for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 25-4-2001.

B, L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S.O. 1327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of Tndia and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

LNo. L-12012|91!95-TR(B-II)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. TD 75|95

Shri Munshi Singh son of Shri Des Raj V.P.O. Saharna, Distt. Mansa Punjab,

...Workman.

Vs.

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana.

, .Managemnt, APPEARANCES:

For the workman : None,

For the management : Shri D, K. Chadha.

AWARD

(Passed on 2nd May, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide notification No. L-12012| 91|95-IR (B-II) dated 25th of August, 1995 has re- ferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Cen- tral Bank of India, Rohtak in terminating the services of Shri Munshi Singh, Armed Guard by treating him as having volunta- rily retired from services w.e.f. 11-2-1993 is legal and! justified ? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filling of claim statement by the workman. None has put up appear- ances on behalf of the workman. The case is pending since 1995. No claim statement has been filed by the workman for the last six years. It appears that the workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the situation, since no claim statement has been filed and none has put up [appearances, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 2-5-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer 1709 GI|2001—5

'2719 New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S.O. 132S.^In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes AcJ, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial- Tribunal Chandigarh as shovra in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers ir, relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

TNo. L-12012!104|97-IR(B-II)]

AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 82 of 1998

Asst. General Secretary, C.B.I. Employees' Union, L-195, Model Town, Rohtak. ..Petitioner.

Vs.

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of Tndia, Regional Office, Delhi Road Rohtak.

.., Resopndent.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the workman : None.

For the management : Sh. Shammi Kaplish.

AWARD

(Passed on 27th April, 2001)

The Central Govt Ministry of Labour vide Notifi- cation No. L-12O12llO4|97|IR(B-II) dated 22nd April, 1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Cen- tral Bank of Tndial in imposing the punish- ment of stoppage of two annual graded in- crements with cumulative effect on Sh. Bal Kishata, Cleric vide orders dt. 12-8-94 is le^al and justified 7 If not, to what relief the said workmab is entitled 7"2710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Today the case was hxed for evidence of the workman. None has put tip appearance on behalf of the workman despite several notices. Tt appears, that workman is ndt interested to pursue with the present reference, In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to the pursue with the present reference, the same is returned to the Ministry for want of prose- cution. Appropriate Gcrvt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 27-4-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

''Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda transferring the junior employees in alleged violation of policy guidelines issued by the Central office vide their circular' No. COBR|7[|357 dated 13-12-79 overlooking the claim of the same set of senior employees is justified ? If not, what relief the utiion|workmen arc entitled ?"

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

S.O. 1329.—In Pursuance ct Section J7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in the annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-12011|?'>|2()0(MR (B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer2721 New Delhi, the 21&t May, 2001 S.O. 133().-~In Pursuance cf Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes; Act, 1947 (14 df 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of thi Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-12011|53|87-IR(B-II)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHLiI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. ID 16|88

The General Secretary, Central Bank of India Employees' Union (Haryana)., 129 Lai Kurti Arhbalaj Cantt.

. .Union.

Vs.

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Rcigonal Office, Model Town, RoWk.

2 The Regional Maangcr, Central Bapk of India, 106 Railway Road¹, Artabala Cantt.

. .Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the Union : Shri B. S. Gill. For the management : Shri Shammi Kaplish.

AWARD

(Passed on 18th April 200!)

The Central Govt. vide gazette notification No. L- 12011 |53|87-DII(A) dated 15th March 1988 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Central Bank of India, regions Rohtak and Ambala in supplying witn"r uniform to the subordinate staff once in three years now is justified? If not to what relief the workmen concerned entitled and from what date ?"

2. The case was fixed for evidence of the parties. The General Secretary of the Union appealed and filed an application stating that necessary steps have been taken by the management to supply uniform to the sub staff members and the grievance docs not persist at present and the Union does not want to pursue with the present reference any further. In view of the above, since the grievance does not persists now, and the union does not want to pursue ^ith the present re- ference, the reference is returned to the Ministry as settled. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 18-4-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S.O. 1331.—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 Chandi- garh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation td the manage- ment of Central Bank of India and tbeir workman, which wa;> received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-12012|l|91-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 44 of 1991

The General Secretary, Central Bank of India Employees' Union, 103, Falika Vihar, Ambala City.

. .Petitioner.

Vv

. .Respondent.

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Ambala Cantt. REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workman : Workman in person. For the Management : Shri Raj Kamal Dhiman Asstt. Manager Zonal Offica.

AWARD

(Passed on 23rd of April, 2001) The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notifi- cation No. L-12012[l|91-I.R. B.2, dated 9th April 1991 has referred the following dispute to this Inbu- nal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen- tral Bank of India in relation to their Kurukshetra Branch in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual graded increments on Sh. S. M. Sharma, Clerk is just and fair and legal ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

2. Case taken up today at the request of the parties. The workman appeared and filed an application stating therein that he does not want to pursue with the pre- sent reference and he is withdarwing the same without any pressure from anybody. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry as withdrawn by the workman. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 23-4-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001 S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hejeby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh as shown in the Anncxure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-41O12|62]95-IR(B-I)J

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI U. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-OJM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. ID 58|96

Shri Ashiq Ali son of Shri B. R. Frabhakar, Kailash Nagar, Model Town, Ambala.

. .Workman.

Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : None.

For the management : Shri P. P. Khorana.

AWARD

(Passed on 2nd May 2001)

The Centrail Govt. vide notification No. L-41012| 62|95-1R(B.I) dated 23rd of July 1996 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion:

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway in terminating the service of Shri Ashiq Ali w.e.f. 11-12-1989 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief he is entitled and from what date ?"

2. Despite several notices none has put up ap- pearance on behalf of the workman nor any claim has been filed by him since 1996. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since no claim has been filed and n$j one is appearing on behalf of the workman, the present reference, is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 2-5-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 1333.—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 Tribnuai Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Indust- rial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government oti 21-5-2001.

[No. L-41012|9|92-IR(DU)](B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer2723 ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRlBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. ID 37|92

Shri Lachhman son of Shri Bachan C|O B-l|7-F, Railway Colony Ambala Cantt.

. . Workman

Vs.

Divisional Railwajy Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala (Haryana)

/Management APPEARANCES :

For the workman : None.

For the management : Shri F. P. Khorana.

AWARD

(Passed on 17th April 2001)

The Central Gpvt. vide Gazette notification No. L- 41012|9|92lIR(DU) dated! 8th April 1992 has re- ferred-the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Divisional Rly. Manager, N.R. Ambala Cantt. in terminating the ser- vices of Shri Lachhman son of Shri Bachan, Trolly Man under ASTE, Bhatinda vide order dt. 26-2-1991 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. Case repeadetly called. None has put up ap- pearances on behalf of the workman despite many notices. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to pursue with his reference, the same is returned to the Minis- try for want of prosecution. Appropriate Gcrvt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 17-4-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 1334.—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 Trittunal|Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexurc in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway, Kota and then- workmen, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 21-5-2001.

INo. L-41012|32[89-D-2(B)|IR(B-I)] A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JATPUR Case No. CGIT 75/2000

Reference No. L-41012|32|89 D 2(B) dt. 9-10-89 The Divisional Secretary, Paschini 'Railway Kariricrmri Parishad, Infront of Sank of Bik'aner and Jaipur,

Kot4 Jn.

. . Applicant

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manage*, Western Railway, KctQ. . .Non-applicant ATTENDANCE :

For 'the applicant.—Shri A. D. Grower.

For the non-applicant.-—Shri T. P. Sharma.

Date of Award.—28-3-2001.

AWARD

The following dispute was referred for adjudica- tion by the Central Governrnerit under clause (d) of sub-'sectibn ~O) of, Section (10) of Industrial Dis- putes Act, I947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) to the Central Government Industrial Tribu- nal, Delhi Vide order Wo. L-410l2/32/89-p-2-(B). Later on ihe above case WHS transferred 'to this Tri- bunal vide order No, L-41O2i32^9|IRBT dt. 28th August, 2000 for adjudication.

The applicant filed (he statement of claim stating that he was engaged as a hot weather water man by the Station Master I.aban from 20-5-83 to 3-6-83 and on 'that basis he was engaged as a gangmaii by the PW1. Bhawauimimdi 011 and from 21-6-84 and worked as such upto 20-5-85. He was not taken on duty on and from 21-5-85. He was directed to qet his service card verified from the Station Master Laban and was told that he would be taken on duty on verification of service card but he was not taken on duty by PW1, Bhawanimandi even after Verifica- tion of the card. He had already completed 240 days service during the year preceding to the date of lermination but the provisions of Act, 1947'weft'not c implied with by the non-applicant while terminating his services. It was prayed that, the flon-applidant be directed to iemutate him withall benefits.

The non-applicant in reply to the claim stated that initial engagement of'the applicant could not be veri- fied its the casual labour card is in possession of the "applicant. It was seated that the applicant, was aripdinted as casual labour by the VW-l, Bnawarilmandi on 27-6-84 and not oh 21-6-S4. He tibsented liirnidf from 11-5-85 at his o\Vn accord. It was denied that the applicant worked upto 20-5-85 and was not taken on duty ori2724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUJNfc, 10, 2001/ JYAlSTHA 26, 1923 J^ART 11—SEC. 3(ii)j 21-5-85. It was also denied that the applicant was directed by the PWI to git tlv service card verified.

that the applicant hod completed 240 days service during the yc?r preceding to the date of termination of his service,

The applicant filed lejomder to the reply reiterat- ing the tacts alleged in the statement of claim. It was also siated that although the applicant was en- gaged on 21-6-84 but he might have been taken on roll on 27-6-84 [or the leason best known to PWI. It wa^ denied tlut the applicant was not reported to duty fiom 11-5-85 p.t h.s own accord. It was also stated that he sent various representations under cer- tificate of posting and legd. A.D. for taking him on duty,

On behalf of the applicant affidavits of Harimohan Vjgi, the applicant 2nd SJaniuddin 'Gangman were filed. The "lepreseniative of the non-applicant was given opportunity to coss examine them on their L'ffidaviK. In the form ol documentary evidence copy of service card Wl, copy of letter PWI, Bhawanimandi dt 19-7-8:' Ex-W-2, copy, of letter of DRM, Kota to ALC dt. 10-10-88 Ex-W-3 copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings, Ex-W-4, copy of statement of Girdhari and Tejsingh Ex-W-5 and 6 respectively, copies of ceibficatc; of posting marked A to G and copies cf A.D. marked H to K were tiled. On behalf cf the non-applicant affidavit of P K. Saxcna PWI, bh<,-w:inimandi was filed, fhe learned representative was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affidavit.

Heard arguments, of the learned representative of lb" applicant Sri A. D. Giowtr and the learned ad- vocate of the non-applicant Sri T P. Sharma and per- used the record. The following points arise fin ;onsideraiion :—

( l )v Whether the rpp'ictiH had completed 240 days service under tlu non-applicant dur- ing the year preceding to the date of ter- mination of his service w.e.f. 11-5-85.

(2) Whether the applicant left the service on

11-5-85 at hit own accord?

(3) Whether service or the applicant was ter- minated in violation of section 25(F) of the Act, 1947 >

(4) To what rtlirf the applicant it, entitled ?

Point 2.—P. K. Saxena, PWI has stated that the applicant lcmamcJ absent after 11-5-85. The applicant had presented himself for taking letter dated 19-7-85 alongwith service card which was given to him for service verification but thereafter he did not turn up for duty. He has stated that the service of applicant was not terminated. He has admitted that no notice was sent to him when he did not turn up after 11-5-85. On the other hand the applicant has stated that he was given the seivice caid by PWI, Bhawanimandi tor verification within a period of ten days i.e. during the period from 11-5-85 to 20-5-85 and his pay was drawn on 20-5-85 taking into consideration the anticipated period but subse- quently he was marked absent during the period. He was not taken on duty by PWI, Bhawanimandi when he jepeatedjy went to him after getting the service card verified and was told by PWI that he would get it verified through post. He has further stated that certain other workmen were also given service card for verification during the above period and alter veri- fication they were taken on duty. On 19-7-85 after great persuation he was given the service card for verification by the PWI. Even after verification of his service card he was not taken on duty. He has further stated that he had submitted many representations under certificate of posting marked A to G and regd. A.D. marked H to K, but with not result. His state- ment that service card was given to him for verifica- tion on 11-8-85 by PWI, Bhawanimandi and he was not taken on duty even after verification of service card by the PWI, finds support from the statement of Sa'amuddin, Gangman who was working under PWI, Rhawanimandi. The statements of applicant and Salamuddin could not be discredited during cross- examination. If the applicant might have left the ser- vice at his own accord, he would not have approach- ed for verification of his service card from Station Master, Laban under whom he had worked and might not hav." sent representatives to the various authori- ties for taking him on duty. The contention of the non-applicant, therefore, that the applicant did not turn up for duty from 11-5-95 cannot be believed. On the contiary it is proved that the applicant was not taken on duty on H-5-85 and thereafter.

Point 3 :—The applicant had completed more than 240 days service during the year preceding to the date of termination of his service. It is not disputed that no notice or pay-in-ljeu of notice or retrench- ment compensation was given to the applicant as requiied under Section 25 (F) of the Act, 1947. It is thus proved that the applicant's services were ter- minated in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act, 1947.

The applicant in his statement has stated that he had worked as Gangman under PWI, Bhawanimandi fu.m 21-6-84 to 20 5-8r. No question has been put to him in cross examination regarding his above statement. In the letter dt. 10-10-88 addressed to ALC DRM has admitted that "applicant was engag- ed from 27-6-8/ as a casual labour and had put in 102 days service He absented from 24-10-84 to 2<)-IO-8*. Later on he started working from 30-10-8* and woikcM up to 6-3-85. He had work- rd for 163 day* during this period. He again re- mained absent "from 7-3-85 to 12-3-85 and worked fnr 33 davs up to 10-5-85. According to him the iipplicjTir. had worked during the period from 27-6-84 to 10-5-85 for a total period of 243 days, P. K Saxena has stated his ignorance as to whether the applicant had completed 240 days service before the d;>lc of termination. Thus there is sufficient and reliable evidence on record that the applicant had worked for more than 240 days during the year pre- ceding to the date of termination. It is thus proved

Point 4 :— There is no evidence on record about the employment of the applicant after termination of service. The dispute was raised b^ applicant before the ALC in 1988 and more than 15 years have passed since the termination of the service of the applicant. In view of these circumsances the applicant will be entitled to reinstatement in service under the non- applicant with 50 per cent back wages and with con- tinuity in service. The non-applicant will be free to2725 dispense with the service of applicant by complying the provision? of Seel urn 25(F) of the Act, 1947.

The. copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government tor publication under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947.

Sd./- Illegible

Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001

S.O, 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-17OJ2|34|99-IR(BJI)]

AJ(AY KUMAR, Desk Officer2726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNfi 16, 2004/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART H ^ SEe, ?(fi)] 2727 1709 GI|2001—6^t2" Hffl GAZETTE OF INDIA : flW 16, ^ l / " r e 3 T O ^ 3 6, 1923 [ P^ ftJ^ae! ^(B)l New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 22-5-2001.

[No. L-]2012|55|97-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI K. S. SRIVASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. U4]98

In the matter of dispute between- Shri Ishwar Singh Clerk, through The Asstt. General Secretary, Haryanai Bank Employees Federation, Housee No. 83, Nehru Nagar, Panipat

Versus

The Deputy General Manapcr, Canara Bank, S.C.O. 8084 Circle Office, Sector 34-A Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES:

Shri Ishwolr Singh workman in person.

None—far the Management.

AWARD

The Central Government m the Ministry of Labour vid- its order No. L-120L2'55|97|IR(B-II) dated 8/12-05-98 has sent this reference under Section 10(1 ) ( d) and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of Industrial Dispute on the following terms:—

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank m imposing punishment of sfoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on Shri Ishwar Sineh, Clerk vide orders dated 28-8-91 is just and legal? If not to what relief is the workman entitled to ?" 2. S'atement of claim atid written statement have been exchanced between the parties.

3. On the pleadings of the oartics it Is found that the workman was initially emploved as Cashier-cum- Godown Keeper on 18-1-77 in the erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank which bank later on amalga- ma'ed with Canara Bank vide notification dated 23-8-81 issued by the Government of India.

4. The workman case in nut shell is that his service record was always found very good. That unfortuna- tely a iunior employee to him wa3 promoted over and above him and he had to file a writ petition No. 7973/ 1989 in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court which was decided on 18-4-90 and the junior person was demoted. The Management of the Canara Bank had become displeased with the Act of the workman for filing writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana thus the workman was trans- ferred maliciously by the Management against which the workman had filed Contempt Petition No, 979 of 1989 in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Baryana but he had withdrawn it on 24-11-89.

5. The workman's case is that Management had become very much sure with the workman and in order to victimise and punish him he was served with the charge sheet alleging about his misconduct to the effect that he had wilfully slowed down his work and he was in the haibit of coming late in tho office and leaving the office much before the closing time of the office.

6. The workman's case again is that the discipli- nary proceeding against him was not conducted in accoidance with the law and he was not given oppor- tunity of proper bearing. However, the enquiry officer had suggested the punishment of only giving warning to him but the punishing authority ignoring the sugges- tion of the enquiry officer imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment of the workman with com- mulative effect. Appellate authority before whom appeal was filed aga,inst punishment order also did not give opportunity of proper hearing and his appeal was dismissed illegally.

7. The Management Bank has denied the work- man's caise that the punishment to the workman was given with a view to victimise him and has asserted that punishment to the workman was properly given after holding a proper enquiry against him. The Bank has stated the enquiry algainst the workman was held in a legal manner and he was given opportunity. The Bank has, however, taken the plea of the reference being invalid on the grdund that workman's case has not been properly espoused and thus there was no industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(K) of the Act. The Management has also taken the plea that the workman catse is hiehly belated Punishment was imposed the order of 1991 and the reference was made in the year 1998.

8. On behalf of the Bank evidence has been led and affidavit of Shri S. K. Sharma, Presiding Officer of the departmental enquiry has been given. He has also been cross-examined. He has proved his affi- davit marked¹ as MW1[1.

0. It appears that in the meantime vide order dated 31-8-2000 case was proceeded exparte against the workman. The application for setting aside exparte order jriven by the workman was pending for disposal and before disposal of the said application the work- man has filed this application dated 30-4-2001, pravina for the •withdrawal of his case. It is not objected by the Bank vide endorsement made on the application, on behalf of the Bank.

10 Tn view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to" adduce evidence in the case and has allowed his n**" to he nmceded evnorte and thereafter fllerf +he "qif1 a<->n1iVfifiriTi for withdrawing the case. T find that 'he terms of reference should be decided in affirmative nnrl ?n fpvour of the Bank The workman is mot en- n*Vrt for ariv relief in hit favour The Award in tn* f.fin" :* t^nt. rtiVon in the W" manner r"ATFT> • IRth Mnv 7001

K. S. SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer 1V.9 New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the I4dustnal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as¹ shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management oi[ New Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-5-2001.

[No. L-12012/2t7/90-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI K. S. SRTVASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 144|90

In the matter of dispute between:

Shri R. B. Mall through General Secretary, New Bank of India Staff Union (Delhi) Registered 9-A, Connaught Place. First Floor, Union Office, New Delhi-110001.

Versus

General Manager, New Bank of India, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001.

APPEARANCES:

Shri T. C. Gupta—for the workman. Shri N. C. Sikn with Miss Geetanjali Goel—for the management.

AWARD

'Being aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 2()-9-89 passed against the workman namely Shri R. B. Maill an employee of the New Bank of India, New Dilhi transferring him from New Delhi to Mecrut. Tike New Bank of India Staff Union Delhi took up tht workman's cause and raised an Industrial dispute. The reconciliation proceedings held but could not succeed.

2. Thus this reference under .section 10(lXd) and 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947 has bepn sent to this Tri- bunal by the Central Government in the Ministry of Ubour vide its Order No. L-l 2012/217/90-I.R.(B-2) dated 3-12-90 for adjudication of the dispute on the following terms:—

"Whether the action of the Management of New Bank of India, in transferring Shri R. B. Mall Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper from its Asaf Ali Road Branch to its Regional Office at Meerut during the pendency of departmental enquiry against him at Delhi is justified ? If not to what relief the work- man is entitled?"

3. It is important to note that during the conti- nuance of the proceeding arid after exchange i f the Statement of Claim, W.S. Rejoinder the New Bank of India was amalgamated with Punjab National Bafk and on the application dt. 13-10-93 movpd on behalf of the workman Punjab National Bank was implead- ed opposite party in place of New Bank of India vide order dated 10-1-94. No change of any rort in the pleadings of the parties could be made and it remain- ed same.

4. The averments made on behalf of the workman in short is that the workman was employed as a clerk- cum-godown keeper m New Bank of India through Banking Service Recruitment Board Delhi and after his selectinn his name was forwarded for his appoint- ment in the New Bank of India at Delhi and the workman had accordingly reported for duty in the Regional Office at New Bank of India, Delhi from where he was posted at A Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi Branch of the Bank w e.f. 22-3-82. It is further averred that soon after joining his service the workman had become an active member of thi Union which was not liked by the management of New Bank of India and it started treating the work- man with hostility, and victimisation. The workman was subjected to frequent indiscriminate and unwar- ranted transfers from one branch to another without considering the period of stay at particular branch or distances of the transferee branch from the place of his residence and in violation of the guidelines of the bank and government directives. In fact within a period of six years from the date of his employment the workman was transferred from one branch to the an- other branch in the following branches:

1. After his posting at A Block ConnoiiEht Place, New Delhi branch of the Bank after little over one year he was transferred from there to Inderpuri Branch.

2. Secondly then in the monfh of September, 1987 he was transferred from Inderpuri Branch to the paid off rural branch i.e. Dera near Mehrauli. Therraf^r witfhin thrrc months of its posting at Dera Branch he was transferred to Haus Klhas branch on deputation for three months and was acain transferred from there to Asaf Ali Poad Branch of the bank on deputation from where he was ebruptly transferred to Meerut Region under the impugned order of trans- fer.

5. The Management of New Bank of India wa* not satisfied with these frequent transfers of the workman and only to cause harassment and victimise him he2730 THE OAZETIE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART H - " B C. 3(ii)] practice as provided under Schedule V •of the Act.

was placed under suspension on 10-8-88 on a trump- ed up charge. The copy of the order of suspension is annexurc W-3 of the Statement of Claim,

8. The workman's case has been contested by the New Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as Bank) and it is stated that the dispute raised by New Bank of India Staff Union is misconceived and untenable. The Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. The bank has asserted that the transfer an incidence of service and it is open to the employer to transfer a person from one place to another keeping in view the exigencies of his service. The bank had in no way acted in mala fide manner to transfer the work- man on administrative exigencies from Delhi to Meerut which was within the same language area. The trans- fer of the workman according to the bank was ad- ministrative transfer and no request from him was required to have been taken. The bank has denied that the workman's transfer was in any manner punitive. The Bank has stated that as per para 536 of the Sastry Award and the Bipartite Settlement an emplo- yee could be transferred in the same language area ind thus by transferring the workman from Delhi to Meerut none of the provisions of the Sastry Award and Bipartite Settlements have been contravened, rhe Bank assertion again is that the workman in fact was reinstated in the service after the revocation of his suspension order thus there was no service condi- tion that the workman could be posted in the same region on reinstatement.

9. As regards the workman's allegation of the trans- fer order being violative of circulars dated 22-4-87 and 7-5-87 the bank has asserted that these circulars merely lay down guidelines and are not mandatory in nature. Its exigencies of service is paramount consi- deration for transfer and said guidelines do not create any right in favour of an employee.

6. It is again averred on behalf of the workman that the Management had failed to proceed with the enquiry against the workman and the enquiry pro- ceeding was highly delayed. Although the enquiry proceeding had commenced on 27-5-89 but till then no charge sheet was served on the workman, and after bringing this fact to the notice of the authorities by the workman the enquiry proceeding was then ad- journed and it was again resumed sometimes in the month of June, 1982 and it was again adjourned by the enquiry officer and thereafter it never assumed and ultimately vide order dated 20-9-89 the suspension of the workman was revoked and he was reinstated in service but at the same time frie was transferred and directed to report on duty in the Regional Office of the New Bank of India at Meerut. This order accord- ing to the workman was passed by the Regional Mana- ger Delhi copy of which has been filed as Annexure W-4. Again the workman was further harrased to the effect that his salary from 1-7-88-to 9-8-88 was with- hold without any valid reason and it was released only in the month of January, 1989. Even the subsistance allowance was not paid and was withheld for long period causing a great hardship to the workman. The subsiatance allowance from 10-8-88 to 31-12-88 was released on 6-1-89. The workman was not paid his subsistance allowance at all for the month of April, 1989 and the subsistance allowance for the month of July to September, 1989 was released on 13-10-89. It is again averred that evidently after receipt of the said transfer order dated 20-9-89 workman had lodg- ed a detailed protest against it vide his letter dated 27-9-89 copy of which is annexure W-5 of the state- ment of claim and when the Management of the New Bank of India had failed to revoke the said transfer order his case was taken up by the New Bank of India Staff Union. The conciliation proceeding held after raisine industrial diipute by the New Bank of India could not succeed.

7. The order of transfer has been assailed on behalf

of the workman on the following grounds :—

10. The Bank has denied the workman's averment regarding his harassment by withholding his salary for 1-7-88 to 9-8-88 and also about the irregular payment and non-payment of subsistance allowance. Bank has asserted that the salary for the said period was releas- ed in January, 1989 with a view to keep harmonious relations with the workman. The bank has again denied the workman's allegation of the illegality of the order of transfer on the ground of incompetency of the authority and has stated that Deputy General Mana- ger who had passed order of transfer was competent enough to pass such an order.

1. Order of transfer is violative of the bank's circulars dated 22-4-81 and 7-5-87. The copies of both these circulars have been filed by the workman as annexure W-l and annexure W-2 respectively of the statement of claim.

Secondly the order of transfer has been padded by incompetent authority of the Bank. The contention of the workman is that the Regional Manager was not compe- tent to pass the order of transfer from one Region to another and since workman was transferred from Delhi to Meerut in the other Region he was incompetenT. to pass such an order. Thirdly -order of transfer was not passed on any ground of adminis- trative or service exigencies of the Bank but was passed in a colourabb exercise of power with mala fide intention only to cause harrassment to the workman. Fourthly, the order of transfer amounts to unfair labour

11. The Bank has however, not denied the work- man's allegation regarding the disciplinary proceed- ing initiated and closed against him but it has assert- ed that the enquiry proceeding was being delayed by the workman himself. The disciplinary authority ac- cording to the bank had reviewed matter and had decided to revoke suspension of the workman and also to reinstatement. The bank has again denied the workman's allegation regarding his frequent transfers to the other branches of the Bank and has asserted that all these proceedings were made in a routine manner excepting when workman was posted on depu- tation basis and there was no illegality in such trans- fer and in no manner it can be considered us victimi- sation of the workman. The Bank has prayed for the rejection of the workman's claim.

12. In the rejoinder filed by the workman the allegations made in the statement of claim have most- ly been reiterated asserting about bis victimisation and harassment.

fers of the staff other than subordinate staff, consider- ed and explained and found that the transfer of the clerks of the Bank outside the State or the language areas in which he was serving without his consent was not in any manner affected by the Sastry Award.

17. Both these authorities I find is the complete reply of the contentions of the workman about the illegality of the order of transfer made in the case and mentioned above.

18. However, I have further studied the following 13. Both the parties have led evidence in the case. On behalf of the workman affidavit of Shri R. B. Mall the workman has been given in evidence and he has been cross-examined on behalf of the Bank. The affidavit filed by the workman has been marked as Ex. WW1/1. In his affidavit the workman has sup- Dorted the allegations made in the statement of claim.

authorities cited on behalf of the workman:

1. E. P. Noyappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 Lab. I. Cases 427) in para 86 at pages 456-457.

2. In K. C. Lakshmikutty Vs. State of Kerala 14. On behalf of the Bank the affidavit of Shri M. S. Rekhi, Deputy Chief (Personnel) has been filed. He has also been cross-examined on behalf of the work- man. His affidavit has been marked as MW1/1. He has supported Bank's case.

(1990 Lab. I. C. N. O. C. 51)

3. In P. V. S. Murthy Vs. Chief Manager,. State Bank of India (1990 Lab. I.C. NOC 110). 4. Dr. P. Damodaran Vs. State of Kerala 1982

Lab. I. Cases 251) Para 11 at page 254.

In all these authorities it has merely been heard that the power to transfer should be exercised reason- ably and fairly and in the best interest of the Administration and where the power exercised with- out due regard to the interest of administration or the interest of the public or the provisions of law or the requirements of justice or power is exercised for extraneous and irrelavant consideration or for mala fide reasons or as a punishment and victimisation. The order of transfer cannot be held as legal and justi- fied.

15. Arguments on behalf of the parties heard. In the case of Syndicate Bank Limited Vs. workmen 1964 LLJ Page 440 (Supreme Court) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while discussing with the subject on the validity of the order of transfer of the bank trans- ferring its employee at the first instance has given a caution to the Industrial Tribunals that it should be very careful before interfering with the orders of the Bank transferring its employees in the discharge of their managerial functions. In the said case the em- ployee who was clerk of the Syndicate Bank and was posted in Vijay Bank Branch w;is transferred from Vijay Wara to Bangan Palli on the same scale of pay and allowances. A dispute was raised with respect of the reference to the said order of transfer. The order of transfer was not found proper and legal by the Tribunal concerned on the ground of mala fide order of the Tribunal was set aside.

16. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in this respect is quoted below:—

19. Thus the mala fide of the authority in passing transfer orders is the paramount consideration for holding it invalid and illegal.

20. It is undoubtedly true that person alleging mala fide should prove it by cogent and reliable evi- dence.

21. In the present case the instance of mala fides of the management of the Bank in passing the trans- fer order has been given to the effect only that the workman's activities of the Union was not apprecia- ted by the Management and it had become hostile to him and with this view workman was being trans- ferred from one branch to another branch successively and without taking into consideration all his stay in the branch of the Bank. According to the workman these transfers were affected within short period of six years from the date of his joining service i.e. 22-3-82. Its details have been given above. The workman's contention in this respect also is that he was got in- volved by the Bank in the false charge of misconduct and was suspended and thereafter departmental en- quiry was initiated, but could not be continued and ultimately his suspension order was revoked and hfc was reinstated and thereafter only fo cau'sc harass- ment to him he was transferred to Meerut during tie pendency of the enquiry.

"Held, there is no doubt that the banks are en- titled to decide on a consideration of the necessities of Banking Business whether the transfer of an employee should be made to a particular branch. There is also no doubt that the management is in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different branches. We are, therefore, of opinion that the industrial tri- bunals should be very careful before they interfere with the orders made by the banks In the discharge of their managerial func- tions. It is true that if an order of transfer is made mala fide or for some ulterior pur- pose like punishing an employee for his trade union activities, the industrial tribunals should interfere and set aside such an order, because the mala fide exercise of power is not considered legal exercise of the power. But the finding of maila fides should be reached by industrial tribunals only if there is sufficient and'proper evidence in support of the finding. Such a finding should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy grounds as the industrial tribunal has done in this case."

ARain in the case of Canara BankmR Corporation Vs. U. Vital—1963(2) LLJ. 354 SC has considered the provisions of the Sastry Award in regard to the trans-

22. After having considered the entire facts and circumstances olAhe case none of these contentions of thte workman I find as satisfactory. The Bank has denied that the aforesaid transfers of the workman2732-,- fiflt QAZEtril OFJNDIA ^J U& 4<>. 3001/, JYAISJHAJ& 1$23 t*"ARTr JI-^&B& 3Ci*X" Manager of the Bank who has passed the order of transfer of the workman has no authority. True it is that hi para 11 'G' it is mentioned that the Deputy General Manager of the disciplinary authority of Delhi Region had passed the order of transfer but in view of the aforesaid fact I do not find that this,* averment of the workman in any manner can prove this case. The workman's contention made in this respect is also rejected.

25. As regards workman's contention of unfair labour practice in passing the order of transfer from Delhi to Meerut I find the workman has miserably failed to establish his case in this respect. In the case presently tlnis Tribunal has been called upon to adjudicate upon the action of the Management of the New Bank of India in transferring the workman from Delhi to Meerut during the pendency of the depart- mental enquiry the terms of reference does not speak about the unfair labour practice of the. management of the bank in transferring the workman from Delhi to Meerut. Hence hi my view the workman's conten- tion cannot be accepted. Further more in class VH of the Vth Schedule of the Act the transfer of the work- man in a mala fide manner fiorn one place to another under the guise of following management policy is provided is unfair labour practice. The workman has failed to establish the said aspect of unfair labour practice. The general allegation of unfair labour practice made by the workman without any specification I find cannot be accepted.

26. In view of the discussions made above I find that the action of the management of the Bank in transferring the workman from Asaf AH Road Branch, Delhi to its Regional Office at Meerut cannot be said as unjustified. The term of the reference is thus answered in affirmative and the award in the case is given in the like terms.

Dated: May 18, 2001.

was made either to cause him harassment or to victi- mise him but according to it these transfers were rou- tine transfers and sometimes the workman was sent on deputation, Shri M. S. Rekhi MWi has stated it in his affidavit. He has not been effectively cross- examined, on behalf of the workman. Tine evidence of Mr. M. S. Rckhi in this respect I find is satisfac- tory and reliable. However, on the own showing of the workman he had joined in the bank on 22-3-82 in the branch office of A block, Connaught Place, New Delhi and ,from there he was transferred to Inder Puri Branch No doubt for little over one year but ((hereafter he remained there upto the year 1987 and it was only for the year September, 1987. He was again transferred from there and thereafter he was transferred to Dera Branch and from there he was again transferred to the branch office of the Bank at Haus Khas New Delhi. These transfers I do not find that it could be said to be mala fide or to have been, effected only to victimise the workman. The workman's contentions made in this respect thus I find cannot be accepted. The workman's next con- tention that order of transfer was passed in violation of the circulars dated 22-4-81 and 7-5-87 and invalid after having considered these circulars I find also has got no force. I agree with the contention of the bank that the transfer is an instance of the ser- vice conditions and the employer was entitled to transfer an employee from one place to another keeping hi view the exigencies of service. As seen above order of the transfer con be interfered with only when there js any mala fide in such an order. I do not agree with the workman's contention that he was transferred from New Delhi to Meerut pending departmental enquiry. Admittedly the enquiry against the workman was dropped by the disciplinary authority and his suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated in service after the revocation of the suspension order and his reinstatement in service. It will be hard to say that the enquiry against the workman was still pending workman's contention ia rejected.

K. S. SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer 23. The contention of the workman that he could not have been transferred from one region to another I find has also got no force. It is definite case of the bank that in view of the para 536 of the Sastry award the employees can be transferred within the same language area. In the case of Carana Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Vittal (U) Supra the. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Tndia has held such transfers as proper and. valid. This contention of the workman also cannot be accepted.

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001

S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government 24. Now coming to the workman's next contention of the- ineompetency of the authority to pass the transfer order- In paragraph 9 of the statement of claim it is stated that, the order dated 20-9-89 was passed by the Regional Manager, and to this effect the suggestion was given on behalf of the workman to Mr. M. S. Rekhi MWI in his cross-examination. A perusal of the cross-examination of M. S. Reklhi shows that he has stated "Tt is correct that the Regional Manager Js not empowered to transfer an employee from one Region to another Region". The order of transfer on 20-9-79 undisputedly has not been passed by the Regional Manager. It has been passed by the Deputy Chief Manager of the Bank. In view of the fact I find difficult to accept that ihe Dy. Chief2733 Industrial Tribunal]Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No.L-12012[508|98 IRfB-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

"Whether the action of the Management not giving appointment on full time scale wages to Smt. Sushila Devi is justified, whereas her Junior employees are already appointed on full time scale wages. If not, what relief to Smt. Sushila Devi is entitled for?"2734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART II—SBC. 3(ii)l 2735 1709 GI/2OOI—72736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE ie, 2001/ JYAISTHA 2.6,1923 [PART n—SEC. 3(ti)i To be Cleaned

Hours of work per week

Pa> Scale

upto 600 Sq. Ft.

Upto 3 hours

(A)

At Bank's discretion witn a minimum of

Rs. 100/- P.M.

(B)

At Bank's discretion but with a minimum

of Rs. 125/P.M.

601 Sq. Ft. to less thnn 1200 Sq.Ft. 1200 Sq. Ft. to 2000 Sq. Ft.

more than 8 hrs. butless than 6 hours. 6 hours to 13 hours.

One third of the scale wages with propot- (O

2001 Sq. Ft. to 3500 Sq. Ft. More than 13 hours to 19 hrs.

(D)

ionatc annual increment. 1/2 of the scale wages with proportio-

nate annual increment.

3501 Sq. Ft. *o 500 Sq. FL. More than 19 Hrs. to 29 hrs.

(E)

_(F) 5001 Sq. Ft. r.nd above

Above 29 hrs.

3/4 th of the scale wages with propertio- natc annual increment. Full scale wage^.

In consideration ot (he above, bo

(ii) "As per the existing guidelines, at a Branch, where the working hours of u part-time permanent employee working in regular wage scale, are increased to longer work- ing hours (i.e. from 1 ]3 to scale wages or 1|2 to 3|4 scale wage*), but not on full time basis, the employee concerned is considered for such increase in working hours in the part-time position : in case there are more that I part-time employee at a branch, the senior or the sem'or most in service is considered for the purpose This provision will continue under Rturbod." 273-;

"Whether the action of the Railway Adminis- tration i.e. Sr, D.G.M, and D.R.M., Western Railway, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of Shri Pappu S|o Shri Prabhat in violation of S. 25-F, S. 25- G of the I.D. Act, 1947? If not, whjit relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?"

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001

S.O. 1339.—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, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

(No. L-41O12192]99|IR(BI)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer2738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAlSTHA 26, 1923 [£ART U—SEC. 3CM)] "Workman" means any person (including an appren. tice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any suet person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with; or as a conse- quence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include- any such person—

(i) Who id subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) Who Is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial

or administrative capacity; or

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capa- city, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exer- cises, either by the neture of the duties attached to the office or by reason of tfae powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." -Jk "Every Department of the Government cannot be treated to be industry When the Appointments are regulated by the statu- tory rules, the concept of 'industry' to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accor- dance with tfae rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work They are temporary employees working on daily wages Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept oi "retrenchment" therefore, cannot be stretched to sudh an extern as to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that In the High Court the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but ter- mination of their services is arbitrary Since they are only daily wage employees and bave rjo right to the posts Their disengagement is not arbitrary"2740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTttA 26, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ''Whether the action of the Railway Adminis- tration, Northern Railway, Bikaner Divi- sion in terminating the services of Shri Ayub Khan S|o Shri Yasin Khan was justi- fied ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?"

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001

S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal] Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

l[No. L-41012|124|2000-IR(B-T)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer2741 New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001

S.O. 1341.—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, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No.L-410l2|233|99|TR-(B-I)]

AJAK KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COUR.T,

JAIPUR

Case No. CG1T-2|2OOO

Reference No. L-41012|233|99|IR(B-I)

dt. 23-12-99. Chand Mohd. S|o. Sh. Nazir Mohd. Mohalla, Damiyan. Shittla gate, Bikaner-334001 • • Applicant.

V|s.

(1) Union of India, Through General Manager, N. Rly Hd, Qts Office, Baroda House, New Delhi, (2) Sr. Divisional Operating Manager. Divisional Office, Northern Railway, Bikaner,

(3) The Divisional Personnel Office. Divisional Office, Northern Railway, Bikaner.

Non-Applicants

ATTENDENCE :

For the applicant : Shri Arvind Singh.

For the non-applicant : Shri Tej Prakash

Sharma.

Dated of Award : 9-4-2001

AWARD

The Central Government has referred the following dispute under clause (d) of sub- section (1) of Section (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the Northern Railwav, Bikaner removing Shri Chand Mohd. S!o Shri Nazir Mohd.,2?42 W& GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PA** ff^SEC.'3(il)] Pointsman, Napasar Railway s'ta- tion from service w.e.f. 8-8-1996 is just, legal and tenable under the principle of natural justice ? If not to what relief the workman is en- titled to and from what date ?" T,he applicant filed the statement of claim. On behalf of the non-applicant reply to the claim was filed. The facts stated in the state- ment of claim and in the reply thereto have been mentioned in the Order dated 21-3-2001 passed in this case about the fairness of the enquiry, and so they may not be repeated again. By the above order the enquiry against the applicant for absence from duty as Points- man from 29-8-94 to 16-1-95 was held to be fair and proper.

Heard final arguments of the learned coun- sel lor the applicant and . the non applicant and per-used the record.

The learned counsel for the applicant Ins not raised any contention regarding the proof of charge levelled against the applicant. Hh only contention is that punishment of ro- moval from service in respect of charge of absence from duty from 29-8-94 to 16-1-95 is excessive particularly because the appli- cant was on medical treatment during the above period. The applicant didn'L attend the enquiry and didn't furnish any proof re- garding his illness before the enquiry officer. There being no evidence about illness of the applicant during above period, it can cann't be said that the applicant was ill during the above period. The applicant remained absent for quite a long period. He was holding res- ponsible job of pointsman. The charge against the applicant is of serious nature keeping in view his post. It has been held by the APEX Court in case 'Injecting Asst Commissioner vjs. Sharatnarayan reported in 1998 SCC (LOS) 316 that Court cann't go in the question of punishment unless it is of the view that punishment imposrd is such fh.it no reasonable person could have ever im- posed such a punishment. Keeping in vi^w the above pronouncement and the misconduct of the applicant it cann't be held tha* punishment of removal from service is ex- cessive,

Thus the action of the non-applicant in ^ moving the anp^cant from service ii iust nnd lceal .-mr) doesn't violate the principle of nafnrnl iustice. The applicant is thus not en- titled to any relief,

The copies, of Award¹ may be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947.

Sdl- Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 1342.—In pursuance ot Section 17 of the In- dustrial Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ol Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 2 J-5-2001.

[No. L-t2012/l85/94-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CIT-B-36/97

Reference No. L-12012/185/94/IRB-I dt. 8-12-97 The Secreiavy, Gramm Bank Employees Union, 59, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

.Applicant.

Versus

The Chairman, Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank, 56, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur.

. . . Non-applicant.

ATTENDANCE:

For the applicant : Sh. Rajiv Sogarwal, Advocate. For the non-applicant : Sh Ashok Mehta, Advo- cate.

Date of Order 27-3-2001.

ORDER

The following dispute was referred by the Central Government under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudica- tion :

"Whether the demand of the Gramin Bank Emp- loyees Union for allowance of Rs. 489 to clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 1-9-87 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman are entitled?"

The Secretary, "Gramin Bank Employees Union (hereinafter referred as the Union) filed the state- ment of claim stating that the Union is registered Under the Trade Unions Act and represents the majo- rity of the employees working in the Jaipur Nagaur AnchaJik Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred as the Bank). It was further stated that upon pronounce- ment of the Award by National Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the NIT) on 30-4-90, the Government of India has issued an order dt. 22-2-91 directing all the Regional Rural Banks (hereinafter deferred as the RRBs) in India to pay the allow- ances/special allowances and other benefits, which are provided in the Bi-partite settlement and service regu- 1 tions of the concerned sponsor Banks be extended to the employees [ oflicers of RRBs respec- tively. In the said order dt. 22-2-91 the Government 6f India had stated that the award of the NIT dated 28-4-99 and the recommendations of the Equation Committee dated 16-1-91 have since been accepted and in pursuance thereof the instructions were being issued in terms of provision (1) to Section 17, of the RRB Act, 1976 for implementing the award and the recommendations of the Equation Committee im- mediately. It was further stated that in the sponsor Bank an allowance of Rs. 489 pm is being paid to the Head Cashier category "E" simply because he possess the key of safe whereas in case of RRBs, the person holding the charge of keys is forced to deal With additional burden of handling cash transactions and is being paid key cash functioning allowance 0) Rs. 189 pm. The clerical staff working in the Bank perform the same functions and duties as performed by Head Cashier of category "E" in the sponsor Bank I.e. UCO Bank. It was prayed that the non-applicant be directed to pay the allowances of Rs. 489 pm to the clerk-cum-cashier of the Bank w.c.f. 1-9-87 as per the NIT award.

The above duties are not required to be performed by the cashier incharge working,in the Bank. Simply on account of holding the keys it cannot be said that cashier incharge is entitled to allowance admissible to Head Cashier category "E". It was further stated that after consultation with the Central Government as in formed vide letter dt. 5-7-91 in the sponsor Bank's the gradation of Head Cashier is made on the basis of the cnits/clerks/cashiers working under them. Nor- mally it also depends upon the volume of business. Hence in RRBs the Head Cashier allowance as direct- ed by Government of India is being paid. It was stated as per the directions of the award the cashier incharge working in the Bank is entitled to allowance of Rs. 189 per month. It was further stated that no allowance is being paid in the name of key allowance. It was also stated that the duties of cashier incharge working in the Bank are similar to the duties of the casfiler incharge working in the pay offices/branches which are as follows as per the 5th Bi-partite Settlement:—-

The cashier incharge working in gramin bank is being paid the similar allowance which is paid to the cashier incharge of the sponsor Banks.

The respondent in reply to the claim raised the objection that it has not been mentioned in the peti- tion as to who are members of the Union connected With the dispute and, therefore, the claim filed by the {jnion is not maintainable. It was denied that duties Of the cashier working in the Bank are similar to ihe Head Cashier category "E" working in the Sche- dule Bank. It. was stated that in the Bank there is ho post of Head Cashier. The post of cashier in- charge is there in the Bank which is equivalent to the post of cashier incharge working in the schedule Bank and, therefore, allowance of Rs. 189 pm is being paid in the form of cashier incharge allowance which is paid to the cashier incharge working in the Sche- dule Bank. In the Schedule Bank there is a post of Head Cashier under whom 5 to 6 cashiers work and jn addition to supervisory duties he has to perform certain other functions which are not required to be performed by the cashier incharge of the Bank. The duties of Head Cashier category "E" as per the Bi- partite Settlement are as follows \-^

1709 GI12001—8.

On the basis of the pleadings of tha parties the followiDg points of disputes were framed :—

On behalf of the Union affidavit of Shri Ajay Pareek, ckrk-cum-cashier working in the Head Office of the Bank was filed. The learned counsel for the opposite party was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affidavit. The applicant also filed the copy of the circular dt. 11-1-92 of the Bank marked Ex. R-l, copy of the 5th Bipartite Settlement Ex. R-2 and the copy of the circular dt. 5-7-91 of the. NABARD Ex. R-3. On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri Giridhar Oopal, Sr. Manager of the Bank was filed. The learned representative of the Union was given opportunity to cross examine him on his affi- davit. The respondent also filed the copy of the 5th Bipartite Settlement, copy of the circular of the NABARD dt. 5-7-91 and the copy of the circular of the Bank dt. 11-1-92 marked Exs. M-l, M-2 and M-3 respectively.

Heard arguments of the learned representative of the applicant and the learned counsel for the non- anpl'crnnt and presented the record. The points are decided as follows :—

Point No. 1:—Shri Ajay Pareek working as clerk- cum-cash^r in the Head Office of the Bank examined on behali of the union has stated that the clerk-cum- cashier staff working in the Gramin Banks perform the same functions and duties as being performed bv the Head Cashier category "E" of the branches of the UCO Bank i.e. sponsor Bank, An allowance of Ps. 4R9 vst month is paid to the Head Cashier cate- gory "R" r-imply because he possess the keys of safe, whereas in the case of the Bank persons holding the charge of the keys is also forced to deal with the additional burden of handling cash transactions but is paid only Rs. 189 per month as allowance. In cross examination he has admitted that at page 306 in clause 19 of the Bipartite Settlement the duties of Head Cashier category "E" has been cor- rectly mentioned. The above duties have already been reproduced above. He has admitted that ho does not perform anv duties prescribed for Head Cashier of category "E". There remains, therefore, no dispute that clerks working in the Gramin Bank do not p<*,r- ' form the same duties which ate performed bv the Head Cashier category "E" in the sponsor Banks. Shri Glrdhar Gopal Asopa, Sr. Manager of the BariV has stated that there is lot of difference in between the duties of cashier working in the rural Banks and head cashier of category "E" working in schedule Bank. There is no post oi Head Cashier in. the Bank. Instead the post of cashier incharge is there in the Bank. The duties of the cashier incharge working in the Bank are similar to the dutie3 of the cashier incharge in pay offices/branches of the sponsor banks and allowance of Rs. 189 pm is paid at par with them. In the schedule Bank post of Head Cashier is there under whom more than 5 cashiers work and thus his duties include supervisory work also. The cashier incharge working in the Bank is not required to perform the duties of Head Cashier category "E" working in the schedule Bank. His statement also supports the above finding that the duties of the clerks working in the Bank differ from the duties of Head Cashier category "F" working in the sponsor Bank The point is, therefore, decided against the applicant.

Point No. 2 :—The learned counsel for the noD- applicant has not pressed this point.

Point No. 3 :—In the circular dt. 5-7-91 issued by the NABARD marked Ex. M-2 it has been stated that the issue of giving Head Cashier allowance work- ing in sponsor Banks to be paid to the cashier incharge working in the Bank was considered and it was decided that in the sponsor Banks the gradation of Head Cashiers are made on the basis of the units of Clerks/Cashiers working under them. Normally it also depends on the volume of business. Hence in RRBs the Heud Cashier Allowance need not be paid. The Cashier incharge allowance as directed by GOI may be paid.

The above circular has been issued with regard to implementation of NIT Award read with the refer- ence to Equation Committee. Thus as per the direc- tions of the NABARD the clerks working in the Banks are not entitled to an allowance of Rs. 489 per month at par with the Head Cashier category "E" working in the sponsor Banks. The learned counsel for the applicant Union has contended that in branches of the sponsor Banks the post of Head Cashier is not there and the cashiers working in branches are paid an allowance, of Rs. 489 per month and, therefore, the clerks working in the Bank as cashier incharge are alsi entitled to the same allowance. There is no pleading in support of the above contention and, therefore, the same does not require to be considered at all

Point No. 4 :—On the basis of the above discus- sion the demand of the Gramin Bank Employees Union for allowance of Rs. 489 per month is not legal and justified, and, therefore, clerks-cum-cashiers of the Gramin Banks are not entitled to any relief.

Ths copies of the Award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17(1) of tie Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd./- Illegible

Presiding Officer2745 New. Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001 S.O. 1343.—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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No.L-l2012|72]96-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERN- MENT INDUSTRIAL TPJBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COUR;^, BANGALORE Dated, 15th May, 2001

PRESENT ::

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni Bcom LLB Presiding Officer

C,R, No. 250|97

I PARTY

Sri Kattimant. Janatha Deposit Collector, State Bank of India, Azad Road. Haliyal-581328.

II PARTY

The Branch Manager. State Bank of India. Haliysl Branch, A.zad Road, Haliyal-581328.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) ol sub- section (1) and sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012|72|96 IR(B-l) dated 10-7-97 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminat- ing the Services of Shri P. N. Kattimani, Janatha Deposit Collec- tor, with effect from 18-8-1994 is justified ? If not to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. It is seen from the records that firsi party remained absent since a long time and has filed claim statement.

3. The case of the first party in brief is as under.—The claimant was appointed by the Respondent No. 1 Bank as the Banks publicity and collection representative inresi- pect of the scheme called Janata Deposit Scheme as per the Agreement dated 3-11-1978. Thereafter identity card was issued. All the formalities were completed by the first party. The first party has worked regularly and sincerely. The order passed by the management is not correct, therefore, first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

4. The Second party filed objection state- ment. The case- of the first party is not correct. The first party was. not .engaged on permanent basis and all the allegations made by the first party are not correct. As per the agreement Bank may without any notice can terminate the agency at any time, if the deposit collector commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The action of the management is correct. Therefore the reference is rejected.

5. It is seen from the records that there- after the first party and second party failed Co appear and proceed with dispute. In the instant case both the parties are not interest- ed and no purpose will be served if the matter is kept pending: Accordingly I pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected. (Dictated to PA transcribed by her cor- rected and signed by me on 15th May 2001). V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer2746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART II—Sac. 3(fi)] of Section 25-F of I.D. Act was justified ? not, what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?" New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2001

S.O. 1344.—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, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No.L-12012|72|99IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in removing the work- man Shri Jagdish Chandra S|o Shri Harakchandra from the service in violation2141 5W< tHEGAZfiTTE OF INDIA : JUNfi.^16, 3001/ JYAJStHA 26, 1923 [PART II-^SEC, 1001 2749 2750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART II—SBC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 24th May, 2001

S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-I Hyde- rabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ot Oolconda Orameena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2001

fNo. L-1201l|43|98-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURH

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYPERABAD

PRESENT :

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc., B.L., Industrial Trlbunal-I.

Dated : 7th May of 2001,

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 38 OF 1999

BETWEEN

General Secretary, Golconda Grameenat Bnnk Workers Union, l-8-565|5, RTC Cross Rond-s, Hyderabad. . . Petitioner/Workman

AND

Chairman, Golconda Grameena Bank, Head Office, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. •. RespondentjManagement.

APPFARANCES :

Sri P. B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Sri S. Udyachal Rao, Advocate for the Respondent.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its letter No. L-12011|43|IR(B-I) has referred this dispute under ClnuHft (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 or the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) for adjudication on the following issues :

"Is the Golconda Grameena Bank justified in denying Daftrv Allowance to messengers working the branches ? If not, what relief they are entitled to?" 2. Both the parties have appeared and filed their respctive piendings.

7Tw r-'titioncr-union In its ctoirn statement averred as fol- lows • Thr miln issue in tMs disrmte fs on account of the d"ntel of niftfn A'lownncf. to the me^sencerg working in Onlconda Onra-em Bank *nd i's branches. The Golcondft Grameena Banks have been established throughout the country as per Regional Rules Bank Act, 1976 (Act 21|76). The Regional Rural Banks operated on the same lines as that of all Commercial Banks includingthe Nationalised Banks per- tainins the s"me duties with responsibilities by both the officers and other staff, The duties of the etaff of these banks are to implement loans and advance* to small and marginal farmers and agricultural labourers, individuals or groups, Co- operative societies including Agricultural Marketing Societies etc. which are similar to the duties and responsibilities of Regional Rural Bank Officers and employees throughout the Country. As per Section 17 of the RRB Act the terms and conditions are laid for the appointment of officers and emp- loyees like various nationalised and commercial banks The officers and employees of Regional Rural Banks throughout the country are not similarly placed as that of Commercial Banks and Nationalised Banks with regard to privileges which is an unfair discrimination and is a violation of article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, so also oppose to the principles of equal pay for equal work. Some writs W.P No. 7149 and 7150/82 and 132/84 were filed in the Apex Court as to the discrimination in payment of wages on the princi- ple of equal pay for equal work and tht said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 1-9-87 in which a direction was given to constitute a National Industrial Tribunal presided over by a retired Chief Justice of High Court, decide and to make an Award. As per notification 235 dated 26-11-87 the National Industrial Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate the dispute relating to the annomally in payment of salary and other allowances etc., of the officers and employees of RRB's. An Award was passed on 20-5-90 which is binding on the parties. The Officers and employees of RRB are entitled to all allowances and other benefits on par with the benefits of the officers and employees of sponsor banks. A Chctanya Bank which Is a Grameena Bank has been paying is extended by the Daftari allowance to the Sub-staff work- ers on the basis of the circular 111/Ref. No. 3/37 dated 3-8-92. Likewise many Grameena Banks extending the said benefits. But unfortunately the respondent management is adopting unfair labour practice and depriving the messsen- gers working on the Grameena Banks.

3. The point for adjudication i8 whether the messengers of the Golconda Grameena Bank and its branch office are entitle for the Daftari Allowance as prayed for?

On behalf of the employees of the Golconda Grameena Bank the Union Joint Secretary was examined ai WW1 and he reiterated the factual aspects as to the eligibility of Daftri Allowance by the messengers working in Golconda Grameena Bank and non payment of it inspite of an award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal and a circular issued by the Nabard Bank for its implementation, WW1 has deposed that the Daftari Allowance is to be paid at Rs. 119 p.m. to each employee with proportionate dearness allowance thereon to all the Class IV employee working in the Grameena Bank and its Branches w.e f. 3-8-92. He filed Ex. Wl circular issued by the Nabard Bank for imp- lementation of the Award by the Management's. Accord- ing to him Grameena Bank Is a sponsored bank of (SBH) established to function in Rural Areas. The sponsoral Bank (SBH) Class IV employees are also drawing Daftari Allow- ance, where as the same is not extended to Grameena Bank Cl"ss TV employes and that there are 16 such branches throuohout the A.P. State, Ex. W2 is produced to show that another Chetanya Grameena Bunk of Guntur In payinR Daftnri Allowance to Class IV employees.

5 The respondents and their standing counsel have re- mained absent on all the dates of hearing and on 4-5-2001, as such the respondent 1 and 2 were set aside.

6. From the oral evidence of Wl coupled with Ex. Wl and W2 it is evident that the employees working in RRB are cHgihle to draw Dnftari Allowance on par with Class IV employers drawing in other banks and by sponsoral bank (SBH) Class IV staff. There cannot be any discrimination in between the eauais and such a discrimination amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. Arturt from it on the nrindolei of equal Day for eaual work nnd emriiovpcs of G-aicnnda Grcmcena Batik nre also elidi- ble for nil fhp piinwnnces r>'m'*rl by them when the Nation- *I Industrial Tribunal rps decided the question in Rwe find iwwil an Award on 70-4-90 and in rmrsunice of it Ex. Wl circlnr ws issued. The reqrjcmdpnf 1 ond 2 nre bound to imniement the ".<>TT>" ""d thev ennr>ot delav tin- tmnlfrnpTita- t)on. Anv rMov would amounts to unfair labour practice and discrim'natfon 7\ In the Counter the respondent put forth the contentions that ihe excess subordinate staff weie recruited as Messenger- cmn-Sweeper but theya re not discharging duties of Sweepei. The, duties 01 Sweepei uie being discharged by the individuals exclusively appointed for the Mid purposes. Daftary Post in the Spjnsor-Bank is of separat cadre specifically designated as Such to perform extra duties alonu with duties of peons. Further the level and type of business handled by the branch- es of the sponsor bank is entirely different from that handled by the blanches of the Bank as on date there is no position| post of DafUiy either in Hrad Office or any Branch Offices arc'warrant creation of post of Daftary so long as Daftary poil Is not cieated quest on of paving the Daftary Allowance it does not arise. Thcie is no necessity to create Daflary posf in Gramecna Banks. It is not mandatory to follow the guide lines of Nab"id. fn the Award dated 30-4-90 given by the National Industrial Tribunal it has directed to have equation of posts and fixation of pay, allowances and Othci benefits of the employees of Orameena Banks which matter has to b<* dee'ded by the Central Govnnmnt in consultation witfi such authorities as it mflv consider necessary. The Government of Indi.i coni'Ituti d Equition Committee to to make rrcommendnliens with rCgord to equation of posts in Regional Rural Banl s vii-a~vis in the sponsored Banks The committee snbmi"ed the report to Govnimeni of Tndm an(J on thif instruction were issued lead with the equation, committee letiT d-'ted 22-2-9!, lo 'he tnessencgr-cum-Sweep- cr Iworkme in the respondent banks are not rlimhlc foi p"flTv Minwarce Hen-~c i"(c 'ucc mny be rejected, S The respondents have not placed any evidence in proof of theii assertions as such the assertion pales into insignifi- cance The evidence placed b\ rh<* petitioner union Is satis- factory to grant the lelief as per Fx Wl guidelines.

9. In the result an /(ward "" passed dircctine the respon- detit 1 and 2 to implement Ex. Wl circular in leleasing Daftary Allowance due to Class IV of Grameena Banks woikinc in A P State from th" ditf of their c1i" bility. The Award shall be implemented within 30 days of the publica- tion of the Award.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him cor- rected and given under mv hand and seal of this Tribunal on, this 7th day of May 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal^ Appendix of Evidence :

Witnesses Examined for Witness Examined foi the Respondent: Petitioner :

WW1 N. Ravii Kumar Nil.

Documents marked for the Petitioner|Workrmn :

Ex. Wl |20-3-93 Circular issued by NABARD. Rx W2|3-8-92 Payment of Daftary allowance io Sub- Staff member in Chetanya Grameena Bank Circular No. 3|37.

Documents marked for the Respondent! Management:

(set exparte) NIL

1709 GI/2001—9

ym New Delhi, the 24th May, 2001

SO. 1346.—Tn pursuonce of Section-17 of Ihe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 114 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, 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 lecdved by the Central Government on 23-5-2001.

[No. L-41012/70/99-IR(B-I) L-41012/69/99-IR(B-I) L-41012/68/99-IR(B-I) L-41012/71/99-IR(B-I) L-410I2/82/991R(B-l) L-41012/78/99-TR(B-l) L-41012/79/99-lR(B-I) L-41012/76/99-IR(B-D L-41012/75/99-IR(B-I) L-41012/73/99-IR(B-l) L-41012/72/99-lR(B-l)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI-104

Friday, the 20th day of April, 2001

PRESENT:

Thiru S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc.B.L., Industrial Tribunal. Industrial Dispute Nos. 114 of 1999 to 124 of 1999 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section luOXd) of the Industrial Dispute Act, J947 between the Workmen and the Management of Southern Railway, Tiruchiiapalli Division, Tinichirapalli-620001.) In I.D. No. 114/99

BETWEEN

Thiru M. Leo, 22, Amalarpuram Colony, Usman Ali Street, T.V.S. Toigate, Tiruchirapalli-20.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchlrapalli-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-41012/70/99-IR(B-I) dated 12-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

In I.D. No. 115/99

BETWEEN

Sh. R. S Ravichandran, No, 59, TVR Street, Kamaraj Nagar Air Port, Tiruchirapalli-7.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern" Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, TiruchirapaIli-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-410l2/69/99-IR(B-I> dated 12-7-1999, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

In I.D. No. 116099

BETWEEN

Thiru S. Logendran, 6 IB Kallar Street, Rallukuzhi, Tiruchirapalli-20

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southcpa Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, TiruchirapaIli-620001.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-41O12/68/99-IR(B-I) dated 12-7-1999, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

T.D. No. 117/99

BETWHEN

Shrl L, Dharmaraj, 49/31, Thiru Nagar 1st Street, Karumant.'tpam, TiT-uchirapnlli-620001.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchiiapalli Division, TiruchirapaIli-620001.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-41012/71/99-lR(B-l) dated 13-7-1990, Ministry of Labour, Government of India New Delhi.

In I.D. No. H8/99

BETWEEN

Smt. R. Lakshmi, 47, Renganathapuram, Officers' Colony, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli-17.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, TiruchirapaIli-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. 41012/82/99-iKfB-I), dt. 13-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

In I.D. No. 119/99

BETWEEN

Shri N. Raj, No. 2 Jeeva Street, Sangaliandapuram, Tiruchirapalli.

AND

The Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, TiruchirapaTli-620001.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-41012/78/99-IRCB-I) dated 13-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of InUia, New Delhi.

In I.D\ NO- 120/99

BETWEEN

Sh. A. Rengaraju, 30 Nehru Street, Ulganathapmam, Tiruchirapalli-20.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Tiructiirapalli Division, Southern Railway, TiruchirapaIli-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-41012/79/99-IR(B-I) dated 13-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of India. New Delhi.

In I.D. No. 121/99

BETWEEN

Shvi P. Francis, J/815, Thlruvalluvar Nagar, Oil Mill, Katur, Thiruchirapalli-19.

AND

Th" Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, Til uchirapalh-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-41012/76/99-lR{B-],) dated 13-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of India New Delhi.

In I.D. No. 12^/99

BETWEEN

Shri J, Jeeva, S/o Vellakannu Mudikandam, F. Pudur (Via) NagamangalamPO, Tiruchirapalli.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Tiruchirapalli Division, Southern Railway, Tinichirapalll-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-41012/75/99-IR(B-r> dated 13-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

In I.D. No. 123/99

BETWEEN

Shri P. Shanmugam, 53A, T.V.K. Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Air Port, Tiruchirapalli-7.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Sounthern Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirappalli-620001.

REFERENCE:

Older No. L-41012|73|99hIR(B-I) dated 13-7-1999, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

In l.D. No. 124/99

BETWEEN

Shri M. Sirajudeen, 70 Muslim 1st Street, Kliajamalai, Tiruchirappalli-23.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tinjchtrappali Division, Tiruchirappalli-620001.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-41O12/72/99-lR(B-I) dated 13-7-99, Ministry of Labour, Government of India New Delhi.

These disputes coming on this day for final hearing upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter statements and ^11 other material pHpers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Thiruvalargal A. Purthasarthy and A, Varada- rajan, authorised representatives for the Workmen in all the disputes and of Thiru G. Kalyanasundaram, advocate appearing for the Management, this Tribunal passed the following t?ommon.

AWARD

The Government of India has referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division in terminating the services, of the petitioners with effect from 3-10-1994 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief they are entitled ?"

2. In all the disputes separate Claim Statements were filed and the Common Averments made therein are as follows:

The petitioners i.e. Thiruvalarga! (1) M. Leo, (2) R. S. Ravichandran, (3) S. Logemtran, (4) K. Dhormaraj, (5) Mrs. R. Lakshmi, (6) N, Rat, (7) A. Ran.nurnju, (8) P. Francis, (9) Mrs. J. Veeva, (10) P. Shanmugara and (11) M. Sirajudeen, joined the services of the respondent canteen at Tiruchirap- palli (hereafter called as Tiruchi) Divisional Railway Managers Office Complex respectively on 6-5-1986, 15-5-87, 8-f>-87, 15-5-87, 1-4-81, 10-8-92, 10-8-92, 4-8-86, 29-7-91, 10-8-92, 4-10-89 and they were placed on r non-employment from 3-10-1994, The petitioners moved the Central Adminis- trative Tribunal, at Chennai immediately on non-employment. The Petitioners have withdrawn the said applications, due to some reasons, with liberty to raise Industrial Dispute on 11-8-1997. The petitioners raised dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Chennai on 11-9-9H and the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) at Tiruchi, initiated conciliation and the same ended in failure. The canteen h one provided and subsidised by the Railways as Welfare Measure in line with that ot Para. 2130 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is a recognised Non-statutory canteen by the railways at Tiruchirappalli. The sanctioned strength of the canteen by the railways to the Canteen is 2R emplovces, All Non-statutory canteen workers filed .yet another Writ Petition before the Supreme Court in 1982. Tt was numbered as W.P. Nos. .2275 to 2286 of 1982 (also other cases), The Hon'ble Supreme Court in nn interim order passed and directed the railways to pay the railway scales of wages to the workers as Interim Relief w.e.f. 1-4-1982. This was implemented. The Hon'ble- Supreme Court of Tndia passed" the final judgements in W.Ps referred to above on 27-2-1990 The Court ordered to treat the canteen workers of all non- statutorv canteens aft employees of the Railway) from 1-4-1990. The full W of the Judgement reported in 1990-II-TXN p,i"c 197. The Railway officials at Tiruchi, took action, to take over the canteen from the Cn-operative. The canteen was under the control of a Special Officer from July 1991 to 1993, since the Government of Tamil Nadu dissolved all the elected Boards, as such the Canteen too fall under the Special Oliicer. in all these years petitioner continued tu be in service. The petitioners were not paid wages for about 13 months. The Railway administration took over the canteen in full, after dissolving the Co-operatives. On 9-9-1993, the Railway Administration paid the due wages loo. Suddenly on 3-10-94 the railway officials, removed the petitioners from service, and said it wus a retrenchment. Hence this dispute. The action at" the Railway administration, to terminate the petitioners was not correct and legally not sustainable one, tho Grounds are as under :

(a) The petitioner continued to be in service.

(b) The canteen was subsidised one, as such the railway has control over the canteen. .

(c) The Judgement of the Supreme Court only said that the canteen workers arc to be treated as railway workers, there was no classification in it.

(dj Even aftei the judgement of the Court on 27-2-1990 and the date of eil'ect given by Supreme Court, i.e. 1-4-90, the petitioners allowed to continue in em- ployment, neither the special officer uor the railway officials aiven any notice to the petitioners.

(e) The petitioners were allowed to work till 3-10-l9'J4.

tf) After non-employment of the petitioners, the railway administration brought men from other canteens to the canteen in the dispute.

(E) The Railway administration said before the Con- ciliation officer, that the petitioners' non-employment as retrenchment. But they failed to follow the necessary legal requirements as contemplated iu the I.D. Act, 1947.

(,h) The Sourthern Railway in other canteens, siuiilaily placed casuals were all regularised.

U) There were three typed of Class DI workers i.e. (a) Extra Labour popularly known as ELR.

(b) CPC scale workers,

(c) regular workers. Since the canteen also adopted the same principles, the canteen casuals need to tie absorbed as per practice in existence.

Cj) The Practice of absorbing the casuals is not a new system to railways. Even in the case of Canteen casuals, that too after 1-4-90, was considered for regularisatiou.

(k) The denial of regularisation to petitioners are against the Natural justice and as well the applicants fundamental right.

The petitioners pray tin's Tribunal, may be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioners as regular employees in the post holding before their non-employment in the canteen, with backwages, all other attendant benefits, and continuity of service.

3. In all the dibpufes Separate Counters were filed and the Common averments made theiein sire ;is follows :

The petitioners have not filed any proof to show th.it they were employed on 15-5-1987 in the erstwhile canteen management as regular employees. The said canteen is a Non-statutory Recognised cun(c?n was run by the Managing Committee lonsi-itiiig of the Railway employees as Direc- tors. The Pay and AllowanrJs of the employees of the canteen v. ere- being met by subsidy to the tune of 70 per cent from Ihe Ra'lway administration and the balance of 30 per cent was met by the Canteen Management til] 1-4-90. From 1-4-90 the regular employees of Ihr subsidised non-statutorv canteen h^'e been treated as Railway servants in terms of Railway Board's letter No. E(W)19|CNI-7(I1) dated 18-5-1990, consequent on the imple- mentation of the Hon'hk Supreme Court's judgement dated 27-?-1990 in Writ peiiti in Nos. 2275 to 228611982 in MMR Khun and others V". Union of Tndia cu"e. The pay and allowances in rc.pect of the recuinr rmniovecs of the sub- sidised canteen nre being paid by the Rnilwny administration2/54 TiAk GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNB 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ilj] io accept the teiminaUon IK ico as well as the payment of Rs. 4300 arranged in accordance with Jaw. Ihe manage- ment also mentioned in tneir counter that keeping the above said amount ieady in the Office ot ihe employer by itself is sufficient compliance of tiie provisions ot the I.D. Act and tne sine quo uon conditions preceding lccicncniuuiH.

8. Nuw tho Learned Representative tor the petitioners con- iciui uiu.t tno LU'iumiuion oi leu'eitchOKiit as tue ease muy DC is not in accoidance with law. Ho also cited 19yO II LLN p. 197 to substantiate his case that even the tinployees of non-statuwry recognisd Canteen shall have to come directly under the employment of me Railway Administration. w.c.f. 1-4-90 and subsidy prov.i.td earlier has been stopped. Tlit Balmy to ihe petitioners on daily raie basis were paid by [he mnittn management irom me sales amount. Ihe Special Officer unui-r ihe contiia Of Lie jjcpmy Keyistiar oi Co-op Societies, Iiicuy tooli over the canteen manage- ment in July iyyl and ihe canteen management was wnh the i>late Cjovcmniem Co-opeiative Depauraeni trom July ly^l to yth September iyy3. Subsequently, the Railway adniuustartion took, over the canteen liom the Co-operaiive Special Officer .on y-y-93 with liabilities to the extent oi Rs. 2,7y,JJ7.15 p. Ihe canteen was revived since 15-8-y4, taking linancial uwistance liom Southern Railway Women's Weliare Organisation, Tnchy. It was felt very difficult to pay the wuges, to the daily casual labouiers. Further the canteen is not eligible for any subsidy fiom the Railway administra- tion. The management has conic to the conclusion to let- rench the seivice of the daiiy rated casual iabouieis lonh- with. In the said regaid, the petitioners and alike other casual laboureis were given notice, one month pay in lieu of notice period as required in accoidance with the provision of the 1D. Act 1947. The petitioners had refused to accept tiie notice and payment ai ranged lor Rs. 4300 on 3-J0-94. As per ihe Hon ble High Court Judgement reported in I LLU 1986 page 334 it has been held that "Keeping the amount icady in the Office of the employer is sufficient compliance." Thorelore the respondent has loliowed the provisions ol the I.D. Act jn retrenchment of the petitioners. The management in order to reduce the loss, had no other option except to retrench the daily raied casual labours who weie engaged by the erstwhile Canteen management. Where there is no specific mention about the absorption of casual labour either in the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or in the Rail- wap Board letter dated 18-5-90 issued on the base of Apex. Court Judgement. Hence the plea of the petitioners to extend tho benefit as envisaged in the dictum of tho Hon'ble Sup- reme Court in MJVlR's Khan case does not arise. The peti- tioner along with other such retrenched daily rated casual labourer! have filed NOs. O,A.|1186|94, 1205|94 and 1405(94 on the file of the Central Admn. Tribunal, Madras praying to quash the Impugned order of retrenchment and for con- sequential benefits and the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application vide Common Order dated 11-8-97 as having been withdrawn. The petitioners have been engaged as a daily rated casual labour in the Staff Co-operative Canteen by tho then Management CJmruittce and it will not imply on the Railway Administration for employment in Railway. There is no ground for reinstatement of the petitioners. The respondent prays to dismiss tho above petitioners.

9. In this conn.cLion Ex. Wl is the Claim of tho work- rucn|peuuoneis made irj a complaint beiore the Regional labour Commissioner; wlwt they have mentioned therein was that these petitioners weie working as Cleaners from M-6-87 continuously without any break in the above said canteen; thai the Railway Administration was not prepared lo recognise them as its employees; that they were treated pnly as Casual labourers tor dally wages with no other benefit, Ihoy also contended that in lespect of framing pulncios liiuudiug purcuaie of edible items were dt'teimlnccl by ihe Railway auihorties oi the Canteen and yet the emp- loyees of Canteen weie tow lhat they were only the emp- loyees of Co-operative Society and not the Railways. The woikers felt it necessary to implement the Verdict given in 1990 11 LLN p. 197 and made this complaint before the Regional Laboui Commissionet. Ex. Wl is the copy of such complaint. Ex. W2 is trie Counter filed by the Railway Administration, wherein they have contended that originally the said canteen which is a Non-statutory Recognised Canteen was run by the Managing Committee consisting of Railway employees as Directory that the Fay and Allowance of the employees of the Canteen wcro made by subsidy of 70 pei cent by Railway Administration and 30 per cent was made by the Canteen management till 1-4-90. From 1-4-90 the regular employees of the canteen were treated as Railway servants in terms of Supreme Court Verdict dated 27-2-90 in the above cited Case Law 1990 II LLN p. 197. It was said that the Special Officer ot the Co-operative Society took over tho management of the canteen in luly 1991 and again upon liquidation of the society .he Railway administration took over the Canteen on 9-9-93 with liabilities to the extent of Ri. 2.80 lakhs and that since the canteen is on loss no remedy could be provided, Upon 'lie above contention made on either side through Ex. Wl and W2 there was a report of Failure of Conciliation under Ex. .W3.

4. On behalf of petitioners, Ex. Wl to W21 were marked

by concent. On behalf of Respondent|Management, MW1 Thiru N.M, Jayasekar, has been examined and Ex. Ml to M9 were marked.

5. The Point for consideration is whether the actioin of the Management of Sotuhern Railways, Tiruchirappalli Division in terminating the services of the petitioners w.c.f. 3-10-94 are legal and justified? If not to what relief they are en- titled?

10. Now the petitioners want status of employee directly under the Railway Management. That apart they also con- tend that the retrenchment was not in accodance with the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. So fPr as, the Payment of Statutory sum preceding retrenchment, the tender of Rs. 4300 made by the management to the petitioner and the later's refusal v.rs not repudiated, There was also a notice to that effect through Ex. M9, May be that the ret- renchment procedure was correctly followed. Another pro- cedure to be followed in implementing retrenchment even if it was considered necessary is that the person who had 'lost come shall have go first'. For Practising the same, there 'hould be a Seniority List, which was neither shown to have been maintained nor produced.

6. The Point : The ] 1 petieioners in the above Industrial Disputes are workers of Ointecn attached to the Railway administration at D.R.M. Office Complex, Tlruchi called General Offices Staff Co-operative Cnnteen. Usually the canteens are provided and maintained in Railways, as a measure of welfare, to cater the needs, of Railway employees. The said' canteens are classified as (a) Statutory canteens (b) Non-statutory Recognised Canteens (c) Non Statutory Non-Recognised Canteens. Statutory canteens were provi- ded and maintained in Facroilcs of Railways as per Section 46 of the Factories Act 1948. There is a manual called In- dian Railway Establishment Manual which deals with the Canteens and explain the administration thereof. The canteens in this case is a non-statutory recognised canteen (called N.S. Canteen).

7. All the 11 petitioners in the above Industrial disputes were recruited as Casual labourers on 6-8-86 18-5-87, 8-6-87, 15-5-87, 1-4-81, 10-8-91, 4-8-86, 1-2-90, 10-&-92, 28-7-91 and 10-8-92 respectively. They were all terminated on 3-10-1994. Even according to p.ira 4 of the Counter of the Respondent|Manflnement n Mirn of Rs. 4100 to each ot the petitioner was sent after terminating them with effect from the afternoon of 3-10-94; that the petitioners refusrd

11. On the other hand, what the management would say is that these petitioners will not come under the Seniority list because they are only piece rate workers for daily wages with no other benefits or privileges. Admitted.lv, thev have joined the sei vices on vaiious years ranging from 1986 to 1992 as mentioned in the respective petitions. They were so admitted by the Managing Committee consisting of the Railway employees as Direriiiu. Of course management may change but the successors in interest is bound by action of predecessors. Tn tMi case also, the manj>nement was taken ovpr by the Special Officer nf t.he Co-operative Society in lulv, 1991 and upon liquidation of the sociotv. the Pailway ad- ministration took over the canteen from 9-9-1993. Fx. TVT3 is thi* liquidation •proceedings of the Co-operative wciety. The handitif o vr and taking ovpr of the mnrag'Tni'Tit wfls dc^lt under Fx. M^. Thus the Railway mana^rnent i* responsible The dptrs rf initini enrawmrnt of e'ifh nf the petitioners were mentioned in F.T Ml Now whit we bi'Ve to see is whether they are only piece-nite workeis as contended by the 21$5 management or they aie entitled for the status of Railway Employee as claimed by trie petitioners,

Administration. We have also found lhat although the ad- ministration vested wuh souift agency or society, the sole responsibility tor trie entire administrations was only wic)i iiie huilwuy AumikiibLruiion. So by trie reason of the tact that Co-operative Society was in the administration Dttween July 1991 to September 1993, Railway Administration cannot shift the buidtn. fhereiore the entire construction is that tor the whole period, the ddministmtion was only with ihe rail- ways. Ihus even in ihe Common Written Argument and Counter, it was admitted thai these petitioners were appointed langing irom 1986 to 1992 bj the Managing Committee of the Railway Administration,

14. Now the Learned Counsel for the Management would contend that as on 9-y-93 when the Railway Administration took over the management from the Co-oporative Society, there was a liability to the extent of Rs. 2.79 lakhs. It was said that many af the credit bills for the purchase of raw- matenuls fiom the various concerns were not yet settled; it was lurihci mentioned thai n wag very difficult to pay even the wages and even tor tbt &un ival some linancial assistance of Southern Railway Women's Welfare Organisation, Tiruchy was taken but for itt help thus taken the entire administra- tion would have stalled. These things will only go to show the mal-administration of the society, and liabilities created during that period. Since the principle involved is that ad- ministration through agency of Railway is equivalent to ad- ministartion of Railway itself, the later cannot throw the burden upon the society and try to find some escape. Even assuming that thero was jjrent Joss in the administration of canteen which also necessitated retrenchment then the whole remedy lies in sending first tho worker who joined last. This was not adopted and on thit ground itself the Order of Retrenchment will not hold good.

12. (n his attempt to establlish the case of the petitioners, Mr. i'.utriasaraihy Uie learned representative ior inc peti- tiunets etiecuvely lelied upon liWu-liLLN p. i'-Xl wh.cn ulso ckJls wall Canteen worWs of ihe same southern Railway at the same TiruchirapitlU Division, Fhcy rehed upon the Railway bsLablishmeiit Manuals on which reliance was placed in this cusu also, in Hut Judgement, Paras 1/ tu 20 deal wi.h the background or the question as to whether ihe stall employed in the Statutory canteens m the Railway Establish- ment aje Railway employees or nut. It was considered in various aspects. While paragraphs 17 to 20 in that case, dealt with such background pt.ia 24 dealt with the definition ol itie woiker. Woiker us denied under Sec. 2(1) ot Ihe Factories Act is a pu.,on employed directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the Principal employer, whether for remunera- tion or not, in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery oi premises used for a manufac- turing pioct.ss, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of manufacturing process. Ap.irt from consideration of the definition of worker, the other factors considered in that case are the facts regaiding the annual accounts of the caateen to be submitted- to the Finance Adviser of the Department and the Audit of aCCount of Canteen to be carried out by the Departmentalised Account Organisation, and the fact that out of the surplus of the Net profit of the Canteen, l/3rd amount WHS required to bo remitted for Welfare of the Canteen employees. Their recruitment and service conditions were Koverned by Rules applicable to employees of the fiovernment Department. Some more factors were borrowed from the instructions found In the Railway Establishment Manual. In this background, tha definition of the word worker were looked into. Therefore it was found in para 25 of the above judgement that 'it is obligatory under Sec. 46 of the Fnctoncs Act on the Railway Administiation to provide a cant'-'en; such provision oi the canteen wan deemed by the Statute as necessary concomitant of the manufacturing activity, It was also mentioned that para 2834 made a pro- vision for meeting the cost of the Canton, ' Paras 2829, 2832 apd 2834 of "the Railway Establishment Manual Recog- nised the obligation on the Railway Administration; it was found that although Railway Administration may employ any one fiuch as a Staff Committee nr a Cn-onerativc Society for the management of the canteens, the legal responsibility for the proper management rrsN not with the acent but toldy with the Railway AdminHntion. By iciyiiif; uron nil these facts if was found that,

"In the circumstances even whert the employees were appointed by the Staff Committee, Co-operative Society it will have to be held that their appoint- ment is made by the department through the agency of the committee/society."

15. Again the learned counsel for the Management argued that the petitioners were noi cusual labourers and when en- caged they were done only aa piece ratg workers; that they were not paid from ihe local fund but only from the sale proceed VD£ canteen. Payment may be one of the factors to be looked into but manipulation in mode of payment by itseli will not decide the issue, les" all management may try to victimise the otherwise rcgulai worker to be treated as piece rate workers by chaining tno mode of payment of wages in an .nbitrory manner. When once the petitioners were cn- saged, it was not Informed tnat they were only piece rate workers. As per Ex. W2i, H is made clear lhat some of the petitioners were subsequently regularised as fresh ent- rants, Ex. W20 shows thai one of the petitioner by name Mrn. Lakshmi In l.O. Nc. U8|P9 was informed that she would be .eligible for Penmonaty benefits under Railway Board Pension Scheme. Thu was made in pursuance of the decision taken to treat the employees of canteen as Railwav employees w.c.f. 1-4-90 and us per the judgement in MMR Khan vs. Union of India (iyl"0 II LLN 197). From this, it is made clear lhat 7 petitioners in I.D, Nos, 114 to 12419^ who were appointed prior to 1-4-90 ranging from 1986 nnd latest on 1-2-90 shall have to be absorbed as jailway emp- loyees in puisuunce of the above judgement in MMR Khan's cuse by the Supreme Court of India. Even the three other petitioners In I.D. Nos, 120 to 123199 were only appointed by the Managing Committee and theie is no evidence to hold that they were taken only un contract basis. The main defini- tion h-tween contract 'Ot service and contract for service is Ihe difference betwrcn service rend^ted and service arranged Since these petitioners htive actually rendered service and (liev have never arranged for service they cannot at any stretch of imagination he called as contract labourers of piece rate workers. Therefore, at the inception itself there was the rehtiomhip of Master and Servant between the Railwav Administration and the Petitioners, It was also pointed out lhat the Railway Boaid by its, Circular dated 8-6-1981 had communicated that it was decided to treat the employees of nil statutory canteen as Railway servants irrespective of th" type and management of the canteen and to extend to them teh conditions of service and emoluments of the Railway lervants ns on 21-10-80 w.e.f. ?2-lO-1980. ll was therefore held in para 28 of the above judgement that there was> relationship of employer and employee created between the railwny administration and the Canteen employees fiom the vCTy inception. It was however, veiy much reiterated number Of limes in the judgement that although, the administration cm employ as agent a Staff Committee or a Co-operative society; for management, the legal responsibility for proper management r^sts not with agency but solely with tho railway administration.

16. Even in MMR Khsin's case vs. Union of India (1990 T( LLN 197) the status ot non-statutory recognised canteens and their employees were dealt with. Paragraph 31?2, 2130, 2829, 2831 of the Railwav Publishment Mamnl. lay down the piineiplfs imwrninn th* scttinp up rif the Canteen which apply also to the non-stninlnry ennteens, It was further held ijs follows ;

13. In the case also, the definition oi worker as found in Sfc, 2(1) of the Factories Act is veiy well applicnbli.- to the petitioner¹;. They were all appointed by ll.c Managing Com- mittee of the erstwhile Railway establishment which of course has taken over the management on 9-9-1993 soon after the Intermittent period between July 1991 to September 1993 when the management was with the Special officer of the Co-operative societies, Subsequently the society hos been liquidated and the present management lests with the Railway

'However, in eilher ot the cases, a iepreseritative of the railway administration is ^ be nominated either as a Chairman or a Secretary or as a member of the2756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PAIU It—SEC. 3(ii)] Committee. This nominee of. tbc railway administ- ration is under on obligation to bring to the notice of the adnuoisti ation any decision ot the inanaKinp exjuiimUee which is, likely to affect the interests of the railway adjnimsuation in its capacity as un own- er, of the premises and of the furnituie, equipment, elc. OL if tlie decision is likely (o be of considera- ble tuinn to the staff. In sucn cases, the manage- ment committee cannot take action on the particu- lar decision till tht General Manager of the railway has recorded his decision thereon. The paragiapn further ordains that where the canteens are mana- ged by a co-operative society it should make a suitable provision "i its bye-laws tor supeivision of the canteen by the committee of management. The paragraph also makes provision for gi anting foanv to such canteens as initial capital from the staff benefit find paragraph 2834 then details various facilities which are extended to such can- teens which include the necessary accommodation sanitary and electric installations, furniture and cook- ing utensils. The railway administration is also requi- red to bear rent on sanitary and electric installations, service taxes and charges for the electricity and water consumed. These canteens are also entitled lo subsidies at present to the extent of 50 per cent ot the wages of tbc employees engaged therein." The Employees in these canteens are also entitled to free medical treatment as out-door patients in railway hospitals, to railway passes/PTOs, one incre- ment as an incentive for adoption of a small family. They are also governed by the provisions of the employees' Provident Funds Act. The Board has also framed recruitment rule* for these employees, vide its letter, dated 7 June 1978. These iules, among other things, lay down minimum qualifying age for recruitment, and superannuation age, mini- mum educational qualification, the mode of recruit- ment and eligibility for promotion for various posts. The nominee of the railway administration on the managing committee of the canteen is to be the appointing authority. At present, there are about 173 non-statutory recognised canteens empJoving about 2145 workers."

17, As against the Order of Termination of Petitioners passed on 3-10-94, the petitioners preferred to file Original Application Nos, 1186, 12(15 and 1405 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) and on ] 1-8-97 they have withdrawn the said applications. What for they have withdrawn was not made known. The Learned Counsel for the Management took advantage oT the same and contended that since there was justifiable groufid for the said termination the petitioner rmiJd not resist it and therefore they have withdrawn the said applications. True it is that K\. W7 do show such withdrawal, a careful perusal of Ex. M9 would also go to show that for the justifiable reason there was retrenchment and it appeared to have been bona- fide done in good faith. Even now the Learned Counsel for the Management argued so but during discussion we have found that retrenchment is bad, since the policy of 'last come should first go' was not applied; and that there was, no seniority list shown to have been maintained for application or the above principle. In that way, even thouph ostensible reasons was there for termination we have held that the retrenchment was bad. But the Counsel for the Management argued that the availability of the ostensible reason for frimination of the petitioner and the latters act of withdrawal of their application resisting the terminaion may go to indfcflle the circumstances and the justifiability of the cnn>equcnl'iil action of termination, if not the legality of the same. By considerinc; this argument what we can hold is that even thoueh termination is to be set aside, we can say that ir- instntement can be maoe only from the date of Award End that there need not be any backwages for the principle that there can be 'no pay for no work',

18 Hence neither by wav "F. loss nor bv reason of allepej appointment as piece rate workers, the management cannot esenne from Giving permanent empio^men¹ to (he CanWn workers namely the petitioners, They have to be treated r.s direct railwav employees, They nre to b" given inch status of direr* railway employees with, effect from this date of award. The order of termination of the service^ rf petitioners is not legal,. However they will not be entitled for backwages as per the principle that there will be no pay for no work. Thus petitioners will be considered as fresh entrants from the date of this Award. Award passed accordingly. No costs. Dated at Chennai, this the 20th day of April 2001.

S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Industrial Tiiljunul I D. Nos. ' 114/99 to 124/99 " " "

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner/Workman : None.

For, Respondent/Management: MW1 Ihiru M. Jcyasekai.

For Petitioner :

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Ex. Wl 11-9-98: Complaint to the Regional Labour Commissionei(C) by the Worker under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Ex. VV2 S-2-99 : Counter reply of the railways (.Respon- dent) to the Labour Enforcement Officer(C) Tiruchirappalli.

lix. W3 : The conciliation failure report of the petitioner's (C) to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India. (Ex, Wl to W3 separately marked)

Ex. W4 18-5-90: Railway Board's E(W> 90-CN-l-7-(Il). hx. W5 19-11-90: Railway Board's letter E(W) CNI-8.

Ex. W6 22-4-83 : The copy of the Interim orders of the Supreme Court in W.rt. 2275 to 2285/82. hx. W7 11-8-97: Central Administrative Tribunal's older in O.S. Nos, 1186, 1205 and 1405/94.

IX W8 3-7-93 : The letter of the Special officer Canteen- cum-Liquidator Co-op. Tribunal.

Ex. W9 9-9-93 : Taken over/Handing over report T/P 140/P/l/Vol. 5.

Ex. W10 9-1-97: Southern Railway Head Quaiters letter P|W|140 engagement of CLs.

Ex. Wll 10-1-97: Office Order No. 45/97 issued by the CPO/SR.

hx, W12 29-1-97 : Appointment order 26/97 by APO/ CW/PER.

Ex. W13 10-9-98: Letter issued by the Senior DPO/ MAS/MIP 140/V/Canteen.

Ex. W14 10-6-98 : Letter of Sr. DP0/MASM(P) 140/V Canteen.

J-,v. W15 2-6-97: Office Order 14/97 issued CPO/MAS/ SR.

Lx. W16 22-4-92: Lettei of SPO/SR P(W) 140SP/Vol.

VI SC/Pt/CL.

Ex. Wl7 15-9-98 : Office Order M.P. l/E/140'V/ Canteen 47/98.

Ex, W18 22-4-92 : Letter to Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Co-op. From Canteen Workers Union of Southern Railway.

Ex. W19 19-4-91 : Letter from the C.P.O./SR to nil officials of Canteens vide P.(W) 195/P/VoI, VII/ with enclosures.

Ex. W20 -7-93 : Lettei by the Accounts Officer of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Tinichy to R. Lakshjni.

Hx, W21 21-2-97: Office Order No, 3/97, dt. 21-2-97 reg, engagements of substitutes in Railway canteen.

For Management:

Ex. Ml T/P. 140/P/l/Vol. V dt. 21-4-93 Particulars regarding Casual Labourers,

Ex. M2 Na. Ka 4S08/92/MN dt. 21-6-93—Proceeding Liquidation of Co-op. Canteen,

Ex. M3 3-7-93 : Liquidation Proceedings by the Co-op.

Sub Registrar.

Ex. M3 3-7-93 : Liquidation proceedings by the Co- operative Sub Registrar.

Ex. M4 8-7-93 : F/om Special officer Co-op. Canteen letter.

Ex. M5 l/'P. 140/P1 Vol. V. dt. 9-9-93 : Handing over- taking over of the Canteen Management.

Fx. M6 i|2|140|P|l|Vol. V dt 20-7-94 : Payment of wages to Casual Labourers.

Ex. M7 P]P|14U]P|l|Vol Vdl. 30-7-94: Reply to Paiha- ment Question on Canteen.

Ex. M8 T.P. 140/P/I/VoI. V dt. 30-7-94 : Reply- r.e"arding re-engagement of Casual La bourns.

Ex. M9 T.P. 140/P/I/Cantaan dt. 3-10-94; Retrench- ment notices to the Casual Labouier.

New Dtilhi, the 25th May, 2001

S.O. 1347.—In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government Iherpby piibfiisheta the a,w,anct of the Industrial Tribunal Rour-kela as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employeis in relation to the management •of State Bank of India and thoir workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 24-5-2001.

fNo. L-12012|108|99 IRfB-D]

AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURB

IN THF COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL, ROURKELA

Indusrial Dispute Case No. 8|99(c)

Dnted, the 31st Octobei. 2000

PRESENT :

Sri Alak Knmai Dutta, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkeia

BETWEEN

The Zonal Manager, State Bank iof India, Zonal Office, Sambalpur 1st party management

AND

Sri Premanand Sethi, fianalesw.ni

Colony, At : Modfparn, Snmbnlpur . . Und party woikrrnn APPEARANCES :

For the 1st party . Sri U.C. Mishrn, Dv Manager For the Ilnd party . . In person.

AWARD

The Govt. ol Indu m the Ministry of Laboui m tAcidse of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A) Jf Section 10 of I.D. Act have referred the following dispute tor adjudication vide No. L-12012|108(99[ IR(B-l) dt. 16-6-99;

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank jf India Zonal Office, Sambalpui verbally terminat- ing the services of Sri Premanand Sethi, Plumber vv.e.f. 5-3-98 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

"Whether tho demand of the workman, Sii Piemanand Sehi, Plumber loi leyularisation of his services with all benefits at par with the sub-staff of the State Bank of India from Mav, 1994 to 5-3-98 is justified? If so, what relief trxe workman is entitled to?'¹ 2. The claim of the 2nd paity in biief is as lollows:—• He pined under the 1st paity management i.e. in the zonal otflce, Sambalpur in May, 1994 as a plumber. This job is perennial jn nature and on days, when there wai no plumbing work, he was asked to perform messerijjerial job. In 1997, the Chief Manager put up a note before the Dy. General Manager for regularisation of his service which was tinned down as the management apprehended that the work- man woulU claim, permanency in his work. His service was verbally terminated on 5-3-98. Now plumbing woik is being done through a contractor. While working us plumber he was getting less payment then what a subordinate staff was getting by way of disci initiation.

3. In reply, the management contend that the claim of the woikman woiking as plumber in the A>nal Office from May, 199', to March 1998 is fake and baseless. He did not work In the bank for more than 1371 days. There is no employer and employee relationship between them. The workman was not performing messengerial job on the days when thje was no plumbing work is not true. The workman being a plumber by piofcssion was asked to do the job of repairing, fitting etc. as and when required by the banks zonal office premises at Sambalpur and in the htafT quarters. He was being entrust- ed with the work at specified rates accepted by him. When- ever he was taking up such work, he was submitting separate bills for the work done plus cost of materials and Ihe said bills were passod and pnid to hitft. The workman was neither engaged by the bank on wage basis nor on temporal y bnw He was contacting 7orlfll office for getting woik and whenever such work was available, he was being asked t<~> do so and payment was being made to him as pei bills submitted by him The management claims that there is no post of plumber available in the Zonal office at Sambalpur. So his working as plumber in the zonal office docs not arise. He was getting woik whenever it w£>s available and receiving payment as oei the work done and as such his retrench- ment dnfs tint aric™ Tlr" workman was never given assu- rance regarding recul^risition of service as no such post wai Mnix in the bnnal office Since, he was (retting payment as per thp ivori- davs at piecmpnl basis his wanes cannot be at par with subordinate staff. The mprmpi-mi-nt cinim that the cuse of the workman doe" not Ml uK 21-F of the I D. Act Yh" TvotVmnn has n un received salnrv from the manage- ment Hence nrnver for "';smir-;r"T (he ca^e

4. On the aforesaid analysis, following ISSUM have been fiamed :

I: Whether the action of the management verballv ter- minating the services of the workman w.ef. 5-3-98, is justified ?

II; Wiethei the demand of the workman for resulai isa- tion of his services with all benefits at par with the uib staff of the management from May, 1994 to 5-3-1998 is justified?

JII: If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

5. Issue Nos. 1 to HI •—All these issues are taken up together as 'iM are interlinked. Only one witness i.e. the 2nd'758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] as per Ext. 2. On the other hand, the learned representa- tive of the 1st party submits that the 2nd party was doing plumbing work whenever work was available and payment was being made as per rate chart given by the 2nd party and approved by tbe management. So he was not employee of the bank and there was no employer and employee rela- tionship between them.

ity has bet-n examined as WAV. 1 and four witnesses from j side ot the management as M.W. 1, 2, 3 and 4. W.W. 1 ales thai he joined Sambaipur zonal ofhee, in April, 1994 s plumb.r foi work in the orhce as well as in. the quarters 1 the bank employees. He was being paid Rs. 1,000 per onth. Arter 5 to 6 months, one electrician of the bank ed a ca&e and so for some reasons he was asked to submit s work chart so that he would paid as per the work done, ccordinsly he was getting payment. Then the Office Manager /rote to the Dy. General Manager to regularise hh service hich was turned down vide Ext. 1. Thereafter for his work hen he asked for payment, the office asked him to submit jniractor bills to receive payment. He lefused to submit mtractor bill. From 5-3-1998 he was stopped wark and vas not paid anything. He proves Ext. 2 as the bipartite sttlement dated 15-5-1995 and in pagc-3, it is mentioned hat a plumber as employee of the bank in the subordinate :adre will get special allowance of Rs. 119 per menth. He proves Ext. 3 as the contract labour regulation and obolition itt, Ext. 4 as the letter af D.G.M. not to engage contract abour. He proves Ext. 5 where he has been shown as dumber. He proves Ext. 6 as the four billsforpayment to )im regarding work done in the officers quaiters. He admits hat bank has not issued any appointment order to him. He was not s;gnins in attendance register while coming to the jank everyday. Ik. deniss the suggestion that he was not receiving Rs. 1,000 per month. He has not filed any docu- menttoshow that h" was getting Rs. 1,000 per month. He admi** that he w •' °et*ing labour charges keeping in view of the work done by him on his submission of bills. He has written to the bank th.it he started work in 1995. He admits that he was getting payment purely on the basis of rate chart which has been accepted by him. Therefore his payment varies from day to day depending upon his execut'on of work and submission of bill. He fi/rtner states that trie bank was placing orders to the supplier for supoly of sanitaiy rticles and the bank was directly making payment to the upplicr. He admits t>at he has never given any application to the management for leave. He denies the suggestion that the bank n"ver accepted him is '<"! emplov"e He also admit*- that on rmny days he went without work and as such re- ceiving no pavment. '

9. The 2nd party admits that he was never issued with any appointment order. Even management witnesses admits that he was doing plumbing work in the zonal office and in the staff quarters. Although the 2nd 'party claims that he was receiving Rs. 1000 per month for his work as a plumber to piove that he was an employee of the bank yet this fact has not been proved either by oral or documentary evidence. No management witnesses have admitted that the 2nd party was getting Rs. 1000 per month for his work*. On the other hand all the management witnesses have stated that he was coming to the bank at intervals and enquiring about plumb- ing work and if there was work, he was being entrusted to do it and on his completion of work he was submitting bills for payment making calculation as per the rate chart sub- mitted by him and approved by the management. That means he was getting labour charges only for the work done by him ?nd was not receiving payments like a subordinate staff. And this has been admitted Jby trie 2nd party in clear ternr- in his evidence and this I have mentioned earlier. He has also admitted that on days when there was no work he was not getting any payment. So he cannot be considered even as a part •time worker of the management bedause a" part time employee of the bank gets his salary proportionate to the number of hours he works every day as ordered by the management. This is not in the case of the 2nd party. He was getting no. payment on days when he had no work. From all these facts I hold that the 2nd party was not an employee of the bank. Therefore there is no employer and employee relationship between them and as such the refe- rence is not maintainable.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

A. K. DUTTA, Presiding Officer 6. M.W. 1 was Dy. Manager. Sambalpur zonal office. He states that some times in 1995, the 2nd party approached the zonal office for doing some sanitary and plumbing work and the bank asked him to comeat intervals & enquire about work and if there would be work, he would be given to per- form it. Theieafter at times the 2nd party was coming to the bank and enquiring about work and whenever there was pny work, he was being entrusted with it. The payment was being made as per the work done by him and so the payment was not uniform on each date. He was not coming to the office regularly nor giving any attendance and wns not beins paid wages on monthly basis M.W.2 also states that the 2nd party was convng to the ooffice at his own sweet will and whenever tHere was sanitary or plumbing work he was being entrusted to do it. He had submitted a rate chart, and payment vas being made to him making the calculation as per that chart. Sometimes the bank was directly purchasing sanitarv fitting materials from the shop and the 2nd nartv was simply fitting it and receiving the labovn- charges. Tn the same line is the evidence of M.W. 3. He stales that at times the ?nd rartv was coming to the office and enquiry's about sani'arv work and if work was available then he ijas being entrusted to do it. He states th*>t 2nd party was executing the w iV as an outsider Hr br>d submitted a rate chart and submitting bills mnkms calculation as per rate chart and ircorrtino'y p"vm°n* was being made So pav- mert wn npvpr iinift"ir'n He WPS r-ever asked not to cn*ne.

He suo moin stopped coming

New Delhi, the 21st May, 20OT 7 M.W. 4 states *hrt Ext 1 is th>> notf put up by him before D.G M. for enfripement of an electrician and a oluwhr

on r e e n ' fr b " > s i* w h i ch W PS • n r n ed d o w n. He f d m i ts t h at in

Ext 1 he was mentioned to engage the 2nd party as a plum- ber who w" undertakirg work "\v

he v.a" dn'ti? work on piece-rate ba"R

S Th" ?¹"d part" arfiiin⁰¹ h'° rise submits that from th™

S.O. 1348.—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 TribunallLabour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between trie employees in relition to the management of Indian Instt. of Horticultural Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-42012|105|91-IR(DU)J documents filed ?nr< from th" rrii evidence r°corcl"d there rn-i he ro -irubt that he wasrfguli-lv \vorkinw as nhimber and appointment of a plumber on regular basis is not prohibited

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer2759 ANNEXURE

OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST- RIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 14th May 2001

PRESENT:

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

C. R. No. 55[92

I PARTY

Sri N. Srinivas S/o Sri Narayanappa, Hessarghatta Post Billijaji, Bangalore North Taluk Bangalore.

II PARTY

The Director, Indian Institute of Hoiticultural Research 255, Upper Palace Orchards, Bangalore-560080.

ASVARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of the section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Older No. L-42012|105|91-IR(DU) dated 30-6-1992 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Instt. of Horticultural Research in terminating the servi- ces of Shri N. Srinivas, casual worker w.e.f. Sept. 1984 is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. Parties appeared and filed claim statement and counter respectively.

3. The first party has been in the service of the second party since 13-10-80 and was drawing salary of Rs. 300. He was engaged in Hoiticultural operations as stated in para 3 of the Claim Statement. On 10th September 1984 he feel ill on account of Typhoid and he was unable to attend work. After recovering from illness he reported for work but he was not allowed to resume duty.

4. First party filed claim statement. The case of the first party is that he was not well due Jo Typhoid and did not attend work for 3 months and afterPecovering from illness when he reported for work he was not taken on duty.

5. It is his further case that a false case was filed against him along with 28 other workmen and he was acquitted. The management refused to take the first party back to duty pud other workers were reinstated. The first party for these rea- sons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. Second party appeared and filed objections. The case of the second party is that all the allegations made by the first party are not correct. The first party was always irregular for work. It is not coriect to say that the first party was draw- ing salary of Rs. 1300 per monh. The first party was en- gaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis for doing the work of Casual Latiour therefore he has no case. The allega- tion is that false case was filed is not correct. The fifst party had never approached for reinstatement.

7. It is th" further case of the management that out of 28 workmen 21 workmen had approached this Hon'ble Tri- bunal in CR. No 13 of 1989 seeking d'Yection for reinstate- ment and in accordance with the directions issued by this Tribunal, thev have ioined duty with the second party. The workman wa< riot a partv in the said proceedings i.e. CR. No. 13189. Th? first party hismelf had failed to attend the 1709 GI/2001 10

work. The provisions of Section 25F and G are not applic- able. Second Party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that miscellaneous petition was filed and the matter was restored. Thereafter manage- ment examined one witness. Workmen got examined him- self.

9. It is seen from the records that first party remained absent. Thereafter, the case is closed.

10. According to the evidence of MW1 they have 150 casual labourers and they are appointed to assist research work on casual basis. He further said that the work was given to casual labourers whenever there is work. Thev do not have any continuity. First party was a casual labourer. First party was not regularly coming to work. On 10-9-84 he woiked for the last time and thereafter he did not turn up. This witness is not cross examined by the first party even after giving adjournments and his evidence remained as it is. According to his evidence the first party was a casual labourer. We are also having evidence of workmen. He said in his cross examination that he did not have any appointment letter to show that he was working as a per- manent employee in the second party. It is in his evidence that he was working as a Casual Labourer. He also said in his cross examination that he d'd not send any leave appli- cation along with medical certificate to show that he is suffering from Tvphoid. He is aware that an award was passed on 2-11-88. He says he does not know whether his claim was disallowed due to the fact that he has not signed the claim statement. If we consider the above evidence of first partv it is clear that the first party was only a casual labourer and that too h* remained absent and he did not report for work and there is no merit m this dispute. Ac- cordingly I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA tranec'ibed bv her corrected aid signed bv me on 14th May 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of th<" Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in ral Government on 21-5-2001. ers in relation to the management of Salal Hydro Electric Project and their workman, which was received by the Cent- ral C-ovemment on 21-5-20001.

[No. L-42011]7fl90-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer2763 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT¹ INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 185 of 1997

General Secretary, Salal Project Workcharge Employees Union, Talwara Colony, 658-H, Reasi, Udhampur-182312. (J&K) " .. • Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager, Salal Hydro Electric Project, Jyotipurarn. Via Reasi Jilla. Udhampur-182312 (J&K)

.. R e s i d e n t. REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : None.

For the management : Sh. V. K. Gupta.

AWARD

(Passed on 25th April, 2001)

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Notifi- cation No .L-42011j71|90-IR.(DU) dated 16th October 1997 has refened the follow ;r>(? dKpuV to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the demand of the Salal Project Workch.-irae Employees Union as contained in its charter • of demands dat-d 15-2-90 (enclosed is legal and justified ? Tf not, to what relief the v orkmen are ent''tkd'>"

2. Today the case was fixed fo" filling of claim statement on behalf of the workman None has nut ur anpearance on behalf of the workman despite several notices. It appears, that workyian is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to per"u<* with the reference, the same is returned to the Appropriate Govt. for want of prosecution. Appropri- ate Govt. be informed.

Chandiga-rfi 25-4-2001.

B. L. J V T W, Pres'dir-p Officer New Delhi, fie 2M May, 2001

S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmert hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- sustrial Tribunal|JLabour Court, Jaipur, ?" shown in the Annexure in the Industrial P v" *e between the employers in relation to the management of Khadi Gramodyog Com- mission and thel, workman, which v. as received bv the Cent- ral Government on 21-5-2001.

fNo. L-42011|89l99-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTRIAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT 1512000

Reference No. L-4201I|89|99|IR(DU) dt. 18-2-2000 Geneial Secretary, Rashtriya Khadi Commission Karamchari Union, Jiwlana Doongri Shansthan Aiea, Jaipur ("Rajasfhan) Applicant.

Vis.

(1) Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Jnaiana Doongri Sansthan Area, Jaipur. (2) The Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, 3-Irla Road Vile Parlc(W), Mumbai-56.

. . Non-applicant.

ATTENDANCE:

For the Union : Shri A. K Shukla.

Far the non-applicant : Shri D. P Pi'iari

Date of Awaid : 9-4-2001.

AWARD

The following dispute was refeired by the Central Gov- ernment under cl ruse (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refeired as the Act, 1947) for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the Director, Khadi Gramodyog Commission, Tpjpur withholding the increment of Shri Kiilasb Chand Shaima, Sr. Clerk for 6 months without decision on appeal made by the workman to the State Director, Kbadi Gramodyog Commis- s'on, Jaipur was legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

The claim was filed by the General Secretary, Rashtriya Khadi Commission Karmchari Union (hereinafter referred as the lTr'on1. It was stoted that applicant Shri Kaitesh Chanel Sharma was working in the Krndi and Village Indust- rie? forrmission at Jaipur f hereinafter referred as the Com- mi-ron) on the past of UDC. He has been actHoy func- tioning as G-n<*ral Sscretary of the Union since 1995. There is a rival Union functioning in the Head Office of the Bom- bay under t*"5 name of "Khadi Commission Karmchari Union"' Bombay ('hereinafter referred as rival Union) v ith i's branches in different states The then Resp<~>nderf No. 1 P'ld other 2761 1-5-1996 was made available, the other documents sought by him were not made available and instead of making the rele- vant documents, available to him the Respondent No. 1 passed ihe punishment order dated 8-11-1997 withholding increment foi a period of 6 months under Khadi and Village industries Commission Employees (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1961 (heiein^fter leierred as the Regulations, 1961). It was stated that punishment was arbitrary in vio- lation of principal of natural justice and contrary to Regula- tions, 1961 ard theiefore an appeal dated 24-12-97 was made to the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. The Respondent No. 2 did not decide the appeal and is still living pending. It was prayed that the order imposing the punish- ment of withholding ths increment be declared arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and rules applicable and being malafide.

On behalf of the non-applicant, reply to the claim was filed. In reply objection was taken that the reference made by the Central Government is not maintainable as the ''appropriate Government" is the Government of Rajasthan and not the Central Government. It was also alleged the Union is not the recognised Union and, therefoie, the dis- pute raised by the Union is not maintainable. It was also alleged that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It was al^o pleaded that the applicant is not legally elected General Secretary of the Union and has no right to raise the dispute. The allegation about the prejudices of Respondnt No. 1 against the applicant was denied. It was stated that the allegations made by the applicant against the two officers were baseless and were made in order to defame them which act amounts to indiscipline. It ww prayed that the claims filed by the applicant may be dismissed with costs.

On 26-2-2001 both the parties agreed not to produce any evidence and sought time for arguments. The case was ad- journed to 7-3-2001 for arguments. On 7-3-2001 Shri A. K. Shukla representative af the Union sought time for argu- ments and the ca"e was adjourned to

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to pomts of dispute mentioned in the reference order. As per the terms of reference the only point which requires consideration is as to whether withholding the increment of the applicant without decision on appeal made by him is legal and justi- fied. It is not in dispute that against the order of the Res- pondent No. 1 dated 8-11-1997 vide which punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 6 months which was to take effect from the date of the next increment could be executed without decision on appeal. Unless' the order of punishment is staved, there is no bar for excuttog the punish- ment order. There being no order of stay against the order of punishment passed by Respondent No. 1 the action of th" Director of the Commission withholding the increment of applicant for six months without decision on appeal can- not be said to be illegal and unjustified and, theiefore, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

The copies of the Award may be sent to the Central Gov- ernment under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd|- Presiding Officer 9 4-2001.

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Awaid of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers m relatian to the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices and theii workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 21-5-2001.

iMo. L-40012|75|99-l.R.(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L IATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 179|99

Rajbir Singh son of Jagan Nath (Ex-EDDA) VPO Jalalpur Distiict Panipat. .. Workman

Versus

Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Woikman in person.

Eor the management : Shri C. B. Garg.

AWARD

(Passed on 1st of May 2001)

The Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012|75|99|IR| DU dated 25th of August 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. :

"Whether the action of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Karnal Division in terminating the services of Shri Rajbir Singh EDR post at BPO Nanhera, Distt: Karnal, w.e.f. 14-10-1995 is legal and justified? If not, whe- ther the workman is entitlsd for continuity of "er- vice and ai rears of wages for the period from 14-10-1995 to 23-12-1998 when he was re-appoint- ed as EDA on regular basis."

2. Today the case was fixed for filling of claim statement.

Workman appear, d and made the following statement :

"I do not want to pursue the present case any further, the samo may be returned to the Ministry as with- drawn."

hi view of the statement of the workman that he doe& not v.ant to puisue with the piesent reference, present reference is returned to the Govt. as withdrawn. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. 1-5-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer2762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAlSTHA 26, 192.1 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 21st May, 2001

S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cetnral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Superintendent of Posts and thoir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2001.

[No. L-40Ot2/337/200O-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

2, This order of reference was received on 20-11-2000 by this Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute men- tioned in the Schedule and it was taken on file by this Tribunal as Industrial Dispute No. 82/2000 on the same day. Notices were ordered to be sent to both the parties by Registered Post with acknowledgement card, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal and to file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement with the documents relied upon. Accordingly, both the parties entered appearance- through their counsel and filed their respective Claim State- ment and Counter Statement. Both the parties have filed copies of documents. When the matter was taken up for enquiry Ex. Ml and M2 were marked by consent by the counsel on either side. On the side of the Petitioner only typed set of copies were filed. Not even xerox copies of the original documents mentioned in the list of documents have been filed. Hence, these documents have not been exhibited as documents in support of the Petitioner/I Party. The argu- ments advanced by the learned counsel for either side were heard. This, .case has been posted for orders today.

Thursday, the 3rd May, 2001

PRESENT:

3. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Pany/

Workman are briefly as follows :—

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 82/2000

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l|l(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman Sri K. Kumar and the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukottai Division.)

BETWEEN

Shrl K. Kumar,

S/o Sri Kaliaperumal. Workman/I Party

AND

(1) The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Pudukottai Division.

(2) The Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices,

Pudukottai Division. . . .. Management/II Party

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman: Smt. S. Jyothivani, and R.' Bala-

guruswaray, Advocates.

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

Government Standing Counsel.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-40012/337/2O0O-IR(DU) dt. 10-10-2000.. Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New dj Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 30-4-2001, upon perusing the reference. Claim Statement, Counter Statement and the documents filed on the side of the Management and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner Smt. S, Jothivani and the learned counsel for the Management Shri K. Sivajothi. Additional Central Govern- ment Standing Counsel- and this dispute having stood over till this date, this Tribunal passed the following:—

AWARD

This reference by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (6,) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 194.7, in respect of dispute between Shri K. Kumar, Workman and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukottai Division, Pudukottai, Mana/Jtment, mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows:—

The I Party/Workman (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) is a qualified candidate for appointment for the post of l^xtra Departmental Agent in the Postal Department. One post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent fell vacant at Thonda- manallur Branch Office, due to the unauthorised absence of the regular-holder of the post. Local Notification was issued calling for applications and as a. qualified candidate, the Petitioner applied for the post. Among the candidates) appeared for selection, since the Petitioner was found most suitable for appointment, the Asstt, Superintendent of Post Offices, North sub-division, Pudukottai, selected and appointed the Petitioner as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Thondamanallur (BO). Tho Petitioner was rendering his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors from tho date of his appointment till his termination dated 15-10-97. While he wa^ working, he has submitted a number of re- presentations before the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukottai Division for rcgujarisation of, his services. His request has not been considered, but on the other hand. Employment Exchange was addressed for sponsorng candi- dates for selection. The Petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench for regularisation of his service and by another application, challenging the selection of another candidate for the post by the department. The Petitioner could not succeed in both the applications. The Petitioner had rendered his services continuously for more than three years in the Respondent department. During his service, he has not come to the adverse notice of his superiors and his service was continuous one without any break. Moreover, he is a qualified candidate for appointment to the post and at the time of his termina- tion, he was not issued with any order/notice for termination. The termination of service from the post of Extra Depart- mental Delivery Agent, Thondamanallur (BO) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of principles enshrined under section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner had served in the Res- pondent department for more than 240 days continuously without any break and as such the Respondent department ought to have, issued notice or notice pay in lieu of notice before terminating the services of the Petitioner and the failure of the same made the order of termination void abinitio and is liable to be set aside. The Respondent, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukottai Division Hnd the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. North Sub-division, Pudukottai, have not applied their mind before terminating the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner Is having previlege under Rule 6 of Extra Departmental Agent (Conduct and Service) Rules. 1964, which specifically states that a Workman Who had put in three years continuous service, should not be terminated from service. The Petitioner had filed a petition under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Conciliation Officer, Madras. Since that attempt bv the Conciliating Authority was ended in a failure n frvlure rfDOrt was sent by him to the Ministry of Labour nnd the Ministry was plf-ased to order a reference for adjudication. Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be nleavd to pan* an an award holding that the termination of the Petitioner from the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Aeent, Thonda- manallur, Pudukottai Division on 15-10-97 is bad in law "Whether the non-regularisation and termination of Shri K. Kumar by the Superintendent of Posts, Pudu- kottai is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman i" entitled ?"2765 dnd to direct the Respondent to give all attendant servica and monetaiy benefits fiom the date of termination till the iteinstatement.

4. The averments in the Counter Statement of the Manage-

jnent/II Party the respondent arc briefly as follows :—

division, Pudukkottai, had given an opportunity to the Peti- tioner to apply tor the post for consideration as his name also was nominated by the Employment Exchange along with otrier eight names for the selection of the candidates to fill up the said post no regular basis. The Petitioner did not utilise the opportunity by sending an application to the Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices, North Sub Division, Puduk- kotUi foi considering his case, as it has been diiected by his letter dated 28-8-97. As the Petitioner had not utilised the opportunity given to him, the post was filled up by the Asstt. Superirtf

5. When the case was taken up for enquiry, the counsel on cither side gave consent for marking two documents as exhibits Ml and M2. On the side of the Petitioner, typed set of documents have been filed as six in number. When the Petitioner was directed to file either original pr xerox copies of the same, he has not chosen to produce the same. As such, no documents on the side of the Petitioner has been filed. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side was heaid and the case was posted to this date for orders.

The point for my consideration is as to whether non-re"u- larisation and termination of Shri K. Kumar by the Superin- tendent of Posts, Pndukkottai is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

It is admitted that the Petitioner was engaged as EDDA2764 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA : JUNE 16, 2001/ JYAISTHA 26, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in its order under Ex. Ml.

to the Petitioner. The typed copy of the said documents tiled by the Petitioner in tnis Court clearly shows ^lat it is an inter-departmenial communication. Further, in thut it is> stated that Sri K. Kumar, S|o Sri Kaliaperumal, ! i i • .• . . ' •.! i 'i-Tl i:.i- heen piovisionally appointed as i ul* \ •... I • .:..! • :••. , ,: (BO) with effect trom 1-9-94 in the vacancy caused by unauthorised absence of Sri C. Kaiuppaiah, fcDDA|MC, Thonaamanallur (BO) as a stop gap arrangement. It is further stated in that letter that feiigi- ble allowances may please be drawn and paid to Sri K. Kumai with effect from 1-9 94, until further direction in this regard. So, as it is stated in the Counter of the Rebpondent that the said memo by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukkottai cannot be considered as an appointment order issued t& the Petitioner Sri K. Kumar. It is not denied that he was allowed to work in that post due to the vacancy caused by the regular incumbent Sri C. Karuppaiah by his unauthorised absence. Further it is seen from that memo, as it is stated in the Counter of the Respondent that the Peti- tioner was not at all appointed, but he was merely acting as a stop gap arrangement to look after the duties of the post, till the legular candidate is appointed.

o. Learned counsel tor the Petitioner would ar^ue that tow i-ctmoner na" put in service in that post tor more than turee yeais and aa pei me h.D. .fvgent (conduct and St. i wee ixuies, cviUiUdits wno have completed tinee yeais has got u vt^ed r^iii to nutd the post, lo susbt^ntiate her stand, s .~ has not pioduced aty ruie that has got to be followed oy tn^ aepaitKunt. On the other hand, a xerox copy of (he Post?! E.D. Stafl method of reuoiuaent has been tiled on ts.e side of the Respondent, in that under Annexuie "A' it is clearly st ited how an appointing authority can fill up a post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent wnen it ,, become vacant. In that it is cleaily stated that provisional appoint- ment to the post for a particular period can be made, til¹ the regular appointment is made and it must be made clear lo the provisionally appointed person that the appointment will be terminated, when legular appointment is made and he shall hive no claim for anv appointment to any post and tn. appointing authority leserves right to terminate the provisional appointment at any time before the period men- tioned in th it order without notice and Without assigning any reason and while a person who sought to be appointed so must accent that conditions and should sign the duplicate copy and return the same to the authority, who sign that order. Further it is stated as one pf the rules as follows:—

"Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to E D. Agents who are appointed provisionally and subsequently discharged from service due to admi- nistrative reasons, if at the time of discharge they had put in not less than three vears. In such cases, their names should be included in the waiting list of ED Agents dischaiged from service, prescribed in D.G.. P&T letter No 43-4/77-Pen. dafd 23-2-79."

Heie, in this case a vacancy caused to the post of EDDA bv the death of regular incumbent one Sri C. Karuppaiaii diid subsequently that post was filled up by effecting transler of one such EDDA from another place. So, under such cir- cumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the petitioner was not issued with any crdei of notice for termination and the termination of service of the Petitioner from the post of EDDA. Thondamanallur i& uad in law and against the principles of natural justice and m violation of principles enshrined under section 25ff) of the Industnai Disputes Act are incorrect. Her further c -n- tcntion that the Respondent ought to have issued notice or .ictice pay in Leu of notice before terminating the services of the Petitioner and the failure of the same made the order of teimir,ation void abimuo and is liable to be set aside aie also incorrect. The Petitioner himself has first admitted niat he was not issued with any order of notice for termina- tion, fxiat beiiic the case, he cannot have a declaration that the order oi ""rmination is void abinitio and liable to be set aside. On the basis of the materials and particulars avail- able in this case, it can be concluded that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in this case by the Respondent. The Petitioner having not recruited to the post by a selection through a normal recruitment process, but admittedly engag- ed by the Branch Postmaster. Thondamanallur, on his res- ponsibility as stop-gap arrangement, the Petitioner cannot invoke the piovisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in view of his attempt before the Central Administrative Tri- bunal, Chennai and obtained an order adverse to him. So under such circumstances, there is no question of reEulari- sation of the post for the Petitioner as referred to in the Schedule of reference will arise. Further, there was no ter- mination of service, since the Petitioner has been relieved from that service soon after the person who got a transfer to that post from another office assumed the office there. So, under such circumstances as there was no scope for any regularisa- tion of that post for the Petitioner, there is no question of non-regularisatkm and termination of service for Sri K. Kumar by the Superintendent of Post Office, Pudukkottai and hence the action of the Management, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukkottai cannot held to be illegal or unjustified and the Petitioner[Workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.

7. It is iuither contended on the side oi tlie Petitioner Uiat uopue 'oi a number ot iepres"ntjuoii.j g.ven by tne lJctuioin-i to UK Respoucieut IOI regtiurisauon ot lua service, die Respondent has not constaeruj the request ot the Peu- uoaci, oiu on the other haua, Had addressed uie Employ- ment t u c h a n^ lor sponsoring candidates lor selection, ilus coniLatioa has osen denied by the Respondent in Coun- ter as incorrect and they would say that the Assistant Super- intendent of Post Offices, Noith Sub Division, Pudukkottai, took action to fill up the post by calling nomination tram the Employment Exchange and the Peuaoner s name was also engaged by the Employment Exchange along with eight eandidates and the Petitioner though received a communi- cation dated 28-8-1997 from the Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukkottai Noith Sub Division, informing him 10 submit his application on or before 10-9-1997, he did not submit his application. That allegation is not denied by the Petit,onsr. On the other hand, admittedly, the Petitioner had filed 2 O. As before the Central Administrative Tribu- nal and both the O. As weie dismissed by the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, as there is no merit m the application. Xerox copies of the orders passed in those two O.As by the Central Administrative Tubunal have been filed as Ex. Ml r id M2. In Ex. Ml, the Hon'ble Central Administrative iubunal has passed an order stating that as the applicant has also been asked to apply for the same post, we do not think that the applicant can have any grievance. We do not th.nk that any question of regulansation arises in such cases'. 1! is also observed ui that order that 'the Respondent depart- ment wants to select a person to fill up the post which be- came vacant and the applicant has been rroldins? the post on a ^top-gnp basis'. Against this order passed bv the Hon'ble- Central Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioner has not pieferred any Writ Petition before the High Court. Further from the perusal of Fx. M2, another older passed by the s<>me Tribunal in another O.A. No 1266J97 filed by this Petitioner, it is seen that the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal have observed that 'there is BO que>>tion of con- sidering the applicant's case that he has net applied for that post and that it is made clear in the reply that applicant did not apply for the post before 10-9-1997 and that even assum- ing that the applicant has been appointed on provisional basis, it is made clear that it is only a stop-gap arrangement as found in the inter-departmental communication and that will not give any right to the applicant to claim the post'. So, these observations and findings of the Central Administ- rative Tribunal as stated above in the above mentioned two O As filed by the Petitioner are even now stand good since the Petitioner has not challenged the same by way of Writ Petition before the High Court. It is not denied that the regular incumbent of the post for which the Petitioner is seeking re-employment expired on 20-5-97 and subsequently the department had filled up that post by way of transfer by considering the request of one ED Agent work- ing in another office. So, from this it is seen that the t"o

9. In the result, an award is passed holding that there is no scope for regularisation of service and there is no question of termination of service of the Petitioner Sri K. Kumar by the Sapenntendent of Post Offices, Pudukkottai and hence the action of the Mana":ment, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pudukkotiai in relieving the Petitioner from the poct of Extra Depai rmcntnl Delivery AKCIH, Thondamanallui, given to him on stop-ftnr) airangcment K legal and justified and tlrs ViU.x in /Werkman i" not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. No Cost.