REGN. NO. D. L—33001/99 The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 29] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JULY, 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIE- VANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001
S.O- 1685.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Sec tion 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
(3451)
2135 Gl/200l — l 345, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J
lakh only on Bonds in the nature of Promis- sory Notes described as PNBEVRS BONDS- 2000 aggregating to rupees four crores only allotted on 25-01-2001, 12-03-2001 and 25-04-2001 by the said Bank.
[No. 24|2001-STAMPS-F. No. 3313312001- ST]
R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.
1946 ( Act No. 25 or I
[No. 228/40/2001-AVD-ll]
HARI SINGH, Under Secy.
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
ORDER
New Delhi, the 8h June, 200!
STAMPS
S.O. J 686.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby per- mits Punjab National Bank, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees four3453 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001
S.O. 1687.—It is notified for general informatirn that enlerprise listed at ]£ara (3) below lies been approved by the Central Government fcr the pur- pose of section 10(23G) of the Tticome tax Act, 1961. read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2001-2002, 200?-2003 and 2003-2004.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that—
(i) the enterprise will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 1O(23G) of the I ncome tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rulrs, 1962.
(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise :—
(a) ceases to carry on infrastrululre facility; o1 (b) fails to maimian books of account and get such recounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of ihe Incom-tax Rules, 1962; or
(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962.
3. The cntrpriss approved —Development of Dheeraj Valley (Bldg Nos. I, 2 and (3) and Dhceraj Residency (Bdlg No. 11, wing C) Housing Project at Goregaon, Mumbai by M/s. Satyam Realtor Private Limited, Ground Floor, Dheeraj Apartments, P.P. Dias Compound "N'atwar Nagar Road No. 1, Jogcshwari (East), Munibai-400060 as approved by the Brihnmumbai Mahanagar palika and Slum Rehabili'alion (F.JNo. 205/23/2001-1T-A-II).
[Notification No. 188/2001 /F. No. 205/23/2001-.TA-1I] PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001
S.O. 1688. It is notified for general information- that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been ap- proved by the Centtal Government for the purpose, of section 10(23G) of tie Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2E of I he Income-tax Rules 1962, for the assessment year 200!-~O02.
2. The approval is subject to tht condition that- (i) the entrprisc will conform LO comply with the provisions of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1951 read with rule 2E of tlu Income-tax Rules, 1962.
(ii) the Ccntr.'l Government shall withdraw, this, approval if the entcrfris:--
(a) ccaves to carry on infras rue:ui\> facility; or (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required i>y sub-r.le (7) c f rule.2E of the Income-tax Rules, 19<;2; or
(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-nib (7) of rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962.
3. The enterprise appuved i"__ installation of Multi-level Car Parking system (Parkomat) within ihe city of Calcutta by M/s. Sim Park lufrascture (P) Ltd. under th; agreement J.atLd 8-11-99 between 3454 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [ P A R- FI-~Snc. 3(ii)| Calcutta Mnnicipal Coiporatie-n mid M/s. Simplex Projects Ltd. 12/1B Lindsay Strict, Caleutui-700087 (F. No. 205/43/2000- ITA-11).
[Notification No. 189/2001/F. No. 205/43/2000-ITA-11]
proved by the Cotittal Government Tor the purpose of section IO(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2£ of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for -he assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004.
PNAKAJ KUMAR, Under St-cy.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that—
(i) the enterprise will conform to and comply with the provisions of section I0(23G) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rule, 1962;
(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this
approval if the enterprise :—
(a) ciuiscs to carry on infrastructure facility; or
(b) fails to majniain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or
(c) fails to furnish tl.e audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the income-tax Rule, 1962.
3. The enterprise approved is—Development of Dheeraj Heights ( Bldg No. 2) and Dheeraj Resi- dency (Bldg No. 11, wing A & B) Housing Projects at Andhcri and Goregaon, Mumbai by M/s Dinshavv Trapinex Builders Private Limited, Ground Floor, Dheeraj Apartments, P. P. Diascompound, Natwar Nagar Road No. 1, Jogcshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060, as approved by the Brihnmumbai Mahanagar- palika and Skim Rehabilitation Authority, ( F, No. 2O5/24/20OMTA-11)
Notification No. 190/2001/F. No. 205/24/2001-I TA-lIj
PANKAJ KUMAR, U.idur Secy, New Delhi, the 27ih June, 2001
S.O. 1689.—It is notified for general informmion
that enterprise listed at para (3) below has b^en ap-3455 3. The ontciprisc appn ved is- - prejeU of Nytioi L,1 Lor.g Distance Service of M/s. Reliance Conmiuui- catiuii Piivate United, "Brindavan" 4th fl^or. Shree Ram Mills Premises, GanptUrao Kaclam Mar£, Worli, Mumbai-400013, limit r the award of licensee of Department of telecommunication dated 4/5/2001 from I-. No. 10-21/2001-BS-I.
[No ilicatijn No. 191/2001/1-.N 1.205/7/2001-
ITA-II] P.ANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.' New Delhi, the 27th Juno, 2001
S.O. 1690.- —Tt is notified for general infor-
mation that the enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10 (23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rule, 1962, for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that -
(i) the enterprise will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10 (23G) of the Tn- come-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) the enterprise will sign the Licence Agree- ment with the Department, of Telecommunication as required vide • their award of license dated 4-5-2001 from F. No. 10-21/?.001-BS-I;
(in) the Cewtral Government shall withdraw
this approval if the enterprise.:
(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; < r
(b) fails to maintain books of account and pet such uccouuts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or
(c) fails to furnish 1 he audit report as required by sub-rule (7) o{' iUle 2L- of ihe Income- tax Rules, 1962.
3456 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADTTA 30, 1923 [PART II— Sue 3(H>1 New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001
S.O. 1691.-It is notified for general information that enterprisc/ind uslrial undertaking, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section IO(23G) of
• i j ie I n c o m e - t ax A c t, 1 9 6 1. r e ad
v v i lh J U IO "F of t ic
Income-lax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that--
(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply vvitli the provisions ofsectoin 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this
approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking:-
(a) ceav s to cairy on infrastructure facility; or
(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Tncome-tax Rules, 1962, or
(c) fails to furnish the aduit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. The enterprise/industrial undertaking approved
is:—•
10x40 MW Sliree Mahcshwar Hydroelectric Power Plant on river Narmada, Village Mand- leshwar, Distt. Khargone in Madhya Pradesh by M/s Shree Maheshwar Hyde] Power Corpo- ration "Avadh" Avadhesh Paiisar, O.K. Marg Worli, Mumbai-400018 (F.No. 205/17/2001 -ITA-
III.
[Notification No. l92/2001/F.No.20.y7/2001/lTA-l I]
Panknj Kumar. Undtr Secy.
New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001
(INCOME TAX)
S.O.169\—It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organisations mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section (I) of Section 35 of the Income lax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions:—
(i) The notified Institution shall maintain sepa- rate books of account for its research acti- vities;
3457fii) The notified Institution bball furnish the Annva) Relurii of its scientific research aeti- vitics to the Sccrelary, Department of Scienti- fic & Industrial Research. "Technoiojiy Bhawan", New Mi-hiauli Road. New Delhi- 110016 Tor every financial year on or before 31st May of each year;
(iii) ThO notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a )the Director General of Income tax (Exemptions), 10 Middlcton Row, 5th Floor, Calculta- 700071, (b) the Secretaiy, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) the Coirmissioncr of Income Tax/Directo: of Income tax (Exemptions), having jurisdiction over the oganisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited income & F.xpenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (1) of action 35 of Income tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of Income tax to the designated assessing officer.
Name of the organisation
s.
approved
No
Period for which Notification is effective
1-42000 to .11-3-2003 Bharati Samskrta Vidya Niketanam 12, Sharkar Kunj, Near Himalaya Soo, Asalfa, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 084
Notes : The notified Institutions arc advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval to the Central Governmnet through ih : Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scienti- fic and Industrial Research.
[Notification No. 193/2001/F.No. 203/29/2001-ITA-U] PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
New D.?lhl, Iv ;-7 h June, 001
S.O- 1691.—It is notified for general information that enterprise/industrial undcrtal ing, listed at paia (3) below has been approved by the Cenlal Govern- ment for the purpose of section IC(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 21:, of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. for the assessment years 2001-2002, ?OO2-2rK)3 and 2003-2004.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that —
(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read wlih rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) th; Central Government shall withdraw i\v-, approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking: -- (a) cease> to carry on infrastructure facility; or (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as lequired by laib-nile (7) of rule IE of t!,e Income-tax Rules, 1962; nr
(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income t;i\ Rules, 1962, 3453 TH1Z GAZL'ITE OF iNDIA : JULY 21, 2001/A.SADHA 30, 1923 [PART J T - S K C. 3(ii)l 3. The cntcrprisc/indusirial imdertnkinii approved
is :- —
2 v 10.589 MW Power project i,l Kasargod, Kerala by JVI/s. Kasarguil PCWCT Corporation Private Ltd., 5-132, Bare Village, Kasargod district, Kerala (} .No. 2O5/2K/20OMTA-II).
INotirieatuin No. 194/2001/F.No, 205/28/2001/JTA-11]
PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 29th June, 2001
(INCOME TAX)
S.O. I694.--H is hereby notified for general infor- mution that the organisation mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against its name, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Tncomc tax Act 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following condition1": —
(i) The notified Institution shall maintain sepa- rate books of accounts 1'ur its research acti- vities;
(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the
Annual Return of its scientific research acti-
vities to the Secretary, Department of Scicnti -
fie & Industrial Research, "Technology
Bhawan", New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-
110016 for every financial year on or before
31st May of each year;
(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on
behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the
Director General of Income tax (Exemptions),
10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta-
700071, (b) the Secretary. Department of
Scientific & Industrial Research, and (e) the
Commissioner of Income tax/Director of
Income tax (Exemptions), having jurisdiction
over the organisation, on or before the 31st
October each year, a copy of its audited
Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited
Income & Expenditure Account in respect of
its research activities for which exemption
was granted under sub-section (1) of section
35 of Income tax Act, 1961 in addition to the3459 return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.
s. Name of the organisation approved
No.
Period for which Notification is effective " 1.
lV4^2000"to31-3-";003 Dr. Ramazini Research Institute of Occasional Health Services, 557, Shukrawar Pctli, Pune-411002.
Notes : The notified Institution is advised to npply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research,
[Notification No, 195/2001/F. No. 203/93/2OO0-ITA-II] PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
2133 GI/2001—2
Now Delhi, the 29th June, 2001 (INCOME TAX)
P. 0. 1695.—-It is hereby notified for genorai information that thj organisation mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period motioned against its name, for tho purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of tho Incomo-tax Act, 1961, r*;id with rule 6 of the Incomj. tax Rules, 1962 undei the category "Institution'' subject to the following conditions :
(i) The notified Institution shall maintain separato books of accounts for it* research acti- vities ;
(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific ro?e,arc!i activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, 'Technology Bhawan' New Mehrauli Road, New Dolhi-110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of CgOh year;
(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor. Calcutta-70O071 3460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II^-SEC. 3(ii)] (b) the Secretary, Department of Scientific^ Industrial fesearcfi^.tntr.fcj'fiie Commissioner of fncome- taitfBireQt^f-*-*f •Incorji^t^X'^tEReinptions), having jurisdiction, over the :organif>ation, on or before the 3Ut Qqtyber each, year, a copy of it$ audited Annual Accounts tmd also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Accounts in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under swb-SQction (1) of Section 35 of Income-tax Act, 1961. in addition to the return of Tncome-tax to the designated assessing officer.
Period for which Notification is effective Name of the organisation . approved
s. No.
1. Marathwada Medical & Research Ins-hute 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003
5-14-40, AdatlatRoad, AURANGABAD
Notes : The notified Institution is advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Income-tax" (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval s^ail also be sent directly to the Secretary, Depart- ment of Scientific and Industrial Research.
[Notification No. 196/2001/F. No. 203/2/2001—
ITA-II] PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CUS- TOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE Nagpur, the 12th June, 2001 NO. CUSTOMSlS-8! l|2001
S.O. 1696.—In exercise! of the powers conferred by Sub-section (e) of Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 (1952 of 62) & supersession of the Notification No.-CUS- TOMS|S-8|1|96 Nagpur, dt. 11-12-96,, r, K. S. Nair, Commissioner, Customs-* Central Excise. Nagpur hereby specify the Ajrii Rail- way Yard (East); Nagpur, in the State of MaharasMfa declared ai Inland Container Depot, as the "Customs Area" for the purposes of Section 2(11) of the Aot ibid w.e.f. 12-06-2001. LOCATION CODE ofTthe said Inland Container Depot is 'IN NGP. 6". 2(i) In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (b) of the Section 8 of the Customs Act 1962. I, further, specify the limits of the "Customs Area" located at Inland Container Derjot, Ajni Railway .Xard (East), Nagpur as under :-'
LANDING AREA
CUSTOMS BONDED WAREHOUSE Tota} Apea, admeasuring 40995 tSq. Mtrs. ^_; ~J (A) Northern Boundary as Electrical Loco Shed Ajni & Railway Colony.
(B) Eastern Boundary' as C.P.W.J. Depot, Central Railway, Nagpur.
- •' -, '; • --•• >- - -.j..
(C) Southern Boundary as Railway line leading to Railway siding of JCD.
346i ID) Western Boundary as Ajni Railway
Yard.
"•] •
The approach r road is via Ring Road,
Nagpur.
i[C. No. VIII (CUS) 25-4|94|TechjPt.II]
K. S. NAIR. Commissioner
Nagpur, the i2th June, 2001 No. CUSTOMS|S-8|4)2001
S.O, 1697,—r3y virtue of the.powers vest-
ed in me/under Sub-section (3) tof Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) & supersession of the Notification No. CUS- TOMS [S-8|4| 97 , Nagpur,, dt 28-10-97, I, K. S. Nair, Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise. Nagpur hereby approve the area of 337 Hectares comprising. Nagpur Airport. Nagpur, in the State of Maharashtra to be a place for unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods subject to the strict observance of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and other instructions issu- ed by the Govt. of India from time to time. The LOCATION CODE of the station is IN NGP. 4'.
2. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (b) of the Section 8 of the Cus- toms Act, 1962, I, further, specify the limits 3462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [PARI U—SEC. 3(ii)j
3. This Notification shall come into effect
from 12-06-2001.
of the "Customs Area" in the said Nagpur Airport as detailed below :—
{C. No. VIII (Cus) 25-6|97|Tech|ACC] LIMITS
K. S. NAIR, Commissioner Landmark/Bounded by
Directions
Sonegaon Village.
North
Indian Air Force Tech-
South
nical Block
Shivangaon Village,
East
West
Length of the Wall 4.4 Kms. (Approx) 2.21 Kms. (Approx) 2.40 Kms. (Approx) 2.9 Kms. (Approx)
Air Route Surveillance Ra
(Total length of boundary wall is about
12 Kms.)
Provided that :—
(Deportment of Economic Affairs) (i) The said premises would remain under the complete control of the Airports Authority of India & the goods kept therein remain in the Custody of the Airports Authority of. India until they are cleaved by Customs.
(Banking' Division)
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001 (ii) The Airport Authority of. India shall make adequate arrangements for security and safeguarding the premises as well as the Cargo.
(iii) The' Airport Authority of India provide adequate lighting facility and fire righting equipment as a precaution against damage by fire and office facilities with all the amenities for the Customs Stall.
S.O, 1698.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Small Industries Development Bunk of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the Cl-ntral Government hereby ap- points Shri S. K, Tuteja, Additional Secretly and Development Commissioner (SSI\ Ministry of Small Scale Industries and Agro & Rural Industries, as director on the Board of Small Industries Develop- ment Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri D. V. Bagchi.
[F. No. 7/4/200Q-B.O.I1
RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.
(iv) Airport Authority of India makes the arrangement of weghing, lifting, shifting handling and other facilities for examination of the goods.
(v) The sealing of the packagesjcontai- ners and stuffingldestuffing of Ex- port|Import Cargo is done under the Customs Supervision.
(vi) That the processing!assessment, exa- mination, storage and clearance of the imnort|export goods shall lake place within the area of the build- ing and precints thereof as approved in the may.
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001 (vii) That no alteration |change in the area of the Airport and the building used will be made without rhc prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur.
S. O. 1699.— h\ exercise Of the powers con- ferred by Sub-section (4-£B) of Section 17 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. 1934.(2 of 1934), the3463 Central Government hereby notified the financial
institution known as HSBC Primary Dealership
India Pvt. Ltd. being a company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) for the
. purpose of the said suh-soction.
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2001 [F. No. 13/6/2001-BOA]
D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.
S. O. 1700—In exorcise of the powers con- ferred by Section 53 of tho Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section ] 9 of the said Act shall not apply to Vysya Bank Ltd., in so far as it relates to its equity participation "" "ING-Vysya Bank Insurance Company Private Limited".
[F. No. 13/9/2000-BOA]
D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.
3464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 20O1/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. .:^
(Department of Commerce) ORDER New Delhi, the 13th June, 2001
S.O. 1701.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 9, clause (b) of sufr-rule (2) of rule 12* and sub-rule (1) of rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby makes the following furthe* amendments in the Order published with the notification of the Government of lp the Sehe4ule--to-+rte • said orders—
3J*65 • (1) in Part I relating to General Central Seivice, Class II, lot serial number 2 and entries relating thereto, the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely:—
(1)
"2. Diiectorate General of
Foreign Trade
All Posts Director General of
Foreign Trade
(4)
All1';
Director General ol Foreign Trade
(2) in Part II relating to General Central'Service, Class 111, forsorial number 2 and entries relating thereto, the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely:—
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1)}}}}
C-) "2. Directorate General of
Foreign Trade
(i) All Posts at Headquarters Joint Director General ol Foreign Trade (Administration)
(ii) All Posts in the Office ol Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Central Licensing Area), New Delhi and its regional offices.
Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Central Licensing Authority), New Delhi (Hi) All Posts in Fort Office at Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai Mumbai and its regional offices
(iv) All Posts in Port Office at Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chermai Ghennai and its regional offices , •
(v) All Posts in Port Office at Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kolkata JColkata and its regioml offices
(3)
(4)
(5)"
All Director General of Foreign IVadi.
Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Administration)
All
Joint Director Geneval of Foreign
Director General of Foreign Trade Trade. (Cental.
Licensing Authority), New Delhi
All Director General of Foreign T/qde Joint Director General ol Foreign Trade, Mumbai
AH Director General ol Foivifin Trade Joint Director- General of Foreign Trade, Chennai
All
Joint Director Gcnoi'.il of Foreign
Director Genual of Foicign Trad:";
Trade. Kolkata
(2)
(0
All
g . ^6 T HP G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : J U LY 2 1 ," 2 0 0 ! / > . S A P HA 3 O , - M > ; ? 3 -- • •
[ P A PT T T -- S E C. 3 ( i i )]
(5)
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(iii) All Posts in Port Office at
All
Mumbai and its regional offices
Joint Director General of Foreign, T:ade, Mumbai
All
(iv) All Posts in Port Office at
Chennai and its regional offices
Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai
All
Cv) All Posts in Port Office at
Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kolkata".
Kolkata and its regional offices
Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade (Administration) Office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade (Administration) Office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade (Administration) Office of Joint Director General of Foreign
Deputy Director General of Fouign Trade (Administration) Office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade (Administration) Office of Joint Director Genera] of Foreign Trade, Chennai Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade (Administration) Office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kolkata
Trade, Kclkata
[File No. l-34(3)/2001 O&M] H.C. JAYAL, Director Footnote : Principal Order was published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 624 dated the 20th February, 1973 and subsequently amended vide S.O. 20 dated the 21st December, 1973 and S.O. 354(E) dated the 6th April, 2000.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
( Department of Health)
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2001
S.O. 170?.—Where as in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian Medi- cal Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. G. B. Gupta, Associate Prof, of Medicine, Medical College, Rai- pur has been elocied by the Senate of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Raipiu- to be a member of the Medical Council of India with effect from 2nd Janu- ary, 2001.
Now therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (I) of section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Govcrn- - ment of India in the then Ministry of Health number S. O. 138, dated the 9th January, 1960, nainclv:—
In the said Notification, under the heading, 'Elected under clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 3" for serial number 34 and the entry relating thereto the following serial number and entiy shall be added, namely :—
"34. Dr. G -B. Gupta, Pt, , Ravishankar
Associate Professor of Shukla University". Medicine, Medical College, Raipur-492010 (Chh.attii.garb)
[No. V-l 10l3/2/200J-ME(Policy-I)-\
RAM LAL, Under Secy.
34672135 C i I / 2 0 0 1— 3 3468 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (li)]3469 3470 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PART 11—SEC. 3 (if)]3471 3472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY 21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PARI II—SEC:, 3 (il)]3473
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001
s. 0.1703.— -Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessar\ in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the State o( Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan. a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat & Chaksu-Mathura sections o! Salaya-Mathura pipeline System";
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Ga/.ette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition ofihc right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R.M.Pandya. Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B.No.4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.
3474 THE GAZETTEOF INDIA: JULY21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (11)]
SCHEDULE
Taluka: AMIRQADH
District: BANASKANTHA State : GUJARAT
Name of the Village
Survey no.
2
1
Area
Sub-Division no. Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
6
4
5
3
11
RAJPURIYA
4
5
3
98
33
0
24
10
2
0
64
06
0
19
06
0
JETHI
99
100+101
207
203
204
199
198
190
189
188
95
84+85
0
11
43
0
47
26
01
37
0
11.
0
24
04
25
0
0
20
69
0
37
13
94
0
71
0
08
73
0
07
2
79
63
00
20
0
18
08 IQBALGADH
12
13
21
21
30
0
08
28
0
41
2
45
4
41
42
0
3
65
03
0
3
ZANZARVAV
30
1
2
3
27
28
26
25
24
31
2
28
0
04
0
16
45
0
22
18
0
18
16
0
20
01
22
0
39
52
0
88
0
00
24
59
03475 6 2 4 I 1 I I 3 I 85 5 | 19 0 20
JUNI ROH SAROTRI
86
30 29
0
DHOLIA
213
219
220
226
226
19S
241
243
1
243
2
244
246
247
249
250
251
252
253
285
264
263
266
272
271
274
276
277
282
1
282
2
279
280
28 08
0
04
0
36
07 13
0
19 19
0
38 15
0
27 28
0
89 12
0
68 12
0
03 14
0
41 07
0
05
45 0
04
90 0
06
75 0
07 02
0
82 08
0
10 0
06
11
98 0
93 02
0
10 06
0
12 06
0
62 07
0
05 14
0
17
32 0
06
10 0
12
20 0
49 0
08
20 0
00
12
20 0
08
23 0
02
18 0
KALIMATI
56
58
59 2135 GI/2001—4
63 05
0
08 11
0
20 12
0 3476 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY21,2001SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l1 I I 3 I " | I 6 I 2 60 5 I 19 19 0 61
62
83
84
85
88
87
1 00
0
98
11
0
59
03
87
0
07
15
0
09
0
69
02
0
87
58
0
13
DHANPURA
56
57
64
63
62
60
50
6
1
40
40
2
41
1
39
39
2
38
37
2
1
37
34
35
26
20
21
19
18 03
92
0
06
37
0
03
0
92
04
05
0
0
05
09
13
0
18
0
20 36
0
02 61
0
15 61
0
16
52
09
67
0
12
0
12
74
0
01
11
0
22
0
05
09
04
0
52
01
0
78
08
0
89
18
0
51
24
0
62
00
0
39
0
84
17
00
0
20
JORAPURA
29
25
22
21 08
0
93
00
0
59
06
0
70
08
77
03477 3 6 1 I ^ | I 2 5 I 20 06 0 14 39
05
0
13
14
70
0
9
19
17
0
11
79
15
0
14
KHUNIYA
29
0
10
15
08
49
0
16
05
88
0
17
78
0
11
18
1
70
0
06
20
99
0
02
21
08
07
0
28
08
71
0
56
32
0
1
05
57
24
07
0
74
41
04
0
76
95
0
10
77
10
84
0
80
02
0
29
81
43
0
06
83
43
0
05 KIDOTAR
145
67
0
00
124
58
0
09
143
28
0
08
125
01
42
0
120
46
12
0
119
36
04
0
127
74
0- 15
117
45
0
02
107
02
10
0
102
92
0
25
100
11
29
0
99
35 AMIRGADH
0
18
28
2
1
00
62
26
45
0
32
14 1478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21,2001 SRAVANA 6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
4 b 2 0 1 42 0 36 130
92
DUNGARPURA
7
42
43
44
45
46
47
53
54
50
66
69
72
138
63
13
0
23
13
0
29
0
50
13
0
12
03
0
11
37
54
11
0
08
39
0
0
09
20
15
0
55
05
0
66
84
10
0
27
03
0
03
92
0
UPLOBANDH
137 0
10
02
01
74
0
NICHLOBANDH
36
51
52
55
48
274
74
01
0
10
18
0
22
27
0
02
94
0
03
65
0
AWAL
265
238
239
226
32
78
0
19
0
78
22
08
0
27
44
0
[FilcNo. 25011/18/2001-OR-I]
S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.
34793480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21.2001 SRAVANA 6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (il)]
34813482 THEGAZETIEOFINDIA:JULY21,2001SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]3483
2135 GI/2001—5
3484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY21,2001 SRAVANA 6,1923
[PARTII—Snc.3(ii)]3485
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001
S. 0.1704.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary m the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the Stale of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan. a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat and Chaksu-Mathura sections ol Salaya-Mathura pipeline System";
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying sudi pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 ol'ihe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. 1962 (5i> oH'962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazelle of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri. R.M Pandya. Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B.No 4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.
3486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JULY21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
SCHEDULE
Taluka : SIDHPUR
District: PATAN
State: GUJARAT
Area
Sq.mtr.
Survey no. Sub-Division no.
Are Name of the Village
Hectare
1
4
2
3
5
e KANESARA
42
00
• 0
260
1
06
0
14
259
07
0
259
42
1
63
262
00
0
0
08
10
263
0
09
1
33
263
33
268
2
04
0
264
03
0
30
1
264
52
08
0
266
82
12
0
1
232
50
08
0
231
31
05
0
232
05
0
86
07
235
40
0
234
01
0
68
1
236
10
0
77
225
51
10
0
1
225
0
27
02
224
80
02
0
1
08
223
08
0
223
03
0
86
47
218
06
0
221
12
0
02
127
KHALI
60
06
0
128
01
0
16
20
158
00
0
08
157
0
45
20
159
00
0
07
0
39
156
154
08
0
13
06
152
55
0
76
150
08
03487 1 I
I 3 |
I 2
I 5 I
15
6 26
4 0
176
06
65
175
0
67
02
178
0
16 97
179
0
01
18
182
0
17 KHOLVADA
49
31
0
09
21
51
0
47
48
0
00 24
47
19
0
1
09
88
46
0
1
00
99
45
0
44
20
2
0
56
00 08
2
45
0
00
20
3
45
0
26
14
25
0
57
06
0
103
84
114
04
0
26
07
1
0
113
20
0
113
40
0
00 11
112
13
0
06
111
87
11
0
110
92
25
0
139
95
10
0
132
53
09
0
131
35
19
1
0
129
36
0
05
128
84
04
0
127
36
04
0
18
0
05
178 177
44
12
0
176
37
10
0
174
10
02
0
186
97
17
0
270
30
0
53 GANESHPURA
2
64
0
08
401
0
26
96
402 3488 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY21,2001SRAVANA6.1923
[PART I I ^ S E C. 3 fiffl1 3 6 I 2 5 I 375 19 376
377
358
354
355
350
89 I 4 | 0 0
10
09 85 0
04 88
16
0
12
15
0
60
00
0
20
27
0
30 0
46
64 SIDHPUR
106
118
117
116
115
113
145
153
152
151
156
160
170
166
165
426
427
428
438
439
444
445
443
454
455
460
456
457
457 0
08
99 0
06
65
20
0
22 0
24
03
01
0
11
41 0
30
16
0
59
14
34 0
14
52 0
21
77 0
35
19
33
09
0 0
57 Q
22
0
00
24
19
00 0
0
04
15 0
09
33
14 0
0
16 18
15 15 07
Q
0
10 37 0
22 0
26
06 07
0
12
14 03
39 0
0
08
58
03
00 1
00
1
20 Q 0
2
0
10
733489 1 6 3 I 4 2 459 I 5 03 0 98 458 77 07 0 469
470
471
440
441
443
442 GANGLASAN
424
425
426
427
428
429
395
397 L
398
399
400
347
348
349
343
312
311
310
308
307
270
272
271
284
283
292
294
237 08
0
72 02
0
12 01
0
33 09
0
76 05
0
53 0
01 05
15
0
86
62 05
0
07
23 0
20 00
0
20 06
0
07
52 0
05
0
61
82 19
0
0
66 00
15
0
72 28
0
68
32 02
0
33 18
0
84 18
0
79 05
0
93 16
0
48 06
0
48 06
0
16 02
0
26 07
0
16 09
0
48 13
0
50 04
0
85 09
0
66 11
0
90 15
0
89 10
0
71 10
0
53 12
0 3 4 W __ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21,2001 SRAVANA 6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]1 I ^ | I 6 I 2 | I 3 I I 5 236 09 11 0 235 00 91 0 344
12
64
0
SUJANPUR
343
350
357
358
362
376
378
372
297
298
299
283
282
128
131
128
130
132
133
140
134
135
104
106
100
1133 SEDRANA
02
0
43
25
57
0
21
60
0
05
88
0
09
33
0
20
30
0
29
13
0
00
59
0
23
59
0
01
04
0
13
80
0
26
87
0
77
0
14
05
53
0
2
15
38
0
02
58
0
1
00
58
0
17
62
0
01
47
0
10
37
0
10
54
0
09
68
0
34
1
0
56
19
45
0
27
39
0
74
00
0
[No. R-25011/19/2001 OR-I] S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.
349) 2135 GI/2001—6 3492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
fpARTlI—SEC. 3 (il)13493 34
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]3495 34% THEGAZETTEOFINDIA;JULY21,2001SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SF,c.3(ii)]3497 3498 THEGAZETTEOFTNDIA:JULY21,2001SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]3499
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001
S, 0.1705.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panlpat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Virafflgttm-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat and Chaksu-Mathura sections of Salaya-Mathura pipeline System";
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying of such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of T%2), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri. R.M.Pandya. Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B.No.4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.
2135 til/2001— 7 3500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY 21.2001 SRAVANA 6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
SCHEDULE
Taluka: PALANPUR
District: BANASKANTHA
State: GUJARAT
Area
Sub-Division no.
Are
Hectare
Name of the Village
Survey no.
1
2
3
Sq.mtr.
6
4
5 r
34 KANODAR
3
302
301
300
305
299
297
1
306
306
6
7
306
349
2
349
3
349
4
1
348
348
2
3
348
347
2
347
3
347
5
311
311
3
1
312
312
2
313
314
314
2
286
285
284
278
282
281
180
03
0
17
25
0
01
0
31
59 0
18
20
00
0
54
00
0
11
0
80
07
08
0
0
05
43 0
11
05
74
02
0
02
0
96 0
26
03
0
19
03
57
03
0
20
00
0
0
01
80 0
53
04
1
02
0
19
40
00
0
27
07
0
54
05
0
0
01
75
1
0
07
28 0
33
12
00
0
20
10
07
0
0
42
26
0
20
00
0
54
02
0
71
07
0
31
033501 3 1 I 4 b 80 I 2 | 183 5 09 0 71
184
00
0
185
33
0
50
01
0
72
189 188
0
20
29
192
0
11
05
193
0
24
15
194
0
44
09
154
0
20
14
153
25
0
85
150
0
32
03
152
0
78
00
125
25
0
85
126
0
18
01
121
15
0
32
119
0
40
06
127
04
0
12
0
74
23
128
118
08
40
0
117
25
00
0
116
41
0
42
58
0
01
07 JAQANA
165
20
00
169
c G
40
81
174
0
58
29
175
0
27
40
176
0
63
04
0
57
178+179+180+182
53
181
41
15
187
17
27
0 c
188
2
0
45
10
1
188
0
20
00
189
0
14
43
192
0
01
88
190
0
07
17
214
0
24
07
214
3
0
04
25
214
1
0
05
28 3502 - THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21.2001 SRAVANA 6.1923
[PART II—SnO(ii)]3 1 I I 2 | I 4 6 23 0 215 213
220
221
9
6
221
7
221
85
0
I 5 | 05 08 07 49
0
62
0
09
42
01
0
95
03
0
04
85
221
222
1 0
20
00
0
61
08
1 0
07
3 06
0
04
54
4 0
78
10
228
237
4
238
240
241
265
2
265
3
264
269
268
270 0
02
10
0
45
10
0
97
06
0
0
17 04
0
7S 14 08
43
0
52
04
19
0 0
0
04
26 13
0
09
05
0
10 93
1
284
3
311 312 313
314
2
14 45
25
0
05
0
13
12
0
07
0
47 55
14
16
0
08
95
0
72
0
ESBIPURA
1
16
2
16
16
4
17
1
4+5
1
6
6
6
3 5 23 21
0
23
07
0
13
74 37
17
10
0 0
25
89
06
70
0 0
08
0
60
07
84
- 229+230 229+230 229+230 229+230 285+286 ↩
03503 6 | 2 | 1 I 5 I 21 56 | 4 | 0 3 2 1026 PALANPUR 1
14 04
0
1021
2
15 09
0
1021
12 20
0
1022
905
898
900
904
902
819
00 21
0
65 01
0
07
08 0
99 05
0
17
86 0
33 0
11
05 0
25
817+818
21 17
0
816+83Q+831
806
0
00
20 0
24
06 807+814+815
80 0
19
838+839+841+842
843
844
1 753
753
2
74 0
16
0
13
94 0
20 06
56 05
0
0
57 04
-- -
764 ""
22
0
746+747
743+744
1 654
655
661
3 662
2 666
2 668
676
2 36 44 0
08
0
38 34 10
0
76 03
0
50 10
0
68 15
0
06 19
0
56 10
0
62 32
673+674
493
492
1
2 492
488
491
489
490
0
18
19
75 'n #u 0 0
13 0
07
00
20 0
60
03 11
0 0
98 04
0
19 41
34 483+484
0 35m
' THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 21,2001SRAVANA 6,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]1 3 6 I ^ | I 2 | I 5 | 00 05 411 4 0 411
6
410
363
1
362
362
2
1
361
359
344
335
336+337
285+287
284
286
1
283
1
289
291
290
292
1 -
293
302
304
3Q5
307
306
310
12
SONGADH
10+11
16
3
16
5
16
6
17
8+9
18
19
7
19
8
21+22
30+31
30
0
02
11
54
0
96
0
01
14
08
0
20
08
0
83
13
0
34
0
16
45
21
0
10
02
0
34
0
19
50
0
13
00
0
20
21
68
0
03
05
0
45
0
05
45
0
27
12
0
12 47
0
30
04
0
22
0
01 61
0
20 72 45
16
40
Q 0
18
36
04
0
24
0
18
18
05
0
10
17
0
20
0
00
0
53
08
53
11
0
77
16
0
04
98
0
09
0
21
50
08
0
40
0
10
07
0
65 82
0
333505 6 1 I 2 I L-JLJ 5 I 09 97 0 34 3 I 1 04 49 4 0
28+29
10
32 0
28+29
5
37
09 01
0
11
11 0
73 06
0
38+45+49
91 16
39+40+41
0
19
60 0
20+21
VARVADIYA(SENGPARIA)
17
06 0
05
72 0
50
22+23
73 35
0
124+125
KHEMANA
74 00
0
116+122
123
96 0
19
06 55
126+127+128+129
10
11
12
13
22
14
21
15
19
18
17 0
96 19
0
99 22
0
17 17
0
03 03
0
39 0
05
80 0
02
48 00
0
17 05
0
66 07
0
29 08
0
85 02
0
47 0
30
50+51
43 22
0
52+53
154
2
20 0
00
MALANA
50
151+152+153
150
149
1 0
25
56 21
0
66 05
0
31
15
146+148
0
60 16
0
HEBATPUR
16
15
1
04 0
10
0
12 04
15
14
3
9
05 25
0
51 10
0
73 07
0 35U6 _ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY 21.2001 SRAVANA 6,1923
[PART II— SEC. 3 (ii)]1 3 07 6 61 2 8 0 02 43 4 2 0 4
7
7
96
04
1
0
00
06
29 2
0
77 1
05
0
32
48 0
CHITRASANI
101
104
105
106
108
140
140
146
139
148
148
150
151
167
07
43 0
05
50 0
09
95 0
65
07
0
0
04 06
88 1
0
09
2
0
56
16
93
01
0
41 0
12
00
1
0
2
0
10
07
93 16 85 0
30
30 0
04
56 0
55 2
0
05
CHANDGADH KOTAOA
67
67
67
63
62
54
53
47
48
49
39
02
45 6
0
01
24 5
0
03
05 3
0
60 0
30
1
16
58 0
26
60 0
90 1
27
0
18
18
0
81
06
0
09
56 0
[No. R-25011/20/2001 OR-I] S. CHANDRASEKIIAR, Under Secy.
35072 1 35 ( i I / 2 l ) 0 1— X 3508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY 21,2001 SRA VAN A 6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]3509 3510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY 21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PART 11— SHC.3 (ii)]3511 35'- TI IE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21,2001 SRAV AN A 6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001
S. 0.1706.—-Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajaslhan. pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat & Chaksu-Mathura sections of Salaya-Mathura pipeline System";
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying of the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1902 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B.No.4, P.O. Viramgam, Dislt Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.
3513SCHEDULE
State: GUJARAT
Taluka : VADGAM
District: BANASKANTHA
Name of the Village
Survey no. Sub-Division no. 1
2
3
Area
Sq.mtr.
Are
Hectare
6 4
5
71 0
51
TENIWADA
178
177
176
175
172
2
172
1
170
1
169
1
2
168
168
1
165
2
164
1
166
162
161
3
161
2
155
3
155
2
155
1
150
149
116
115
117
119
118
120
121
2
121
1
122
124
2
124
1
34
21
0
98 0
08
82 0
08
0
10
73
63 0
12
27 0
03
43 0
06
41 0
07
66 0
05
55
05
0
20 0
00
30 0
07
96 0
12
25 0
05
20 0
00
62 0
07
71 0
08
0
02
18
67 0
10
0
93
08
37 0
13
35 0
00
91
09
0
0
06
75
49 0
08
24 0
00
0
27
07
0
64
06
0
11
90
78 0
00
0
71
10 3514 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21,2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PARI II—SEC. 3 (ii)l1 3 I 2 | 129 I 4 0 I 5 18 I 6 51 130 0 00 20 1+2 0 22 26 6
7
8
9
10
275 0
01
61
0
11
32
0
00
26
0
05
66
0
07
95
0
31
54
RAJOSANA
17
20
21
22
23
51
53
52
46
45
60
43/1+44/1+44/2
73+74
75 0
19
96
0
06
49
0
06
21
0
05
29
0
09
91
0
21
94
0
01
31
0
13
23
0
05
17
0
07
57
0
08
31
0
12
83
0
15
33
0
12
83
CHHAPI
164
165
167
168
255
254
247
248
250
1
249
251
242
239
275 0
29
42
0
06
71
0
08
06
0
12
09
02
0
61
0
05
99
0
01
96
0
08
60
0
06
64
0
07
84
0
08
06
0
13
94
14
0
21
0
31
273515 1 3 I I 5 | I 6 I 2 I I 4 30 279 0 32 280
281
282
283 0
00
20 0
03
69 0
01
35 0
03
67 06
284/1+2+3
289
286
287
308
309
310
311
312
314
123 0
32 11
0
11 0
02
16 0
16
88 12
0
09 03
0
59 0
05
34 0
02
83 0
05
94 04
0
96 0
19
49 MAJAOAR
122
128
127
139
140
141
142
150
143
144
1
146
224
227
226
230
235
234
2
232
1
233
233
2
233
3 2135 GI/2001—9
0
19
38 0
03
81 0
15
59 0
00
69 14
0
27 10
0
78 0
15
30 11
11 0
0
00
20 16
12 0
02
83 0
0
07
08 0
01
02 0
16
73 01
03 0
0
09
75 0
05
12
37 0
09
0
00
20 0
06
55 0
12
42 3516 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY21.2001 SRAVANA6,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]1 2 5 3 4 0 00 233 4 6 88 12 10 247 0 2 94 248 1 0 05 248
286
287
282
280
279
278
318
319
322
324
325
328
329
330
331
331
342
339
340
399 SHERPURA
38
36
237 BHARKAWADA
238 0
02
94
2
03
80
0
06
50
0
04
79
0
54
11
0
03
81
0
0
05
23
06
41
0
71
06
0
03
21
0
43
06
0
04
14
0
15
93
0
1
09
31
0
07
74
0
00
20
0
1
09
19
0
2
15
06
0
07
20
0
66
31
0
00
20
0
05
66
0
41
07
0
13
83
0
02
45
0
[No. R-25011/21/2001 OR-I] S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.
35173518 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2Q01/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3519 3520 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
GAS
New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001
S.O. 1707.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of liquified petroleum gas through Kandla/Jamnagar—Loni, Pipeline in Rajasthan State, pipeline may be laid by Gas Authority of India Limited;
And whereas, the Government authorised Shri Deepak C. Gupta, Additional Collector on deputation from the State Government of Rajasthan to Gas Author- ity of India Limited to perform the functions of the com- petent authority under clause (a) of section 2 of the Pe- troleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 for Kandla/Jamnagar—Loni LPG Pipeline Project vide S.O. No. 241 dated the 20th January, 1998;
And whereas, the Central Government vide S.O. 2387 dated the 17th November, 1998; S.O. 2558 dated the 27th November, 1998; S.O. 17I(E) dated the 16th March, 1999; S.O. 2687 dated the 10th December, 1998; S.O. 172(E) dated the 16th March, 1999; S.O. 1057(E) dated the 9th December, 1998; S.O. 2688 dated the 10th December, 1998; S.O. 170(E) dated the 16th March, 1999; S.O. 2686 dated the 10th December, 1998; S.O. 2684 dated the 10th December, 1998; S.O. 1093(E) dated the 22nd December, 1998; S.O. 1218(E) dated the 6th De- cember, 1999 published notifications under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act for acquisition of right of user in the land in the manner specified in the respective schedules annexed thereto;
3521 3 1 2Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Ac- quisition of Right of User in Land Act, 1962 (50 of 1962)), the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the column (2) of the Table mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.
TABLE
; Amendment Notification & Datt
2
1
S.O. 2387 dated the 17th November 1998
At page No. 4380 against ', Village Bas Dayal Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "95" & "95/390" read "95/398 Min", "95/398 Min", and "95/397 Min". S.O. 2558 dated the 27th November, 1998
At Page No. 4718 against Village Dhundhala Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "247" Area "0.0158" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 4718 against Village Dhundhala Tehsil Bansur for Total Area "2.1621" read "2.1463".
At Page No. 4714 against Village Jagedetkalan Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "30" Area "0.0010", S u my No. "15" Area "0.0025", Survey No. "16" Area "0.0150" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 4714 against Village Jagedetkalan Tehsil Bansur for Total Area "2.0829" read "2.0644". S.O. 2387 dated the 17th November, 1998
At Page No. 4385 & 4386 against Village Chanpura Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "335" Area "0.0120" for Survey No. "334" Area "0.0040", for Survey No. "327" Area "0.0125", for Survey No. "283" Area "0.0079", Survey No. "284"
Area "0.0166" shall be de- leted.
At Page No. 4386 against Village Chanpura Tehsil Bansur for Total Area "2.5819" read "2.5289".
At Page No. 4382 & 4383 against Village Kheda Shyampura Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "1898" Area "0.0767" read "0.0600", for Survey No. " 1899" Area "0.0025" read "0.0200", for Survey No. "1910" Area "0.0010" read "0.0300", for Survey No. "1912" Area "0.3643" read "0.3980", for Survey No. "1909" Area "0.1574" read "0.0900", for Survey No. " 1908" Area "0.0158" read "0.0240", for Survey No. "1904" Area "0.1980" read "0.2695", for Survey No. "1906"Area "0.0792" read "0.0260" and Survey No. "1905" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "1733" Area "0.0396" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 4716 against S.O. 2558 dated the 27th November, 1998
Village Harsora Tehsil Bansur for Survey
No. "392" Area "0.0040" read "0,1029", for Survey No. "393" Area "0.1029" read "0.0079", and Survey No. "395" Area "0,0079" shall be deleted.
S.O. 2387 dated the 17th November, 1998
At Page No. 4382 against Village Bad Bhavsingh Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "5" Area "0.0792 read "0.0700", for Sur- vey No. "4" Area "0.0554", read "0.0340", for Survey No. " 3" Area "0.0396" read "0.0120", for Survey No. "8" Area "0.0257" read "0.1096", and Survey No. "2" Area "0,0257" shall be deleted.
W> THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3 1 2 3 1 2 S.O. 171(E)dated the 16th March, 1999
At Page No. 5 against Village Motuka Tehsil Bansur for Survey No. "1285" Area "0.0871", read "0.0330", for Sur- vey No. "1286" Area "0.1188" read "0.1070", for Survey No. "1287" Area "0.0396" read "0.1 J 5 0 ", for Survey No. "1289" Area "0.0950" read "0.0170", fc" Survey No. "886" Area "0.0515" read "0.0525", for Survey No. "887" Area "0.2851" read "0.3606", and Sur- vey-No. "1290" Area "0.0040" shall be deleted.
S.O. 2687 dated the 10th December, 1998
At Page No. 4969 against Village Pehal Tehsil Mundawar for Survey No. "697" Area "0.1000"
shall be deleted.
At Page No. 4972, 4973 against Village Tatarpur Tehsil Mundawar for Sur- vey No. "793" Area "0.0080, Survey No. "1625" Area "0.0158" shall be deleted.
S.O. 172(E) dated the 16th March, 1999
At Page No. 7 against Village Raipur Tehsil Mundawar for Survey No. "118" Area "0.0080"
shall be deleted.
At Page No. 8 against Vil- lage Rasgan Tehsil Mundawar for Survey No. "183" read "182".
S.O. 1057(E) dated the 9th December, 1998
At Page No. 93 against Village Jhriyana Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "77" Area "0.0080" shall be deleted. At Page No. 91 against Vil- lage Haspurkhurd Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "353" Area "0.0020" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 92 against Village Jatiyana Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "143" read "142".
At Page No. 91, 92 against Village Harsoli Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "2361" read "2391", for Survey No. "Khali Khet" read "2286", for Survey No. "2923" read "3199" and Survey No. "2504" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "2373" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted. At Page No. 94, 95 against Village Girwas Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "17" read "19", for Survey No. "Rasta" read 124/ 466", and Survey No. " 1 2 1" Area "0.0010" Survey No. " 1 3 8" Area "0.0396" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 90 against Vil- lage Bhojpur Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "109" Area "0.0010 "shall be deleted.
S.O. 2688 dated the 10th December, 1998
At Page No. 4977 against Village Karwar Tehsil Kotkasim for Survey No. "939" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted.
S.O. 170(E) dated the 16th March, 1999
At Page No. 3 against Village Kheda Tehsil Kisangarh for Survey No. "154" read "654".
S.O. 2686(E) dated the 1 Oth December, 1998
At Page No. 4962, 4963 against Village Bagherikalan Tehsil Kishangarh
Survey No. Area
697
0.0040
698
0.0317
703
0.1584
704
0.1980
709
0.0237
708
0.1426
707
0.0040
710
0.0633
711
0.0633
545
0.1505
544
0.06333523 3 1 2 3 1 2 530 0.1663 S.O. 2686 dated Tijara for Survey No. "120" read " 1 2 1 ". the 10th Dec. 531 0.0793 1998
529
0.396
0.1663
527
S.O. 1093(E) dated the 22nd December, 1998
526
0.0317
0 0872
525
524
0.0040
0.0040
520
0.1742
521
0.0317
022
500
0.1663
1026
0.0237
read Village "Koshalpur" Tehsil "Kishangarh"
Survey No. Area 0.0040
697
At Page No.7, against Village Husepur Tehsil Tijara for Survey No. "255" Area "0.1149" read "0.0020", for Survey No. "273" Area "0.4435" read "0.4058", for Survey No. "264" Area "0.2020" read "0.2138", for Survey No. "265" Area "0.0040" read "0.0080", for Survey No. "266" Area "0.1426" read "0.1465", and Survey No. "253" Area "0,0554" Survey No. "254" Area "0.0158" shall be deleted.
698
0.0317
0.1584
703
704
0.1980
0.0237
At Page No. 7 against Village Khedi Tehsil Tijara for Survey No. " 12" Area "0.0168" read "0.1168".
0.1426
709 708 707
0.0040
710
0.0633
711
0.0633
545
0.1505
At Page No. 5,6,7 against Tehsil Tijara Village "Guwalda, Gandhola & Chopanki" all Survey No. shall be deleted.
544
0.0633
530
0.1663
531
0.0792
S.O. 1218(E) dated the 6th December, 1999
529
0.0396
527
0.1663
526
0.0317
525
0.0872
524
0.0040
520
0.0040
521
0.1703
522
0.0713
500
0.1860
1026
0.0237
At Page No.4933, 4934
S.O. 2684 dated the 10th Decembi 1998
At Page No.8, 9,10 against Village Guwalda Tehsil Tijara for Survey No. "836" Area "0.1030" read "0.0980", for Survey No. "729" Area "0.0871" read "0.0940", for Survey No. "730" Area "0.0238" read "0.0080", for Sur- vey No. " 7 2 7" Area ."0.1267" read "0.1380" for Survey No. "726" Area "0.0158" read "0.0720", for Survey No. "675" Area "0.0871" read "0.0160". for Survey No. "721" Area "0.0634" read "0.1540", for Survey No. "718" Area "0.1030" read "0.0020", for Survey No. "719" Area "0.0871" read "0.720", for Survey No. "710" Area "0.1980" read "02000", for Survey No. "414" Area er, against Village Mundana Tehsil Tajara for Sur- vey No. L'766" Area "0.0U10" Survey No. "769" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted. At Page No. 4936 against Village Bichala Tehsil
2135G1/2001 —10 3524 THE GAZETTE OF fNPIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2
"0.1188" read "0.0880", for Survey No. "417" Area "0.0851" read "0.450", for Survey No. "506" Area "0.0020" read "0.0240", for Survey No. "418" Area "0 I960" read "0.1920", for Survey No. "419" Area "0.0158" read "0.0260", for Survey No. "423" Area "0.0238" read "0.0260", for Survey No. "420" Area "0.1426" read "0.1360", for Survey No. "333" Area "0.0614" read "0.0680'\ for Survey No. "334" Area "0.0020" read "0.0080", and Survey No. "802" Area "0.0020" Survey No, "715" Area "0.1346" Survey No, "717" Area "0.0475" Survey No. "711" Area "0.1505" Survey No. "416" Area "0.0020" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 10,11,9, against Village Gandhola Tehsil Tijara Survey No. "639" Area "0.0040" Sur- vey No. "424" Area "0.0040" Survey No, "264" Area "0.0317" Sur- vey No. "263" Area "0.0040" Survey No. "262" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted.
[File No. L-140M/7/00-G.P. (Part-II)]
P. M. MEENA, Director3525 3526 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3527 352K _ T*HE G A Z E T TE 0 1- I N D IA : J U LY 2 1, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D HA 3 0, 1923 [ P A UI [I—SI-.C . 3(ii)l3529 3530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l3531 2 I J5 0 1 / 2 0 01 — 1 1.
3532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001 /ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)l3533 1 2 New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001
S.O. 1708.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of liquified petroleum gas through Kandla/Jamnagar-Loni pipeline in Rajasthan State, pipeline may be laid by Gas Authority of India Limited;
And whereas, the Government authorised Shri Deepak C. Gupta, Additional Collector on deputation from the State Government of Rajasthan to Gas Authority of India Limited to perform the functions of the competent authority under clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 for Kandla/Jamnagar-Loni LPG Pipeline Project vide S.O. No, 241 dated the 20* January, 1998;
"178" read "188", for Suivey No. "120" read "121", for Survey No. "593" read "595", for Survey No, "139" Area "0.1200" read "O.I 520", for Survey No. "616" Area "l.8000"read"1.8800",foV Survey No. "550" Area "0.1040" read "0.0840", for Survey No. "607" Area "0,4540" read "0.4380", and Survey No. "549" Area "0.0320", Survey No. "612" Area "0.0240" shall be deleted. At Page No. 34 against Village Gudha Bija Tehsil Sojat for Total Area "5.4560" read "5.5060". At Page No. 34 against village Rayrakalan Khurd Tehsil Sojat for Survey No. "156" read "157".
2
1
3534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 200I/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—She. 3(ii)]1 2 1 2 S.O. 597(E) dated the 24* July, 1999
S.O. 57(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
At Page No. 40 against Village Jatiyo ki Dhani Tehsil Marwar Juntion for Survey No. "1256"Area "0.1258" read "0.1042", for Survey No, "1258" Area "0.0754" read "0.0554", for Survey No. "1215" Area "0.0314" read "0.0344", and Survey No. "1223" Area "0.0030" shall be deleted.
S.O. 57(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
At Page No. 14 against Village Devli Tehsil Marwar Juntion for Total Area " 1 2 . 6 1 1 0" read "12.6170". At Page No. 17 against Village Gundangiri Tehsil Marwar Juntion for Survey No. " 6 3" read " 6 2 ". At Page No. 14 against Village Gadana Tehsil Marwar Juntion for Survey No, "287" Area "0.3928" read "0.3888", for Survey No. " 2 3 1" Area "0.2583" read "0,2327", for Survey No. "196" Area "0.2890" read "0.2684", for Survey No, "282" Area "0.2260" read "0,2300", for Survey No. " 4 0" Area "0.0120" read "0.0240", and Survey No. "281 "Area "0.0040" Survey No, " 2 9 1" Area " 0 . 0 1 4 0" Survey No. " 6 1" Area "0.0120" shall be deleted. At Page No. 15 against Village Bari Tehsil Marwar juntion for Survey No. " 2 7 5" Area " 0 . 1 7 4 9" read "0.1040", for Survey No. "264" Area "0.1908" read "0.0800", for Survey No. " 7 2" Area "0.4134" read "0.2261", for Survey No. " 6 3" Area "0.1590" read "0.1580", for Survey No. "278" Area "0.1908" read "0.2226", for Survey No, "279" Area "0.0010" read "0.0560", for Survey No. "269" Area "0.0318" read "0.0640", for Survey No. "265" Area "0.0318" read "0.1200", for Survey No. " 2 6 1" Area "0.1590" read "0.2160", for Survey No. " 7 5" Area "0.0954" read "0.2080", for Survey No. " 7 4" Area "0.3498" read "0.3508", for Survey No. " 6 0" Area "0.5524" read "0.5683", fors Survey At Page No, 17 against Village Bonnadi Tehsil Marwar Junction for Survey No. "146" Area "0.1949" read "0.0640", and Ztin/ey No. "140" area "0.2201" sihall be deleted. At Page No. 17 against Village Bornadi Tehsil Marwar Junction Total Area " 3 . 4 1 0 7" read "3.0597''. At Page No. 13 against Village Devli Tehsil Marwar Junction for Survey No. "1100" Area "0.291.0" read "0.1647", for Survey No. " 1 2 9 1" Area " 0 . 1 3 9 0" read "0.0700", for Survey No. " 1 2 9 4" Area "0.1900" read "0.1000", for Survey No. " 1 2 9 5" Area "0.1010" read "0.0100", for Survey No. " 1 2 5 8" Area " 0 . 0 1 2 0" read "0.0887", for Survey No. " 1 2 6 5" Area "0.1010" read "0.2027", for Survey No. " 1 2 0 5" Area "0.2280" read "0.2389", for Survey No. " 1 0 5 0" Area " 0 . 0 8 9 0" read "0.1600", for Survey No. " 1 0 4 3" Area "0.0630" read ' '0.2620'', and Survey No. " 1 0 9 9" Area " 0 . 0 6 3 0" Survey No. " 1 2 8 7" Area "0.0020" Survey No, "1286" Area "0.0130" shall be deleted.
3535 1 2 1 2S.O. 57(F) dated the 2nd February, 1999
SO. 5 9 ^) dated the 2nd February, 1999
S.O. 597(E) dated the 24th July, 1999
No. " 5 3" Area "0.6360" read "0.6887", for Survey No. "277" Area "0.0318" Survey No. " 2 6 2" Area "0.0080" Survey No. "59" Area "0.0159" shall be deleted. At Page No. 43 against Village Suniel Raipur for Survey No. "1007" read "1000", for Survey No. " 4 0 3" read "965", and Survey No. "1047" Area "0.3648" shall be deleted. At Page No. 44 against Village Sumel Tehsil Raipur for Total Area "11.4555"read" 11.7189". At Page No. 44 against Village Nargarh Tehsil Raipur for Total Area "0.6556" read "0.3922".
At Page No. 44 against Village Nargarh Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 1 0 4 6" Area "0.6282" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 44 against Village Mohra Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 4 1" read "40".
S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
At Page No. 38 against Village Ramawas Khurd Tehsil Raipur for Survey No, 468" read "1169", Survey No. " 4 7 3" read " 4 7 3" and "474".
At Page No. 38 against Village Biratiya Khurd Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 8 5" read " 8 8" Survey No. "55" read "56", Survey No. " 1 8 7" Area "0.0380" read Survey No. "205" Area "0.0380" and Survey No. " 1 8 7" Area "0.0506" read "Survey No. " 2 6 3" Area "0.0506".
At Page No. 41 against Village BabraTehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 1 7 6 3"
Area " 0 . 0 3 8 0" read "0.0243", for Survey No. " 2 2 2 5" Area "0.0253" read "0.0081 ".for Survey No. " 2 2 7 3" Area "0.0253" read "0.0162". S.O. 597(E) dated the 24th July, 1999
At Page No. 48 against Village Babra Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 1 7 1 6" Area "0.1800" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 48 against Village Babra Tehsil Raipur for Total Area "5.5495" read "5.3295".
S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999 S.O. 597(E) dated the 24th July, 1999
S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
At Page No. 38 against Village Biratiya Kalan Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. "840" Area "0.3955" read "0.4105", and Survey No, "835" Area "0.0150" shall be deleted. At Page No. 40,47 against Village Bar Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. "745" Area "0,0633" read "0.1400", for Survey No. "739" Area "0.0150" read "0.2320", for Survey No."734" Area "0.2561" read "0.3460", for Survey No. "733" Area "0.0380" read "0,0640", forSurveyNo. " 7 3 1" Area "0.0100" read "0.0500", forSurveyNo. "679" Area "0.2661" read "0.2816", forSurveyNo. "680" Area "0.0633"read "0.0256", forSurveyNo. "678" Area "0.1900" read "0.1920", forSurveyNo. "684" Area "0.1140" read "0,1180", forSurveyNo. "686" Area "0,1394" read "0.1540", for Survey No. " 7 3 8 / 1" Area " 0 . 2 0 9 1" shall be deleted. At Page No. 40, against Village Megdadha Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 7 9" Area "0.6739" read "0.5956", for Survey No. "71/180" Area "0.1520" 3536 THR GAZETTE OF INDIA ; JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—Sbc. 3(ii)]1 2 1 2 SO. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
S.O. 2559 dated the 27 November, 1998
Survey No. "666" read "665" , for Survey No. "797" read "799" for Survey No "787" read 785". At Page No. 4744 against Village Padarla Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "4" Area "0.7000" read "0.7040". and Survey No."'55S" Area "0.0040" shall be deleted.
S.O. 716(E) dated the 2nd September, 1999 and S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
read "0.1754", for Survey No, " 7 3" Area "0.0100" read "0.1647", for Survey No. " 7 4" Area "0.1820" read "0.0127", for Survey No " 4 8" Area "0.1394" read -0.2028", for Survey No. " 4 2" Area "0.0395" read "0.1647". for Survey No. " 4 3" Area "0.3344" read "0.1394", for Survey No. " 1 4" Area "0.1267" read "0.1647", for Survey No, " 1 3" Area "0.0380" read "0.0253", for Survey No. " 1 1" Area "0.2154" read "0.1014", for Survey No. " 7" Area "0.2204" read "0.1394", At Page No. 40 and 14 against Village Megdadha Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. " 8 0" Area "0.0050", Survey No. " 8 1" Area "0.0020"SurveyNo."47" Area "0.1014" shall be deleted. / At Page No. 40 against Village Megdada Tehsil Raipur for Total area "2.2634" read "2.2302".
S.O. 597(E) dated the 24 July, 1999
At Page No. 44 against Village Khiwal Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. "2707/1" read "2717". At Page No. 46 against Village Giri Tehsil Raipur for Total Area "12.2160" read "12.2287".
S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999
S.O. 597(E) dated the 24 July, 1999
At Page No. 4744, 4745 against Village Seawadi Tehsil Bali for Suvey No. "218" Area "0.1380" read "0.1360" for Survey No. "216" Area "0.1340" read •'0.0640", for Survey No. "324" Area "0.2420" read "0.2190", for Survey No. "320" Area "0.1370" read "0.0130". for Survey No. "176" Area "0.1700" read "0.1520", for Survey No. "171" Area "0.1450" read "0.0750", for Survey No. "226"area "0.0040" read 0.0740", for Survey, No. "310" Area "0.0080" read "0.0200", for Survey No. "321" Area "0.1160" read "0.2400", for Survey No, "169" Area "0.0320" read "0.0870", for Survey No. "170" Area "0.0050" read "0.0200", for Survey No. "598" read "498", and Survey No. "312" Area "0.0120" Survey No. "314" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted. At Page No. 4752 against Village Punariya Tehsil Bali for Survey No, "355" read "325", for Survey No. "304/699" Area "0.0020" read "0.1280", for Survey No. "304" Area "0.1500" read "0.0240", for Survey No. "187" Area "0.1210" read "0.1280", for Survey No, "562" Area "0.0020" read "0.0240".
At Page No. 42 against Village Giri Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. "865" Area "0.0253" read Village "Kheda Momawas" Tehsil "Raipur". At Page No. 40 against Village Raipur Tehsil Raipur For Survey No. "2287" read "2277". At page No. 48 against Village Ramgarh Tehsil Raipur for Survey No. "690" read "698", for3537 1 2 1 2 S.O. 2559 dat^ci tin- 27th Novemboi, 1W8
S.O. 2559 dated the 27th November, 1998
At Page No. 4752 ipnirnt Village Punariya "• rNr n Bali for Total Area "4,3690" read "4.3980". At Page No. 4747 against Village Sesali Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "507" Area -0.1120" read "0.0500", for Survey No, "509" Area "0.0320" read "0.0450", for Survey No. "943" Area "0.1600" read "0.2160", for Survey No, "860" Area "0.2260" read "0.3590", and Survey No. "854" Area "0.140* i" Survey No, "855" Area "0.0140", Survey No. "856" Area "0.1940" shall be deleted. At Page No. 4755 against Village Bhandar Tehsil Bali forSurveyNo."1115" Are "0.1220" read "0.1530", for Survey No. "1122" Area "0.1400" read "0.0975", for Survey No, "1135" Area "0. 0050" read "0.0475", for Survey No. "1133" read "1 132", and Survey No. "1116" Area "0.0310" shall be deleted.
S.O 597(E) dated (he 24lh July, 1999
"719", for Survey No. •i:42" read "243", for Survey No, "524" Area "0.1610" read "0.1620", for Survey, No. "526" Area "0.1500" read "0.1510", for Survey No. "519" Area "0.1860" read "0.1900", for Survey No. "556" Area "0.0020" read "0.0040", for Survey No. "754" Area "0.0320" read "0.0330", for Survey No. "674" Area "0.1450" read "0.1470", for Survey No."245" Area "0.1450" read "0.1470", for Survey No. "261" Area "0.1850" read "0.1860", for Survey No. "266" Area "0.1900" read "0.1910", for Survey No. "707" Area "0.2450" read "0.2000", for Survey No. "708" Area "0.1040" read " 0.1600", and Survey No. "525" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "528" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "529" Area "0.0040" Survey No. "573" Area "0.0020" Survey No. "675" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "685" Area "0.0020" Survey No. "248" Area "0.0020" Survey No. "262" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "268" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted.
At Page No. 33, 34 against Village Virampura Tehsil Bali for Survey No."1971" read " 1970", for Survey No. "1947" Area "0.0900" read "0.0840", for Survey No. "1847" Area "0.2040" read "0.1640", for Survey No, "1844" Area "0.0600" read "0.0025", for Survey No, "1%7" Area'-O.O780" read "0.1355" At Page No. 34 against Village Virampura Tehsil Bali for Total Area "4.8340" read "4.8280".
S.O. 2559 dated the 27th November, 1998
At Page No. 4756 to 4758 against Village Bhatund Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "349" read "649", for Survey No. "842" read
At Page No. 4758 againist Village Bhatund Tehsil Bali for Total Area "8.8765" read "8.8875". At Page No. 4739 against Village Sadalwa Tehsil Bali for Survey No, "280" read "275/291", for Survey No, "253" read "252", for Survey No. "239" Area "0.1920" read "0.1900". At Page No. 4742 against Village Kumatiya Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "390" read "247", for Survey No. "251" Area "0.0400" read "0.0280" 3538 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]1 2 1 2 S.O.2559 dated the 27th November, 1998
S.O. 2559 dated the 27th November, 1998
At Page No. 4743 against Village Bijapur Tchsil Bali for Survey No. "321" read "621", for Survey No. "322" read "622". At Page No. 4751 against Village Bhitwara Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "772" Area "0.0340" read "0.0330". At Page No. 4750 agianst Village Tipari Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "490" read "488", At Page No. 4748 against Village Kotbaliya Tehsil Bali ior Survey No. "1078" read " 1079", for Survey No. "1095" read "1096", for Survey No. "1093" read "1095", for Survey No. "1099" read "1097".
"0.3680", for Survey No. "199" Area "0.0100" read "0.1880", for Survey No, "189" Area "0.0050" read "0.1600", for Survey No, "184" Area "0.2040" read "0.1560", for Survey No. "119" Area "0,0450" read "0,2800", for Survey No. "121" Area "0.0220 read "0.2800", for Survey No. "128" Area "0.0506" read '•0.0800", for Survey No. "49" Area "0.0460" read "0.2400", for Survey No. "52" Area "0.0430" read "0.1640", for Survey No, "640/4147" Area "0,0040" read "0,2240", for Survey No. "647" Area "0,0720" read "0.1500", for Survey No, "660" Area "0.0800" read "0.0960, for Survey No."682"Area "0.0200" read "0,1360", and Survey No, "648" Area "0.0480" Survey No. "640" Area "0.1660" Survey No. "550" Area "0.0200" Survey No,." 130" Area "0.1100" Survey No. "251" Area "0.1200" Survey No, "252" Area "0.5040" Survey No,."258" Area "0.2320" Survey No. "233/4124" Area "0,0040" Survey No,."212" Area "0,2000" Survey No. "213" Area "0.0400" Survey No. "213/ 4109" Area "0.1100" Survey No. "214" Area "0.1000" Survey No, "215" Area "0.0230" Survey No. "215/4107" Area "0.1760" Survey No. "202" Area "0.1800" Survey No. "188" Area "0.3200" Survey No, "188/4116" Area "0.1060" Survey No. "185" Area "0.4360" Survey No. "183" Area "0.1 100" Survey No, "181" Area "0.0300" Survey No. "132/4016" Area "0.0350" shall be deleted.
At page No. 4749, 4750 against Village Nana Tehsil Bali for Survey No. "257" Area "0.2160" read "0.1680", for Survey No. "230" Area "0.0880" read "0.0410", for Survey No. "133" Area "0.0500" read "0.0200", for Survey No. "120" Area "0.3648" read "0.0250", for Survey No. "127" Area "0.3640" read "0.2560", for Survey No. "129" Area "0.4160" read "0.2560", for Survey No. "549" Area "0.1100" read "0.0 '30", for Survey No. "649" Area "0,0320" read "0.0020", for Survey, No, "662" Area "0.0710" read "0.0240", for Survey No. "681" Area "0.4300" read "0.3560", for Survey No. "264" Area "0.1538" read "0.2800", for Survey No. "253" Area "0.0560" read "0.2480", for Survey No. "248" Area "0.0578" read "0.4120", for Survey No. "211" Area "0.2880" read "0.3360", for Survey No. "216" Area "0.1320" read3539 1 2 1 2 S. O. 1056(E) dated 9th December, 1998
S.O. 2559 dated the 27th November, 1998
(Contd,)
(Contd.)
S.O. 1056(E) dated 9th December, 1998
Survey No. "307" Area "0.1250" Survey No. "308" Area L'0.0300" Survey No. "311" Area "0,0200" Survey No. "354" Area "0.1300" Survey No. "353" Area "0,2500" Survey No. L'347" Area "0.1500" Survey No."345" Area "0.1760" Survey No. "344" Area "0.0580" Survey No. "334" Area "0.1360" Survey No. "139" Area "0.1020" Survey No." 140" Area "0.0940" Survey No. "96" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted. At Page No. 76 against Village Underthal Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "4.2160" read "4.1840". At Page No, 76 against Village Delop Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "429" Area "0.1412" read "0.2100", for Survey No. "423" Area "0.012" read "0.1360". At Page No. 76 against Village Dalop Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "4.4224" read "4.6660". At Page No, 76 against Village Padampura Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "105" Area "0.3368" read "0.1620". At Page No. 77 against Village Padampura Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "2.5037" read "2.3289". At Page No. 78 against Village Kotri Tehsil Desuri Survey No. "141" Area "0.0430", Survey No. "410" Area "0.0010" shall be deleted. At Page No, 78 against Village Kotri Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "4,9754" read "4.9314". At Page No. 80 against village Jiwand Khurd Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "92" Area "0.5920" read "0.4600" for 'Survey No. "217" Area "0.1220"' read 'Survey No. "217/1" Area "0,0100'" and Survey At Page No. 4750 against Village Nana Tehsil Bali for Total Area "16.3232" read "16.4302". At Page No. 4741 against Village Bera Tehsil Bali for Survey No, "1926" Area "0.1680" read "0.0760", for Survey No, "1994" read "1894". At Page No. 75 against Village Barod Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "88" Area "0.1200" read "0.1650", for Survey No. " 8 5" Area "0.1200" read "0.3720", for Survey No. "62" Area "0.1280" read "0.1560", for Survey No. "26" Area "0.2800" read "0.2880", for Survey No. "72" Area "0.1680" read "0.1370", for Survey No. "87" Area "0.3200" read "0.1490", for Survey No. "76" Area "0.5040" read "0.4520" for Survey No. "28" Area "0.5200" read "0.4720", for Survey No. "293" read "248" and Survey No. "83" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "24" Area "0.0300" shall be deleted. At Page No. 75, 76 against Village Underthal Tehsil Desvri for Survey No. "355" Area "0.2000" read "0.0160", for Survey No. "350" Area "0.0560" read "0.0110", for Survey No. "341" Area "0.0720" read "0.0440", for Survey No. "339" Area "0.0900" read "0.0820", for Survey No. "116" Area "0.0360" read "0.0150", for Survey No. "115" Area "0.1200" read "0.0800", for Survey No. 356" Area "0.0800" read "1.1720", for Survey No. "349" Area "0.0080" read "0.1380", for Survey No. "348" Area "0.1040" read "0.1350" for Survey No. "338" Area "0.0840" read "0.1080", for Survey No. "115/394" Area "0.0800" read "0.1100", and Survey No. "306" Area "0.3080"
2135 Gl/2001—12
3540 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]1 2 1 2 S. 0. 1056 (E) dated 9th December, 1998 (Contd.)
S. O. 1056 (E) dated 9th December, 1998 (Contd.)
Survey No. "4662" Area "0.0040" Survey No. "4692" Area "0.0400" Survey No "3798" Area "0.0420" Survey No. "3782" Area "0.0040" Survey No. "3581" Area "0.1663" shall be deleted.
S.O. 597(E) dated the 24 July, 1999
At Page No. 30 against Village Nadol Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "10.2287" read "10.4356".
S.O. 1056(E) dated the 9th December, 1998
At Page No. 80 against Village Bordi Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "612" Area "0.0560" read "0.1720", for Survey No. "660" Area "0.0760" read "0.1800", for Survey No. "613" Area "0.2400" read "0.1200",
S.O. 597(E) dated the 24 July, 1999
At Page No. 30 against Village Bordi Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "7.5620" read "7.6620".
S.O. 1056(E) dated the 9th December, 1998
At Page No. 82 against Village Ghenari Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "165" read "164", for Survey No. "53" read "43", for Survey No. "48" Area "0.2188" read "0.1670".
At Page No. 82 against Village Ghenari Tehsil Desuri for Total Area "5.5603" read "5.5085".
At Page No. 83 against Village Shivas Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "246/, 807" Area "0.1109" read "0.0100", for Survey No. "246" Area "0.0720" read "0.2768", and Survey No. "250" Area "0.0010" Survey No. "247" Area "0.1029" shall be deleted.
No. "101" Area "0.0200" shall be deleted. At Page No. 78, 79 against Village Nadol Tehsil Desuri for Survey No. "4598" read "4498", for Survey No. "3465" read "3464", for Survey No. "4583" Area "0.0188" read "0.0480", for Survey No. "4661" Area "0.0600" read "0.0100", for Survey No. "4663" Area "0.1346" read "0.0160", for Survey No. "4690" Area "0.0320" read "0.1500", for Survey No. "3799" Area "0.1550" read "0.2360", for Survey No. "3796" Area "0.1600" read "0.2000", for Survey No. "3792" Area "0.2613" read "0.3400", for Survey No. "3787" Area "0.1188" read "0.1880", for Survey No. "i 582" Area "0.0720" read "0 1 ?40", for Survey No. " 3: 80" Area "0.0080" read "0.0600", for Survey No. "3579" Area "0.0480" read "0.2120", for Survey No. "4519" Area "0.1980" read "0.1580", for Survey No. "45 84" Area "0.1000-read "0.708", for Survey No. "4685" Area "0.4000" read "0.3880", for Survey No. "4691" Area "0.2930" read "0.2720", for Survey No, "4693" Area "0.0400" read "0.0100", for Survey No. "3795" Area "0.1600" read "0.0250", for Survey No. "3783" Area "0.2059" read "0.1600", for Survey No. "3786" Area "0.0240" read "0.0040", for Survey No. "3604" Area "0.2772" read "0.2400", for Survey No. "3499'T Area "0.0320" read "0.0240", and
[F. No. L-14014/7/00-G.P. (Part-II)]
P. M. MEENA, Director3541
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001
S.O, 1709—In pursuance of proviso to rule 4 under explanation of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Competent Authority, Ujjain in consultation with the Gas Authority of India Limited with whom the right of user in land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vest as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of laying water pipeline from Bajna to Khera compressor station aa mentioned in column 8 of the Schedule annexed herewith.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil Village
Notification U/S 3(1)
District
S.O. No. and Date
Date of publication of Gazette Tarana Chikli
Ujjain
Notification U/S 6(1)
S.O. No. and Date
Date of Termination of Operation Date of publication of Gazette
06/04/2000 S O. No. 2235 Date 22/07/99
S.O. 2129
Date 23/10/98
Gazette No. 44 Date 31/10/98
As Above
As Above
Sumrakhcri
As Above
A" Above
Bhodhya
As Above
As Above
Dhanya- khen
As Above
Godadi As Above
As Above
Khathadi As Above Agar
Bajna
Shajapur
Gazette No. 32 Date 07/08/99
08/04/2000 As Above
As Above
As Above
09/04/2000 As Above
As Above
11/04/2000 As Above
11/04/2000 As Above
As Above
As Above
As Above
11/04/2000
15/04/2000
S.O. 2128
Date 23/10/98
Gazette No. 44 Date 31/10/98 Gazette No, 32 Date 07/08/99
S.O. No. 2234 Date 22/07/99
[F. No. L-14014/4/98-G.P.]
SWAMI SINGH, Director 3 5 42 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001
S.O. 1710—In pursuance of proviso to rule 4 under explanation of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Competent Authority, Rajamundry in consultation with the Gas Authority of India Limited with whom the right of user in land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vest as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of laying gas pipeline from Adavipalem to Tatipaka as mentioned in column (8) of the Schedule annexed herewith.
3543SCHEDULE
District Teheil Village
Notification X}l$ }(\)
Notification U/S 6(U
S.O. No. and
Date
Date of publication of Gazette • East
Dtd. 28-8-99 Gazette No, 35 Godavari
Maliki- puram
Sankara- Ouptam
S.O. No. and Date
Date of Termination of Operation Date of publication of Gazette
08-2-2000
S.O. 2407
Date 19-8-99
Nagaram
Mamidik- uduru
Dtd. 1-5-99 Gazette No. 18 Dte. 2-2-2000 No, 71
S.O. No, 92(E) Dte. 1-2-2000
15-11-99
S.O. 1201
Dtd. 19-4-99
Geddada
Mamidik- uduru
Dtd. 1-5-99 Gazette No. 18 Dtd. 13-11-99 Gazette No, 46
S.O. No. 3279 Dtd. 8-11-99
15-11-99
S.O. 1201
Dtd. 19^-99
Dtd. 13-11-99 Gazette No. 46
S.O. No. 3279 Dtd. 8-11-99
01-10-99
S.O. 2445
Dtd. 17-11-98
Kcsana- palli
Dtd. 28-11-98 Gazette No. 48 Maliki- puram
Gudapalli Dtd. 28-11-98 Gazette No. 48 Dtd, 1-5-99 Gazette No, 18
S.O. No. 1202 Dtd. 19-4-99
01-10-99
S.O. 2445
Dtd. 17-11-98
Maliki- puram
Razole
Dtd. 26-9-98 Gazette No. 39 S.O. No. 1202 • Dtd. 19-4-99
Dtd. 1-5-99 Gazette No. 18
01-10-99
S.O. 1905
Dtd. 15-9-98
Chintal- apalli
Razole
Dtd. 26-9-98 Gazette No. 39
Kunav- aram
Dtd. 1-5-99 Gazette No. 18
S.O. No.1203 Dtd. 19-4-99
01-10-99
S.O. 1905
Dtd. 15-9-98
Kadali
Razole
Dtd. 06-3-99 Gazette No. 10 Dtd. 1-5-99 Gazette No. 18
S.O. No, 1203 Dtd. 19-4-99
01-10-99
S.O. 699
Dtd. 23-2-99
Edarada Dtd. 06-3-99 Gazette No. 10 Dtd. 26-6-99 Gazette No. 26
S.O. No.1828 Dtd. 17^-99
01-10-99
S.O. 700
Dtd. 23-2-99
Mamidik- uduru
Dtd, 26-6-99 Gazette No. 26
S.O. No. 1827 Dtd. 17-6-99
[F. No. L-14014/6/98-G.P. (Vol.-H)]
SWAMI SINGH, Director 3544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3545 3546 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001
S.O. 1711.—In pursuance of proviso to rule 4 under explanation of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Competent authority, Kandlo/Jamnagar-Loni LPG Pipeline in consultation with Gas Authority of India Limited with whom the right of user in land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vest as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of lying Gas Authority of India liquified petroleum gas pipeline from Kandlo/Jomnagar-Loni (via Delhi) as mentioned in column (8) of the Schedule annexed herewith
SCHEDULE
Notification U/s 3(1) Notification U/s 6(1)
Date of
District Tchiil Village
Date of
S.O. No.
Termination
SO. No.
Publication
and Date and Date
of Operations
of Gazette
1
4
2
3
5 Naairabad
Date of Publication of Gazette
7
6
8 Modi
797 dated
1054(E) dated
274 dated
29 May, 2000 368(E) dated
Ajmcr
9 December, 1998
24 May, 1999
9 December, 1998 24 May, 1999
368(E) dated
Banevari 797 dated
1054(E) dated
274 dated
29 May, 2000 24 May, 1999
9 December, 1998
24 May, 1999
9 December. 1998
Bhimpura
1O55(E) dated
274 dated
29 May, 2000
797 dated
' 9 December, 1998 368(E) dated
7 December, 1998
453 dated 24 July, 1999
24 May, 1999 24 May, 1999
677 dated 15 Nov., 1999
1099(E) dated 11 Nov., 1999
597(E) dated
24 July, 1999
797 dated
368(E) dated 29 May, 2000
1055(E) dated
Khapri
274 dated
9 December, 1998
7 December, 1998
24 May, 1999
24 May, 1999
677 dated 15 Nov., 1999
1099(E) dated
11 Nov , 1999
453 dated
24 July, 1999
597(E) dated
24 July, 1999
2386(E) dated
274 dated
368(B) dated
29 May, 2000
47 dated
Rampura
17 November, 1998
24 May, 1999
24 May, 1999
21 November, 1998
Ahiran
1099(E) dated
11 Nov., 1999
677 dated 15 Nov., 1999
488 dated
9 Aug., 1999
637(E) dated 9 Aug., 1999
453 dated
24 July, 1999
597(E) dated
24 July, 1999
29 May, 2000
1O55(E) dated
274 dated
368(E) dated
797 dated
Rajosi
24 May, 1999 24 May, 1999
9 December, 1998
9 December, 1998
557(E) dated 7 July, 1999
419 dated 7 July, 1999
29 May, 2000
368(E) dated
1055(E) dated
274 dated
797 dated
Rajgarh
24 May, 1999
9 December, 1998
24 May, 1999
9 December, 1998
557(E) dated 7 July, 1999
419 dated 7 July, 1999
29 May, 2000
Nasirabad
Tihari
Ajmer
2386(E) dated
17 November, 1998
47 dated 21 November, 1998
Jalawara 47 dated 21 November, 1998
368(E) dated 24 May, 1999 557(E) dated 7 July, 1999
274 dated 24 May, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999
29 May, 2000
2386(E) dated
17 November, 1998
Kanpura 47 dated 21 November, 1998 453 dated 24 July, 1999
2386(E) dated 17 November, 1998 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999 274 dated 24 May, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999
368(E) dated 24 May, 1999 557(E) dated 7 July, 1999
29 May, 2000 274 dated 24 May, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
368(E) dated 24 May, 1999 557(E) dated 7 July, 1999 1099(E) dated 11 November, 19993547 4 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 Nasirabad
Ajmcr
Gadcri 797 dated 9 December, 1998 110 dated 22 February, 2000
Dilwari
29 May, 2000 274 dated 24 May, 1999 431 dated 29 June, 2000
368(E) dated 24 May, 1999 612(E) dated 29 June, 2000
1054{E) dated 7 December, 1998 145(E) dated 17 February, 2000
29 May, 2000 431 dated '."> June, 2000
612(E) dated 29 June, 2000
145(E) dated
17 February,
2000
110 dated 22 February, 2000
Modolav
Kishangarh
2685(E) dated 10 December, 1998 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999 477(E) dated 23 June, 1999
52 dated 26 December, 1998 453 dated 24 July, 1999 362 dated 23 June, 1999
Bharla
29 May, 2000 .V)5 dated 17 May, 1999
347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999
1098(E) dated 11 Novombcr, 1999 558(E) dated 7 July, 1999
29 May, 2000 347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999
2685(E) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dated 26 December, 1998
Katsura
29 May, 2000 347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999
268 5(E) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dated 26 December, 1998
Dhulpuriya
2b May, 2000 347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999
2685(E) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dHtcd 26 December, 1998
Bhogadit
29 May, 2000 255 dated 17 May, 1999
347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
2685(E) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dated 26 December, 1998
Dcvpuri
29 May, 2000 255 dated 17 May, 1999
347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
2685(E) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dated 26 December, 1998
477(E) dated
23 June, 1999
362 dated 23 June, 1999
Tihri
1098(E) dated 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
29 May, 2000
347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999
2685(7-) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dated 26 December, 1998
477(K) dated
23 June, 1999
362 dated 23 June, 1999
Kalanada
1098(E) dated 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
29 May, 2000 255 dated 17 May, 1999
347(E) dated 17 May, 1999
2685(E) dated
10 December,
1998
52 dated 26 December, 1998
477(E) dated
23 June, 1999
362 dated 23 June, 1999
Balwanta
1098(E) dated 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
29 May, 2000 274 dated 24 May, 1999
371(E) dated 24 May, 1999
2386(E) dated
17 November,
1998
47 dated 21 November, 1998
636(E) dated
9 August, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999 431 dated 29 June, 2000
1100(E) dated 11 November, 1999 611(E) dated 29 June, 2000
144(E) dated
17 February,
2000
110 dated 22 February, 2000
Data
29 May, 2000 431 dated 29 June, 20no
611(E) dated 29 June, 2000
144(E) dated
17 February,
2000
110 dated 22 February, 2000
2135GI/2001— 13 3548 THET3SZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]1 3 6 7 8 2 4 5
Ajmer
Ajmer
Jatiya
29 May, 2000
110 dated
22 February,
2000
431 dated
29 June,
2000
611(E) dated
29 June,
2000
144(E) dated
17 February,
2000
Piiangan
3 June, 2000
Biraoh-
gawa*
1055(E) dated
9 December,
1998
797 dated
9 December,
1998
274 dated
24 May,
1999
370(E) dated
24 May,
1999
677 dated
15 November,
1999
635(E) dated
9 Auguft,
1999
1101(E) dated
11 November,
1999
488 dated
9 Auguit,
1999
597(E) dated
24 July, 1999
453 dated
24 July, 1999
362 dated
23 June, 1999
477(E) dated
23 June, 1999
3 June, 2000
Coll
255 dated
17 May,
1999
1052(E) dated
9 Deoember,
1998
342(E) dated
17 May,
1999
797 dated
9 Deoember,
1998
3 June, 2000
Doi.iat-
Kheia
255 dated
17 May,
1999
342(E) dated
17 May,
1999
1O52(E) dated
9 December,
1998
797 dated
9 December,
1998
3 June, 2000
Jetharu-
255 dated
17 May,
1999
342(E) dated
17 May,
1999
1052(E) dated
9 Deoember,
1998
797 dated
9 December,
1998
3 June, 2000
Magaliy*-
W"l
255 dated
17 May,
1999
342(E) dated
17 May,
1999
1052(E) dated
9 Deoember,
1998
797 dated
9 December,
1998
477(E) dated
23 June, 1999
362 dated
23 JUM, 1999
25 May, 2000
Madho-
garh
343(E) dated
17 May,
1999
2S5 dated
17 May,
1999
1058(E) dated
9 Deoember,
1998
797 dated
9 December,
1998
477(E) dated
23 June, 1999
362 dated
23 June, 1999
[F. No. L-14014/12/01.GP]
SWAMI SINGH, Director
35493550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001
(2)
(4)
(3)
(5)
(6) 0)
S O, 1 7 1 2 .— Whereas it appear* to the Centra;
Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
the transport of Crude Oil through Chennai Petroleum
Nagapatttnam Municipality (Contd.)
Corporation Limited Cauvcry Basin Refinery Oil Jetty, Nagore
1580 1581 1582 1583
0 0 0 0
09 01 27 02
0 0 0 5 to Cauvery Basin Refinery, Panangudi in the State of Tamil Nadu, pipeline may be laid by the Chennai Petroleum Total
0
417
35 Corporation Limited (CPCL);
Mutt am
96
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that
175
for the purpose of laving said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire
the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is
proposed to be laid, and which is described in the scheduled
2 U
annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-soction (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50
of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention
to acquire the right of usei therein;
Any person, interested in the land described in the said
Schedule, may within twentyonc days from the date on which
176 187 189 190 216 •217 218 227 228 229
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 16 09 07 03 01 14 18 18 07 37 08
0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of
167
Total
0
20 India, arc made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of user therein or laying of the pipeline Thethi
under the land to Competent Authority, Chennai Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Cauvery Basin Refinery, Panangudi,
5 5 0 Nagore Post-611002, Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu.
SCHEDULE
Taluk : Nagapattinam District: Nagapattinam
State: Tamil Nadu
Name of Survey
Sub- Division
No.
192 194 275 276 277 281 282 283
Area
the No. Village
Hectare Are
Sq. Mtr,
21 20 20 20 13 28 28 21 13 02
284 292
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0 0 0
0
IS Total
(4)
(6)
(5)
(1)
186
Vadagudi
Nagapattinam
Municipality
0 0 0
15 70 01
0 0 0
0 5 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 5 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 80 81 89 90 100 101 102 104 108 110
47 28 03 02 18 36 18 00 26 18 38
13
08
0 0 0 0 0 0
111 112 113 129
0
130
0 0 0 0 0 5 5
25 20 02 25
0 0
136 181
30
327
Total
58 02 21 16 09 28 01 14 43 03 20 02 16 02 04
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
UtfaHiMKtepur
0 0 0 5 0 0 5 "nl30 163
0 0 0
5 0 0
07 30 03
165
5
40
0
Total
5 0
5 0 0
03 12 00 01 20 00 01 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1083 2197 2198 2200 2372 2373 2376 2390 2391 239? 2394 2395 2396 2397 1467 1483 1486 1487 1488 1489 1491 1569 1570 1576 1577 1578
[F. No. R-25012/2/2001-OR-1] S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.
3551MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi the 25th June, 2001
S.O.1713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Madras Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-33012/4/97-IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 21st May, 2001 Present : K. KARTHKEYAN,
PRESIDING OFFICER INSUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 500/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No, 85/98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10(1 )(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Claimant, Dr. Ambcdkar Madras Port Trust Dock Labour Board and the Management, The Chairman, Madras Port Trust, Madras.) BETWEEN
The General Secretary, : I Party/Claimant Dr. Ambcdkar Madras Port Trust Dock Labour Board, Madras.
: II Party/Management AND The Chairmaji, Madras Port Trust, Madras. Appearance: For the Claimant : S/Sri K. Raja & Marinath
Advocates
For the Management : R. Arumugham,
Advocate
2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 85/98. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt. this case has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of Jhis Tribunal for adjudi- cation. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D.No. 500/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on cither side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 7-3-2001.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry 7-3-2001, the counsel on cither side and both the parties were not present. So the case was adjourned to 19-3-2001. On that day, the counsel for the II Party alone was present. So the case was adjourned from that date to 4-4-2001, 27-4-2001 and finally to this date on 21-5-2001.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry today both the parties remained absent. The counsel for the II party alone is present. The counsel for the I Party is not present. There is no representation on the side of the I party. This case has been referred as industrial dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour as cHrly as 28-5-1998. The inaction of the I Party/claimant Union by their non-appearanoe and non-representation enables this Tribuanl to conclude that there is no industrial dispute as such now existing between the parties, Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and non-representation.
5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dis- pute1 exists between the I Party/Claimant Union and the II Party/ Management and the rcfcrncc is closed as dismissed. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 21st May, 2001.)
K. KARTHKEYAN, Presiding Officer
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-33012/4/97/IR(M) dt. 28-05-1998 :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Madras Port Trust in deducting the pay and allowances of Shri D. Elumalai, Syrang, Marine Department for 3 days i.e. 18-10-1995, 19-10-1995 and 20-10-1995 in justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
S.O.1714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central, Govcmement Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as shown in the 3552 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Annexurc in the Industrial Diiputc between the employer! in relation to the management Oil & Natrual Gas Commission and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-06-2001.
[No. L-33012/30/89-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXDRE
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
BEFORE SHRI KESHAV SARAN SRIVASTAV,
PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHL
LD.NO. 14/90
Sh. Netar Ram, S/o Shri Mumhi Ram, C/o Sardar B.S.Duggal, Nadikinara, 7-A, Chekrata Road, Dehradun-248001
Versus
The Chairman, Oil & Natrual Oas Commission, Tel Bhawan, Dehradun
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has sent this reference under sections 10 (1) (d) and 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Aot, 1947 vide Order No. L-30012/30/89- I.R. (Miso) dated 25-1-90 for the : Jjudication of Industrial Dispute reaised on behalf of the workman on the following terms:—
"Whether the action of the Management of ONGC, Dehradun, in terminating the services of Shri Netar Ram, S/o Shri Munshi Ram, Contingent Guard, with effect from January, 1984 is justified, if not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. The Statement of Claim, WS & Rejoinder were exchanged between the parties and the case reached at the stage of Mangemcnt Evidence. Due to non-appearance of the workman in the case for a long time. The Management Evidence oould not be completed.
3. Now this application dated 22-5-2001 has been given by Sh. R. Goylc, Authorised Representative of the workman stating that he had lost contact with the workman for the last more than six years he has now been given the information that the workman namely Sh. Netar Ram had died long back in his native village in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus it is prayed that proceeding of the case bo closed.
4. On behalf of the management vide endorsement on the application it is not objected.
5. In view of the fact the prayeer of the Authorised Representative of the workman is accepted and a No Dispute Award is given in the case.
K. S. SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer 18th June, 2001
S.O.1715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Aot, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Governement Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rail Coach factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-06-2001.
[No. L41012/95/89-IR(DU)/(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RL. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH. CASE NO. ID 69/90
Avtar Singh Son of Shri Joginder Singh V.P.O. Iban, Distt. Karupthala (Pb.) Workman.
Vs.
,.. Management.
General Manager, Rail Coach factory, Kapurthala (Pb.) Appearances For the workman : Shri S.S. Bains For the Management: Shri N.K. Zakhmi
AWARD (Passed on dated 1-5-2001)
The Central Govt. vide gazette notification no, L-41012/ 95/89/IR(DU) dated 17th May 1990 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the Management of G.M. Rail Coach Factory in terminating the services of Shri Avtar Singh, Ex. Khalasi vide their letter dated 2-12-1988 is justified? If not, to what he is entitled to and from what date?" 2. The claim of the workman in brief is that his land was acquired by Rly. administration for the construction of Rail Coach Factory at Kapurthala and consequently he became the oustec of that land. The Rly. Admn. appointed him as casual labourer w.e.f. 1-9-1987 at Rail Coach Faotory, Cement Godown, Kapurthala. Thereafter he was promoted as semi skilled khalasi w.e.f. 14-2- 1988 and subsequently he was screened as regular khalasi on 23-2-1988. He was getting his salary in the scale of Rs. 800— 1150.
3. His services were terminated illegally by the management though he had worked for 360 days in Rail Coach Fotory. No chargeshect was given to him and no enquiry was held by the manangement, The provisions of Section 25-B & F of I.D. Act, 1947 were not oomplicd with by the management. The opportunity of being heard were not given to the workman.
4. The services of the workman were terminated on the ground of the commission of the offence of theft of cement bags. He was prosecuted for that offence alongwith another employee Shri Inderjeet Singh. The offence was registered by3553
the polioo against both of them. The termination of Shri Inderjit
Singh from service has been setaside by Central Admn.
Tribunal. Therefore, the claim of the workman is also
considerable. The junior persons ore still in the service of the
Rly. The termination of the services of the workman is arbitrary
and contrary to law. Therefore, the claim of the workman be
allowed and the management be directed to reinstate him in
service with continuity of service and full backwages and other
incidental benefits.
5. The management hai filed its written statement in
Rs. 750-940. As per Ex. W5, the workman had completed 360
days on 4-1-1988. As per Ex. W6, he was promoted to the post
of semi-skilled in grade 800-1150 on ad hoc basis. Thus it has
been proved that on the date of termination of his services he
was working as semi-skilled khalasi in regular scale. The
temporary status was given to him by the mangement. On persual
of the Ex. W10 it is evident that the services of the workman
were terminated under Rule, 301 of Indian Rly. Establishment
Code and relevant rules of ID. Aot 1947. On going through
Rule 301 it is noticed that the services of the workman could not
be terminated without holding any departmental enquiry and
without giving him any opportunity of being heard, about his
misconduct. It is evident from the persual of the record that the
retrenchement compensation was not paid to him under the
provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act 1947. Thus it has
been amply proved that the termination of tho services of the
workman was arbitrarily and against the servloes Rules and
provisions of the I.D. Act,
which it has been alleged that the workman and other employee
Inderjit Singh had drawn cement on fake indent from Rly. store
and they were caught red handed while selling the oement
unauthoriscdly outside the Rail Coach Factory Campus. F.I.R,
was lodged against them and the case was registered by police
deptt. U/S 3 of Rly. Property Unlawful Possession Act. Due to
this reason the services of the workman were terminated by
the management.
11. The copy of the judgment of CAT. Chandigarh has
been exhibited as Ex. W8, By this judgment the termination of
the servioes of Inderjit Singh was setaside and he was reinstated
in service, The management was also directed to pass a fresh
order of suspension and to proceed further In a court of law or
departmental^ against Shri Inderjit Singh. Tho finding of CAT.
Is not binding on this Tribunal even though dual mode of direction
could not be issued by this Tribunal whan the oaae of workman
and Inderjit ilngh were similar. Under these oiroumitanocs, It is
not desirabale by this Tribunal to hold enquiry itself,
6. The management has oontended that the workman
WM employod in Rail Coach Factory as casual khtlasi being
oustM of land and was granted temporary status. His services
were never regularised by the management. Due to theft oase,
the workman was not worthy of confidence and it was not
desirable to retain him in servioe. Being a temporary employe*
the enquiry was not hold against him and one month pay was
given to him in lieu of notice of one month. The management
has not violated the prinoiple of natural justioe and the provision
of Industial Disputes Act, 1947. After his termination of service
he remained gainfully employed, therefore, the claim of the
workman bo dismissed with heavy cost.
7. The workman has filed replication in which he has
reaffirm the allegations made in the oloim statement.
8. The following facts are admitted in this oase.
(a) The workman was an oustee of his land which
was aoquired for the construction of Rail Coach
Factory at Kapurthala.
(b) He wai appointed by the management as oasual
labourer w.e.f. 1-9-1987.
(o) Scrvion of the workmn* were terminated without
holding departmental enquiry.
9. The workman has submitted his affidavit
12. Keeping In view the discussions made above, this
Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the termination of the
services of the workman vide letter dated 2-12-1988 is not
Justifiod. Therefore, the reference Is answered by holding that
the aotion of the management of Rail Coach Faotory In
terminating the services of Shri Avtar Singh Ex-Khalasl vide
their letter dated 2-12-1988 is not Justified, Therefore, he it
entitled to be reinstated in service on the date of termination of
his servioes, with continuity of service, He shall be entitled to
got 50% of the back wages and other consequential relief. The
management will be at liberty to hold enquiry under
departmental rules against the workman If it thinks proper to
do so. Both parties shall bear their oost, of these proceedings.
Appropriate Oovt. be informed,
Chandigarh.
1-5-2001.
B.L. JATAV, Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
Ex. Wl and other documents relating to his service record which
has been exhibited as W2 to W6. The management has
submitted the affidavit of Senior Engineer Shri P.K. Ooyal and
Asstt. Engineer O.S. Virdl whioh have been exhibited as Ex.
Ml and M2 respectively. The management has submitted
documents Ex. M3 to M5, The workman has,been cross-
examined by the management and he has denied all the facts
put up In his cross-examination by the management. The
witnessses of the management have been cross-examined by
the rep. of the workman. Shri P.K. Ooyal MW1 has deposed
that the workman and Inderjit Singh were prosecuted for the
oharge of theft. The services of Inderjit Singh were also
terminated by the management. His termination has been
setaside by the Central Admn. Tribunal and now he is under
suspension: The order of the CAT. has been exhibited as Ex.
W8. The workman has also submitted the certified copy of the
criminal case in whioh workman alongwith other accused were
aoquitted of the oharge of theft by Chief Judicial Magistrate
Kapurthala.
S.0.1716,—In pursuanoe of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Aot, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby
10. Ex. W2 is the appointment letter vide whioh the
workman was appointed as temporary khalasl in the soale of
3554 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Mysore Minerals Ltd, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-29012/39/94-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', HI MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE DATED : 30th May, 2001 PRESENT : Hon'blc Shri V. N. Kulkarni B.Com LLB Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
CR NO. 7/97
II PARTY
I PARTY The General Secretary, The Chairman and Managing Mysore Minerals Ltd., Director Mysore Minerals Employees Union, Ltd., No. 39. M. G. Road, M. G. Road, Bangalore. Bangalorc-560001 Advocate— Advocate— Shri R. Sharathchandra Shri Shivarama
S.O. 1717.—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, Chennai as shown in the Annexure 'in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Moon Rock Ages, Pvt., Ltd, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-29012/49/96-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Diaputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-29012/39/94-IR (Misc) dated 16th December, 1994 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MAY, 2001 PRESENT: K. KARTHKEYAN, PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 410/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. NO. 99/96) (In the matter of the dispute for adujdication under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Workman Shri N. Rajarathinam and the Management, M/s. Moon Rock Ages. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore).
BETWEEN
"Whether the action on the part of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in not regularising the services of the workman Shri J. G. Chandrappa as regular Monthly rated Mine Mate with effect from 1-2-1990 is justified ? If not to what relief the employees is entitled to ?"
2. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement. The case of the first party union is that the workman Shri J.G. Chandrappa joined the second party management on 6-9-85 amd the management extracted the work from him and he was designated as Mate Assistant. But ho was not regularised. Therefore the first party union has prayed to pass award in its favour.
Shri N. Rajarathinam : I Party/Workman
AND
The Managing Director, : II Party/ Management M/s. Moon Rook Ages. Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Appearance :
For the workman : M/s. S. Muthukrishnan
& S. Elangovan, Advocates
For the Management : M/s. S. Navaneetha
Krishnan and S. Kadarkarai, Advocates
AWARD
3. Second party appeared and filed counter contending that the workman was working as a daily rated employee and there is no merit in this dispute. The demand of the workman to consider him as monthly rated workman cannot be conceeded as per the bank policy. Management has prayed to reject the reference.
4. It is seen from the records that there after parties did not appear and participated in the proceedings. Many adjournments were given but parties remained absent. Therefore I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER The reference is rejected. (Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 30th May 2001)
V,N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide Order No,L-29012/49/96-IR(M) dt. 13-11-1996 :
"Whether the action of the Management of Moon Rook Ages Pvt Ltd., Bangalore in denying employment to the workman Shri N. Rajarathinam with effect from 24-11-1995 is justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled?"3555 2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 99/96. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt. this case has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu Slate Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D. No. 410/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on cither side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to -ppear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 22-02-2001.
•'.. • . 3, When the matter was taken up for enquiry on New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
S.O. 1718.—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 Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mysore Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-29012/103/94-IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', HI MAIN, HI CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, Y E S H W A N T H P U R, BANGALORE Dated : 12th Jiine 2001
Present : Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com, LLB, Presiding Officer
C.R. NO. 31/97
1 PARTY
II PARTY
The General Secretary, The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Ltd., Mysore Minerals Ltd., Employees Union, No. 39, M. G. Road, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore-560 001 Bangalore-560 001
22:2-2001, the counsel on either side were not present and both ; the parties were also absent. Hence; the case was adjourned to '.,*.:3-2001. On that day the oou.nsel for the n Party alone was , present. Both the parties and the counsel for the I Party remained absent. Since the counsel for the II Party informed the Court •that the II Party has no document and the II Party relies upon the document filed by the I Party himself, So the case was adjourned, to 26-2-2001 finally for enquiry. As the Presiding Officer was holding Camp Court on that day, the oase was adjourned to 18-4-2001. On 18-4-2001, and 14-5-2001, to whioh dates the case was adjourned for enquiry, both the parties and their respective counsel were not present and there was no representation on either side hence, the case was finally adjournod to 30-04-2001 since it happens to be an old case- referred for adjudication by the Ministry by its order dated l3'-ll-1996.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry to day, i.c 3O-O5-2001, as usual both the parties remained absent. The counsel appearing on either side also arc not present. There is no representation on either side. The inaction of the I Party/ Workman by his non-appearance and non-representation, ever since the case has been transferred i . the file of this Tribunal for adjudication from the month of February, 2001 enables this Tribunal to conclude that there is no industrial dispute as such now existing between the parties. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for non-representation.
5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dispute' exists between the I Party/Workman and the II Party/ Management and the reference is closed as dismissed. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 30th May, 2001.)
K. KARTHKEYAN, Presiding Officer 213J GI/2001—14.
, (Advocate-r (Advocate—
G. Sreramaiah) Shri; T. Putta Swamy)
AWARD
1. Thfi Central Government by etferciSjfig the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide onjer No. L-29012/103/94-IR (Misc) dated 10-4-1995 for adjudication on the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the denial of promotion to the workman Shri Nagesha as Minemate w.e.f, 1-10-98 by the management of Mysore Minerals Ltd. is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. The First party workman is working with the Second party management. He is denied promotion therefore dispute is raised.
3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.
The case of the first party in brief is as follows:
4. The main grtvancc of thefirst party is that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings the management has promoted the workman as a minemate, but however it has been given retrospectively w.e.f. IT 10r88 and even the monetary benefits also has not been extended. The first party workman is legally entitled for promotion as Minemate from 1-10-88 and some of his 3556 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] juniors have already been promoted w.e.f. 1-10-88. The action of the management in denying promotion to him is not correct. For all these reasons the first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.
5. The second party appeared and filed Counter. 6. The case of the second pfcrty in brief is as under:
7. The case of the second party is that the first party is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by him in this dispute.
8. It is the further case of the management that first party workman is not entitled for monetary benefits. The action of the management is correct. The first party workman was promoted as a Blas.^r w.e.f. 1-1-83 and on his acquiring of Mine Mates certificate of competency and having regard to his seniority he was promoted as Mine Mate with effect from 27-12-1995 with the benefit of pay scale, and not with the alleged retrospective effect from 1-10-1988 as claimed by the first party. The first party was not eligible for promotion. This dispute has no merit. Therefore Second party has prayed to reject the reference.
9. It is seen from the records that even after giving many adjournments first party was absent. Thereafter management examined one witness. MW1 is the management witness. Various documents are marked in his evidence. He is not cross examined. Evidence was closed and arguments were heard.
10. At the very outset I am of the opinion that there is not an iota of material placed by first party to say that he is entitled for promotion and benefits respectively. According to management witness there are recruitment rules and there is seniority list. MW has stated that first party workman is not entitled for promotion as claimed because he is not senior and he has not fulfilled the required qualification. I have carefully pcnjsed seniority list and recruitment rules.
11. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 12th June 2001)
V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001
S.O. 1719.— 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-cum-Labour Court, Bhubneshwar (Orissa) as shown in the Annexurc, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Nuasahi Chromite Mines, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-6-2001. fNo. L-29012/122/98-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT : BHUBANESHWAR Present : Shri S.K. Dhal, OSJS (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. Tr. LD. 218/2001 Bhubaneswar, the 6th June 2001
Between:
The Management of Nuasahi Chromite Mines, Rasulgarh, Bomikhal, Bhubaneshwar.
,. First Party
Management.
AND Their Workman Smt. Sakhi Naik At/Po. Kupari, Balasore.
... Second Party Workman APPEARANCES :
None ... For the First Parry
—Management None ... For the Second Parry
—Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L. 29012/ 122/98/IR (M), dated 13-1-1999 :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Nuasahi Chromite Mines of IMFA Ltd. in terminating the services of Smt. Sakhi Naik, Mazdoor without any charge and violating the principles of natural justice and provisons of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to" ? "Whether the demand of the workman Smt. Sakhi Naik on Nuasahi Chromite Mines of IMFA Ltd. for reinstatement with full backwages is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled" ? 2. While making reference the Government of India (Ministry of Labour) has intimated the parties to file their3557 respective Claim Statement and Written Statement, List of documents and List of witnesses before the Tribunal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of reference. The Tribunal also intimated both the parties to take part in the proceeding. This Tribunal has also issued notices to both the parties but they fail to attend. 3. The above circumstances, suggest that presently no disputes exists between the parties and the workman has got no cause of action and She is not entitled for any relief.
4. Hence, the reference is answered accordingly, Dictated and Corrected by me.
S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 26 June, 2001
S.O. 1720.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal- oum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the ONGC Ltd. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26-6-2001.
[No. L-30011/3/2000/IR (M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVEPNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 30th May, 2001
PRESENT :
K. Karthikcyan—Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 19/2000
(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section 10(lXd) and Sub-section (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 between the Workmen and O.N.G.C. Ltd. Cauveri Project, Karaikkal, Management.) BETWEEN The General Secretary, : Claimant/I Party Petroleum Coal Labour Union, Thanjavur.
AND 1. The Dy. General Manager ( P & A), Management/ ONGC Ltd. Cauveri Project, II Party Neravci, Karaikkal. 2. The Regional Direotor,
ONGC Ltd. Chennai. 3. Shri V. Anbazhahan,
Karaikkal.
4. Shri G. Kahapcrumal,
P. Kothagai.
5. M/s. ESKAY Electricals,
Nagapattinam.
6. M/s, Electrical India,
Nagapattinam.
APPEARANCE: For the Claimant
....M/s. R.Ganesan & . V. Gangadharan, Advocates
For the Management Shri P. Arulmudi, Advocate for
1 and 2 For 3 to 6 : None REFERENCE ; Order No.L-3001 l/3/2000/IR(M) dt. 29-5-2000, Govt.of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
This dispute on ooming up before me for final hearing on 15-5-2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, the oral and documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for Union Shri R. Ganesan and the counsel for the Management Shri Arulmudi and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following:—
AWARD
This reference by the Central Govvernment in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of dispute between the Workmen and the Management of ONGC Ltd., Neravci, Karaikkal, mentioned as schedule appended to the order of reference, The Schedule reads as follows:—
"Whether the action of the Management of ONGC in not regularizing the services of 125 contract workers (as per annexure A) is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"
The facts of this industrial dispute between the I and II Party are briefly as follows:—
The General Secretary, Petroleum Coal Labour Union . Thanjavur. Claimant/1 Party (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has raised the industrial dispute, in question for regularizing 125 contract workers by the Management of Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Cauveri Project, Neravei, Karaikkal, When the conciliation talks were held before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), n Party "No. 3 to 6 who are contractors and the Management II Party 1 and 2 were impleaded. A" the conciliation ended in a failure the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) submitted a failure of conciliation report to the Goverenment. The Central Government in rum was pleased to refer this dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal under the above said order of reference. The Workmen mentioned in the Annexure 'A' to the reference are the Members of the Petitioner Union. They are working in the concern, ONGC Ltd. Neravei, Karaikkal under the Management of Respondents 1 and 2 through the Contractors, who are Respondents 3 to 6 for so many years. All these workmen arc having requisite educational .as well as professional qualifications, as they are continuously working for years together in the Respondent/ Management concern, they have crossed the prescribed age for employment elsewhere and hence they cannot get any employment opportunity anywhere. The Central Government in the Notification dated 8-9-94 abolished the labour system adopted by the ONGC in 13 categories of labour. Evenaftcr the 3558 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of two years, there is no obligation much less any contractual obligation under the said project. Therefore, the Respondent/ Management need not provide any regular employment to the concerned workmen, since the nature of work is merely project work and not perennial in nature. Basioally the nature of work involves job contract which envisages accomplishment of work as per the technical specification, The job does not exclusively speak about deployment of manpower alone and includes completion of work with aid and assistance of external resources including machine power whenever required. The Petitioners1 Union Members have been employed by the 3, 4, 5 and 6th Respondents pursuant to a job contract dated 29-9-95, 30-11-94, 1-2-96, 1-2-96 respectively. In these contracts, the remuneration payable to the 3, 4, 5 and 6th Respondents is based on the total contract which includes cost of material, cost of machine. There is no nexus between the 1 st Respondent/ Management and the workmen in terms of agreement. At no point of time, the 1st Respondent deals directly with the concerned workmen in respect of remuneration, discipline, appeal and punishment, employment and non-employment. The concerned workmen of 3,4,5 and 6th Respondent were received their remuneration directly from them. Therefore, the relief sought for by the Petitioner Union, on behalf of the concerned workmen cannot be granted by this Tribunal as an Award.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union and one workman Shri J. Mohammed Sulaiman were examined as WW1 and WW2 respectively. On the side of the Management, Industrial Relations Officer, Shri Mohan Raj was examined HS MW1. On the side of the Petitioner exhibits Wl to W8 were marked and on the side of the Management only one exhibit as Ml was marked. The arguments advanced by learned counsel on either side were heard.
abolition of contract labour system, the 1st and 2nd Respondent did not abolish the contract labour system. Therefore, the union made a demand on the Management for abolition of contract system of labour and regularization of the concerned workmen. The Union gave list of 125 workers in the dispute before the conciliation officer. Some of the workers filed separate Writ Petition in the High Court of Madras. As the management of ONGC sought to have oust the concerned workmen, the Petitioner Union have to file W.P. 4699/96 in the High Court of Madras and obtained an injunction restraining the Respondents from stopping from service. As many workers filed individual Writ Petitions, the names of those workers were jeleted from the list Anncxure 'A' and the Petitioner Union is confined to pursue the dispute only in respect of 12 workers mentioned in the memo filed by the Petitioner Union. For the above 12 workers, 8 workers were employed as electricians "nd others arc Drivers. The other drivers have already filed writ petition in the High Court for regularization of their service as per notification of the Central Government and that result is duly applicable to the drivers. After the abolition of contract labour by the Government on 8-9-94, the I Respondent had changed the designation mentioned in the identity cards of the workmen as contract labour. It is an unfair labour practice. The work, these employees are doing is of permanent nature and continuous. They worked for 12 hours per day arid on holidays and festival holidays. The Respondent 1 and 2 Management bad indulged in engaging these workmen as contract labourers. It is against the principle of law and amounts to unfair labour practice. The Respondent 1 and 2 Management cannot have right to continue such procedure in engaging the workmen for their conoern, The Respondent 1 and 2 Management have to regularize the services of these workmen as per law. Only to evade rcgularizfltion of these workmen, the Respondent 1 and 2 Management with bad intention indulged in engaging the workmen as contract labourers, which is against the provisions of Industrial Law. So, the Petitioners have to be regularized in the service of the Respondent 1 & 2 Management, and the consequential monetary benefits have to be given to these 12 workmen.
4. The point for my consideration is "whether the action of the Management of ONGC in not regularizing the services of 125 contract workers (as per annexure A) (now restricted to 12 workmen as per the memo filed by 1st Party Union) is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?" Point :
2. The II Party 1 and 2 - Management of ONGC Ltd., only are contesting this industrial dispute as Respondents 1 and 2, the other four persons, who are contractors have not chosen to take part in this case and they remained absent. The Claim of the Petitioner Union, on behalf of the 12 workmen is being disputed by the Respondent 1 and 2 Management. Their contention in the Counter Statement is briefly as follows:-
The contractors shown as Respondents 3 to 6 in the Claim Petition remained ex-parto. The Management Respondent 1 and 2 only have filed their Counter Statement disputing the claim of the Petitioner/Union- Though initially, the Petitioner union was espousing the cause of 125 workmen, when the matter was taken up for enquiry the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union had filed a memo informing this Tribunal ihat the Petitioner/Union is restricting its claim in this industrial dispute in respect of the 12 named workmen in the memo, So, at present, the industrial dispute as referred to by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India fyr adjudication by this Tribunal has been restricted to only 12 concerned workmen.
The I Respondent is Goverenmcnt of India company under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi, having various wofk centres/offices and regions spread'over throijghout India. As per the directions received from the Headquarters office/Govt. of India, construction work is undertaken for exploration and exploitation of Hydrocarbons. The workmen now represented by this I Party/ Union, are not at all workmen employed by the Respondent Corporation continuously, The Respondents 3 to 6 are contractors of ONGC and they haVc been entrusted with the work of corporation to attend to the same within stipulated artd specifio mutually agreed period. In order to attend to the project work, written contract agreements were entered into between the Respondent/Management with the contractors only for two years. The project work entrusted under written contract has to be finished within stipulated period of two years, After expiry
5. Out of the 12 concerned workmen 8 are employed as electricians and others are as drivers. On behalf of the 8 workmen who are electrician one Sulaiman was examined as . WW2 and the General Secretary of the Union one Shri Santhanam was examined as WW1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Union had advanced an argument that the 1 si Respondent Oil & Natural Gas Commission is the Principal employer having its project at Neravi as Cauveri project and all the 8 workmen electricians, hold lioenoe to work as electrician and the said work is of permanent nature and is continuous. They workod 12 hours per day and worked on holidays and festival3559 arc employed for the regular work of ONGC through various contractors has not been substantiated by any evidence, and in the absence of any such proof, the claim of the concerned workmen for rcgularization is untenable. The respondent ONGC Management has its own recruitment regulations and the posts specified therein are to be filled up only in accordance with the regulations. The Respondents 3 to 6 vvcrc contractors, who were provided with contractors service for specified work- in the project and the contract is time bound subject to availability of work and it is not perennial and the engagement of labour was left to the discretion of the licensed contractors The labourers were not employed by the ONGC management. The Respondent Management did not engage or exercise control over the contract labourers. The contractor only had such control over the concerned workmen, provided they were in his employment. The concerned workmen have not established the nature of employment, period of employment, alleged supervisory control and they have not filed any documentary proof to show that they were engaged by ONGC for regular work. They have also not established the perennial nature of work. On the contrary, there are regulations governing recruitment to posts in the ONGC and the work entrusted to the contractors is only based on the deed and for specified duration. The plea that the concerned workmen are engaged for long years have not been proved. No evidence has been produced in support of their claim. Moreover, the nature of work, the concerned workmen were attending cannot be comparable to the work in regular establishment. Though there is no work, the concerned workmen arc continuing by virtue of interim order granted by the High Court of Madras against their termination. Hence, this Tribunal may pass an award holding that the concerned workmen are not entitled to the relief as claimed.
holidays. As per the evidence of WW2, their work is supervised by Superintending Engineer and Deputy Superintending Engineer of ONGC and these people worked along with the permanent workers of ONGC in electrical group gathering station and effluent treatment plants. Their work is an integral part of the main work of ONGC and WW2 have also deposed that their salary is paid only after getting it from the principal employer. In the oil exploration of work of ONGC, oil and gas are extracted in group gathering station, Narimanam Cauvery Project. Oil is stored in tanks and is pumped to M.R.L. For that purpose workers arc employed. Contract labourers attend to storage motors, pumping motors, fire safety motors, street light faults, look after generators, room lights and fans. This is not project work like rigs. This is of permanent nature. It is not disputed that ONGC was principal employer of the workmen concerned. MW1 has ad.-.itted that ONGC is the principal employer and the Contract Labourers Act applies. Though it is said that they are changing the contractors, his evidence is that the workers are not changed. So their work is continuous and permanent nature. Under section 10 of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition Act) contract labour system is liable to be abolished, if nature of work is permanent and continuous. The Central Govt. have already abolished the contract labour system in 13 categories. Because of the interim order of the High Court, the Management is having the same contract and labourers and have not been terminated from service. As per the contention of the Management, when there is no master and servant relationship between the I Respondent Management and the concerned workmen there is no reason for not terminating the contract labourers. It amounts to acceptance of master and servant relationship to the contract workers. ONGC has not obtained any licence under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The workers were given identity card in the beginning and it is also produced. It is the duty of the contractor to the principal employer to maintain register for wages and the number of days worked. Muster rolls were maintained in the beginning, later it was given up. Though the workmen were designated as technicians earlier, it was changed by ONGC as contract labourers. Certificates of work were also given by the ONGC. The Management has disciplinary control over the contract labourers and they have pow 'e to send them out They have control over payment of wages also. The work of the contract labourers being permanent and continuous, it is imperative that their services should be regularized. As per the decision of the Supreme Court on abolition of contract labour system by necessary implication, principal employer is under statutory obligation to absorb contract labour that the workmen who had served 240 days of service should be absorbed. Hence, the concerned workmen are entitled to be regularized as the work is of permanent in nature and it is continuous. Once the workers are required to work under the supervision of the ONGC officers and as the workers have to be paid under direction of ONGC, the master and servant relationship is established. Considering all these things which are in favour of the concerned workmen the Tribunal can pass an award holding that the concern contract worker* are entitled for regularization and absorption in their service.
7. The perusal of the oral evidenco as well as documentary evidence let in on either side, go to show that nothing is availabio as proof to conclude that the concerned workmen have been directly employed by the Respondent/ Management ONGC Ltd. It cannot be disputed that the Management ONGC Ltd, has its own recruitment regulations and only in accordance with those regulations, the permanent posts in the ONGC Ltd. Management can be filled up. Respondents 3 to 6 are contractors under the Respondent Management ONGC Ltd. There is evidence to that effect available in this case that these concerned workmen employed as electricians and drivers have been employed through contractors. Respondents 3 to 6. It is the evidence of WW1 that one Saravana Mohan one among the present 12 concerned workmen was doing electrical operator work under the contractor and he was getting monthly salary from the contractor. It is his further evidence that he has not submitted any document to show that he was drawing monthly salary. He further adds that the said workman was working as assistant to permanent employee in the Generator Operator Section of ONGC. And he does not know personally as to who gave instructions to the concerned workman to work as the helper to the permanent employee of generator operator section of ONGC. The said Saravana Mohan has not been examined as witness here. It is the further evidence of WW1 that Saravana Mohan was employed as such for 8 years. It is his admission that he has not filed any documents in support of the said averment. It is his further evidence that Uthrapathy, Rajkumar were also worked under the contractor Electrical India for 8 and 7 years 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would argue that the concerned workmen are not the workmen of Respondent 1 and 2 Management and they have not been engaged by the ONGC management. The concerned workmen 3560 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 (PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employee and the Management ONGC has no power lo take disciplinary action against such persons. It is his further evidence that ONGC Management are not paying any wages or salary for such workmen deployed by the contractors for doing the job work by the contractor to do under the agreement. Against this specific evidence of MW1 no acceptable or documentary evidence available on record in support of their claim that concerned employees were employed directly by the ONGC Management and they were paid by them only directly. No proof like attendance, payment voucher, or any document showing the employer and employee relationship between the ONGC Management and concerned workmen has been filed by the Petitioner Union in this case. It is held in a case reported as 1994 (59) FLR 232 R.K. PANDA AND OTHERS Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS by the Supreme Court that "however, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood ofOie contract labour cannot by itself give rise to right to regularisation in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage under smoke screen as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of requisite material".
The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this case also the concerned workmen admittedly employed through the contractors as contract labourers have not established with the requisite material to come to the conclusion that that the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and H smoke screen. On the other hand, there is a categorical evidence of the Management as pleaded in the Counter Statement of Respondents 1 and 2 that the concerned employees are not directly employed by the Respondent Management ONGC Ltd. and there is no master and servant or employer and employee relationship between themselves. To disprove this evidence of MW1, no material is available in this case on the side of the Petitioner as an acceptable substantiate evidence. So under such circumstances, this Tribunal can easily come to the conclusion that the relief of rcgulanzation of service of these concerned twelve workmen by the Respondent Management ONGC Ltd. cannot be granted. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.
8. On the basis of the above findings, it is held that the
action of the Management of ONGC in not regularizing the services of 125 contract workers as per annexurc "A" (now restricted to 12 workmen, as per the memo) is justified and the concerned workmen is not entitled lo any relief
9. In the result, an award is passed holding that the Petitioner union, which is espousing the case of the workmen concerned is not entitled for the relief of regulanzation of service for the concerned workmen, as prayed for. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 30th May, 2001).
K. KARTHKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined; For I Parrv/Workman: W.W1 Shri S.Santhanam
respectively. It is his further evidence that the workmen M. Vellaichamy, Scranandham, Mohammed Sulaiman, (WW2) have worked for 7 years under the contractors. The workmen Vcdamoorthy, Tholhappian, S. Raju, S, Ounasekaran, M. Mahcndran, P. Muralidharan were also worked under the contractor for number of years but they have not filed any document to show about their years of service. Though it is his evidence that the ONGC Management has paid salary directly to these workmen, it is his evidence that they have not produced any documents to that effect. WW2 Mohammend Sulaiman, one among the concerned 12 workmen had admitted in the cross examination that he had not given any particulars as he has mentioned it as evidence to WW1 the General Secretary while filing the Claim Petition. He has not filed any document in Court to show that he waa working in the electrical department in the ONGC. A temporal pass issued to WW2 on 18-10-95 and pass no 910 by the Security section of ONGC upto 17-1-96 has been filed as Ex. W8. It was renewed from 22-4-96 to 21-7-96. It is his evidence that though there was a change in the contractor he used to work continuously. A perusal of the temporary pass Ex. W8 shows that in the column "status" what waa written earlier was covered with whitcner and on that it is written as 'contractual worker". So from all these available documentary cvidenoe as well as oral evidence of WW1 and WW2, it is seen that these concerned 12 workmen have worked as contractual labourers under the contractors of the Respondent/Management ONGC Ltd. The Management witness has stated clearly in his evidence that Ex. Ml is a communication sent by M/s. Vivek Enterprises to the Management wherein they have stated that the workman Sri S. Gunasekaran, Mahcndran, P. Muralidharan have already left their services and these three workmen are not working under their oontract. He has also produced the prescribed recruitment procedure to the followed by ONGC for the recruitment of different posta. It is his further evidence that there is no post in the Management for recruitment of workmen as helper or assistant to the permanent employee in the generator operating section or as helper to the permanent employee of instrumentation technician. No such helper or assistant is working in those sections under any contractor as a contractual labourer in the ONGC. It is his further evidence that the work of ONGC is not permanent in nature in a particular project work and that the ONGC Management used to move from one project to another for this oil and natural gas exploration and exploitation. He has admitted that ONGC Management has contractors by name Electrical India, Vivek Enterprises and some other contractors. It is his specific evidence that ONGC Management used to have job contracts with such contractors under contractual agreements for a specific period and in those contracts the work that has got to be done as job contracts used to be mentioned clearly. Like that the ONGC management has entered into job contracts with Electrical India contractor under an agreement dated 21-5-95 for the first time and with the contractor M/s. Vivek enterprises under the agreement dated 29-9-84 and those contracts were for a period of two years extendable for a period of six months in two spells. It is his further evidence that as per the contract the contractor only has to deploy persons for doing the job work entrusted to him under job contract, and the contractor only has to pay wages for the employees deployed for work. Further it is his categorical evidence that the Respondent ONGC have no relationship with the persons deployed by the contractor as employer and3561 W.W2 Shri J. Mohammed Sulaiman For II Partv/Managemcnt: M.W.I . Shri M. Mohanraj Documents Marked: For I Party/Workman:
hX.MQ. Wl
Date 09.12.99
W2 08.09.94
W3 02.03.95
W4 08 12.95
Description Certified copy of the order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 6873/98 and the connected W.M.Ps. Copy of Notification issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour. Copy of a letter from Petroleum Coal labour Union to the Management. Copy of a letter from Petroleum Coal Labour Unior to the Management.
W5 03.05.97
20 10.97
W6
Copy of a letter from Petroleum Coal Labour Union to the Management. Copy of letter from Under Secretary lo the Govt. of India to Management.
W7 12.11 98
W8 18.10.95
Copy of a letter from Petroleum Coal Labour Union to the Management. Photo pass of Shri J Mohamed Sulaiman bearing No. 910 (Original). .
For JI Partv/Manaacment: Ml 08.01.2001 Letter from the Contractor Shri D. Ramalingam, Vivek Enterprises to the Management.
New Delhi, the 26th June. 2001
S.O. 1721.—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-cum-Labour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Anncxurc, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26-6-2001.
[No. L-300) 1/65/99/IR (M)] B.M. DAVID, Under. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI
PRESENT : S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CG1T-2/49 of 2000. EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
M/s. Balmer Lawric & Co. Ltd.,
The General Manager,
G-16, MIDC Ind. Dcv. Area, Taloja, Raigad-410 208
AND
Their Workmen
Taloja Balmer Lawrie Employees Union. 101 A, Sai Narayan Darshan, Near Om Bakery, Tilak Road, Panvel, Raigad.
APPEARANCES . For the employer : S/Shri C.V. Pavaskar, S. V. Mokashi and PC. Pavaskar Advocates.
For the Workmen No Appearance.
Mumbai, the 31st May, 2001
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-30011/65/99/IR(M), dated 16/3/2000 and letter dtd 29-6-2000, have referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred on it by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
"Whether the action of the management of M s. Balmer Lawric & Co Ltd. Navi Mumbai in altering the number of persona employed in OSD I Unil without following the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled." 2 Pursuant to Tribunals notice management's Legal Adviser Mr Mokashi appeared vide (Exhibit-8). Union also received the notice vide acknowledgement (K\hibit-7), however, none appeared on its behalf. Rojnumn shows that the matter was fixed for appearance and filing Statement of Claim by union on many dates but in vain, which indicates union is not interested in prosecuting the reference Therefore the following order is passed
ORDER
Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution.
S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi the 26th June, 2001
S.O, 1722 .—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-cum-Labour Court, Chcnnui as shown in the Annexure, in tlie industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. KILBURNS CHEMICALS LTD and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26-06-2001.
[No. L-29012/56/99/IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
3562 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 192.3 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]
ANNHXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT. CHENNAI Wednesday, the 30th May, 2001 PRESENT : K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 169/2001 (TN State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 181/99) (In the matter of dispute for adjudication under section 10(l)(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 between the Wokman V.G.R. Selvakumar and the Management M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Ltd., Tuticorin)
BETWEEN
Shri V. G. R. Sclvakumar : vVorkman/I Party Tuticorin
.
AND
M/s Kilburn Chemicals Ltd., : Management/ll Party' Tutioorin APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. A. M. Packianathan
Easters, & R. Kamaraj, Advocates
For the Management : M/s. Vijay Narayan &
R. Parthiban, Advpcatcs REFERENCE: Order No.L-29012/56/99/lR(M) ii ;. 06-084999, Govt. of India, Ministry" of ;. Labour, New Delhi. ' ;
This dispute on coming up before me foF.frtai!h<&Hiig on 15-5-2001, upon perusing the reference, Claiirt Steteroeiit, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, the oral and documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel Shri R. Kamaraj and the counsel for the Management Shn R. Parthiban and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following :—•
AWARD
This reference by the Central Govt. in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sul section 1 and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial,Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of dispute between the Workman Shri V.G.R. Selvakumar and the Management of M/s. Kilburn Chemioals Ltd., Tuticorin, mentioned as schedule appended to the order of reference.
The Schedule roads as follows :—
"Whother the action of the Management of M/s. Kilbum Chemicals Ltd. in dismissing Shri V.G.R. Selvakumar, Trainee Process Operator with effect from 7-10-1996 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7" This order of reference has been earlier made to Tamil Nfldu State Industrial Tribunal and was taken on file as I.D. No, 181/99. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel in that Tribunals and filed both the Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, this case has been transferred from the file of that Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal, as per the orders of the Central Govt. for adjudication. On receipt of records from the T.N. Tribunal this case has been taken on file by this Tribunal as I.D. No. 169/2001 and notices were issued to counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to present before this Tribunal for prosecuting this case on 5-2-2001. On receipt of notices, Hie counsel on either side appeared before this Tribunal and expressed that they want to let in evidence on the respective side. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, three witnesses for the Management were examined as MW1 to MW3 and documents were maked as Ml to Ml 6. Then on the side of the Workman, the I Party Workman himself has examined as WW1 and exhibits Wl to W8 were marked. On that day, it was found out that the counsel for the Management undertook to produce the original of Ex.M8, had not produced. Subsequently, on his representation about his inability to produce Ex.M8 (the explanation dated 5-4-96 submitted by the workman for the sfrow causd notice dated 3-4-96), the saine has been, eschewed on (1$ representation of the counsel for the Management; Then the arguments advanced by learned c6unsel on either side was heard-
2. The facts of the industrial dispute referred to for adjudication are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Sri V.G.R. Selvakumar (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as Process Operator Trainee in the II Party/Management company;.-Mk. Kilburn Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) on 2-5-94. The Training period was cue year. The period of training ixpifed on 1-5-95. As per the Clause (2) of the order of appointment, the training period will initially be- for a period :of 12 months^ Which may be extended for tt further period of . 12. month's, at the di^retior^of the Management. It is also stated .tjtot uiilesscommuriicate.d-otrierwisoih writing- the petitioner will continue to be ort training, even after the-completion wf stipulated period of training. By a communication dated 2-5-95, the training period for the petitioner was extended by the Respondent to April, 1996. By a letter dated 10-4-96 the: training period-of the Petitioner was further extended for a period of three nidntha on the ground of insulting his superior. For the said incident, memo and show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner on 21-3-96 and 3-1-96. The Petitioner has suitably replied for the mernos and show cause notices. However, the Respondent gave a punishment of extension of three months. After 2-8-96 the Petitioner approached the General Manager Sri Natarajan and requested for his confirmation. On 7-10-96 the respondent issued termination order for the same allegation for which he has been punished on 10-4-96. So the Petitioner caused legal notice to the Respondent and demanded reinstatement with back wages. As the Respondent has not chosen to reply, the Petitioner submitted a petition before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Palayamkottai and Tuticorin for conciliation of the dispute. Since, the conciliation attempt ended in failure, the Labour Enforcement Officer sent a failure of conciliation report to the Govt. Hence, the reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal. The Respondent/Management after receipt of explanation given by the Petitioner/Workman for the show-cause notices without conducting any enquiry, unilaterally punished the Petitioner by extending the training period for further period of three months. Such act of the Management is in violation of its own standing order under section 03(f). The dismissal order issued on 7-10-96 by the Rcspondont/M.anagerncnt is against the principles of natural-3563 justice and is against the section 20 and 23 of the Standing order of the Respondent. The Petitioner should not have been punbished by the Respondent/Management for the same alleged offence. The conduct of the Respondent by dispense with the enquiry proceedings without giving any objective reasons is against the Act and settled principles of law.
3. The Respondent/Management denying the allegations of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement contend in the Counter Statement that as per Clause (4) of the appointment order, after the completion of the training period, to the entire satisfaction of the Management and subject to availability of vacancies, the Management may absorb the petitioner as a regular workman. As per Clause (12), the period of training can be terminated by the company without notice or compensation in lieu of notice, if tl... petitioner's progerss in training, attendance or conduct is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Management. The monthly stipend payable was Rs. 1,200 per month but this was revised to Rs. 1,700 per month with effect from 1-1-96.
acted in an indifferent way by disobeying the instructions of the Process Supervisor for the preparation of Nuclei. So a memo dated 6-8-96 was issued to the petitioner for which he gave a reply dated 7-8-96 denying the charges. On 1-10-96 at about 11 A.M. the petitioner took the flask of milk without sugar, which was meant for Mr. Muthuraj, Process Operator, who was a diabetic and added coffee with sugar with the milk. When the supervisor enquired this matter, the petitioner abused him with filthy language. Based on the complaint, and in order to conduct preliminary enquiry Mr, Thangadhurai, Accountant was appointed as an enquiry officer, The petitioner, had threatened the Enquiry Officer while he was coming to duty on 3-10-96 and he also threatened Mr. Mohan, Clerk cum Typist, who was 1he witness to the occurrence. Only after all these misconducts were committed by the petitioner, the Respondent held that enough opportunities had been given for a trainee to rcotify himself and since the petitioner was incorrigible, the Respondent has no other option except to invoke Clause (12) of the appointment order. The Respondent had not chosen to respond the legal notice issued by the petitioner. As there was no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner, who was a trainee only, the termination is legal, sinoc the petitioner as a trainee is not a workman. However, if this Hon'ble Tribunal were to come to the conclusion that an enquiry should have been conducted, the Management craves leave to let in evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner. There is no illegality in terminating the petitioner trainee owing to his quality of work as well as conduct. Hence, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss this petition.
4. The point for my consideration is 'whether the action of Management of M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Ltd. in dismissing Shri V.G.R. Selvakumar, Trainee Process Operator with effect from 7-10-96 is justified. If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?'
5. Three witnesses for the Management were examined an MW1 to MW3 and exhibit Ml to Ml 8 were marked. Out of which, Ex.M8 has been eschewed from evidence for the non-production of the original, on a request of the counsel for the Management. The Petitioner/Workman has been examined himself as WW1. Exhibits W] to W8 have been marked on his side. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on cither side were heard.
The Petitioner was a trainee for a particular period with distinct purpose and the Respondent was not bound to employ him after the period of training was over, even if he completed the same to the utmost satisfaction of the work in respect of quality and conduct of the work. Therefore, the Petitioner was not workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act under Section 2(s), hence the present claim is liable to be rejected. On 28-2-96, the petitioner who was in the 'C shift who was asked to attend the clarifier operation, it was observed that the petitioner handled that clarifier carelessly causing the clarifier in getting upset by formation of liquor with high residue. He purposefully and willfully acted by not taking magnafloc for solution preparation. This upset the clarifier operation by liquor formation, because of which the black liquor could not be siphoned for about 35 hours leading to a serious break in the production. The petitioner was warned by letter dated 21-3-96 to rectify himself and to avoid recurrence of serious offences. Again on 20-3-96 in the 'C shift the petitioner was allotted the work of removing the choke in the Clarifier. He was allotted two casual workmen to help for this work. It was reported that the retnov .i of line choke was done by him with indifferent attitude and carelessness by leaving the casuals alone to work in the removal of choke and he went to the boiler house to sleep while on duty and also abused the supervisors who were his immediate superiors, when they asked him about line choke removal work in the Clarifier. On the night of 22-5-96 one of the supervisors reported this indifferent act of the petitioner to the Management. Later, that particular supervisor was threatened personally by the petitioner with his friend while he was standing near VVD bus stop Tulicorin. A show cause notice was issued for which the petitioner has replied. As his explanation was not found satisfactory and the petitioner being a trainee, the respondent had decided to give a further opportunity to the petitioner to rectify his conduct and attitude towards work as a trainee A letter dated 10-4-96 was issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted H reply that shows his insincerity and indiscipline conduct, which is sufficient to take disciplinary action. Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill the Management, instead of taking serious view, extends the training period of the petitioner for a further period of three months. When the performance of the petitioner was reviewed it was found that on 3-8-96 while the petitioner was working in LC shift, he
6. The petitioner Sri V.G.R. Selvakumar was appointed as a process operator trainee in the Respondent concern The appointment order dated 28-3-94 is Ex.Wl. The Xerox copy of the same is Ex. M l. As per the appointment order, the training period initially was 12 months. It is mentioned in Clause 2 of the appointment order that the training period may be extended for a further period of 6 to 12 months at the discretion of the Management. Unless otherwise communicated in writing, the trainee have to continue as a trainee even after completion of stipulated period of training ExW2 is a communication dated 2-5-95 as a revision of terms. The Xerox copy of the same is Ex M2. b'x.W3 is another communication dated 4-1-96 informing the petitioner about the revision of his monthly stipend to Rs. 1750. A Xerox copy of the same is Ex.M3. Ex W4 is a memo dated 21-3-96 issued to the petitioner by the Respondent for his willful negligence in work. The Xerox copy of the same is Ex M4. lix. W5 is show-cause notice dated 3-4-96 issued by the Respondent/ Management alleging three acts of misconduct as sleeping during working hours, improper attendance in duty of 2135OI/2001 -15.
3564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management under Ex. M14 dated 3-10-96. This has been spoken to by MW1 in his evidence. All these things have already been stated in the Counter Statement of the Management. So it cannot be said that these documents relied upon by the Management about the misconduct of the Petitioner, when he was engaged as process operator trainee under Respondent/ Management concern, have been created by the Management for the purpose of this case. So from all these things, the Management had to conclude that they have no other option except to terminate the services of petitioner. The learned counsel for the Respondent has advanced an argument stating t^at it is held in a case reported as 2000 (Vol. 95) FJR 851 "stipend paid during training period without any other benefit, there is no guarantee of employment as trainees are not regular employees and the trainee is liable to be terminated, if he is found unfit or unable to cope up with the work and the Management is not obliged to pay contributions. " This judgement of the Madras High Court is quite applicable to the present facts of this case and the trainee petitioner was given only stipend and not any other emoluments. Hence, the action taken by the Management in terminating the Petitioner, the process operator trainee is justifiable. On a perusal of the records, evidence and the authority quoted by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management, it is seen that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Management is accepted as correct. There is ample material available in this case to conclude that the action taken by the Management against the Petitioner, who was a trainee process operator in dismissing him from traineeship is justified. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
7. In the result, an award is passed holdings that the action of the Management of M/s. Kilburn Chemical Ltd., in dismissing Shri V.G.R. Selvakumar, Trainee Process Operator with effect from 7-10-1996 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed
by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 30th May, 2001)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined: For,! Party W.W1 Shri V.G.R. Selvakumar For II Party
M.W.I : Shri S. Michaqcl N. Cholas
M.W.2 : Shri P. Muthuraj
M.W.3 : Shri A Mohan
Documents Marked:
For I Partv
EXJ&.
Description
Pete
28-3-94
Wl
Original letter from Shri B. Mohanraj President to Shri Gcrshom Rajapaul Selvakumar,
2-5-95
W2
4-1-96
W3
removing the line choke and abusing the supervisors, for which the petitioner has submitted his reply denying the alleged misoonduct. Then, again the petitioner was issued a memo under Ex.W5 on 3-4-96, on the basis of a report given by the Section Supervisor dated 20-3-96. That report is Ex.M5. For the misconduct of the petitioner for sound sleep in working hours as mentioned in the show cause notice under Ex.W5, the Chemical Engineer, Sri Palaniswamy gave a complaint to the Manager dated -'.2-3-96. It is Ex. M 6. Not satisfying with the explanation givrn by the Petitioner to the show cause notice Hated 3-4-96, the ">eriod of training of the Petitioner was further tended for a period of another three months under order dated ifM-96 by the Ma.iagement. It is HK. W6. A Xerox copy of Me same is Ex.M9. Then the Petitioner was issued a termination order dated 7-10-96 under Ex. W7. /. Xerox copy of the same is Ex. Ml 6. As WW ., the Petitioner has deposed that he has not committed the mischief as alleged as an incident taken place on 1-10-96 at about 11/M and he had not added coffee with sugar in the milk in the flas>k, which was meant for Mr. Muthuraj, who is a known diabetic In the cross examination he has admitted that he has no pei wna] enemity between himself and his co-workers. He has also admitted he has not mentioned anything in the Claim Staterr "nt that the alleged misbehaviour mentioned in para 2 of Ex,W7 is false and no such incident had taken placo. MW2 a Process Supervisor, Mr. Muthuraj has deposed that on 01-10-96, morning at 11.00 A.M., tea-time, when he opened the flask and poured in tumbler he found the colour of the milk as changed and the liquid was not white colour and it was brownish in colour. So, he asked Patturajan, casual labourer, who brought the milk to him as to whether it is milk or some other thing, since the colour has been changed for which he was told by that Patturei that when he brought the flask containing milk, the process operator Mr. Selvakumar opened the flask and poured his coffee and at that time Mr. Mohan, Accounts Section was there ind when he contacted the petitioner through intercom as to why he has done like this, the petitioner used vulgar words and told him what he wanted him to do, So he gave a written oompliant against him. It is Ex. Ml 2. MW3 in his evidence corroborate the evidence of MW2 about the incidence. The Petitioner '.nmself has admitted that he has no enemity with any of his co-worker. If that being the case, there waa no necessity for MW3 and MW2 to speak about an incident, which MW2 has given it in writing under Ex. Ml 2. That wan one among the misconducts stated in Ex. W5 show cause notice as abusing the supervisors. For the misconduct mentioned as sleeping during working hours, a written complaint given by the Chemical Engineer, Palaniswamy dated 22-3-96 under Ex. M6 has been relied upon by the Management. Further improper attendance in duty of removing the line choke mentioned in Show Cause Notice Ex. W5, a written complaint given by the Process Supervisor to the Production Manager dated 23-3-96 is relied upon by the Management. AU these things have been spoken to by MW2 in his evidence. In Ex. Ml appointment order which contains all the clause as terms and conditions, the petitioner has accepted the same and in token thereof, he has subscribed his signature 'as accepted'. This he has admitted in cross examination also. The stipend which was given earlier to the Petitioner during his training period has been increased step by step up to Rs. 1750 per month. This is also in evidenoe when one Thangaraj was appointed to enquire into the matter, the Petitioner threatened him and the said Thangaraj has given it in a writing as a compliant to the
21-3-96
Original letter from Shri Mohanraj, President to Shri VGR Selakumar, Regarding Revision of Terms. Original letter from Shri Thomas Mathew, President to Sri VGR Selvakumar Original memo from Sri S. Natarajan,
W43565 W5
Gen. Manager to Sri VGR Sclvakumar. Original show cause notice.
3^t-96
W6 10-4-96
publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (Rajasthan) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the IBP LTD. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26/06/2001.
W7 7-10-96
Original letter from the General Manager (Fin & Admn.) to the Workman. Original letter from Sri Thomas Mathew, President to the Workman.
[No. L-30012/157/2000/IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secv.
W8 12-10-96 Copy of the Notice from Sri Sundaram, Adv.
For n Partv
Ml
M2
M3
Xerox copy of letter from Shri B. Mohanraj, President to Petitioner. Xerox copy of letter from Shri Mohanraj, President to Shri VGR Sclvakumar. regarding Revision of Terms. Xerox copy of letter from Shri Thomas Mathew, President to Sri VGR Selvakumar.
M4
Xerox copy of memo from Sri S. Natarajan, G.M. to Sri VGR Selvakumar. *
M5 23-3-96
22-3-96
M6
—-
M7
Original letter of Shri P. Arumugam, Process Supervisilor to the Production Manager. Original letter from Shri M. Palanisamy, Chemical Engineer to the G.M. , Xerox copy of the show cause .notice dt. 3-4-96.
M8 M9
—Not filed and hence eschewed. 10-4-96
23-5-96
M10
Xerox copy of letter from the G.M. (Fin & Admn) to the Workman/I Party. Original letter from Shri P. Arumugam, Process Supervisor to the G.M., KCL.
5-8-96
Mil
Original letter of Shri H.R. Duraisingh to the Production Manager, KCL.
M12. 1-10-96
Ml 3 3-10-96
M14 3-10-96
Original letter of Shri P, Muthuraj to the General Manager, KCL. Original letter from Shri A. Mohan to the Director, Kilburn Chem, Ltd. Original letter of Shri Thangadurai to the General Manager, KCL.
MIS 8-10-96
M16 7-10-96
Original Note to President from Shri S, Natarajan. Xerox copy of letter from Sri Thomas Mathew, President to the Workman.
New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001 S.O.1723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby 3566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi the 26th June, 2001
S.O. 1724.—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-cum-Labour Court, CHENNAI as shown in the Annexurc, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chennai Port Trust and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26-06-2001.
INo. L-33012/2/98/IR(M)
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the ftle of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has*been taken on file here as I.D. No. 533/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 09-03-2001.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 30th May, 2001
Present : K. KARTHTKKYAN,
PRESIDING OFHCI'R
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 533/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 138/98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Workman Shri R. Kosavaram and the Management, The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, : I Party/Claimant Dr. Ambcdkar Madras Port Trust & Dock Labour Board Employees Union, Chennai.
AND
The Chumnar..
: H Party/Management Chciimii Port 1'riibl, L'hennai.
Appearance
For the Claimant : M/s. K. Raja and
K. Marinath, Advocates For the Management : M/s. M. M. Shanmugam
and S. Jeya Kumar, Advocates.
09-03-2001, both the parties were absent. The Counsel for the I Party alone was present and filed Xerox copies of the docu- ments. Then, the case was adjourned to 26-3-2001, granting time till then for the II Party/Management to file their docu- ments, if any. As the Presiding Officer was holding Camp Court on that day, the ca3e was adjouncd to 18-04-2001. On 18-04- 2001, when the matter was taken up for enquiry, both the par- tics remained absent and their respective counsel were also not present and there was no representation on cither side. Hence, the case was adjourned to 14-05-2001. As this happens to be an old case, referred by the Ministry for adjudication by its order dated 27-11-1998, the case was posted finally for enquiry to this date i.e. 30-5-2001.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry to day, i.o 30-05-2001, as usual both the parties remained absent. The counsel appearing on either side also arc not present. There is no representation on cither side. The inaction of the I Party/ Claimant, the General Secretary, Dr. Ambcdkar Madras Port Trust and Dock Labour Board Employees Union, Chennai, who is espousing the cause of the aggrieved Workman Shri R. Kesavaram, in this old case for the year 1998 ever since the matter has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal for adju- dication and his non-appearance and non-representation enables this Tribunal to conclude that there is no industrial dispute as such now existing between the parties. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for non-representation.
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in excroise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-33012/2/98/IR (M) dt. 27-11-1998
"Whether the action of the Management of Chennai Port Trust, in deducting the salary of 17 days from 03-05-1996 to 20-05-1996 and imposition of punishment of shortage of increment for the period of six months on Shri R. Keuavaram of Marine Department is justified 7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7" 2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as lD.No. 138/98. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter State- ment. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt., this case has been transferred from the file of 5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dis- pute' exists between the 1 Party/Claimant and the n Party/Man- agement and the reference is closed as dismissed. No Cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 30th May, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001
S. O. 1725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexurc, in the industrial dispute between the employers in3567 relation to the M/s. Shrcc Sharde Marine Services and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 26-06-01.
[No. L-36011/3/99-IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. IL MUMBAI
PRESENT Shri S. N. SAUNDANKAR
PRESIDING OFFICER REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/191 OF 1999 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. SHREE SHARDE MARINE SERVICES.
Shri Ramindar Singh,
Proprietor, M/s. Shri Sharde Marine Services, C/o. Western India Shipyard Limited, Murmugao Harbour, Murmugao, Goa.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The President, Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union, Vclho's Building, 2nd Floor, Opp. Municipal Garden, Goa.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : No Apppearance.
FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. Suhaas Naik
Representative.
Mumbai, dated 28th May, 2001
AWARD
3. Notice was sent to the management on the address mentioned in the order of reference, that is at Thana vide (Ex- hibit-7). However, the envelope received back with endorse- ment that the address was incomplete (Exhibit^ & 10). The union by application (Exhibit-12) gave the correct address of the employer of Goa. Consequently notice was issued on the adreas at Goa vide (Exhibit-13) which was received vide acknowledgement (Exhibit-14). However inspite of that none appeared on behalf of the management, through sufficient time given. Since the parties come from Goa the matter was kept at Goa on 23-1-2001 of which notice was given to the man- agement vide (Exhibit-16) and received vide acknowledgement (Exhibit-17). However there also management remained ab- sent. Also the matter was fixed at Goa on 24-4-2001, 25-4- 2001 and 26-4-2001. However that time also the management remained absent. The union was therefore directed to file affidavit in support of their claim and consequently union filed affidavit of the President of the "Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union", Mr. Christopher Fonscca, at Ex-20 and, con- sequently the matter is being heard Ex-partc against the man- agement.
4. The issues that fall for my consideration and my find- ings there on for the reasons are as under;—
Issues
Findings
No (1) Whether the action of the management of M/s Sharde Marine Services, Goa in terminating the Services of S/Shri Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan w.c.f. 13-9-98 is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the work- men are entitled?
As per order below.
REASONS
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-3601 l/3/99/IR(M)J dated 10-09-99, have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :
5. Affidavit of Shri Christopher Fonseca, the President of the "Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union" (Exhibit- 20) shows as per the affidavits of the workmen (Exhibit-5 & 6) they were employed with M/s Sharde Marine Services, on perennial nature as welder/fitter w.e.f. 20-11-97 to 12-9-1998 on a monthly pay of RB. 2,900 and that without giving any notice on 13-9-98 they were orally refused employment and then the matter was taken to the Assistant Labour Comissioner (C). However Conciliation failed. It is stated thta the correct address of the management was of Goa and they were properly served with the notice. Since the abovesaid evidence of the union in connection with the workmen has gone unchallenged there is no reason to disbelive their evidence and relying on that the issues are answered accordingly and hence the order:—
ORDER
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Sharde Marine Services, Goa in terminating the services of S/Shri Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan w.c f. 13-9-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are cmtitled for ?" 2. The President of Goa Trade & Commercial Work- ers Union filed Statement of Claim on behalf of the workmen S/Shri Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan at Exhibit-4. It is averred that they were employed with M/s. Shree Sharde Marine Ser- vices to carry out the work of ship repairs in the shipyard of M/s Western India Shipyard Limited, as welder/fitter w.e.f. 20-11-97 on a monthly salary of RB. 2,900 on perennial na- ture. They worked efficiently and dcligently from 20-11-97 to 12-9-98 continuously. However the employer orally refused employment to both the workmen without assigning any justi- fied reasons of whatsoever nature w.c.f. 13-09-1988. They approached the Assistant labour Commissioner (C), Vaaco da Gama, Goa, through union. However, the Conciliation failod. The Union therefore prayed to reinstate the workman in service in continuity with full back wages with consequential reliefs.
The action of the management of M/s Sharde Marine Services, Goa in terminating the services of S/Shri Mohan Singh and H"nif Khan w.e.f. 13-9-98 is not legal and justified.
Management is directed to reinstate the workmen with full back wages and continuity in service.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR. Presiding Officer 3568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001
S. O. 1726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Tuticorin Port Trust and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26-06-01,
[No. L-M0H/4/99/IR(M)]
B, M. DAVID, Under Secy.
the name of participation in dharna is justified or not? if not to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?" 2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as ID. No. 257/99. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt. this case has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D. No. 245/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direotion to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 09-02-2001.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 8th June, 2001
Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 245/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 257/99) [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Claimant the General Seoretary, Tuticorin Port Employees Trade Union and the M'nagement. The Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin].
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, : I Party/Claimant Tuticorin Port Employees Trade Union
AND
The Chairman, : n Party/managc- Tutioorin Port Trust, ment.
Tuticorin.
Appearance : For the Workman : Sri C. Sivaraman
Authorised representative.
For the Management : M/s M. Sriram, D. Rajcndran & A. Gandhi Advocates. 09-02-2001, the counsel for the II party alone was present. Both the parties and the Representative for the I Party were not present.Then the case was adjourned to 26-02-2001. On that day, both the parties and the counsel on either side were remained absent. Hence fresh notices were ordered to be sent by Registered Post with acknowledgement due, direct to the I and II Party for the hearing on 19-03-2001. Accordingly, notices were issued to both the parties, dirqet by Registered Post with acknowledgemeht due and th*y were duly served on them. On 19-03-2001 the oounscl for the II Party alone was present. The Representative for the I Party remained absent. There was no representation for the I Party/Claimant. No documents have been filed on either side. Hence, the case has been adjourned to 03-04-2001 for enquiry. Though the matter was taken up for enquiry on 03-04-2001, 23-04-2001 and 30-04-2001, the counsel for the n Party alone was present on those days and the I Party/ Union Representative remained absent as usual. There was no representation for the I Party/Union at all on all those adjourned dates of hearing. Finally, the matter was adjourned to 08-06-2001 for enquiry.
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers eonferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(a) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudica- tion vide Order No. L^401174/99/IR(M) dt, 21-09-1999 :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin in deducting the one day wages in 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry to-day, i.e. 08-06-2001, as usual, the counsel for the II Party alone present. There is no representation for the I Party/Claimant. Inspite of the notices sent by Registered Post with acknowledgement due, twice, and they were duly served on the I Party/Claimant, as per the acknowledgement received, ever since the first hearing date i.e. 9-2-2001, subsequent to the transfer of this case to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication, I Party/Union has not chosen to appear in person through its representative to prosecute this case further. The inaction and non-representation on the side of the I Party/Claimant for all these seven hearings of this case, enables this Tribunal to conclude that no industrial dispute as such now exists between the parties concerned. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for non- prosecution.
5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dispute' exists now between the parties concerned. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 8th June, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer3569 New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001
S. O. 1727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Centtral Govt. Industrial Tribunal-oum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Anncxure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Tuticorin Port Trust and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 26-06-01,
[No. L44011/5/99/IRCM)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRJBU- NAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 8th June, 2001 Present : K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No, 244/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 256/99) [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Claimant, the General Secretary, Tuticorin Port Employees Trade Union and the Management, The Chairman, Tutitcorin Port Trust, Tuticorin] BETWEEN
The General Secretary, : I Party/Claimant ^ Tutioorin Port Employees Trade Union
AND
The Chairman, : D- Party/Management Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin. Appearance : For the Workman : Sri C. SivaramMi,
Authorised Representative
For the Management : M/s. M. Sriram, D. Rtjendran & D. Balaraman, Advocates
by ignoring the senior most Signal Bosan Shri C. Robert is justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No, 256/99. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt., this case has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D. No. 244/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 09-02-2001.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 09-02-2001, the counsel for the II party alone was present. Both the Parties and the Representative for the I Party were not present. Then the case was adjourned to 26-02-2001. On that day, both the parties and the counsel on either side were remained absent. Hcnoe, fresh notices were ordered to be sent by Registered Post with acknowledgement due direct to the I and II Party for the hearing on 19-3-2001. Accordingly, notices were issued to both the parties direct by Registered Post with acknowledgement due and they were duly served on them. On 19-03-2001 the counsel for the II Party alone was present, The Representative for the I Party remained absent. There was no representation for the I Party/Claimant. Hence, the case has been adjourned to 03-04-2001 for enquiry. Though the matter was taken up for enquiry on 03-04-2001, 23-04-2001 and 30-04- 2001, the counsel for the II Party alone was present on those days and the I Party/Union Representative remained absent as usual. There was no representation for the I Party/Union at all on those adjourned dates of hearing. Finally the matter was adjourned to 08-06-2001 for enquiry.
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(l) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L^l4011/5/99/IR(M) dt 21-09-1999 :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Tutioorin Port Trust, Tuticorin in making Shri S, RadhakriBhnan, the junior most Signal Bosan as in-charge, signal station 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry to-day, i.e, 08-06-2001, as usual, the counsel for the II Party alone present. There is no representation for the I Party/Claimant. Inspite of the notices tent by Registered Post with acknowledgement due, twice, and they were duly servod on the I Party/Claimant, as per the acknowledgement received, ever since the first hearing date i.e. 9-2-2001, subsequent to the transfer of this case to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication, I Party/Union has not chosen to appear in person through its representative to prosecute this case further. The inaction and non-representation on the side of the I Party/Claimant for all these seven hearings of this case, enables this Tribunal to conclude that no industrial dispute as auoh now exists between the parties concerned. Hcnoe, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for non-prosecution.
5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dispute' exists now between the parties concerned. No Cost (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 8th June, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer 3570 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 (PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] 3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement 4. The case of the first party in brief is as under :
5. In the year 1978 one Mr. N. Thimmappaiah was the
Inspector. First party was appointed by him as Typist-Clerk. He
was discharging his duties properly. He is a graduate. He waa
paid Rs. 130/- to Rs. 150/- per month. The Divisional Manager,
Hubli has given permission for appointment. He was not
regularised. He worked for more than 240 days. He worked
continuously for more than 6 years. The action of the
management is illegal and against the mandatory provisions of
the Industrial Dispute Act. The first parly workman for these
reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
6. Second party appeared and filed Counter.
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
7. The case of the Second party in brief is as follows:—
S.0.1728.—In pursuance of Scotion 17 of the Industrial
Dispute* Aot, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the
Anncxurc, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
and their workmen which was received by the Central
Government on the 21-06-01.
[No. L-170l2/37/91-IR(B-n)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Offioer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT.'SHRAM SADAN',
m MAIN, in CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE
Dated : 4th June 2001
8. The Inspectors were allowed to appoint one Assistant
to carry out the duties of as Typist and Clerks. They are recruited
for regular appointment Neither the Inspector nor the Branch
Manager nor Divisional Manager nor any one under the heirachy,
has got power of appointment. Therefore, the case of the first
party that he was appointed by one Inspector, Thimmappaiah is
false procedure of recruitment as stated in para 4 of the Counter.
First party could not have been in the employment from 1979 to
1984. The Second party management came to know that the
first party workman was working as an agent for Shri M.
Thimmappaiah on commission basis having an agency code
bearing No. 61687. The case of the first party workman is not
correct. Regarding payment received by first party workman it
is said by the management that the case of the first party workman
is not correct. The question of paying salary does not arise as
the finit party was never in the employment of the Second party.
The second party for these reasons and for some other reasons
has prayed to reject the reference.
Present : Hon'ble Shri V.N. Kulkami, B.Com., LL.B.
Presiding Offioer
C.R. No. 82/91
I Party D Party
The Secretary, The Regional Manager,
QIC Employees Union, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
9. It is seen from the records that the first party Union
got examined the workman as WW1 and various documents are
marked in his evidence. He is cross examined at length. Against
this management did not adduce any evidence after giving
number of adjournments. The management has not attended the
court. This is a matter of 1991. Therefore, the case was closed.
• I heard the learned counsel appearing for the first party workman.
1 have carefully perused all the records and documents produced
by the parties. I have read the evidence of first party workman
very carefully.
Unity Building Annexe, 2-B, United Building
Mission Road, Annexe, Mission Road,
Bangalore-560027 Bangalore-560027
Advocate—Shri Ram Advooate—Shri Chinnappa
Mohan Reddy K. Kambeyanda
AWARD
1, The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by claused) of sub-sccti"n 2A of the Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide
order No. L-17012/3 7/91/IR(B-II) dated 22nd November. 1991
for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the claim of the QIC employees union that Shri
10. It is dear from the records that the first party workman
was working with the management as Clerk oum Typist from
20-9-78 to June 1984 without any break. We are having the
evidence of WW1. According to his evidence the first party has
continuously worked without any break. Evidence of WW1 and
the documents referred earlier would go to show that the first
party workman has continuously worked for 6 years and the
action of the management is not correct. There is no compliance
of Section 25F of the I D. Act.
M.N. Murali was an employee of the New India Assurance
11. The learned counsel appearing for the first party relied
Co., Chikmagalur Branch between September, 1978 and
June, 1984 is correct? If so, whether the action of the
management in terminating his services in June, 1984
was justified? What relief. If any, is the workman is
entitled to?"
2. The workman of the first party union was working as
Typist cum Clerk in the Second party. He worked for a long
period but his services were terminated illegally. Therefore
2 decisions viz. AIR 2001 SC. 706 and AIR 2001(3) Kar. L.J.
137(DB). I have read the above two decisions very carefully.
Keeping in mind the principles held in the above two decisions
I am of the opinion that the first party workman can take full
benefit on the above referred decisions and according to the
facts of the case it is established that the first party workman
has continuously worked and the claim of the employee is correct.
The first party workman have also filed some documents to
dispute is raised.
3571establish that he was regularly paid monthly wages. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that this reference has merit and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :
following industrial dispute between the Management of UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and their workman Sri Gorakh Saw as represented by UCO Bank Employees Association, Patna for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. H, Dhanbad.
ORDER
The reference is allowed holding that the claim of the employee is correct and termination is not justified. Accordingly the second party management is directed to regularise the services of the first party workman as Typist cum Clerk w.c.f. June 1984 together with all consequential benefits, backwages, seniority as prayed by the first party.
"Whether the claim of Sh. Gorakh Saw that he had worked for more than 240 days continuous service in a Calendar year with the management of UCO Bank Arrah Branch from 1-6-1989 to 12^1-1997 is oorreot 7 If so, whether the Management is justified in terminating him from service ? If not, what relief the disputant is en- titled to 7"
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed
by me on 4th June 2001).
V. N. K U L K A R N I, Presiding Officer
2. Subsequently by notification [No. L-12012/294/98- IR(B-1I)] dated 23-11-2000 the Central Government withdrew the proceeding of the said dispute from the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. H, Dhanbad and transferred it to this Tribunal for adjudication.
3. Both parties have filed their respective written New Delhi the 21 st June, 2001
S. O. 1729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tho award of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
•[No. L-12012/294/98-IR(B-n)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference No. 132 of 1999 Ref. No. 5(c)of2001
Management of UCO Bank Zonal Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and their workman Shri Gorakh Saw as rep- resented by UCO Bank Employees Association, Patna. For the Management . Sri P.K. Sinha, A.C.O., UCO
Bank, Patna
For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Associa- tion, Patna
PRESENT : Sri S.K. Mishra, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bailey Road,
Patna.
AWARD
The 8th June, 2001
statements. The claim of the workman as stated in his written statement in brief is that on 1-6-1989 the workman Sri Gorakh Saw was orally appointed by the management of UCO Bank, Arrah Branch, District Bhojpur as casual worker for discharging the duties of a Peon. He worked continuously from 1-6-1989 to 12-4-1997. The workman had also worked prior to 1-6-1989 intermittently during the years 1984, 1985. When he went to perform his duties on 14-4-1997 he was not allowed to work and he was informed that his services were no longer required. It is claimed that the workman worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. The workman used to perform all the duties of a regular peon such as taking out ledgers/registers, carrying token books/scroll registers from the Accounts to Cash Department and vice versa, posting and bringing mail from the Post Office, distribution of Daks through the Peon Book etc. He! worked from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. It is said that at the time of termination neither any notice nor any pay in lieu of notice nor any retrenchment compensation was given to the workman as per the provisions contained in Section 25F of the l.D. Act. After the termination the workman prayed the management several times for reinstatement but without any result. Ultimately finding no other way he approached the union for espousing his case before the appropriate authority and accordingly an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C), Patna. The A.I, C. (C), Patna held conciliation proceedings between the parties but without any success due to the stubborn attitude of the Management. At last the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report before the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India ultimately referred the dispute to the Central Tribunal No. II Dhanbad for adjusdication. It is said that initially the workman was paid Rs. 5/- per day and subsequently it was increased to Rs. 60/- per day as his wages. Although the workman performed all the duties of a peon he was denied the wages which the regular Peon received for similar nature of duties, Thus, the management violated the State Policy of 'Equal pay for equal work'. According to the workman his termination is arbitrary, whimsical and illegal. The workman has prayed for reinstatement in service with payment of back wages and also for rcgularisation as Peon in Bank subordinate cadre.
Initially the Central Government in exercise of powers u/s 10(l)(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act by Notification No. L-12012/294/98-IR(B-II) dated 13-5-1999 referred the
^I5s^\Uc*i[ it- 3572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. The case of the management as has been made out in its written statement in brief is that the concerned workman had been engaged by the Branch Manager of Arrah Branch of UCO Bank on casual basis for performing certain contin- gent nature of work who had no authority to engage. Thus the engagement was void ab initio. Ever since the nationalisation, the UCO Bank has become a State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India and is obliged to function within the parameters of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of appointment. In the present case the normal procedure for appointment was not followed. No advertisement was made inviting applications including requisition of names of candidates from the local Employment Exchange. Further there was no vacancy of Peon in the Branoh when the workman had been engaged. Accord- ing to the management as the workman was engaged unauthorisedly and unconstitutionally he cannot maintain a legal right for continuation of such a working in the guise of ihe provisions of the l.D. Act. At no time approval to the engagement or payment of wages was obtained from the competent authority. No appointment letter was issued to the workman.
5. Further case of the Management is that the Bank has been incurring heavy losses since last several years. The expenditures incurred over payment to illegitimately engaged workmen come to Rs. One crorc approximately per year in Bihar alone. A policy decision was taken by the Management to discontinue engagement of such casual workers including the concerned workman. On 29-3-1997 the Zonal Manager of the Bank directed that no engagement of casual workers excepting those who stand empanelled as casual workers would be made by any Branch Manager or Head of the Office. It is also made clear that the authority making such engagement will personally be responsible for such engagement.
6. The further case of the management is that Sri Saw had not been appointed to discharge the duties of a Peon. He might have performed the duties of contingent nature like serving water and tea to the staff. Whatever was paid was in consideration of doing casual and contingent nature of job as prescribed by the Central Govt. Neither Sri Oorakh Saw was maintaining a time schedule in attendance nor was he required to maintain any such schedule by the management. It is denied that the services of Sri Saw were terminated since there was no appointment made. The action of the Management in not engaging Sri Saw does not amount to retrenchment as per the Industrial Disputes Act since ho had no right to any post in the Bank. According to the Management the workman is not entitled to any relief.
7. A rejoinder to the written statement of the Management has also been filled on behalf of the workman reiterating his case. According to the workman he is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the l.D. Act and his termination is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(QQ) of the l.D. Act- As the mandatory provisions of Section 25F were not complied with the retrenchment is illegal. Once a Reference is made for adjudication the dispute is to be decided within the conceptual framework of the l.D \ct. The words 'authorised/ unauthorised', 'regular/irregular' arc alien to the l.D. Act. The Management resorted to unfair labour practice while extracting the services of the workman on exploitivc basis as per Schedule V of the ID. Act. The management while keeping the workman on tenterhook for years did not act properly and fairly with him.
8. The following issues arise for adjudication :—
(i) Whether Sri Oorakh Saw had worked for more than 240 days continuous service in a calendar year from 1-6-1989 to 12^-1997 and if so whether the Manage- ment of UCO Bank, Arrah Branch is justified in termi- nating the service from 13-4-1997 7 (ii) If not to what relief or reliefs is the workman en- titled to ?
FINDINGS
9, Issue No. (i) :—Before I proceed to decide the issue, I would like to mention briefly the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties in the case. The management has not adduced any oral evidence. Only one witness has been examined on behalf of the workman and he is the workman Sri Gorakh Saw himself. In his evidence the workman has fully supported the facts of the case as detailed in his written statement In his evidence he has said that he worked in the Arrah Branch of UCO Bank from 6-1-1989 to 12-4-1997 continuously, I^c performed the normal duties of a permanent peon such as distribution of Daks, stitching of currency notes, visiting post office for posting and bringing mails etc. He worked from 9 A.M. till 6 P.M. on every working day. Initially he was paid Rs. 5/-. Subsequently it was increased to Rs. 10/-, Rs. 15/-, Rs. 18/-, Rs. 30/-, Rs. 40/- and ultimately to Rs. 60/- as his wages per day. He had been appointed and removed from service orally. He worked a total period of seven years and ten months continuously. He also worked more than 240 days in a year preceding his retrenchment. No notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation had been given to him before his retrenchment. He has claimed for reinstatement, payment of back wages and also for regularisation of his service. In cross-examination he has said that prior to joining the Bank he was working in a stationery shop near the Branch Office and it was the Branch Manager who had approached him for engagement in the JJank. Further he has said that there was no permanent peon in the Branch when he had joined the Bank.
10. Both parties have filed zerox copies of certain documents which have been admitted into evidence on formal proof having been waived by each other. First I would like to mention the documents filed on behalf of the Management. Ext. M is the circular of Ihe Branch dated 21st of March, 1990 with regard to cmpanelmenl of casual workers for absorption in existing vacancies in terms of settlement dated 12-10-1989. It is made clear that till the absorption on permanent basis the empanelled casual workers may be utilised against leave vacancies. It was directed that no engagement of casual worker will be authorised henceforth and if such engagements were made the authority shall personally be accountable for such lapses. Ex.1. M/l is the zerox copy of the letter dated 29-3- 1997 from the zonal office for disengaging the casual workers other than empanelled casual workers. Ext. M/2 is one another circular of the Bank dated 23-4-1997 again prohibiting engagement of unempancllcd casual workers in the oflices. A direction was given to the Branches and other offices to disengage the daily casual workers other than empanelled casual workers by 10th May, 1997. It becomes apparent that the concerned workman was disengaged w.e.f. 13-4-1997 by the Branch Manager in view of the direction of the Head Office contained in this circular. Ext. M/3 is a letter from the Reserve3573 Bank of India dated 16-12-1997 suting therein that the earlier ban would continue for fresh recruitment of staff including for replacement of retirements, resignation etc. except recruitment of specialised Probationary Officers with the prior approval of RBI/Go I. Ext M/4 is the zerox copy of the order of the Calcutta High Court dated 4-8-1999 passed in W.P. No. 1390 of 1990. It waa a writ petition for absorption of the remaining empanelled daily wages workers in the vacancies of the subordinate staff in pursuant to the agreement dated 12-10- 1989 made between the Management of the Respondent Bank and the Unions. This order shows that under the said settlement between the Management and unions the casual workers working continuously for 240 days or more in the subordinate cadre during period of three years immediately preceding the settlement were to be absorbed in the permanent vacancies. The casual workers entitled for being absorbed in terms of the said settlement were empanelled for such absorption in vacancies as and when arose. The order further shows that altogether 430 casual workers were empanelled for absorption out of whom only 69 casual workers could be absorbed. Some of the remaining empanelled workers filed the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court stating therein that though there were vacancies they were not being absorbed. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court ordered that the Bank authorities should consider the case of the petitioners and shall absorb the rest of the casual workers as and when restriction for appointment by the R.B.I, was lifted. Ext. M/5 is the zerox copy of the circular of the Bank dated 29-12-1983 relating to the procedure to be followed for recruitment to the posts in subordinate cadres. It has been filed by the Management to show that the procedure for recruitment was not followed while engaging the concerned workman.
11. As regards the documents filed on behalf of the workman Ext. W is the zerox copy of the letter dated 4-7-1997 from the Branch Manager to the Divisional Manager, UCO Bank, Patna. The letter shows that the workman Sri Gorakh Saw had been working in the Branch on payment of daily wages since 1-6-1989. It is also mentioned that Branch Manager earlier had sent information to the Divisional and Zonal office in this regard to November, 1989, again on 12-4-1991, 21-4- 1992, 17-7-1992 and finally on 25^-1994. The workman was getting Rs. 60/- as his wages per day. Ext. W/l is a statement submitted by the Manager, Arrah Branch before the Zonal Office, Patna giving the particulars of the workman. Ext. W/2 series arc zerox copies of two vouchers. Ext. W/3 is zerox copy of extracts of the payment book from 7-12-1995 to 23-8-1996 showing particulars of payments made to the workman Gorakh Saw. The record shows that on 16-7-1999 a petition was filed on behalf of the workman requiring the Management to file relevant documents regarding the details of work and payments made to the workman. In compliance to this letter the Management filed its reply on 26-8-1999. This reply submitted by the Management has been marked Ext. W/4 on behalf of the workman. According to this reply the workman worked in the Branch from 1-6-1989 to 12-4-1997. He worked 549 days till 20-1-1992, 270 days from 21-1-1992 to 31-12-1992, 284 days in 1993, 282 days in 1994, 283 days in 1995, 281 days in 1996, and 78 days in 1997 till 11-4-1997. In this reply the rates of wages have also been mentioned.
12 The fact that the concerned workman Sri Gorakh Saw worked in the Arrah Branoh of UCO Bank from 1-6-1989 to 12-4-1997 is not disputed. According to the Management Sri Saw did not perform the duties of a Peon but he performed the duties of contingent nature like serving water tea etc. to the staff. The Management has, however, not adduced any evidence cither documentary or oral to show that in fact Sri Saw performed only contingent nature of work during the aforesaid period of his engagement. On the other hand the oral evidence of the workman and also Exts. W, W/l, W/2, W/3 and W/4 clearly go to prove that Sri Saw was all along performing the duties of a regular Peon through out the period of his engagement. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that Sri Gorakh Saw worked as a casual worker for more than 240 days continuously as a casual worker from 1-6-1989 to 12-4- 1997.
13. It was submitted on behalf of the Management that as Sri Saw had never been appointed and as his services were not terminated there was no requirement for compliance of provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act. But it is well settled law that for the applicability of the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Aot there need not be any formal letter of appointment or formal order in writing of termination. Termination effected not by any voluntary order will also come within the meaning of the retrenchment u/s 82(oo) of the I.D. Act (1994 P.L.J.R. page 612). The pleas of the Management that the Branoh Manager who had engaged Sri Saw had DO authority to make such engagement or that the procedure prescribed for recruitment to sub-staff wan not followed while engaging Sri Saw and that since Sri Saw had been engaged illegally and unauthoriscdly he cannot be reinstated to such illegal appointment—can not be of any avail to the Management. It is now well settled law that the provisions of section 25F are applicable even to a daily rated workman who had continuously served for 240 days in a year [(1997) 11 S.C. cases page 396— Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India and another)]. A daily rated workman, who has completed service for 240 days within the meaning of S. 25-B, can not be terminated from service on the ground of even misconduct without a departmental enquiry or without complying the provisions of S. 25F of the I.D. Act. [(1994X2) P.L.J.R. page 669, A.I.R. 1994 S.C page 1633)]. Service terminated in violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act—- the order of termination is rendered abinitio void and an employee is entitled to continuity of service with full back wages [1989 S.C. cases (L & S) page 565—Navotam Chopra Vs. Presiding Officer, labour Court and others]. Termination of employment on the ground of appointment being illegal will itself qualify as retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. The idea of illegal or invalid appointment is quite foreign to the scheme of the I.D. Act. Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. which defines 'workman' docs not have any such distinction [1994 (2) P.L.J.R. page 249 -Mithlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar].
14. In the present case it is admitted that the provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act were not complied with before the termination of the workman and so I have no hesitation to hold that the action of the Management of UCO Bank, Patna in terminating the services of the workman Sri Gorakh Saw was not justified. This issue is accordingly decided and answered.
15. Issue No. (li).—As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navotam Chopra case referred earlier if the service of a workman is terminated in violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act the order of termination being abinitio void the employee ordinarily will be entitled to continuity of service 3574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] with full payment of back wages. In (1996)2 S.C. cases page— 293 Conservator of Forest and another Vs, JagarnathMaruti Kondhave and another the Hon'blo Supreme Court held that casual workers employed in schemes with permanent basis working for 100 to 300 days in each year and being continued as casual for five or six long years—unfair labour practice—in suoh circumstancca the order of the Industrial Court to make suoh workman permanent with all consequential benofit was upheld and the Department's plea of financial difficulties was rejected.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
DATED
: 31st MAY 2001
Present
: Hon'ble Shri YN. Kulkarni
B.Com. L.L.B. Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 206/97
16. In the light of the aforementioned judicial decisions I hold that the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f the date when his service was terminated i.e. from 13-4-1997 with payment of full baok wages. Since tho workman has put in several years of service in the Bank he is also entitled for rcgularisation of service but in view of the fact that even some of already empanelled casual workers have not been absorbed in permanent f>3ts till now in view of the restriction imposed by the R.B.I, with regard to fresh recruitment, it is not possible to order for rcgularisation of the concerned workman right way. The Management, however, should treat the present workman Sri Oorakh Saw as an empanelled casual worker in the spirit of the 1989 settlement between the Management and the Unions, and must consider to absorb in the permanent post of sub-staff along with other empanelled casual workers whon the restriction for fresh recruitment is lifted by the R.B.I. Accordingly the reference is answered. Let the Management implement (the Award within the period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the award. 17. This is my award.
S.K. Mishrn, Presiding Officer 8-6-2001.
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001 S. 0.1730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
[No. L-12012/278/96-IR(B-n)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer I Party
II Party
The General Secretary, The Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank Staff Syndicate Bank Association, Zonal Office, Ananda Plaza, II Floor, Gandhinagar, Near Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore-9 Bangalorc-9 Advocato— Advocate—Shri N.G. Phadke Shri N. Venkatesh
AWARD
I, The Central Government by exercising the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Aot, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/278/96/IR(B-II) dated 4th March, 1997 for adju- dication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank Is Jus- tified in terminating the services of Shri M. Suresh from service? If not, to what relief the said workman Is entitled."
2. The first party filed claim statement, The case of the first party is as under :
3. The first party workman joined the second party bank as temporary attended on 5-4-1984 and he has continuously worked for 240 days, The management has absorbed other attenders and terminated the services of this workman. There- fore the action of the management is illegal and has prayed that award may be passed in his favour.
4. The management filed Written Statement. The case of the management in brief is as under :
5. The main contention of the management is that the workman continues to be in the panel of temporary attenders and the Bank has not removed his name from the panel. The question of regularising the services as a permanent attender arises only when there is a vacancy and he is found eligible and suitable by the Bank. As and when a vacancy arises, the first party's case will be considered in accordance with rules for the purpose of regularisation. For these reasons the management prayed to reject the reference.
6. During the pendency of the proceeding the matter was posted for evidence. The learned counsel for the second party management submitted that after the termination again the first party is taken on work and he is attending duties as an Attender. He also submitted that the workman will be regularised on seniority basis. The learned counsel for the first party and the President of the Union submitted that the direc- tion be given to regularise the workman as per seniority and the matter be disposed off.
35757. I have considered the statements made by both parties and I allow the reference and pass the following order sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Indurtrial Dispute Aot 1947 (hereinafter referred aa Act, 1947 for adjudication.
ORDER
The reference is allowed and the management is directed to regularise the workman according to Seniority. Accordingly the matter is disposed off.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 31st May 2001.)
V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
S. O. 1731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managament of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
[No. L-12012/259/98-IR(B-n)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CITJ-68/99
Reference No. L-12012/259/98-IR(B-H)
Dated : 14-10-1999
Suresh Kumar
S/o Shri Ghever Lai Jee, Caste Harizan R/o Mount Abu Delwada, Bapubasti Distt : Serohi.
"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mount Abu, District Sirohi (Rajasthan) is jus- tified in terminating the services of Mr. Suresh Kumar from the post of Sweeper ? If not, what relief is the work- man entitled?"
The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was engaged in branch Mount Abu of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred as the Bank) on 1-10-94 on the vacant post of sweeper on daily wage @ Rs. 10/- per day. His wage thereafter was increased from time to time. He used to work as regular employee. On 1-8-97 the non-applicant terminated his services by an oral order by adopting unfair labour practice. It was stated that his name was recommended for regularization to the Assistant General Manager vide letter dt. 24-5-95 and Assistant General Manager also made the same recommendation to the Chief Manager vide letter dt. 6-6-95. In spite of that his services were terminated on 1-8-97 without giving any notice, or pay in lieu of notice and compensation while he had continuously worked from 1-10-94 to 1-8-97 and also worked therefor more than 240 days in the year preceding to the date of termination. It was also alleged that Prajapati Brahma Kumar & Ganesh who were ap- pointed after him are still working in the extension counter of the Branch Mount Abu. The non-applicant thus has violated provisions of Section 25 (F) (G) & (H) of the Act, 1947 & Rule 77 & 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1957). It was prayed that the order of termination from service dt. 1-8-97 be declared as illegal & the applicant be reinstated in service with continuity in service with back wages.
The non-applicants in reply to the claim has stated that the applicant docs not fall within the definition of 'workman1. The applicant was engaged as part time sweeper and for fill- ing water etc on daily wage as and when required. The Branch Manager had no right to appoint him. The applicant had worked during the period from 5-10-94 to 30-4-97 the details of which have been stated in Para 3 of the reply which are as under :•—
DAYS 10 Days
PERIOD 5-10-94 to 15-10-94
24-10-94
22 Days
1-11-94 to 30-11-94
26 Days
1-12-94 to 31-12-94
25 Days
1-3-95 to 31-3-95
APPLICANT
V/s
1 The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mount Abu Branch, Distt : Serohi
2 The Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, S D.M Hospital Compound, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur.
NON-APPLICANTS ATTENDANCE
For the applicant : Shri Surendra Singh, Advocate For the non-applicant : Shri Rupen Kala, Advocate :
Date of Award : 1-6-2001
AWARD
The Central Government .ide order No. mentioned above has referred the following dispute under clause (d) of
22 Days
1-4-95 to 294-95
26 Days
1-5-95 to 31-5-95
23 Days
1-7-95 to 31-7-95
12 Days
15-8-95 to 31-8-95
13 Days
1-10-95 to 20-10-95
7 Days
21-10-95 to 31-10-95
10 Days
20-5-96 to 31-5-96
25 Days
1-6-96 to 29-6-96
27 Days
1-7-96 to 31-7-96
20 Days
1-8-96 to 24-8-96
21 Days
26-8-96 to 20-9-96
2 Days
24-9-96 to 25-9-96
18 Days
4-11-96 to 30-11-96 3576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II— SEC. 3(ii)] 1-12-96 to 10-12-96
8 Days
11-12-96 to 31-12-96
17 Days
1-2-97 to 28-2-97
20 Days
8 Days
1-3-97 to 10-3-97
19 Days
5-4-97 to 30^1-97
It was denied that the applicant's services were termi- nated on 1-8-97. It was stated that after 30-4-97 the applicant did not turn up himself for work. It was also stated in the alternative that in case of daily wager service comes to an end daily The applicant's case also falls under section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act, 1947. It was stated that the applicant has not given details of the person alleged to be junior to the applicant and having been retained in service.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the follow- ing points of dispute were framed :—
On behalf of the applicant the affidavit of the applicant was filed. The learned counsel for the non-aplicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. In the form of documentary evidence copy of letter to the Branch Manager and Assistant General Manager, copy of order of the High court were filed.
On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Indramohan Agrawal, Branch Manager of Branch Bhilwara of The Bank and R.S. Rajawat, the then Branch Manager of the Bank of Mount Abu were filed. The learned counsel for the applicant was given opportunity to oross-examine them on their affidavits. In the form of documentary evidence copies of the application submitted by the applicant and payment vouchers marked M-l to M-33 and copy of application marked M-34 were filed Arguments of the learned counsels of the parties heard and the record per used. The points of disputes mentioned above are decided as follows :—
Point No. 1 & 2;—It is not disputed that the applicant worked in the Mount Abu branch of the Bank on daily wage. The applicant in his statement in cross examination has stated that the details about his work given in A to B at page 3 of the reply to the statement is correct. The period of work as given in para 3 of the reply ha- already been mentioned above according to which the applicant has worked from 5-10-94 to 30-4-97 The applicant has stated that sometimes the officer concerned used to change his name but the vouchers were signed by him. He has admitted that he did not make any complaint about the same. He has also admitted that in the statement of claim it has not been mentioned that work was taken from him in the name of other persons. In view of these facts the statement of the applicant that he worked in the name of other persons seems to be after thought and is not believable. On behalf of the non-applicant Indramohan Agrawal and R.S. Rajawat have also stated that the applicant did not woT* after 30-4-97. Their statements arc also supported from the copy of the application dt. 27-8-97 addressed to the Branch Manager by the applicant marked M-34 in which it has been admitted that he had worked upto April 1997 in the branch of the Bank. There is not denial on behalf of the applicant about the contents of the application. It is thus proved that the applicant had worked during the period from 5-10-94 to 30-4-97 only, as per the details given above. The details given above do not show that the applicant has worked continuously even during the period from 5-10-94 to 30-4-97. In the year 1994 he had worked for 58 days. In the year 1995 he had worked for 128 days. In the year 1996 he had worked for 148 days, and in the year 1997 he had worked for 47 days. In the year preceding to the date 1-8-97 alleged to be the date of termination he had worked for 133 days and even if Sundays are added the total period during which he had worked does not come to 240 days. It is, therefore, not proved that during the year preceding to 1-8-97 the applicant had worked for 240 days or more.
The applicant has stated that his services were terminated on 1-8-97. He had denied the suggestion that he did not work after 30-4-97. The case of the non-applicant is that the applicant did not turn up for work after 30-4-97. Indramohan Agrawal on behalf of the non-applicant has stated that the applicant did not work after 30-4-97. R.S. Rajawat has stated that the applicant did not turn up for work after 30- 4-97. It may be staled that there is nothing in writing about the termination of the service of the applicant. The applicant in his application marked M-34 has not stated that his services were terminated by the non-applicant. It can not therefore, be inferred that the applicant went to work on 1-8-97 and was denied to work. In these circumstances it is difficult to believe that the applicant's services were terminated on 1-R-97. It is, therefore, not proved that the applicant's services were terminated on 1-8-97.
Point No. 3 —The learned counsel for the non-applicant has not pressed this point-
Point No. 4 :—As the applicant has failed to prove that his services were terminated on 1-8-97 the question of his retrenchment on that date does not arise and provisions of 25(F) (G) of the Act 1947 and rule 77 of Rules 1957 arc not attracted. Even for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the applicant's services were terminated on 1-8-97, he did not work for 240 days during the year preceding to the above date. It is also not proved that the applicant had worked continuously during in any year. For this reason also section 25(10 is n°l attracted. There being no evidence that the applicant had worked after 30-4-97 and had requested for employment after about 5 months for employment, he might have left the job himself The question, therefore, of his retrenchment also does not arise and for this reason also the question of violation of the provisions of section 25(FXG) of the Act, 1947 and 77 of the Rules 1957 does not arise.
The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the termination of the services of the applicant may be treated as on 1-5-97 and there being evidence that juniors to the applicant were retained in the service at the extension counter3577
SCHEDULE
of the Mount Abu Branch, therefore, provisions of section 25(G) arc attracted. Contrary to the pleadings termination of the services of the applicant cannot be treated as on 1-5-97 and, therefore, the above contention can not be accepted. The poim is, therefore, decided against the applicant.
Point No. 5:—On the basis of the findings given above the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
The copies of the Award may be aent to the Central Government under section 17(1) of the Act, 1947, for publication
Sd/- Illegible
Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
S.O. 1732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-01.
[No. L-12012/250/88-DII(A)-IR(B-Il)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', IH-MAIN, m-CROSS, II PHASE,
TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTIIPUR, BANGALORE DATED ' 4th June 2001
PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI YN. KULKARNI n com. LLB PRESIDING OFFICER C.R. No. 57/94
H PARTY I PARTY
The General Manager, Shn Yeshwant Uchail
Syndicate Bank H.O., C/o MR. Achar,
Mampal-576119 Udipi-576101
Advocate—
Advocate —
Shn B.C. Prabhakar Shri K. Dinakara Holla
"Whether the action of the managment Syndicate Bank, Manipal in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments of Shri Yeshwant Uchit, Clerk vide their order dated 13-11-86 is justified ? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?"
2. The workman of the first party union was working with the second party. Charge sheet was issued and after holding enquiry punishment of stoppage of 2 increments was imposed. Therefore, dispute is raised.
3. The first party appeared and filed Claim Statement.
4. The case of the first party in brief is as under :
5. The first party had availed privilege leave during the period from 18-4-1981 to 5-5-1981 availing LFC and went on tour to various places in South India by bus. The said tour programme was conducted by M/s Gem Tourist Corporation, Mangalore. The father and the unmarried sister of the first party workman had also accompanied him in the tour programme. On completion of the said tour programme, the first party workman submitted a bill dated 8-5-91 for Rs. 1,229 under Leave Travel Concession Scheme along with the money receipt dated 5-5-1981 for Rs 1,170 being issued by the aforesaid Travel Agency, i.e. M/s. Gem Tourist Corporation, Mangalore. Accordingly, the second party had passed the bill for payment on 11-5-1981 for Rs. 1,229/.
6. After the lapse of one year, the second party issued a letter asking certain particulars. Though the first party had furnished all the details the second party issued show cause notice because the first party union had not performed the journey along with family members and with H dishonest intention of making unlawful gain the first party workman produced a receipt which was not genuine. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held. The enquiry was not correctly conducted. The witness were not cross examined. Full opportunity was given to the first party to defend himself. The action of the management is not correct. First party workman has prayed to pass award in his favour.
7. Second Party appeared and filed Counter.
8. The case of the Second party in brief is as under :
AWARD
1 The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/250/88/D II A/IR (B-H) dated 26-5-94 for adjudication on the following schedule :
9. The first party was working at Davanagcrc Branch , he was sanctioned PL for 17 days from 18-4-1981 to 5-5-1981 to avail leave fare concession(LFC) and he submitted bill for Rs. 1,229/- claiming reimbursement of travel expenses incurred for self and his dependents viz, father and sister. He also produced receipt. The particulars of the vehicle number were furnished . It is the further case of the second party that the first party workman had not undertaken journey along with his family members and with a dishonest intention of making unlawful gain, the first party workman produced a receipt dated 5-5-1981 purported to have been issued by M/s. Gem Tourist Corporation for Rs.1,170/- in support of his LFC claim. His claim was not correct. He committed misconduct. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was hold. So far as enquiry is concerned the case of the second party is that the enquiry is fair and proper and all the necessary procedure was followed. Full opportunity was given to defend the workman and the allegations made by the first party are not correct. The first party workman fully participated in the enquiry. The misconduct was proved . The management invoke the punishment of stoppage of two increments. The action of the management is correct.
3578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 10. It is the further case of the second party that the employees working in a sensitive institution like Banks should possess the qualities such as honesty and integrity while discharging their duties assigned to them. In fact, the Bank is the custodian of the public money. If the persons like the first party against whom serious charges of misusing the Bank's money were levelled and which havo been proved in tho enquiry arc allowed without imposing any punishment, it would be against the public interests and affect the discipline and morale in the Organisation In the instant case, although the misconduct committed by the first party is serious in nature, which warranted an extreme punishment of dismissal, but the second party Bank took a lenient view and instead of dismissing him, it imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments by its order dated 13-11-1986. The above action of the Bank is fully legal, proper and justified.
11. The second party has said that tho punishment is proper. Parawise replies arc also given. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.
12. It is seen from the records that Chief Officer of the Bank was examined as MW and various documents arc marked in his evidence Against this workman got examined himself and documents are marked in the evidence.
13. It is seen from the records that my learned predecessor by an order dated 15-7-1999 gave finding in the affirmative holding that the enquiry is fair and proper, Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.
14. I have heard both sides. I have carefully perused all the documents and the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer. I have carefully examined all the relevant documents of the enquiry.
15 In order to say that the punishment is not proportionate, the first party has to show that the enquiry report is not correct and the report is perverse and the misconduot is not proved But at the very outset I am of the opinion that the enquiry is correct and their is no perversity in the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, Admittedly the first party workman is working in the Nationalised Bank and he is expected to work with honesty and integrity and the charge is serious. The claim put forward by the first party workman was false.
and this reference has no merit. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER The reference is rejected. (Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 4th June, 2001).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
S.O. 1733. —In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 ofl947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
fNo. L-12012/229/96-IR (B-H)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN', m MAIN, m CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022 DATED : 1st JUNE, 2001 PRESENT : HON'BLE SHR1 VN. KULKARNI B. COM.. LLB PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT BANGALORE C.R. No.4/99
nPARTY
The Personnel Manager, (IRD)
I PARTY The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Association, P.B. No. 165 Bclgaum-560002
Syndicate Bank, Head Office, P,B. No. 1, Manipal-576 119
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/229/96-JR(B-IT) dated 6th January, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
16. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first party that the statement was not recorded and there is no clear and cogent evidenoe to say that the first party has filed false documents. During the enquiry all that is correctly examined by the Enquiry Officer and the evidence and the documents marked during the enquiry is sufficient to say that prima facie the claim put forward by the first party workman is not genuine. The standard of evidence recorded is sufficient for the disciplinary proceedings. First party workman admitted in his cross examination that Ex.M3 ia the document produced by him in the enquiry and he is unable to name the person who has signed in Ex.W2. He has also stated in his cross examination that he did not perform the tour along with his father and sister. Except what is narrated in the proceedings no separate letter was given to call the authors of letter M-EX-3 to M-Ex.6 and examined them on his behalf,
17. If we consider all this it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence properly and the findings given by him is correct and there is no perversity in the finding. In my opinion, the punishment imposed is quite proportionate "Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, in fixing the pay of Shri GK. Shanbhag on his promotion from the post of Sub-staff to Clerk w.e.f. 21-7 86 is correct? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to",3579 2. The first party workman of the union was working with the second party management as Clerk. His pay was not fixed on his promotion BO industrial dispute is raised.
3. First party workman union appeared and filed Claim Statement.
4. The case of the first party in brief is as under :
5. The first party Syndicate Bank Employees Association is a registered trade union having ita office at Belgaum. He joined the services c° the second party bank as a sub-staff in the year 1976. He has cited some circulars in para 6 of the Claim Statement. His main grievance is that he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 524 on 1-7-1986 and his increment was due on the very aame month. The next one increment as sub-staff is required to be added in terms of the fitment formula dated 12-2-88. If both are together added, it should be Rs. 540. He was promoted on 21-7-86. But however, the increment due to him on 1-7-86 was not given to him. If Rs. 16 is added to Rs. 524, it becomes Rs. 540. Therefore the action of the management is not correct All these things are stated in para No. 7 of the Claim Statement in detail. The circular issued by the bank is binding on all the parties concerned. He filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 16528/97 and accordingly the reference is made. For all these reasons the first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.
6. The second party filed counter.
7. The case of second party in brief is as under;
8. The allegations made by the first party arc denied parawise and certain admitted facts are also stated in paras 2(a) and 2(b) of the Counter.
9. In my opinion the contention raised in para 3 are relevant. The case of the management is that the bank initiated promotion process to clerical cadre vide Circular No. 40/86/ BC/dated 28-1-1986 and vide letter dated 12-2-86, that I party employee applied for the same. It is true that he was promoted to olorical cadre vide order dated 2-7-86 and the promotion was effective from 21-7-86. It is true that ho reported for duty at Ycllapur Branch of the second party as probationary Clerk on 21-7-1986 and he waa confirmed on the grade of clerk w.ef. 21-1-1987. It is true that his basic pay at the time of his promotion on 21-7-1986 was Rs. 524.
10. It is further stated in para 4 that the Circular 45/88 referred there in is applicable to the sub-staff promotion process held during 1987. The first party was promoted in the year 1986 and the relevant circular applicable to him is Cir. 112/855/BC/6 HRDD/MPRDS dated 20-4-1985. The averments of the first party in para 7 of his Claim Statement are not correct. The averment that the increment of Rs. 16 due to him on 1-7-86, was not given to him is denied. After release of increment due on 1-7-86, his basic pay became RB. 524 which he was drawing on the date of his promotion i.e. on 21-7-1986 For all these reasons the second party has prayed to reject the reference.
11. I have heard both sides in detail. I have perused all the documents filed by the parties. Today second party has filod two documents. One is application filed by first party for voluntary retirement and the second in the letter of the bank.
12. It was vehemently argiud by the learned counsel for the second party that the first party has applied for "Voluntary Retirement and that has been accepted with conditions mentioned in the acceptance letter and therefore, this dispute is not maintainable.
13. I have carefully considered the conditions for accepting Voluntary Retirement. The grievance of the first party is that on his promotion from the post of sub-staff to Clerk w.e.f. 21-7-86 is not correctly fixed and therefore he is entitled for that benefit even he was applied for Voluntary Retirement At the very outset I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this contention. According to the management the circular relied by the management is not applicable to the first party.
14. It \s clear from the records that the bank initiated promotion process to clerical cadre vide Circular No. 40/86/ BC dated 28-1-1986 and vide letter dated 12-2-86, the first party employee applied for the same and he was promoted to clerical cadre w.e.f. 21-7-86. His basic pay at the timo of Promotion on 21-7-1986 was only Rs. 524 and the allegations made by the first party arc not correct. Circular No. 45/88 is applicable to the sub-staff promotion process and held during the year 1987. The first party was promoted in the year 1986 and the relevant circular applicable to him is Cir. 112/85/BC/6 HRDD/MPRDS dated 20-4-1985 and his basic salary was only Rs. 524 and he is in the sub-staff cadre is Rs. 650. On merits there is no case in favour of the first party. In view of the fact that he has applied for Voluntary Retirement and in the conditions for acceptance of Voluntary Retirement there is nothing regarding his grievance. This shows that he is taking Voluntary Retirement without imposing any conditions in respect of present grievance which is under dispute.
15. In other words without mentioning any thing about his grievance he has taken Voluntary Retirement. Therefore, now the first party in view of his Voluntary Retirement cannot claim anything. There ia no merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 1st June 2001).
V N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
S.O. 1734.—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, 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 21-6-2001.
[No. L-12012/227/93-IR(B-H)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ^v^-i^^-n- 3580 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN\ m MAIN, in CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
DATED :30TH MAY 2001
PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI V.N. KULKARNIB. Com. LL.B PRESIDING OFFICER C.R. No. 21/94
8. It is the further case of the management that the first party has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 9 in Tappal department and minor punishment was imposed on him. The bank industry being an organisation where honesty and integrity of the person is an utmost importance. The punishment of dismissal is proper and the same is valid. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.
H PARTY
9. It is seen from the records that my learned predecessor passed orders holding that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments on merits. I have heard both sides.
I PARTY
Deputy General Manager, N K. Appaiah
D. A. Cell,
C/o A. C. Parvathy,
Canara Bank,
DFO's Office Working
Bangalore Circle,
Plan Division
86, N.R. Road,
Arayan Bhavan,
Ashokapuram,
Bangalore-2
Mysore-8
Advocate : Shri T.R.K. Prasad 10. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the management one witness was examined and the workman got himself examined as WW1.
AWARD
1. The Central Govcrmcnt by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/227/923JR(B)U- dated 17th February, 1994 for adjudication on the following sohcdule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the managment of Canara Bank, Bangalore in dismissing Shri N. K. Appaiah, Clerk from service with effect from 14-5-1992 is justified? If not, what relief, is the workman entitled to?"
2. The first party workman was an Ex-serviceman, and he wan appointed by the second party management in the year 1979 as a Clerk and chargeshoet was issued that the misconduct was committed by him and enquiry was held. Thereafter the management dismissed him from service. Therefore dispute was raised
3. The first party appeared and filed Claim Statement.
4. The case of the first party is that the oharge sheet was vague and lacks material particulars. The enquiry was not properly held The charges were not proved but the management dismissed him from service and the action of the management is illegal. Regarding enquiry many allegations arc made by him and said that the enquiry is not fair and proper. The punishment is not correct. Therefore the workman has prayed to pass award in his favour,
5. The second party filed counter and the case of the second party in brief is aB under :
• 11. I have heard both sides on merits. It was argued by the learned oounsel for the second party that in the instant case domestic enquiry is held as fair and proper and according to the enquiry papers the management examined withnesses and the Enquiry Officer gave report and there is no perversity in the finding given by the Enquiry Officer. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the management that charges arc proved and the first party workman being an employee of Nationalised Bank has misappropriated the^amount of the customers and. the punishment is quite illegal. On previous occasions also the first party workman committed misconduct and minor punishment was imposed. This is not a case for any leniency. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the second party that the banking industry being an organisation where honesty and integrity of the personal is of utmost importance as punishment awarded is appropiatc. It was only submitted by the learned counsel for the first party workman that according to the case of the first party there was misappropriation of only Rs. 900 and this in a fit case to take lenient view and the punishment imposed is not proportionate.
12. In my humble opinion the learned counsel for the first party could not convince me as to how it is a fit case to take lenient view. It is the case of misappropriation. First party workman is the employee of a nationalised bank and is expected to work with honesty and integrity. The learned counsel for the second party in support of the arguments relied decision reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3129, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3131, AIR Supreme Court 2661, AIR Supreme Court 2663, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3028. I have read the above decisions very oarcfully and I am of the opinion that it is true that the workman committed misappropriation and the first party could not convinc anything so as to say that the enquiry report is perverse. In other words misappropriation is proved. It is held in AIR 2000 SC P 3129 that misappropriation is for small or large amounts, or that past record of employee is unblemished, irrelevant.
13. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that the punishment is proper and the reference has no merit. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
6. It is true that the first party was recruited as a Clerk during 1979. It is the further case of the second party that he has committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 900 belonging to a customer and tampered with the said customer's pass book. Accordingly charge sheet wan issued. Not being satisfied with the explanation enquiry was held and on the basis of enquiry report he was dismissed and the order of the , management is correct.
7. Regarding enquiry it is said that the same is fair and proper.
The reference is rejected,
(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 30th May 2001.
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer3581 New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
S.O.I 735.— In pursuance of Section 17 of I he Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Baladila Iron Ore Project and, their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-26O12/2/87-D-I1KB)]
B.M. DAVTD, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR No. CGTT/LC/R/16/88
Presiding Officer : Shri K M. RAI Shri M.P. Pandey Through Secretary, Bastar Khadan Mazdoor Sangh(HMS), 2/B, New Colony, Kirandul,
Distt. Bastsr —Applicant Versus
The General Mmager
Bailadila Tron Ore Project, Dep. No. 14, PO Kirandul, Distt. Bastar —Non-applicant
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of May, 2001
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-26012/2/87/D.TIT(B) dated 20-1-88 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal —
"Whether the action of the management of Bailadila Iron Ore Project, Dep, No. 14 Kirandul in denying conveyance allownace to Shri M.P. Pandey, ifDC is justified ? Tf not, what relief is the said workman entitlecd to?"
2135 GT/2001—18
2. The case for the workman is that he is office bearer of the Bastar Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (HMS) and employed as UDC by the management. The workman employed by the management of Bailadila Iron Ore Project of NMDC are being paid local travelling allowance. The workman Shri N.P. Pandey is not being paid the conveyance allo- wance by the management. In spite of the repeated request, the management has failed to pay the con- veyance allownace to the worman. The workman regularly utilises his motor cycle in respect to office work of the management and even than the con- veyance allowanac is not being paid to him. He is therefore entitled to receive conveyance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/—per month from the manage- ment; The junior employees working as UDC are being paid the conveyance allowance by the manage- ment regularly. The workman has been excluded from this facility by the management for the reasons bjst known to ihem. The management is therefore reliable to pay conveyance allowance to the workman at the rate of Rs. 100 per month.
3. The case for the management is that Bipartite Settlement between the Union and the management dated 17-9-83 has laid down the principle for making payment of conveyance allowance to the workman as under :—
"Reimbursement of Local Travelling Ex- penses shall be made to the workman who are required to posses and maintain moped/scooter/ motor cycle for discharge of their duties at the following rales subject to iheir fulfilling other rules/regulations prescribed in this regard;
For Moped Rs -55/-
For Scooter/motorcycle Rs. 100/ p.m.
Extract of circular No./J(51)/Rules/79 dated June-4.
"Reimbursement of local travelling ex- penses should be done only in cases where the workman is required to move from one work- spot to other in the discharge of his duties," 4. As per the settlement and circular, the con- venyance allowance shall be paid to the workman to maintain a vehicle if he uses the same for dischrage- ing his official duties requiring movement from one workspot to another. The workman Shri N.P. Pandey is working as UDC in the office of the management and is not required to move from one workspot to another in the discharge of his duties. His duties are confined to office only from 9 AM to 5 PMwith a lunch break. His work is confined to office'room only and is not required to move from one spot to another spot in the discharge of his official duty. In such a circumstance he is not entitled to recived any local travelling allownace as claimed by him. The claim of the workman therefore deserves to be reject 3581' THH GAZETTE OF INDIA : JIU..Y 21, 2 0 0 1/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)l 5. The following issues arise for decision in this case and my findings thereon are noted hcreing after :—
1. Whether the workman Shri N.P. Punck-y is entitled to receive Local Travelling Allowances as claimed by him ?
2. Relief and costs ?
6. Issue No. 1 For deciding this issue the relevant provison of bi v.rti'C settlement dated 17-9-86 and managements circular dated 4th June. 84 are r e- produced as under :—
"Reinbursemen: of Local Travelling Ex- penses shall be made to the workman who are required to posses and maintain moped/scooter/ Motercycle for discharge of their duties at the following rates, subject io their fulfilling other rules/ regulations prescrived in this regard.
For Moped Rs. 55/-pm
For scooter/Motorcycle Rs.100/-pm
Extract of circular No. 1(5:/Rules/79 dated June 4, t'8 "Reimbursement of Local Travelling Ex- penses should be done only in cases where the workman is required LO move from one work- spot to other in the discharge of his duties".
7. In the Light of above said provisions, now we will have to sec as to whether the wrokman has been able to prove his entitlement regarding the payment of local Travelling Allowances.
8. Admittedly the wokman is performing the duty of UDC in the office of NMDC at Kirandul Iron Ore Project. He has not produced any order passed by the competent authority to show that he wan authorised to move from one workspot to another in the discharge of his duties. Without such specific order passed by the competent authority no employee of the project shall be entitled to get local travelling allowance as per bipartile sece- rnent dated 17-9-83. In the light of this settle- ment, ihe rpant'gemcni also issued a circular dated 4-6-84 in respect to the entitlement of Local Travelling allwonce to be paid to the workman. The workman Shri N.P. Pandey was not authorised by the competent authority to move from one workspot to another to discharge his duty. Jn the absence of such specific order, the workman cannot claim any local travel- ling allowance from the management. He has not been authorised as per bipartite settlement and circular dated 4-6-84 to move from one workspot to another for discharging his duties,
9. The workman has also not been able to examine any other witness to show that the other empioccs, who arc not moving from one workspot to another in the discharge of their duties are being paid the Local Travelling Allowance by the management in utter disrogiid of the biparlites settlement of 17-9-83 and circular dated 4-6-84. In the absence of the positive cvidnce. It will mil be possible to hold that the management is showing discrimination in making the payment of local Travelling Allowance to its employees. The allegations of the workman remains unestablished for want of evidence in this respect.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons the work- man is not entitled to get any Local Travelling Allo- wance for his conveyance as claimed by him. Issue No. 1 is answered in negative.
11. Issue No. 2 : Tn view of the findings given on Issue No. I the workman is not entitled to get any convence allownace of local travelling as claimed by him. His claim is therefore disallowed. The re- ference is accordingly answered against the workman and in favour of Ihc management.
12. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K.M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the ?.5-h June, 2001
S.O. I 736. -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 Indu.L.,'al Tribunal Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Madras Port Trust and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 2506-2001.
[No. L-330l2/I/97-IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
3583ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRAIL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABQUR
COURT CHENNA1
Tuesday, the 12th June, 2001
Present : K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer Indusuial Dispute NO. 506/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribuna I. D. No. 101/98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under dated clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section 2(A) of Section 10 of the industrial disputes Act 1947, between the Workman Shri R. Ramaswamy and the Management. The Chairman Madras, Port Trust, Madras.
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, 1 Party/Claimant Dr. Ambedkar Port Trust and Dock Labour Board, Channai.
AND
The Chairman, IIParty/Managcment Madras Post Trust, Madra, Appearance :
For the Work m a n : S h ri K. R aj a &
K. Marinath,
Advocates For the Management : M/s. R. G. Rnjan &
A.R. Krishnan, Advocates
AWARD
The Govt. of India Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section ?(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-33O12/I/97/IR (M) dt. 20-07-1998 :—
"Whether the actk-n of the Management of Madras Port Trus* in impostog the punishment of^increment cut for 6 months on Shri R. Rama- swamy Syrang, Marine Department is justified or not " Tf not justified to what relief Shri R. Ramaswamy is entitled '? "
2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Satate Industrial Tribunal where it was taken on file as T.D. No. 101/98. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appear- ance through their respective, counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt. this case has been iransferred from the file of Tamil Nadu S i Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of thjs case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D. No. 506/2001 and notices were sen I to the counsel on either side informing them about Lhe transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial 1 ibunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court, with the respective parties to prosecute this case further on 07-03-2001.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 07-03-2001, the counsel for the II Party alone WRS present. Both the T Party and his counsel were not present. Then the case was adjourned to 22-03- 2001. On that days, both the parties and the counsel on either side were remained absent. There was no representation on either side. Though the matter was taken up for enquiry of 11-04-2001 and 03-05-2001 the counsel for the II Party alone was present and T party and his counsel remained absent as usual. There was no representation for the I Party/Union at all and the case was adjourned to 25-05-2001. On that day as the Presiding Officer was on other official duty, the matter was finally adjourned to 12-06-2001 for enquiry.
4. Whon the matter was taken up for enquiry today i.e., 12-06-2001. as usual the counsel for the TT Party alone present. Theie is no representation for the I paity/Claimant Inspitc of the counsel on record for the I Party was served no'icc, on 20-2-2001 itself by Registered Post with acknowledgement due for the hearing on 7-3-2001, (as per the acknowledgement received) neiiher himself por I Party has chosen to appear before this Tribunal to prosecute this case further. The inaction and non-representation on the side of the I party/Claimant enables this Tribunal to conclude that no industrial disput" as such now exists between the parties concerned. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for ncn- prosccuticn.
5. In the result, as avvaid is passod holding that 'No dispute' flMsts now between the parlies con- cerned. No Cost.
(Dic;ated lo the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounod by me in the open court on this day the 12th June 2001).
K. KARTHIKTYAN, Presiding Officer 3584 THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii>] New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001
S.O. 1737.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central GoVornment hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chonnai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Madras Port Trust and their workaman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-200].
[No. L-330l2/4/96-IR(M)l
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHENNAI Friday, the 18th May, 2001
Present : K. KARTHJKEYAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 413/.001
Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I. D. No. 107/96 (In the matter of the dispute lor adjudication under section l0(l)(d) and sub-sectiun 2(A) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Claimant Madras Port-Trust Employees Union and the Management, The Chairman, Madras Port trust, Madras.)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, 1 Party/Claimant Madras Port T/tust Employees Union, Madras
AND
The Chairman, II Party/Manage- Madras Port Trust, Madras, rnent
Appearance :
For the Claimant ; M/s. P. K. Raja-
gopal & K. Santha-. kumari, Advocates For the Management : Sri R. Arumugam,
Advoeatc
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred t h e- following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-33012/4/96-(IR) (Misc) dt. 5-12-1996. :
"Whether the action of the Management of Madras Port ^rust in dismissing Shri K. Vijayaraghavan from service is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. This reference has bec? made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, wheic it was taken on file as I, D. No. 107/96, On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, both the purties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their res- respective Cairn Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt., this ease has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this cas-j from '.ho Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I. D. No. 4 i 3/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer ol this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with ;i direc- tion to present before this Court with the respective parties to prosecute this case further on 23-2-2001. M/s. Iyer & Dolia, Advocates filed a fresh Vakalath for the II party/Management, but neither the I Party nor his counsel on record appeared before this Tribunal ever since the ease has been taken on file till this date.
3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry to-day, the counsel on either side was nof present. Both the parties also remained absent. There is no representation on either side. It is seen from records that this ease as an industrial dispute has been referred by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour by its order dated 5-12-1996 for an adjudication by that Tribunal. Though the counsel for the I Party and the present counsel for thu II Party entered appearance before that Tribunal on the first date of hearing on 17-1-1997, the I Party/Claimant had chosen to file their Claim Statement only on 13-6-1997. The 11 Party had chosen to file the Counter Statement on 30-06-1998 and the matter was kept pending for en- enquiry before that TiibuuuJ as neither party to this dispute was read) to prosecute this case there. Even after this ease has been transferred to the file ol this Court, the I Party Union iuspitc of the notice received by them through Registered Post has not chosen to appear bcfoic; this Tribunal either by themselves or through their counsel on record to prosecute this case furihur. The counsel on record for the II Party also has not chosen to appear beofre this Tribunal and the II Party/Management counsel remained absent. As no one has turned up for very 35 W
AWARD
many hearings in this case ever since the first hearing on 23-2-2001, this Tribunal has Kit with nu other option but to dismiss this dispute for delauit. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed fur de- fault for non-representation and non-prosecution.
By Order No. I.-I20J l|"4|33 IR(B-JI) dated 29-7-1993 the Central Government in exercise of iis powers under section 10(l)(d) and <2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to thi" Tribunal for adjudication :
4. In the result, an award is passed holding that '"No dispute' exists now between the parties. Ts'o Cost.
"Whether the action o/ the management of PNU in the matter cf filling up the posts of head cashier category C in Durgapur and Siligurl office is in accordance with circular No. 23|y() or not? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled to 7" (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day ihe 18th May, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKRYAN, Presiding OMiccr
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
S.O. 1738.—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|Lf"bour Court, Kolkata as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, Which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 21-6-2001.
l'No. 1-I2O11|4|93-1R(B-1I)1
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL'TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA!
Reference No. 32 cf 1993
PARTIES :
Employers in relniion to the management of Punjab
National Bank
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT :
Mr. Justice llhanu Prasad Sharm.i, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCE :
On behalf of M"n;i(;:,:mciit.—Mr. J. Rov, Manager-
Personnel.
On behalf of Woikmcn.—Mr. T.P. Ghorui, General Sec-
retary of the Union,
2. This dispute has b.?e:i wised bv thvj l'NB Employees Union un account oi non~lullilnient of ihe post ot Cash Urhcer in two of me brau-tics of the flank at Uurgapur and Siligun. It is staled in this connection that the Bank has formulated a rule for selection and :':ep'.ible bv th.'ni and a letter dMcd 24-fi-19RR was senl in Ihis rppard. Therefore, it is further •itati-d that without rPctifvinq the? mistiit-'' the repirrial and zonal authnrities allowed the irr?guli!rifios to continue for STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Banking.
3536 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PAR- UStc. 3(ii)J the leasons best konwn to them, inouKn they were well aware of inc ininu MaL m case any tnodiiicaiiun is suggested "uiii lound aeoepuDli;, it tan oiuy be liom the date ilic aKi'cc- ment is signed beiwtiun the u.irlics as it would deprive those employees whose candidatures could not be considcied for selection of persons for filling up of special allowance carrying posts tn between the period. In this view of the matter, it has h.—.i prayed tiitit the zonal authority be directed to (ill-up tin? vacancies a\ per existing norms within ii time bound piO'iivmmo and the liibiinal be pleased to puss an order in vvimnn about the compliance of the older as above with firm commitment not to violate policies in future. llowevel, a piaycr lias aslo been made to punish those persons who aie responsible foi violation of the rules and policies of (lie Bmk.
3, A written stacincnt lias been filed on lehalf of the management in which apart from some prcliiniuaiy objec- tions bcinK raised ieuardinjj maintainability of the rcfcrerjcc, it has been stated that th.- flnnk has enlrrcd into c concilia- tion settlement on 30th September 19S2 which ^ovenm poli- cies and procedures concerning selection of Head Cashier Category 'C and the settle merit provides as under :•—
LO 'jiliciaie us Head Cashiei Categoiy 'C aod he is also not eligible iu oe a Lasiuui, because cashiers bcifiic to a i-ijataLc taivgory and iciiei-: who ate ongmatly Clerks aie jiot engujlc to become a Catft Ufrtter. He lurther staled that in Scplci"ibi,i, IWJ r>lew Bank of India mtrged wnli tiiL i'mijub iNanoJial bank and atrer the meiget1 convtniions, rules ana regulations of Punjab National Bank are 5nll in vogue and in opeiauon. He further stated that dispute arose between some section of the workman regardine the seniority of the personnel oi the New Bunk of India who not merged in the Punjab National Bank and the matter is pending before the Horfble Supreme Court of India, He also lurther stated that iu clillci'cnt High Courts similar questions arose and the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta £ave a direc- tion m an interim order, because of which Punjab Nulional Bank is not ftlling-up the posts carrying special allowance. As such, Head Cashier Category 'C posts at Ourgapur and Siliguri Branches of ths Bank are still vacant io t>e per- manently fi)led-up. 1 ie also stated that as an interim arran- gement to run the woik some Tellers at those IWTI blanches, nnmely, Durgnpur aud Siliyuri were asked to oJilciute in the post of Head Cashier Category 'C and they arc so officiating as they were senior to all the Cleiks in those two branches, but this itself is in violation •ot the clarification in the letter dated 23-6-1993. In his cross-examination also lie admitted that the posts arc not bein/j lilleu-up because of some interim order of Ihe Hon'b'e Hij^h Court at Calcutta.
(a) The Head Cashiers in branches and Pay olllces centrallinK the strength of 2, 3 and 4 Cashiers in the Cash Section shall be paid the allowance of Head Cashier Category 'C as provided in the Bipartite Settlement and their job shall be got enlaiged in terms of the Bipartite SetHement,
5. No witness has been examined jn behalf of the manage- ment in support of what has been stated and denied in their written statement.
(,bj The selection of Head Cashier Category 'C' shall be made on the basis of seniority of Head Cashiers CC Inchar-e v)f memory 'C with the tnwn as a unit.
(c) In. case of inability or refusal to perform the addi- tional iutic-s of Head Cnshier Category 'C, such Head CashierMCashicr Incharges shall continue to draw the allowance of cateeory 'A' as piovivdcd in the Bip 3537
AWARD
ciiculais and also in ths liglv of the clatification made in the letter dated 24-fi-l'jyj, Ext. W-l. There does not appear to be any reason to allow the mana^em^nt to continue h> delay the filling up iie afO'-esaid posis.
1. The Central Governmenet by exercising the poweis confeircc1. by clauae (d) ot sub-section 2A of the Section 10 ol the- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12011/12/9fi-IR(B-II) dated 27th May. 1997 foe adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
8. Accordingly, tiie refciencc is decided in favour i,f the workmen and it is hereby directed that the Zonal Office, Calcutta of the Punjab National Hunk should see that the vacant posts of Head Cashier Category 'C at Durstapur und Siliguri Branches of the Hank are lilied-un within next two months on the basis of the rulcc and instructions of the Head Office and they should not delay the mutter any fur- ther on any pretext.
9. The reference is accord'tigiv disposed of.
"Whether the action of the management ot Vijava Bunk in transferring Shri K. M. Surest), Treasurer l'rom Udupl to Brahmavar Branch and Shri S. R. Boodhi, Treasurer from Bclgaum to Bijapur Branch amounts tii victimisation and unfair labour practice 7 If so. to what iclicf the said workmen are entitled 7" Dated, Kolkata,
The 4th June, 2001.
3588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART- II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and sipri'.'d by me on 31st May 2001.0
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001
S.O 1740.—In pursuance of Sectwn 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur ns shown in tiie nnnsxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their work- man which was received by the Central Government en 21-6,200i.
[No. L-12Ol2/89/97-lR(B-N)1 AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURK
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LAROUR COURT, JAIPUR
Cane No. B-46/97
Reference No. L-12OI2/89/97-IR(B-Il) dt. 10-11-1997 The President, Riijosthan (State) Bunk Workers' Organisation, C/o Bank of Maharashtra, M.I. Road.
Jaipur,
-- Applicant
V/s
The General Mnpnyt-r, Den.i Bank, Kaiol Bagh, Aijjrt Sarnaf Road, Keeltron Chambers, New Delhi.
. • Non-HPpiicant ATTENDANCE:
For the applicant—Shri Suresh Kashyap
For (he non-applicant—Shri A. P. Upadhyaya Dale of Award—4-6-2001
AWARD
Tht Central Government vide order mentioned above has referred t^e following dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A; of Section 10 of the fndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred Jfsjthe Act, 1917) for adjudication.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of Dcna Bank is justified in not giving full scale of wages to Shri Dharnm Veer Singh, Part lime sweeper since 1995 who is employed w.e.f, 7-7-89 when his junior workman Shri Salim Khan employed in 1995 and others were Riven full scale of wages in violation of bi-partite settle- ment dated 25-9-92 and principle of natural justice ? If not to wlnt relief the workman is entitled '!" The statement of claim was tiled by the Rujasthun State Bank Workers' Organisation (hereinafter referred as the Union). It was stated that Union is registered Trade Union which represent;, the majority employees of Dena Bank (hereinafter rcfened ai> the Hank) iu Rajasthan. Shri Dharam Veer S'nijh (hereinafter referred a.s the applicant) is the member of the Union. The applicant requested to solve his problem and therefore, Ihc dispute wj:, raised by the Union. It was further stated that the applicant was posted as "Safaiwala" as part lime in Mjboidinate cadre on 7-7-89 against permanent vacancy. The service conditions of the part time employees of the Bank' arc governed by the Shastri Award and Bi-parfite settle- ment. According to the bi-partite settlement the applicant was entitled to 3|4 of the salary, but in spite of repeated demands the applicant was paid Rs. 200 per month vv.c.f. 29-6-94 as per agreemenl, on the assurance that the applicant will be treated a permanent part time employee and thereafter he will be treated as full time employee. The posts of full lime employees in subordinate cadre having fallen vacant, the applicant submitted application ror absorptios as full time- on 2-5 .L.<4. The Bonk appointed number of persons on perma- nent vacant posts in subordinate cadre in the year 1995, but the applicant was not considered on the basis of seniority. The applicant made number of representations, but with the no result It was prayed that the flpplicant be declared as lull time regular employee w.c.f. 1995 and the non-.'ippileant be directed to pay the pay scales and other benefits to the applicant w.e.f. the above date.
The ron-applicant In the amended reply has tated that the applicant was working in the Bharatpur branch of the Bank since 7-7-89 on consolidated wanes i.e. working hours ranging from 3 to 6 hours per week. Later on the applicant was made regular as permanent part time sweeper on 1/3 wni/es w.e.f. 1-7-90 in terms of settlement. It was denied that trie appl'cant was entitled to 3/4 salary of the sub-staff. Tt w:is si.-ifi d thai Shri Sttlini Khan sub-staff belongs to religious nrnoiiiv community. It was admitted that there were vacancies in tlw Bunk for permanent full time sub-staff, but it was denied thut the applicant ought to have been elevated in one of sueh vacancy. It was admitted that th? applicant hod applied for one of such posts but it was stated that he could for be considered as he was not eligible as per terms of settlement dr. 25-9-92 and 5-12-96 according to which the date of joining of applicant Is the basis for selection subject to leservntion point. Tt was denied that the Bank has agreid for c.'pvatinR the applicant within one month of tifirccrnent dt. 29-6-94.
The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply. In the lejoindtr it was stated that the applicant was employed w.e.f. 7-7-89 white Shri Salim Khan was appointed in 1995 in full scale in violation of bi-partite settlement dt. 25-9-92. It was further stated that there is no reservation for religious minority community. i
The applicant filed his affidavit in support of the claim, The learned counsel for the non-applicant was given opportu- nity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. The applicant also filed copies of certain documents which will be referred at the nnpiopriate nlace, On behalf of the non-applicant Shri Prnnoh Hindu Sain was examined. The non-applicant also filed the ropics of certain documents.
IP-arci arguments on behalf of both the parties. The learned counsel Joi the nnn-applicfint has also filed written arguments.
It is not disputed that the applicant has been working in bninch Bharatpur of the Bank since 19K9, while Shri Salim Khan was appointed in the year 1995. The learned counsel for the applicant has only contended that Shri Salim Khan, being junior to the applicant was given appointment in full scalo and therefore, the applicant is also entitled for full time scale with effect from the date the anpolntmcnt was civen to Shri Sclim Khan. The learned counsel for the noti-appl'canl hhi contended *hnt Shri Sniim Khan was appointed a\ ireular rmrtloype. on full scale while the applicant was appointed as •i rait time employee and therefore, cannot be said to be ji'nior to the applicant. His other contention is that t-ven if it is held (hat there is nc reservation in filling the post en the baij; of religious minority community and Sh. Salim Khan was given appointment oi. full scale illegally and in violation of bipartite settlement tit. 25-9-92 the applicant cannot claim equality in pay. In support of his contention he has lelied upon A1SLJ 2000 (1) 76 State of Bihar and Others v/s KamcsJiwar Prashad Singh and another's. The term o[ settle- ment dl, 25-9-92 arc being reproduced as under :—
"Tcrm-i of Settlement:
(1) As arid when a new vacancy of full-time sub-ttatl is identified in a branch/office and approved bv Head Office or a, vacancy has arisen duo to resignation/ termination/promotion and approved by Head Office, the vacancy will be notified and applications will te invited from willing eligible part-time employees drawing scale wages of l]3rd, 1|2, 3|4th in the Region/State whichever is smaller, atid the vacancy will be filled up by posting the part-time employee who is senior-most the applicants, as per date of joining irrespective scale wages, he would be drawing. For example : If the date of joining of a 1/3rd part-time employee is say 1-4-1987 and date ot joining of a 3/4th part-time employee is say 1-10-1989, the vacancy will be filled up by offering it to l/3rd part-time employee being senior-most as per date of joining.
(2) As and when vacancy arise, for 1/2 or 3/4th scfele wage in a center. Having 2 or more branches and approved by Head Office, appjications will be invited from the willing eligible part-time employees working in that posting the applicants drawing scale wage of 1/3 or 1/2 as the case may be as per the dale of joining will fill up center and the vacancy. If (here is only one branch in a center where the vacancy has arisen and approved, the same will be filled up from the approved panel, if there is no r"uii5st transfer from part-time employees working in other center is pending.
(31 To be eligible for conversion into full-time subordi- nate, the part-time employees should be conforming to norms of recruitment in respect of age. educational qualification, etc. at the time of initial cntiv into part-time employment. For part-time employees drawing scale-wages recruited prior to 1977, thpir eligibility regarding qualifications, age may be the one applicable to SC/ST candidates stipulate for recruitment after 1977. However, after conversion the end vacancy may be filled up from approved panel duly constituted. While effecting conversion Government guidelines regarding conversion of sweepers etc. will be followed.
(4) If more than one part-time employee have the name seniority, selection will be on the basis of dat© of birth. The selected candidates can be posted any- where in the Region/State whichever is smaller.
(5) For the purpose of reckoning seniority for allowance carrying posts in subordinate cadre, thtir date of conversion to full-time basis will be taken into account.
• (6) If the part-time employee after being offered the above vacancy refuses to accept for whatsoever reason, he shall stand debarred permanently.
(7) The parties will sort out any dispute arising over (he interpretation of any clause of this Settlement to the Settlement by mutual discussion.
This Settlement shall come into force from the date of signing of this settlement.
Dated this 25th day of September, 1992."
- 3589 • and the application will be invited from' willing L$"Itvtime employee drawing wages, 1/2, 1/4-and 3/4,,in the.-p".manA State and the vacancy will be filled up by posting- the .part- time employee who is senior most as per date of joining. Shri Salim Khan was given appointment on full time scale in violation of the above condition of the settlement: It is true that the applicant ctin claim Seniority in respect ol ttgj J)fc$i6"n"s who are part-time employees and not with full time employees but the appointment was given to Shri Salim Khan in violation of the conditions of the above settlenrtent. In the case reported in AISL.T 2000(1) 76, the case Gursharan Singh and others v/s NOMC and others repotted in 1996.(2) SCQ 459 was referred ih which it was held that citizen^ have assumed wronfl notions regarding the scope, of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law in all citizens. Benefits extended to somq persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. It was further observed :
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within tjhe equality clause this concept nor Article 226 em- powers the High Court to enforce such, claini of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for oxtettdinK silimar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended: to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."
The, appointment of-Shri Salim Khan as full time employee hi\v'mg been made arbitrarily does not confer the rittht to the applicant to .claim parity but he had the right to be "considered for grant of full time scale in the vacancy filled up by the non-applicant as per the terms of settlement. It has been contended that the applicant was not considered for full time scale as he was not eligible. The non-applica.nt has .not sub- mitted f.ny evidence as to how the applicant was not eligible. The applicant had the right for consideration for full time scale in the new vacancy filled up by Shri Sallm Khan.
The action of the non-applicant for nof considering the applicant for full scale of wages therefore, cannot .be aaJd to be justified.. The non-applicant is directed' to" consider thi? applicant for granting full scale of wages from tha yeai J995 as per conditions of the bi-partite settlement dt, 25-9792.
The copies of the .award may be sent to the Central Gmernment under Section 17(1.1 of the Act, 1947 fot publication.
Sd|- (JLLBGIBLE)
Presiding Offleei New Delhi-, -the 21st'June, 200r Tt is admitted that full time .vacancy of sub-staff had arisen arcl Shri Salim Khan was given appointment'on full time" scale in the vear 1994 on the basis of reservation'for felijzious minority community. The learned f counsel for the Kiorvaoplt- cunt hns not been able to proclucp.any order, regarding re-crvi;tion on [he- lvisis nf ftiitfious minority "community. Tlw , first condition of bi-nartite settlement dt1-25-9"-92' that: In case of new -vacancy of full time sub-staff thq parac w-lfl pd Tiotrflttd" 2m ori2noi.-]o.
3590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management of Bank of Maharashtra and thejr work- man, which was received by the Central Government -on 21-6-2001,
TNo. L-12012/i34/92-lR(JMl)|
A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated, 12th June, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer, COIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.
C. R. No, 77/9?
I PARTY
The General Secretary, Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh, (South Zone), 71, Kumbhakonam Plots, Behind Gujarat Bhavan, Hubli-580029. (Advocate—Shri S, B. Vuidya)
II PARTY
The Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, 15, Police Station Road. Basavangudi, Bangalore-456004. (Advocate—Shri N. Mahalingam)
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 19474 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/ 134/92-IR(B-H) daled 9-10-92 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the ection of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in denial of promotion to the post of full time sub-staff and denial of 3/4th Grade to Shri M. V. Gopalakfishna, part time sweeper, Bagalkot Branch of the Bank, is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. Th" workman of the first party union was work- ing with the Second Party Management and he was retrenched from service, so dispute is raised.
3. First party union appeared and filed Claim State- ment, The case of the first party union is as under:
4. The Bipartite settlement provide for recruitment of award staff. The management bad circulated o * policy for th$ appointment of Sweepers and sub-staff in the bank and a person who is not above 28 years of age in case of general category and not above 33 years in case of SC/ST category cun be appointed as a Sweeper.
5. It is ths further case of the first party union Jhat for appointment of sub-staff, a list of sweepers is maintained at the Regional Office, and based on their date of joining as sweeper and as per seniority when- ever vacancy of lull time sub-staff arises, the post is offered to the senior most sweeper if he has passed atleast 6th standard. As per the provisions of the Bi- partite Settlement, any employee who has worked "con- tinuously for a period of 6 months, is deemed to be a confirmed employee. First party union workman was appointed as a Swiseper from 6-4-1981 at its Mysore branch and worked continuously for a period of more than one year upto 3-5-1982 and on 1-6*82 the man- agement terminated the services without following mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act amounting to unfair labour practice. Provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is attract- ed and his termination amounts to retrenchment. After the retrenchment, the management employed various persons. The first party for all these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
6. The Second party appeared and filed Written Statement. The case of the second party in btief is as under :
7. The contention of the management is that by way of purely a stop gap arrangement on administra- tive exigency, the first party union workman came to be appointed on 6-4-1981 at Mysore Branch, as a temporary part-time sub-staff (temp P.T.S.) against a consolidated pay of Rs. 60 per month without his name being born on the muster roll, pending the process of selecting a suitable incumbent as sponsored through the local employment exchange, in keeping with the Bank's eligibility norms and procedure. As such, his was an employment purely on temporary basis, both by intention and effect. He could not be continued, since his name was only registered with but not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as re- quired by the Bank. On the expiry of the period spent on purely temporary appointment in order to discon- tinue the services rendered by him. The bank had to discontinue his temporary services with effect from 1-6-1982. The action of the management is correct. The allegations made by the first party union are not correct. The workman did not raise any objection because he was not fulfilled bank's norms for recruit- ment. Even though h^ was not eligible for absorption into the permanent post of Sweeper, bank came for- ward humanistically and decided as a special case, to consiil^! his application favourably, by allowing to c-employ him as a permanent Swpeer on scale wages at any branch in the region against clear vacancy pros- pectively and accordingly in April 1986 he was called by the Regional Manager, Bangalore for eliciting his willingness to accept the prospective vacancy of part time sub-stiffs (Sweeper) in Bangalore City by wav of re-employment. He explained his domestic prob- lems and expressed Inability to accept employment in Bangalore City due to its high cost living but pro- fusely pleaded to keep his case in abeyance towards3591 accommodating him in any future vacancy on l/3rd scale wages in a centre other than Bangalore an4 the bank accepted his request and also -kept his union apprised of the same.
8. It is the further case of the management that things were kept waiting with mutual concern and consent the post of sweeper (consolidated pay of Rs. 100) came to be vacant at Bagalkot Branch, in the wake of its occupant beiag. absorbed as full time sub-staff as per provisions of Bipartite Settlement and once again the bank after securing consent of Shri K. Panneer Selvan, Regional Secretary (now organised Secretary), Bank of Maharashtra decided to otter the post of Swpeer at Bagalkot to Mr. M. V. Gopala- krishna. A^ on 3-5-1954 he was age barred. The bank also elevated the post of 1/3 scale wages and totally waived the probaion period of 6 months with a view to concede permanent service w.e.f. the date of his re-cmployment. He accepted the above offer of fresh employment as permanent part time sub-staff at Bagalkot Branch on 1/3 scale wages, both thank- fully and unconditionally vide his letter dated 20th June, 1987 and also undertook to report for duty on 30-6-1987 and the bank issued orders as staed in para 5 of the written statement. His seniority is pro- perly fixed. The contract of first temporary service came to an end on 30-5-1982 and was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Many other grounds are stated in the Written Statement and the management has prayed to reject the reference.
9. It is the further case of the management that Bagalkot Branch came to be merged with Bijapur Branch during March 1994 thereby rendering Mr. M. V. Copalakrishnti as a redundant sweeper. Imme- diately thereafer he was accommodated at his request ta Mysore on deputation as additional Sweeper. The bank met all his requests as stated in para 10 of the written statement. He was posted on 3/4 scale wages. Direct jump from 1 /3 scale wages to 3/4 scale wages was given. Therefore the claim is not correct, Re- employment was made on specific terms and condi- tions and as such the date of his re-employment i.e. 30-6-87 the date of his appointment in the bank which is also incorporated in the updated and circulated seniority list of Sweeper for Bangalore Region, In fact there is no real grievance to complain for just reason- able and proper dispensation from the management of Bank of Maharashtra which has already ccnceedcd many things to the first party union workman with magnanimity and as a model employer. The manage- ment has said that there is no merit in this dispute.
10. It is seen from the records that both sides sub- mitted thai they have no evidence. Accordingly I have heard the arguments of both sides in detail. I have perused thfi available records carefully. The first party workman has given a written arguments with docu- ments and I have carefully read the same.
11. At the very outset I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this dispute. It is clear from the records that the second party management has con- ceded all the requests of the first party workman with magnanimity. The management has categorically stat- ed that the initial f;ppointment was only temporary and subsequently management has considered the case of the workman and the action of the management is correct.
12. I have carefully considered the written argu- ments given by first party union. The written argu- ments is nothing but a repetition of all the allegations made in he claim petition. There is no merit in the contention of the first party union in saying that there is unfair labour practice by the management. The termination is not illegal. The denial of promotion as contented by the union has no merit. I have read th" decisions cited by the first party union carefully. The first party union has relied a decision quoted in Supreme Court on line Com case 945 Constitution of India, Aricles 14 and 10 Manip. Pages 1 to 15* On going through the facts of the case I am of the firm opinion that the first union cannot take the benefit of the principles held in the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Facts of the above decisions are quite different.
13. I have given my best consideration to the facts of the case and the statements made by the parties and I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this dispute. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER ^-<&&& The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 12th June, 2001.)
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001 S.O. 1742.—-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal | Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute. between the employers in lelation td the management of Central Bank of India and tlierr verk- man, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
[No. I.-l2"0l2[124|98-tR(B-H)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2G01/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART I t - S E c. 3(")J
ANNEXURE
IEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
5 Presiding, Officer : Rudresh Kumar.
ADJUDICATION
I D. No. V 1812000,
Ref t No. L-424j98iJR(B-II) Dt., 23-2-9914-3-^9 : . BETWEEN
Sh. Manoj Kumar -Shukla, 417|311-B, Niwaz Gaqj, Cucknow (U.P.).
AND
The Dy. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Vidhan Sabha Mojrg, Lucknow-226010(U.P.).-
AWARD
•'By reference No. L-124|98|lR(B-II) dated 23-2-991 1-3-1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) s"|" sub-swlion (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section TO W.'Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over this industrial dispute between Sh. Manoj Kumar Shukla j(ncT Dy. General Manager, Central Bank erf India, Lucknow to the CGIr-cum-Labour Court,, Kanpur for adjudication. Later this dispute was transferred to, this; Tribnual for adjudication.
The reference is produced ns under :
"Whether demand of Sh, Manoj Kumair Shukla S|o Sh. Ram Avtar Shukla, Ex. Employee of Central Bank of India, Chowk Branch, Lucknow fpr Reinstatement \v e.f. 4-9-94 wi*h full back wages is justified. If not, what relief the,- workmain is entitled ?" not regularly appointed against any post nor wu|s a sub'Staff. in regular cadre of the bank The bank did not issue any appointment letter to him. It is also stalled the' workman had worked for a brief period and was never engaged for 240 days in any calendar year as claimed by him. He was engaged on day to cfafy basis an,d relation of master and servant exhausted at end of the day,
4. The onus to prove engagement for 240 days in any calendar year lies on the workman. The parties have relied on documentary and oral evidence tendered by them which would be discussed a bit later. The . workman, has filed a circular issued by the Central Bank of India, Regional Office. Lucknow seeking de- tails of temporaryjeasual workers, who had worked after 1-1-1982 and still unregularised. Sub-stafiiSafai- k'armchari and Water Boys were covered by the above circular. The grcvance of Ihe workmam, is that his name was not sent despite his working since 1990. By letter dt. 27-11-1992 the workman submitted a representation which was registered on 29-11-94. The workman alsu filed copy of payment vouchers dt. 25-3-94, 5-4-94, 4-4-94, 6-4-94, 11-4-94, 12-4-94 besides his. representation to Asst*. Labour Commis- sioner (C), Lucknow. Ex-Wl to Ex. W4 were ajso filed by the workman which are in shape of self . prepared attendance chart. This attendance chart was prepared by him and is not counter-signed by any 'Ba|nk authority.
5. The management filed six payment vouchers of the year 1990 and 1994. Later, the management also filed 11 vouchers showing payments on different dates in between 25-3-1994 and 12-4-1994. In adilion to it, the workman examined himself to substantiate his version. Mr. M. M. Misra, Branch Manager, Chowk branch was also examined by the management Who testified that the workman was never engaged for 240 days in any calendar year. Patties cross-examined rival witnesses, in detail,
6. In short, the, material issue is whether Mafaoj Kumar Shukla worked as Water boy|Casual labour for 240 days in any of the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 & 1994? If his continuous engagement, in any of the spjid years, is proved, he vonid be entitled to derive benefit nf section 25-F.
7. The management has not denied casual engage- ment of the workman but his engagement against permanent post to do work of punishment nature is denied. It is submitted that his services were taken for bring drinking waiter and tea etc. If on some occassion he was assigned additional work, he - was compensated. His casual appointment was for a brief period much less than 240 days in ai calendar year and so' there was no continuous service as defined scc- . tk>n 25-B. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to benefit of section 25-F I.D. Act.
3593calendar year. Le.irned A]R workman submitted that Ex. Wl to W4 ver?. prepared by the workman on the basis of his knowledge and thus tribunal should take it as basis of his right. This submission is misconceived. A self drawn chart without any counter signatures of the competent authority of the Baink, can not form basis of claim. No evidence has been given to prove that the management niaae payments for those dates. As such Ex-Wl to Ex-W4 are not sufficient to clinch issue in favour of tli5 vorkman.
9. The management hav/: filed payment vouchers of the years 1990 1992, 1994. These documents do not indicate casual engagement of the workman conti- nuously for 240 days in any calendei year. There arc no circumstances to warrant inference of concealing documents by the management.
10. Thus, the workman fyileci to prove continuous service for 240 days in the yean 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 and he is not entitled to benefit of section 25-F ].D. Act,, The action of the management in terminating the services of the workman wag not unjustified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Award accordingly.
LUCRNOW
13-6-2001.
RUDRESH KUMAR. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 26tn June, 2001
SO. 1743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 oi' 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awar;l of the Central Government Labour Court, ErnukuUm, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CmtioHc Syrian Bank limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-1M11|33|2OOO-1R-(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
TN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) PRESENT :
Sri D. Mohana'MJnn, B Sc, I L B., Presidinj; Officer. Industrial Dispute No. l]2001 (Central)
BETWEEN
The Chainnan, Catholic Syrian Bank Limited. St. Mary's College Road, Thrinsur,
AND
The workman of the above concern rrpresnted by the General Secretary, Catholic Syrian Bank Stuff Asso- ciation, Knlln"Lh Royal Squorx- Road, Thribsuor.
REPRESENTATION ;
Sri K. Anand, Advocates, Wnrriam Road, Cochin.
., For Management.
AWARD
The issue referred for adjudication tc this court by the Government of India us per Order No. L-1201 l[33|2000|IR (B-I) dated 29-12-2000 is :
"Whether (he proposed action of the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. in unilateral withdrawal of customary practice of availment of casual leave on half dav basis is just and reasonable? Tf not, to what relief the workm.ir are entitled?" 2. Though notice was duly served on the Renera! secretary of the union, there was no representation for the union. The union was called and found nbsent. Whereas, tjie manage- ment entered appearance pursuant to ths notice served on it. In the above situation this court is pleased to think that the union is not at all interested to pursue the dispute and prosecute the matter as there is no subsisting Industrial dispute to be resolved.
Tn the result, ihe reference is answered holding tha* there is no subsisting industrial dispute between the parlies to be adjudicatd upon.
Ernakulam,
30-4-2001.
D. MOHANARA1AN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the ?fith ,h:ne, 2001 S.O. 1744.—Jn pursuance of Section 17 of the in- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govermneat hereby publishes ijie Award of the Cen- tral Government Labour Court, Ernakiilam as shown in the Annsjcure in the Tndusiiial Dispute between the employers in relation to the rmiracement of M|s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Umiif d and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001. [No. L-12012130194-IRfB-I1)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3594 THE 6AZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PARP II—SEC. 3(ii>] ANNEXUKB IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COUPJ, ERNAKULAM
(In the Labour Court, Etnakulamj
(Wednesday, the 25th day of April, 2U0J)
PRESENT :
Sri. D, Mohanarajan, D.Sc, LL.B., Presiding
Officer,
Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 1995 (Central)
After his retrenchment, the management h as also t a k en fresh a nd new h a e ds in servic:. T he w o r k m an was not allowed to sign the attendance register. No service record of the workman was maintained. T he manage- ment is bound to absorb the workman a nd confirm him in regular service He is entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages, continuity of service and' other attendant benefits. Hence it is prayed that an award m ay be passed holding that the action of the management in retrenching the workman from service is unjustified ancf directing the management to r e- instate him in service with full backwages and other attendant bentfits.
DETV/EEN
The Chairman, Drninulaksnini Bart Limited,
Thrijsur.
AND
The workman of the above concern Sri, P. K. Unnikrithnan, Kanakafhureparabu, M.fi. Road. Ernakulam-682 035.
REPRESENTATIONS:
Sri. P F. Thomas, Advocates, Cochin tS2 012. ...For Management.
; Sri. Ashok B, Shenoy,
Advocates, Cochin-682 035.
. For Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India as per Order No. L- 12'012|30!W-lR (BI) dated 7-0-95 referred the following industrial dispute to this court for adjudi- cation : @g
3595MW1, then munajur of hospital road branch at Ernakuhm. But MW1 has denied to have engaged the workman ao peon or in any other category at any point of time during his tenure uf cilice in that branch of the bank.
has to be accepted as tiuc. This position is made clear in the Supreme Court decision reported in 1986 1 LLJ 127 (Sri. H. D. Singh Vs. Rt.xrve Bank of India and others.) The workman having worked conti- nuously for more tliun 240 days in a year, is entitled to protection of section 251- of'the Industrial Disputes Act and the said protection cannot be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily rated worker (See the Supreme Court decision reported in 1998 111 LLJ (supp.) 714-Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India and another).
11. From my foregoing discussions, it is apparent that the workman who was employed by the manage- ment as temporary peon in its Ernaknl:,m Hospital Road branch for a period of about 11 years was illegally retrenched from services. These points are answered as indicated above.
8. In conformity with the averments in the claim statement and rejoinder, WW1 has sworn that though he was rot reg'ilatised in service, he was given wages through out his service, lor which he had issued vouchers in due course. He would further depose that he was never allowed to put his signature or initial in the attend TICS register maintained by the bank. According to him, lie is not in possession of any docu- ments to substantiate bis claim, and all the relevant documents for establishing his claim are in the cus- tody of the man.pinent. Whereas, the plea of the ma|nagemeiit is that in none of the documents main- tained in the t.ospilnl road branch the workman's name is seen recorded as he was never employed eilher ais temporary or permanent peon there.
12. Point No. 3 . I have already entered into a finding that the vorVrruii who was temporarily em- ployed by the management bank was illegally re- trenched from service vnrhout assigning any reason whatsoever. Even the management h:>s no conten- tion that he is 'jainr'ully employed elsewhere. So he is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages from 20-12-1990, the date of denial of employment and other attendant crne'its. An award is to be passed afccordingly.
In the result, the re'erence is answered holJmg that the action of the maanjicmcnt of M|S Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited in retrenching Sri. K. R. Unnikrishnan from service w.e.f. 20-12-1990 is unjustified. An award is passed directing the management to reinstate him in service v ith baekwages and other nUendant benefits.
This award shall come into force on the expiry of 30 days from th? date of its publica'ion in the Govern- ment Gazette,
Dictated (o the Confidential Assistant transcribed and tvned out by her corrected by me and passed this the 25th day of April 2001.
D. MOHANARAJAN. Presiding Officer
Ernakulam.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the Management:
MW1 —Sri. V. Narayanan Kutty,
Witness examined on the sice of the union:
WW1 —Sri. K, R. Unnikrishnan.
Exhibits marked on either side : Nil.
3596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/A5ADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Dellii, the 26th June, 2001
S.O. 1745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute A c, 194/ (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in lihe Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management ol M/s. Federal Bank Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-l2012,'5I/95-IR(B-I)l
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT I ABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM)
(Tuesday, the 10th day of April, 2001)
Sri D. Mohanarajan, B.Sc, LL.B, Presiding
Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1996 (Central)
cause notice alleging thai even though he had avail- ed the loan, IK1 did n'a' purchase the items mention- ed .a the qucakon. thereby causing an act prejudi- cial to the inlvro-;t of the' bank, this was totally .'irninst real facts, Th^ workman in turn submitted a d'-tniled reply fo ihc show cause notice denying the allegations against H T I. But wjihout considering; his reply, the mfinagcinent decided iv. conduct a domes- tic enquiry into the chains levdk-d against him. The domestic enquiry was conducted violating all princi- ples of natural jV,i;ce and f,iirne?s. The enquiry offi- cer relied on an a l l i ed s'.il'mient if the shop owner and found the workman guilty of the charges. The workman was not nivt?n any opportunity to cross examine tihe- shop owner. The findings of Die enquiry officer are against the material;, on record in the en- quiry and are therfore perverse. The disciplinary authority simply endorsed the finding of the en- quiry officer, rhi* punishment imposed on the work- man was totally unwarranted The Appellate Autho- rity rejected the apo.'al preferred by the workman. The union took up hi', cause and raised the present dispute. Hence it is prayed that an award may be passed quashing the enquiry, reversing the findings of the enquiry officer and holding the workman is not guilty of any misconducts alleged against him and the punishment imposed on him is not sustainable in law.
BETWEEN
The Chairman, Federal Bank Limited, Alwaye.
AND
The Workmen of the above concern represented by The General Secretary, Federal Bank Employees Union, Alwayc.
REPRESENTATIONS :
. . .For Management.
M/s. B. S. Krishan Associates Warriam Road, Ctoehin-16. Sri Jayasankar, Advocate, Cochin-682 017.
. . .For Union.
' AWARD
The Government of Fndia as per Order No. L-12012/51/95-IR(B-I), dated 10-6-1996 referred the following industrial dispute to this court for ad- judication :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Federal Bank Limited Alwayc in imposing; the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect on Sri K. Manoharan, Typist Clerk, Thottilpalam Branch of the management bank is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled ?'"
3. The management filed written statement con- tending inter alia as follows. For availing the loan the workman had submitted a quotation for Rs. 10350 from M|s. Rajasree furniture works, Rajapuram being the cost of furniture items. A pay order for the said amount was issued to Sri Andrews Sickria. Pro- prietor of the said furniture works towards the cost of furniture items and the amount under the pay order was withdrawn from his account on the same day. Later, on enquiry, it was revealed that M/s. Jayasree furniture works had not supplied any furni- ture items to the workman as per the quotation issued to him. The proprietor Sri Andrews informed the Jfcank that he was neither aware of the loan availed by the workman nor about the pay order issued or routed through his account. He further informed that the workman had obtained some of his signature in- cluding one on a stamped receipt and in return a sum of Rs. 75 was paid to him by the workman. There- upon a charge slheet w&s issued against the workman. As his explanation was not satisfactory! j. domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in full compliance with the principles of natural justice. The workman defended the enquiry, through Sri P. P. Varghese, the secretary of the union. He was given every opportunity to cross exa- mine the management witnesses and to adduce de- fence evidence. Based on the evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his report/finding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, after observing all forma- lities, concurred with the findings of the enquiry offi- cer. The workman was given an opportunity of being heard on the aspect of punishment. There after he was inflicted the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect for the proved misconduct. The Appellate Authority dismissed the anoeal filed by the' workman. The findings of ihc enquiry officer was based on materials on record and 2. The union filed claim statement making the following*, averments. Sri K-. M. Manoharan. the work- man' under, reference is a typist clerk in Thottilpalam branch of ttke management bank. He is an activist of the union. While working-at Rajpuram branch he had availed rf a consumer loan for purchasing some household goods. The total loan amount availed was Rs. 10,350," On 4-10-90 he was issued with a show3597 llct perverse. 1 he action of the management is legal, proper and justified. There is ro circumstance \vnr- ranning interference with the punishment. Hence it is prayed that an award may be passed upholding iiie action taken by the. management against llie work- man.
4. The points that arise for consideration are :
(1) Whether there was a proper and f"ir en-
quiry ?
(2) Whether the lindings H' the e:iqu:ry o'necr arc supported by material'-, on record V
H) Whether the punishnitnt imposed c;i t!ie
workman is sustainable ?
(4) To what relief, if anv, (he workman is en-
titled to yet ?
5. The parties did nol adduce any oral evidence. With the content of the union the enquiry filed was marked as Ext. Ml.
out. Sri M. A. Thomas, an ollicer employed by the bank was the management representative. The work- man was asskted in the enquiry by Sri P. P. Varglu-se, the Secretary of. the Union, r[he management examin- ed Sri T. '1. Simon, Manager, Rajapuram branch and Sri K K. Narayanan, Manager, Puthiyara branch who held enquiry as Vigilance Officer. 8 decunion s pro- duced by the management were marked as Exls. ME 1. to 8. The list of witnesses and list of documents relied on by ihc management were given in advance to die workman. Nobody was examined from the side of the workman. Ihc withdrawal slip relating to the withdrawal of Us. 10350 from the S.B. account of Andrews Sickria produced hy the management at the imfanee of the vorkman was marked as defence exhibit in the enquiry. On the busij of U:e oral testi- mony of the management witnesses and Ext. ME 7 report of the vigilance officer and Fxt. ME 8 letter alleged lo have been given by Andrews Sickria, the enquiry officer entered into a finding that the work- man is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of s'"x months with cumulative efle-ct on the workman. The Appellate1 Authority confirmed the action of the disciplinary authority in the appeal preferred by the workman, 6. Points 1 & 2.—Tihe workman involved in the dispute during the period of disciplinary proceedings was a typist clerk in Thottilpalam branch ol' (he man- agement bank. He was eh any sheeted hy the man- agement as follows : While wrkinjT at Rajapuram branch as hank man, he had availed a cmv inner lrjn on 30-7-8S for Rs. 8420 from, that branch for pur- chasing some furniture items. For availing the loan he had submitted a quotation from M/s. Jayasree fur- niture works, Rcij'.ipuram for Rs. 10350. Sanctioning the loan a pay order for the said amouni w'as issued to Sri Andrews Sickria, the proprii:tor ot the said con- cern towards cost of furniture items said to have purchased. This pay order dated 30-7-88 was nx- caslhcd on the same day from the S.B. account of Sri Andrews Sickria. Subsequently on the enquiry held by the management it was revealed that no furniture was supplied to the workman as per the quotation submitted by him. The pronrietor of the furniture works gave letter to the Vigihne: Officer stating that the VJo'rkman had managed lo obtain some of his signature in. ccrtaining paper:- incluiJine one on a stamped receipt and a sum of Rs, 75 was paid, to h5m by the workman as remuneration. It is further staler! in the letter that he was neither aware of any loan availed by the workman nor about the nav order issued in his name and ronied through his S/R. ac- count.
3593 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 200J/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)] 9. The statement of both the management witnesses before the enquiry officer was thai they were told by Andrews Sickriu thjt no furniture items were pur- chased from him pursuant to Hxt. MF 3 quoiation. Both these management Witnesses were sen'mMy cross examined at length by Ihe defence leprescntativi; on this aspect. As observed earlier, the management had not taken away any step.i to get examined Sii Andrews Sickria as a witness in the enquiry. It was Sri Andrews who riled application for postponement of his examination. No do:ibl, (lie enquiry officer has erred in entering into a finding on the basis of the hearsay knowledge of management witnesses. Even the enquiry officer has reported that as per the docu- ments and records marked in the enquiry the loan transaction was in order. The management has no case that the signatures appearing in those documents are not of the shop owner who had never made any complaint before I he vigilance officer approached him. Since the contents in Ext. ME 8 complaint given at the instance of the vigilance officer arc disputed, the enquiry officer was in error in accepting the same without examining Sri Andrews Sickria as a witness. The opinion formed by the enquiry officer through his report tlhat the workman had pressurised Sri. Andrew,s Sickria, from not attending ?rv: enquiry reveals his par- tisan attitude m favour of the management. When the documents exhibited in ihe enquiry arc favourable to the loan transaction between the management and the workman, the finding of fhs enquiry officer based on tfie hearsay evidence of ihc management witnesses in support of the charges levelled asninst the workman is perverse and unsustainable. Though the enquiry officer had given ample opportunity to the workman to defend his case in the enquiry, his finding; against the letter is unsuopnrted bv evidence and hence liable to be set aside. For the reasons indicated hereinbefore, these points are answered holding that the findings of the enquiry officer pre perverse and unsupported by materials on record.
10. Points 3 & 4,—I have already entered into a finding that the report of the enquiry officer finding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him is perverse and liable to be set aside. Thus no question of imposition of punishment on the workman arises for consideration. The punishment already awarded, by the management is to be reversed. The points arc answered as indicated above.
In the result, an award is passed in favour of the union, holding that tfhe action of the mnnn cement in Imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect on the workman is unjustified.
This award shall come into force on the expirv of 30 days from the dale of its publication in the Government Gazette.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed and typed out bv her corrected by me and passed this the 10th day of April, 2001.
Ifrnakulam.
~ ~* *\ D. MOHANARAMN. Pre"HinL' Officer
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on eilher side : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the Management :
Ext. Ml—Enquiry file.
Exhibits marked on the side ot the workman : Nil.
New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001
S.O, 1746.—Fn 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/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Etawah Ksliclriya, Gramin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-12012/1I4/99-1R-CB-IJ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRT R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TNDUSTRJ AL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 256 of ]y99 In the matler of dispute between ;
Shri R. K. Sharma, General Secretary,
Etawoh Kshelriva Gramin Bank Staff Association, C/o Shri B. P. Saxena, 426-W-2, Basiint Vihar, Kanpur.
AND
The Chairman, Etawah Kshctriya Gramin Bank, 123, Civil Lines,
Etawah.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-12012/114/99/JR3599 (B-I) dated 8-9-99, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—
"Whether the action of the management of Etawah Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Etawah in award- ing punishment of stoppage of increment in respect of Shri Girwar Singh is legal and jus- tified ? If not, to what relief the workman is
AWARD
The Government oj Indi.i as per Order No. 120ll|228i 2OOO(1R(B-II) dated 24-1-2001 referred the following indust- rial dispute tu this Com I for adjudication.
entitled to ?"
2. In the present case after exchange of pleadings between the parties the ease was fixed for filing docu- ments :i5ii.l evidence of the workman on 18-6-2001. but on the date fixed instead of filing documents and adducing evidence of workman, the representative lor the workman moved an application before the tribu- nal to the el]"ei:l that the present ease be treated as not pressed.
3. In view of above, it is held that the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed as not pressed. Consequent ly Ihe concerned workman is not entitled for tiny reliel in pursuance of the reference. Accord- ingly the present reference is decided against the concerned workman.
R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 27th June, 200L
S.O. 1/748.—Jn pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1047 (14 of 1947). the Centra] Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their work- man, which was received by [he Central Government on 27-6-2001.
[No. L-12012/94/99-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
IN IHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) PRESENT :
' '
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
PRESENT :
Thiru B. Gokuldas, B.A., B.L., Presiding Officer.
Wednesday the 13th day of June, 2001
Industrial Dispute No. 348 of 1999 BETWEEN
Thiru M Gunasckaran, S/o Muthukannu, No. 9, Thideerkuppnm, Nellikuppam-607105, Cuddalorc District.
3603 THE GAZETIE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART It—SEC. 3(U)1
AND
The Management of dii.ira Bank, by t;r_ Asutt. vienciiil Manager, Circle Ofiic;, J&3/1, Anna Sului, Teynampot, Chennai-18.
AWARD
This industrial dispute has been referred to this court for adjudication of the dispute between the workman Thlni M. Gimiisukaian and the management of Canaia Bank, Chennai, by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by C O. No. L-l2012/94/ 99/IR (B-ll) dared 0-7-99 on the following issue :
"Whether the action jf the manogcmcni of Canara Bank in terminating the services of the workman Shri M. Gunasekaran with effect from 4-9-93 is justified '? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?"
2. The parties did not file their pleadings.
3. Today the dispute is taken up for enquiry. Peti- tioner is called absent. There is no representation for the petitioner. Though ample opportunities given, the petitioner lias not turned upto get on the I.D. I.D. is pending tiom i99'> without any progress. Petitioner is consecutively ab:;nt. In the result, mi award is passed dismissing the I.D. for default. No costs.
Dated at Chennui, this H'r 13th day of June, 2001.
B. GOKIJLDAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, Ihe 27th June, 2001 S.O. 1749.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dusnial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government: industrial Tribiin:il|Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 27-6-2001.
[No. L-'j2012|105|99-TR(B-IMl
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAT.-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.
ADJUDICATION
r,D. No. 152(2000
(Kanpur No. 270J99)
Ref. No. L-J2OI2I1O5|99-1R(B-II) dt 22-9-991 29-9-99.
BETWEEN
The General Secretary Punjab National Bank Employees Association Central Office, 8! 75 Arya Nagar Kanpur (U.P.).
AND
Punjab National Bank The Regional Manager, PNB Regional Oilice 94, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow (U.P.).
AWARD
By reference No ; L-l2012|105|99-]R (B-IIj dated 22-9-99129-9-99, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over this industrial dispute between the General Secre- tary P'NB Employees Association, Kanpur espousing ;mse of H.P, Tewari and the Regional Manager, PNB Regional Office, Lucknow for adjudication.
The reference is produced a$ under :
"Whether the action of the Management in re- ducing the entitlement of L.F.C. T.A. Bill to Sh. H. F. Tewari is justified or not ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for ?"
2. Present dispute relates to illegal denial of Rs. 2479 charged by the workman H.P, I ewari towards L>eave Fane Concession (LFC). The vurkman submitted his TA bill as per Bipartite settlement. This bill of Rs. 4260 related to his family members including brother and sister. The bank management passed bill for Rs. 1781 only and rejected claim of Rs. 2479 on ground that the income, certificate of brother and MMer WPS not submitted. Later, the workman was transferred to Un/mo and he availed LFC facility in the year 1996. He submitted his bill there which was passed. The plei of the workman is that Rs. 2479 was illegally denied to him at Distt. Gonda while he was allowed at Unnao.
3. The management has admitted facts of the case. In para 5 of the written statement, the bank submitted Ih-if H. P. Tewiiri, submitted an undertaking on 30-6-95 to furnish income certificate of his brother and sister. He failed to file desired certificates. After lapse of 8 months a ceitificats was filed which was not in accordance with the relevant rules of the bank. As a matter nf fact, brothers and sisters of an em- ployee are to he t'ealed as family members only when the parent of the employee arc not having income of more than Rs. 500 p.m. in terms of H.O. circular No, 988 dt, 20-1-K7 which was circulated in terms of settlement dt. 5-1-P7. The case of the manage- ment, is, that in absence of certificate, the broiler and1 sister of (he employee nnmelv; H.P. Tewari \y?re not3601 treated his family members LUIJ so LFC TA bill in relation to them w ee denied.
4. Initially the case was filed at Kanpur but v as transferred to this tribunal. Notices were issued to the workman and in compliance Mr. V. S. Yndav A|R of the workman put his appearance on 13-11-2000 Then after, ihc workman or his A|R absented on 28-11-2000, 19-12-2000, 12-1-2001, 1-2-2001, J 2-2-2001, 2-3-200J, 21-3-200J, IS-4-2001, 26-4-2001, 17-5-2001, 29-5-2001 and 15-6-2001. Ihc workman was issued registered notices intimating dates 29-11-2000, 21-12-2000, 5-2-2001, 14-2-2001, 5-3-2001, 22-3-2001 an
5. As stated earlier, the management has not denied right of the workman to ckym LFC to self and his family members. The inclusion of brother and sister in family was dependent on the income certificate. The workman did not file certificate as per rules. There is nothing on the record to indi- cate that the workman H. P. Tcwaivi fulfilled finan- cial obligation hy submitting necessarv income certi- ficate as such, the denial of Rs. 2479 to him was justified. His tJej that LFC was paid at his trans- ferred place, Uanao, in the year 1996 is not a cogent reason to admit his claim, One authority may have over looked relevant ruks but the ether was parti- cular to the rubs. Onlv because LFC claim was admitted at Unn:io, is not evidence or approved norm to permit earlier claim at Gonda. Material on re- cord show that action is under wav to demand certi- ficate at Unriao also. The onus, is, on the work- mam to prove that his brother and sister were covered in family members as per rules. This onus has not been discharged appropriately.
6. Hence, \he action of the management in reducing the entitlement of Leave Fare Concession T.A, bill of the workman H. P. Tewari was justified and pro- per. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Award accordingly.
LUCKNOW
19-6-2001.
liUDRRFSH KUMAR- Frcsiding Officer New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001 S.O. 1750.—In pursuance of Section 17 oi' the Industrial Dispute Act, 194'/ (14 of 1947), Ihc Central Government hereby pub- lishes the awarj of the Central Government Indus1ri:i1 Tribunal|Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Anncxure in the Tnciu-triat Dis- pute elween the employers in relation to the management of Etawah Kshctriya Grarnin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-6-200!.
JNo. L.-12012!132J09-1R-(B-I)| ATAY KUMAR. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-L ABOIJ R COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 253 of 1999 In the matter of dispute between : Shri R. K. Sharma. General Secretary, Etawah Kshctriya Gramin Bank Staff Association,
CO Sh. B. P. Saxena. 426-W-2 Basant Vihari, Kanpur.
AND
The Chairman, Etawah Kshetriya Gramin Bank. 123 Civil Lines. E la wah.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification no. I.-J2012I 132!99iIR(B-l) dated 6-9-99, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to 1his Tri- bunal-—
Whether the action of the management of Elawah Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Etawah in awarding punishment of stopagc of one in- crement to Shri R. K. Bagri is legal ;
3602 THE, GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2 0 0 1/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [l*ARr H—SEC. 3(ii)J 2. Jn the present case after exchange of pleadings between the parties the case was fixed for filing documents and evidence of th* workman on 18-6-2001, but on (he date fixed instead of filing documents and adduc- ing evidence of workman, the representative for the workman moved an application before the tribunal to the effect th.pt the present case be heated as not pressed.
3. In view of above, it is held that the claMu of the workman is liable to be dismissed as not pressed. Consci-M.iendy the concerned workman is not entitled for any lelief in pursuance of the reference. Accordingly fhe present reference is decided against the con- cerned workman.
R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 27th .Tune, 2001 S.O. 1751.—-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ceniral Government Ivrcby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court, Rmgalor- as shown in the annexure in the Industri.il Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2001.
,[No. L-12012[253|'90IR(B-m] A MY KUMAR, De;k Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SAD AN', 111 MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YPSHWAWTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated, 15th June. 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni. B. Com, LLB, Presiding Officer
CGlT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore C. R. No. 78J90
I PARTY :
The Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Union, G-6, Manish Towers, 84 J. C. Road, Bangalore-02, (Advocate-Shri B. D. Kuttappa).
II PARTY :
The General Manager, Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, I.R. Cell, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-09, (Advucak-Shri V. H. Upadyaya).
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dispukv: Act. 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L.-12012|253|'90-IR.B(II) dated 6 12-90 for adjudication on the follow- ing schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing Shri Krishnaiah, Atteuder from the services of the Bank is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled V
2. The first party Union workman was working with the Second Party. Charge Sheet was issued mid enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report he was dis- missed and therefore, industrial dispute is rJsed.
3. Firtf p.trty appeared and filed Claim Statement.
36034. Few facts are necessary and they ,;re as under:
t. The (irst party workman joined the ser vices of Ihc second party and he was dis- missed vv.e.f. 13-12-1988 after holding an en- quiry. The enquiry is not correct. Full Opportunity was not given. The enquiry is not fair and against the principles o! natural justice. The report given by the enquiry officer is not correct. Detailed enquiry was not conduded and the same is illegal as alleg- ed in the claim statement. The first pirty Union foi these reasons has prayed to pass award in its favour.
6. Second party appeard and rued objec- tions. The case of the Second party is that Charge Sheet was issued on 17-7-L9R7. En- quiry was conducted. The Enquiry is fair and proper. There is no provision in By partite settlement that the enquiry officer should ask the workman to get a representative for him. When he asked for permission ii is granted. The witnesses were cross examined and full opportunity was given. The action of the mamgernent is correct. The second parly has prayed to reject the reference.
7. It is seen from the records thai on be- half of the management MWi wiv. appointed who has given evidence regarding the enquiry. It is clear from the records that this tribunal by its order dated 31st March, l1)'^ h M that the enquiry is not correct and the DE is set aside. Thereafter management roc.in examined MW 11 and MWIII. The first pnrty union workman got examined himself. F'rsl he was examined for ?he purpo ;o of. domes- tic enquiry and then on merit ai'-o he gave evidence. T have read the evidence carefully. T have perused all the enquiry papers and the evidence.
cheques from the concerned section office uiul encashed fully. Ex. M-10 is one of the cheque lor Rs. 301K) dated 8-3-1985 and Ex. M-Ll for Rs. 4,500 dated 22-2-1985. He has given evidence about the cheques of Mr. Ivlunirathnam.
9. On going through the evidence of this witness it is clear that the first p:u*fy union workman has not directly done anything and there is no direct evidence against the Jirst parly union workman to prove the charges. We h'jve the evidence of MW3 Shii Narasimha Mur.'hy and according to him he is working as SDC is Public Works Department and lie know the workman since last 22 years. Me was maintaining the SB Account of Second Party and his Account No. is 5916 and Ex. JVHo is the document related to this uspect. Ex. M-!6(>(1 and Hx. M-17 are the zerox cony of the his specimen signatures and he deposited a sum of Rs. 500 when the ac- count was opened.
10. He further states that during 1985 the lit'sl pnrty Union Workman handed over a cheque to hiiii to drawn a sum n{ Rs. 3000 from .Syndicate Bank, 18th Cross. IVTaUesh- waram, Ex. M-10 is the cheque and the same day after encashing the cheque he handed over the cash 1o Ihe first party. On enquiry lie gave this statement. He scores in his TOSS examina- tion th.'U he does not know first party union workman w^s knowing one Mnnirathnam nnd he does not remember the (5''nnmina
r i - f T i ' f i ti T in of + VP o p i n i on t h at • " ' i t h o i if n nv r^ir \;t I'v'f^no- '""Triinst ih*1 fir^f -n^rty vo*"V- T^ap,
ORDER
The reference is partly answered in favour of first party union workman and the order of dismissal is set aside. The Second party is directed to reinstate the first party union workman with continuity of service and in the given circumstances back wages are not allow- ed. Accordinly reference is answered.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by 1i.*r correct- ed and siencd by me on 15-6-2001).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New DJIii, the 27th June, 2001 S,O. 1752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the hilip'itria] Dispuic Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the f.Yntrul Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Corrt, Cheiimi >is shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank end their woikman, which was received by the Cen- tral GiiYCvinuent on 27-6-2001.
[No. L-12012|281|97-lR(B-TT]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THH CENTRAL GOVT. LABOUR COURT, CHENNA1
PRESENT :
Tbim B, Gokulda.s. B A., B.L., Presid;ng Officer.
Friday, the 25th day of May, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 2 of 1998 BETWEEN
The wo'kmcn employed in Tndmn Overseas B?/ik, Chcnnai, Rep. by The General Secretary, All India Overseas Bank Employees Union, 763, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai-2,
AND
The Management of Asst. Gereral Manager, I.niian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 7r>3, Anna -Salai, Clicjinni-600002.
AWARD
This indasirii'l dispute hns been referred to this court tor adjudication of the dispute between the workmen and the management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chcnnai, by the Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, by 'G.O. No. L-l?012]281j97lIR(B-TI) dated TO-3-98, on the following issue :
Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bo,nk in terminating the services of Sh. S. Loganathan, w.e.f. 1-5-95 is legal and justified '! If not to what relief the said workman is entitled ?
2. The respondent filed counter-statement.
?. Today fh': dispute i^ taken up for enquiry Petitioner is called absent. There is no representation for the petitioner. Petitiono is consecutively absent. Though ample cpporlimilies have been given, the petitioner has not turned up to get on the petition. I.D. is pending from 1998 without any speedy pro- gress. In the result, tin pward is passed dismissing the T D. for default. No costs.
Dated at Chennai, Ihis the 25th day of May, 2001.
TH1RU B. GOKULDAS, Presiding Officer New Dejhi, the 27th June, 2001
S.O, 1753.- -In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as shown in the annc\ure in the Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2001.
[No. L-l2012/363/97-IR(B-II)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer3605 ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, 111 CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Da'ed, 15th June, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com. LLB., Presiding Oflicer, CCiIT-cum-Laboui- Court, Bangalore.
C,R. No. 69-98
I PARTY
The Regional Secretary, Bank of Maharashtra, Karmacbari Sangh, Anuradha Building, S. C. Hoad, Bangalore-9.
II PAINTY
The Regional Manager, Bank, ol Maharashtra, Police Road, Bangalore-4, (Advocate-—Shri R Mahalingam)
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-seclion 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Acr. 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No L-T2012/ 363/97-TRfB-ll) dated 27-7-98 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the potion of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumula- tive effect on Shri D. K. Ramaiah is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"
2. The first party union workman is working with the Second Party hank management. Charge Sheet was given and punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative dice) is imposed and therefore, the dispute is raised.
3. First party union appeared an.l filed Clnim Statement.
4. The case of the first party union is as follows • 5. The workman was issued memo dated 3-6-94 and 9-7-94 alleging Riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the bank, wilful attempt to damage the image of the bank and its customers, wilful insubordination, negligence in performing duties and committed nuisance in the premises of the Bank. Enquiry was held. Regarding enquiry it is said the 2135 GI/2001—?1
enquiry is not proper and the opportunity was not given to defend during the enquiry. Documents were not properly furnished by him and the enquiry is wrong. The action of the management is vindictive, main fide, unfair and against the principles of Natural Justice. The first party union has prayed to pass award in its favour.
6. Second party appeared and filed Written State- ment.
7. The e re of the Second party is that the first party is working as sub-staff (Bill Collector) City Market Biancn, Bangalore. Charge sheet was issued to the workman but the workman failed to submit his explanation. Particulars of the departmental enquiry are stated m para 2 of the objections and details of the enquiry is given. It is said that the enquiry is true and correct and Ihe aeiion of the management is Just and Proper. The second party has prayed to reject the reference.
8. It is :.e:n from the records that the first party has commended the v.ilidity of DE and my learned predecessor lias held that the DE is fair and legal. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.
9. Written Arguments are filed. T have heard both sides. It was argued on behalf of the first party that the documents were not fur
10. It is clear from the records that the workman lias commended the departmental enquiry. I have seen the documents filed by the first party. There is no material shown by the first party union to say that the enquiry report is perverse.
11. I have considered the enquiry papers and I am of the opinion that the enquiry report is correct based on the material before him and there is no perversity. I have a!"o eonsfdfred the Written Ajguments of the Seconl Part". Considering the misconduct I am of. the opinion that the aeion of the management is cor- rect and there is no merit in this reference.
12. Accordingly I proceed to pass the follwins order :
ORDER
The reference is rejected.
("Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 15-6-2001.)
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer : 6 06 - - T HE G A Z E T TE O l' I N D I A. J U LY : I, 2 0 0 1/ A 3 A D HA 3 0 ^ 1 9 2 3. „
[ F > J > .I i t- S E C. " , " 3 ( ii •]
4. The case of the first party in brief is as under:
New Delhi, the 27th June. 2001
5. The first party joined the services of the Second party Bank as, a Probationary Clerk on 9-4-1973 idler C weeks (mining in the staff Training College at Manipal. He was posted to work in the Davan-j gere Branch of Ib^ Bank and later was transferred1 to various branches a|f Bangalore. He was confirmed in the Grade of Clerk from 28-10-J973.
S.O. 1754.—-In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 f 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awHrd of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal] Labour Court, Bangalore us whovn in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2001.
[No. L-12012|408i95-]R(B-ID!
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', THMAEN, III CROSS, If PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHFUR, BANGALORE
Dated : 15th June, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'blo Shri V, N. Knlkami, B Com, LLB,
'• Presiding Officer
3537certificate. He also sent another medisicl certificate as per HA. W-2 along with covering letter Ex-W2(,aj. 1'iiey am sun uiougfi his colleague, Shri Anaud. He did not receive an aknowledgemeut. The Manager refused to lake him duty due to his absence witnoul leave and permission. He did not receive any notice from the bank earlier to 9-8-88. He approached the management and represented' to re-consider the order of termination bu'j nothing was done. He did not receive any charge sheet iroin the management and no UKjuiiy was iojiGnci.ed. He states in his cross exa- mination that he was Laking treat meat a.; out paiicnt. He '^y, he has to search in his house to show the prescription letter fevr take medicine and injections. He was takirg treatment at K. C. General Hospital which is one K.m from his house. Further he s.ays trmr he took treatment at Lakshmi Narsing Home. He- verified with Anand about handing over his lesive application and he toli that he has given to the management. He is aware of the fact that the t:.|nk will not issue the acknowledgement which he knew by virtue of his working in the bank. He did not give tiiiiy representation to the management on 9-9-88.
11. On going through the above cross examination it is clear that he wat, taking treatment only as a out pjitient. His case is thai through one Ar.and he had *ent application but for the reasons best known to the first party w.vkman, Anand is not examined. His evidence is relevant but that is not produced by the first party. According to his evidence it is clear that he remained unauthorised absent and he was not bothered to follow the ruler, mnd regulations and tr work sincerely in the bank.
12. It is forthcoming from the records that earlier also he misbehaved aud he was dismissed and minor punishments were imposed. The. circumstances would go to show that he is not a sincere workei of the second party nianageniuiL MWJ has given evidence oi\ behaff of the iirst party workman and notices were given to the firs; party workman. He has also said that he remained absent from 24-2-1988 and it was iinauthorised absence. MW1 is cross txara'ned but Nothing is made o'.U so nis to say that die first party workman remaiced r brent H wiving leave application.
13. 1 have caufm'y paused all the ickuirw docu- ments and i am uf ilw opinion that Jie first pwirly v.vukman has not proved' that he gave leave applica- tion when he leinaliicJ absent from 24-2-88. There are some copies rf applications but they are for diffe- rent d-iics and for cx.cnsirvi of leave. Of course medi- cal certificates ;,vc filed but the first party workman has not filed ihe first leave application lor applying leave from 24-2-1988.
14. It v/as urguc-'d by the learned Lviu-;e' fur the second party that aceoidinjj to the Bipartite Settle- ment Clause Ki the first party workman remained absent and hy., not Eubnrtted any application lor leave and absented hmuelf from work for a period of. more than 90 days, Jt amounts to voluntary L^stfioii of employment by the. Iirst paity vw"irl,m:vn and therefore, the action nf the management is correct. The learned counsel for the P-st party could not convince and show ituu tin.- fii'tt piny rvnrjiDCd absent on the ground of ill health on ?4-2-HS by npplyiDr- \s?\r. 1 cOrev.'Jy said that Anand is not examined and there is no leave application from 24-2-1988.
15. I halve jaicfiilly read the lengthy Written Argu- ment submitted by the first party workman. There is no merit in the allegations made by the first party. It is not forthcoming from the Written Arguments that tiic tint p-uy workman has filed copy of the leave application given on 24-2-88. In other words he re~ maiined absent unaiiThorisedly without applying leave.
16. The first party has relied decision reported in Syndxatc lianU Vs. the General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Slj.iT Association & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 4263 of 1999. I have read the above decision carefully. He has also lclied decision reported in CA. No. 1471]19')9- dated 21st November, 2000 the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I have read b'S-h the decisions carefully. In fact the first decision is not helpful to the first party workman. The fapis of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the above decisions,
17. In the instant case there is no leave application and the first party workman has not applied leave from 24-2-88. The facts of the second decision are also quite different. In the instant case the first party workman himself remained absent unauthonsedly and has not reported for duty. He has not proved that he applied for leave.
18. The learned counsel for the second party relied decision of (2000) 5 Supreme Court cases 65, Syndi- cate Bank Vs. Cien.;rn] Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another. He has also relied one ease of the Hon'ble Suprctns Court Of India; Citation 2000 SOL case No. (i55. 1 have read both the decisions ff.,r;/'ffl carefully.
19. It is clear that the first party did not apply for leave and he remained absent himself and there is no evidence that he reported for dutv. Therefore the action of the management is correct and there is no merit in this reference. Accordingly I proceed to passed the following ouler.
ORDER
The reference is rejected.
(TVic fated to PA transcribed by her corrected1 and signed by me on 15-6-2001).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 3608 1HE GAZETII" OF INDIA: JULY 21, 2UUI/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PARI U—& J C. 3ui,] New Delhi, the 28th June, 200]
S.O. 1755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ihe Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- trial Tribunal Palukkad as shown in the Anuexure in the Industrial Dispute belwcen the employers in rela- tion 1o tlie management of South India Bank Ltd. and their wort mini which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-200],
[No. L-12012|2I9|99~IR (B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
^Mond^y, the 11th June 2001)
PRESENT •
Sri B. Ranjit Kumar Industrial Tribunal.
Industrial Dispute No. 147|99(C)
BETWEEN
The ChLiiman, The South Indian Bank Ltd, Head Office, T.B. ftoad, Triclmr-680 001.
(By Adv. M. Venugopalan)
AND
Shri A. T. Jose, Erinjeri House, MLA Road, Nr. Kochupally, Nadakkavu, P.O Udayai- peroor, Dist, Ernakulam. (By Adv. Sreekumar Pu^hezhath)
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per Order No. L-l2012|219|99jIR (B-l) dated 24-8-1999, referred the following issues for adjudica- -.oti:
"Whether the action of the management of the South Indian Bank Ltd. in dismissing Shri A. T. Jose, Clerk, Peennade Branch from ihe services of the Bank with clfect from 24-6-1998 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. Earlier an expaite award dated 10-5-2000 was passed against the workman. The workman filed M.P, No. 112I2000 to set aside the said expartc award. The management did not oppose the M.P. and hence the same was allowed and1 the matter is now consi- dered on merit.
3. The woikman would submit in his claim state- ment dated 6-5-2000 and J cylinder dated 16-10-2000 that the workman was dismissed from service alleging certain chaigss against him. According to woikman, the dismissal was without conducting a proper domestic enquiry. It is further .submitted by him that some of the officers of the management-bank have pot some enmity towards him and they induced the manage- ment to dismiss him from service.
4. The management his filed wrirtcn statement dated 18-9-2000 refuting the above averments of the workman. According to management, the discipli- nary action taken against ihc workman including con- ducting the domestic enquiry was in accordance with ihe principles of natural justice.
5. It is submitted by the workman that some of the Officers of the Management Bank have got some enennty towards him and at their instance the manage- ment had taken disciplinary action against him. But the workman has not furnished the names and addresses of the said officers or the nature of alleged enemity which they had towards him. This is a serious allegation which is to be proved by adducing legal evidence and furnishing all the particulars. In the pre- sent case, Ihe workman has not done so. Therefore, it is found that the above averment of the workman is entirely baseless and unsustainable.
6. I he other point to be considered is whether the 'domestic enquiry held into the charges against the workman is proper. A perusal ol Ext, Ml enquiry tile shows rrinj ihe workman participated in the en- quiry throughout and hs cross-examined all the management-witnesses. The Enquiry Officer has gran- ted adjournments whenever request were made in this regard' by ihe workman. After the completion of the examination of management-witnesses, the workman submitted that, he has no witness to be examined. The workman has signed the enquiry proceedings on all the days and during the couse of enquiry or thereafter be had not raised any proce- dural defect in ths domestic enquiry. Even in his reply to the second show-cause notice submitted to the management or in the claim statement and re- joinder filed before this Tribunal, the workman has ,not pointed out any specific procedural irregularity in conducting thj domestic enquiry. In the circum- tance, I hold that the™ is no procedural infirmity in conducing the domestic enquiry.
7. The next point to be considered is whether the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him vide char^tMh^t dated 23-12:1997.
8. The charge levelled against the workman arc as follows:—
' It is alleged that while working as C e rk at Branch Peermede of South Indian Bank Ltd., he committed the following acts of misconduct.
(1) That on 2i>-6-96 while he was handling cash section among other Sections, he removed a sum of Rs. 5000 from Bank's cash and the shortage was made up with the proceeds of a forged SB cheque bearing No. 869645 dt. 28-6-96 for Rs. 5000 for which there was no one to receive the cash. Though the cheque was passed for payment by the Manager, the cheque was not debited in the ale first. Thus he misappropriated an amount of R.s. 5000 from the Bank's money fraudulently.
(2) That on 30-8-96, he received an amount of RE. 1000 after business hours from one Miss. D. Bindu for remitting towards her Savings B.H(k account No. 3874 with the branch. He did not account toe said amount in the books of accounts of the Bunk, but misappropriated the saime. He remitted the amount on 8-1-97 only vhen the a|c holder piesen- ted cheque for withdrawing the amount.
(3) lhat on 30-8-% he made a fictitious credit entry of Rs. 1000 under his initial in the SB Pass Book of Miss, D. Bindu with date 31-8-96 in order to make it appear that Ihe amount of Rs. 1000 tha;t he received from her as staled in charpe No1. 2, had been duly remitted to her SB account (No. 3874) on 30-8-96 as late cash. Tl.us he defrauded the custo- mer of the bank als well as the Bank.
(4) That or 29-5-97 he borrowed Rs. 200 which he has not repaid so far, from one of the customers of the bauk. Miss Smitha Rajendranath, when she came to the branch for withdrawing Rs. 800 from her Savings Bank Account No. 3390 and thereby he misused his official position.
The aforesaid acts alleged to have been committed by him amount to gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank, in financial loss, misappropriation fraud and misuse of official position."
9. The management has examined five witnesses and produced the relevant documents to substan- tiate the above charges. A perusal of the testimo- nies of the management-witnesses and the documen- tary evidence available in Ext. Ml enquiry file shows that the workman is guilty of he aforesaid four charges. Therefore, it cannot be held that the find- ings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
10. The next point to be considered is whether ihe punishment of dismissal meted out to the work- man is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him.
J6U9 entry of Rs. 1000 under his initial in her S.B. Fass Book on 31-8-96.
13. Of course, Sri. P. K. Kochantnony, the Chief Manager.who has submitted a report dated 25-10-96, has observed that the Manager who was in-chargc of the branch at the relevant time was not vigilant and! there was derdsction of duly on his part. This might have enabled ike workman to commit the above misconducts. However, he cannot escape from the disciplinary action stating that the Branch Manager or other 4 employees of the branch were also responsible for the incidents coming under charge nos, 1, 2 and 3.
14. There can ba no doubt that the charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 proved against the workman is so grave as to warrant the punishment of dismissal from service. The management is a, financial institution dealing with public money and & person who has committed the above misconducts cannot be retained in service. The mis-conduct proved against him are also amount to criminal offence. The management has also brought to the notice of this Tribunal by producing Fxt, M2, M3 and M4 documents that his past service record is blemished. He was once dismissed from service by memo dated 15-2-83, However, the management had taken lenient view at that time and the punishment of dismissal wui converted into reduction in rank. Accordingly, he was reinstated* in the post of Clerk. In the circumstance, I do not find anv reason to interfere with the punishment of dismissal now m.-ted out to the workman.
15. In the result, an award is passed holdinc that the action of the management of the South Tndian Bank Ltd. in dismissing Shri A. T. Jose, Clerk, Peer- made Branch from the service of the Bank with effect from 24-6-1998 is justified and he is not eniilkd to any relief.
3610 THE OAZE11E OF INDIA: JUt-> 21, :00J, AaADI-IA 3D, 1,923 [PART I I- Sec. 3(ii"] New Delhi., the 22nd" line, 2001 S.O. 1756.—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, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of Oil India Ltd., ami •heir worlrnvui. which wns f.x jived by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.
I[No. L-3 0012! 6
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT : BHUBANESWAR
Present :
Sri S. K. Dhal, OSJS (Sr. Branch)-. Presiding Officer. C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
Industrial Dispute case No. Tr. T,D. n^f.OOl Dated, BhubaneEwar, the 14th Tune, 2001 BETWEEN :
The Projtct Manager. Oil India Limited, Bay, Exploration Project. Bhubaneswar. • • 1st Pariy-Mfmiiacrneni.
AND
The General Secretary, Mahanadi Petroleum. Exploration Employees, Union. (OTL), Bhuru'iicswar. . • 2nd Parfy. Union.
Appearances :
Shri S. B, Nanda- Advocate, . For the J.st Port)-Manng-'menr.
Shri K. C Kanungo, Advocate. , . For the 2nd Party-Union. .
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) o± sub-seaion (1) and sub- jection (2>\) of Section 10 of thu Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947)., have re- ferred the following dispute for adjudication I'ide their Order No. LOCU.'.2(69)|SG-IR (Coal-I), dated 26-9-1997 :—
"Whether the demand of the Union for the Promotion of Shri B. K. Das ay Stcno-typist Grn:ic-Zll with effect from March 1985 is legal and iusti- fled ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled" ?
2. While making reference the Govern- ment of India sent the copy of the reference to the General Secretary, Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Employees Union (herein-,-;!"ler called as the 2nd Party-Union) and to the Project Manager, Oil India Limited (herein- after called as the 1st Party) directing to file the claim statement and written statement respectively before this Tribunal. In pursu- ance of such direction the 2nd Party-Union iiled the claim statement after serving copy to the 1st Pany-Managenv-nt. Thereafer the 1st Party-Management filed the written state- ment ^rviny copy to the 2nd Party-Union.
3. The case of the 2nd Parly Union may be stated in brief.
4. One Shri B. K. Das, was appointed in the Post of clerk-cum-Typi^t in the Gredc-Il in the Organisation of the 1st Par!y-Mana£-- ment fioiii 17-10-1983. Shri Das was direct/at to work as tteno-typist in view of his ex- p'.Tienee ;;i;d proficiency in die sicnography. 11c has pleaded that, when he was discharg- ing the work of stono typist right from the bopjnnin? of his employment under the 1st P;vty ii" had claim to be promoted to the Post of Stcno typist, GradeTTI which c.-irries higher scale. So hi* made representation for llir promotion, This continued till the year JVHK. Thpreaf".LT Shri Das V/PS offered pro- motioji to the Post of Steno-tvpist in Or III by the 1st Party-Mtma^ement under letter No. BEPlAdn:ii.|BKD-690," dated 17-5-88. The said promotion was retrospective effect from 1st Oct. 1985 with consequential benefits. On receipt of the snid offer of promoiion Shri Das ivprcscuiL'd to the Goneral Mar;3gei on --•36H 31-5-88 for consideration of his promotion to the Post of Steno-typist Gr. Ill with retros- pective effect i.e. from March 1985 instead of 1st Oci. 1985. No reply was received by the 2nd Party from the 1st Party in this re- gard. Reminder was also submitted on 16-1-91 and thereafter the 1st Party intimated to Shri Das that the offer of promotion extend- ed to him was cancelled in view of denial to accept the promotion. So he rated the dis- pute beforie the A.L.C. (C), Bhubaneswar. Reconci lliation failed and the matter was referred to the Govt. of India (Ministry of Labour) who has made reference as stated ;--bove.-
5. The 2nd Party-Union has pleaded in his ebim statement that the order of promotion given to Shri Das can not be treated as cancell- ed since the representation cftd 31-5-88 and 16-1 '91 contained the request of the work- man for extension of benefit with effect from March 1985 but not refusal or denial on o'fer of appointment. Further prayer has been made to extend the promotion md con- senuentia! benefits w.e.f. March 1985 instead of l'it Oct. 1985.
Union-2nd Party took up their cose and pres- sure was given to the 1st Party for their ap- pointment as steno-typist. So to avoid con- frontation with the employees union at a cru- tial time of the Project the 1st Party consti- tuted a Committee of few officers to examine the representation of Shri Das and others and to give its reco-Jttrnsndation whether they are suitable to be appointed as steno-cum- typist. Accordingly on 13-4-1988 the Com- mittee considered the case of Shri Das (2nd Party) and others and on the basis of eK-rmination of available documents recom- mended that the 2nd Party-Union and one Shri G. C. Das may be promoted ?? .Steno- typist in Gr. Ill w.e.f. 1-10-1985. Wftb recommending the case of the 2nd Party no test was conducted. However, that <-ecr>rn- jtvndation wns approved bv the OfTier.-! Mi-?i2oer of the 1st Party. Thrro^fier orders of appointment, were issued to the 2nd Pr-rw wherein he was asked to ioin rs ';tcno~rT;i''". w.e.f. 1-10-1985. It has be-n p'cnckd' by the 1st P?.rty as Shri Dos did pof accept tho o-Ter cf promotion and repr^-riiod that hir< promotion should be effec'ive Fro--.i Mi.rch i985 so his order of promotion wa" mr> ^H-,!. It h^s been sub^iitted th?.t tbs Drove;* of i!v 2nd Pr.rtv is net tcnnblo and h' ^ r\cit cn'-.'.'i! for -iny relief.
7. On "he above ple^di.-i^s oe ih? n;?r-' "-.
th? foJicvitio; iss*i;s have been ce*f1ed :
ISSUES
I. Whether the demand of ih'? I'rr.rn for oromoMon of Sbri D-i? aw .'>*•"=".- Typist Gr. UL w.-;,f, ^fp.rch I0"5 is ipgrj and instificd ?
FT, If so what relief tV -.vo:l.!r-:: v<
entitled to ?
,3612 THE, GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 20Q1/A5ADHA 30, 1923 [PART I I ^ S E C. 3fii)]
workman has refused the promotion and so the order of promotion was cancelled.
11. Ext.-4 is the representation of the work- man on receipt of his promotion order. In the last para he has mentioned that as follows :—
his services have been utilised as Stcno-typist and vacancy was there on March 1985. On the other hand it has been submitted on behalf. oi: the Management that, the workman was initially appointed as a clerk-cum-typist but he made representation to be promoted to the Post of Stcno-typist and he was given op- portunity to qualify himself but he could not qualified. As the workman and the Union insisted to bring cordial relationship bet- ween the union and the Management the eas^ of Shri Das and two others were considered as a special case and after verification of their performances as a special case they were given promotion to the Post of Steno-typist. So according to the Management, the work- man can not claim the said promotion as a miht and from the date he desires.
"In conclusion, I beg to state that I have performed the job of Gr. TIT Steno-typist and have been paid the salary of Gr. II Clerk-typist. This has gone on for a period of 4 1]2 years and I have performed the job with the hope that my case would be considered by management in course of time. However, 1 am constrained to state that my case has been consistently ignored by Management. I, therefore, return herewith the above mentioned pro- motion letter with my respectful request that I may be given promo- tion with effect from March, 1985. Once against I earnestly appeal to Management's sense of fairplay and hope that my request will receive due consideration".
12. Basing on this it has been submitted on behalf of the Management that the work- man refused promotion whereas it has been submitted on behalf of the workman that it was a mere representation but not refusal of promotion. After going through the represen- tation I am of the opinion that when the work- man has returned the promotion letter re- questing that he should have been .given pro- motion from March 1985 would amount to refusal to accept the offer of promotion. So in face of this he is not entitled for any relief.
9. Admittedly the workman was appoint- ed in a Post of derk-cum-lypist in Gr. TI. It is revealed from the appointment order which has been exhibited in this as Ext. I. The post of steno-typist is a different grade having deflcrent scale. Ordinarily a clcrk-cum-typist can not be promoted to the post of steno-cum-typist. It is true that the workman had worked as " Stenographer on other organi- sation before his selection by the Manage- ment. But he was appointed as a cierk-cuin- typ:";f". Evr-n if his services has b:cn u'iliso.l its a Stenographer that would not give him a •n-.'iif to claim a promotion to a different rnicie and scale. But however, the Manage- ment as z special case has considered the cas' of tlio workman and others and promotion wos given to them to the Post of steno-typist with effect from 1-10-1985. In that ea;,e, ^[•: workman in my opinioa has got no right io cUii'Ti that he should have been promoted i'roi'i Is'. March 1985. Ordinarily promotion ::hou'd have been worked out from the date (••!•' o'd;r but however the Management has b"cor"ne kind enough by giving retrospective p •.•> notion with financial benefits. Tho claim <-•;' the workman to fr?t retrospective promo- ('on from Mnrch 1985 in mv opinion has got no foundation at all. In the other words tv demand of the union for promotion of S'IVI Das PS '.) Stcno-typist w.e.f. Mnreh 1985 is not instified.
TS**TJE NO. IT
13. During the course of argument, though insucs hr-ve not been framed the question of limitation rind non-joinder of parties have been raised before this Tribunal. No issues in this regard has been framed. No evidence IK'S al^o been adduced by (he parties, in respect of limitation and non-joinder of the. parties. I am of the opinion the dispute can be adjudicated in absence of two friends of the workman because there is no compell- ing ground to make them parties. In th^ir absence1 the dispute can be adjudicated. So it enn not be said that due to non-joinder of. thp parties the reference is illegal. As re- thirds limitation it has been submitted m }v*v>Qif of the vo^Vrnnn f.pnt rio limitation has been prescribed while making reference in. The worknan on receipt of the pro- mo'irin order has made a representation to tiiv? Mm promotion from Mprch 1985. His representation kept pcndH? a"d it was dis- posed of after a long time stating that the 3 s i >SJ t3 uis. 10 of the I.D. Act. On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the Manage- ment that a stale dispute cannot be a sub- ject matter of reference for adjudication. The observation made in the case of The Nedun-
g a di B a nk L t d. V r s. K. P. * • ! ; - .• I1 i w , - \ i - : ty R e-
p o r t ed in 2 0 00 L LR 3 40 S C" h •: h , : i: ' - . TO i / i v.
to the notice of this Tribunal. In i uu 6 c. the said judgement the following observations has been made :—
did not accept the promotion w.e.f. 1-10-1985 and so the order was passed to cancel the promotion in view of denial. This letter is did. August 1994. The reference has been made by the Government in the year 1997. In the reported case after lapse of 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service reference was made. So it was held that at the time of reference was made no Industrial Dispute existed or even said to have been apprehended. Therefore their lordship were pleased to observe that a dispute which is • stele cov^d not be the subject matter of re- ference under section 10 of the Act. It was further observed that as to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the pre- sent ca?e the representation of the workman was disposed of after a long time. So after 4 years of communication of letter reference has been made. The workman has stated ihit they had sever?! discussions with the Mm":semenf to finalise his case. So in my opinion in this case the dispute can not be trented as a stale dispute and the Covern- rv:nt can rr.n1
CPSf.
Reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by- me.
n~t?-r! : 14-6-2001
S, K. DHAI-- Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 "Law does not prescribed any time limit its powers under section 10 of the Act, It is not that this power can exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Cen- tral Govt. has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the res- pondent from service. At the time reference was made no industr'/d dispute existed or couid be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale couM not be the subject-matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale- would depend on the facts ami circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incon- gruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be s?id thot there v/as no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question v/as made. The only ground .ic>vancf.d by the respondent was that two other employees who were dic.T>iss~d from service were reinstated. Urxl?-' what circumstances they wc*r.? dis- missed and subseoi'"?Tit]v reinstated is no where mentioned. De^nnd raised by thf respondent ff"r r.iKin^ industrial disputa v/as ex facie bau n/nd incompetent."
14. i*\ this cacc the 1st rfV?v?;r>,rffr '\'f(q rrvprf^ OH f 6- f -Q ' -^Hxt.-TV IT-V.t "^IT") ic. tii? 1et*^r fi^'ir?^ser! to ^t TT-niorj
S.O. 1757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Iniu^trial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the IndusrM Dispute be- tween the emr>!o3rers in relaion to the management of Inri'an Oil Blending Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21st June. 2001.
[No. L-30012/73/97-IR(C-I)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Management. In Psra-8 it h?s b^cn mention- ed th?t inspite of pursnation the workman 3614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 IPARI 11—SBC. 3(ii)J ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS [RIAL IRl'BUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 26 of 1998
PARTIES :
Employers in ielation to the management of M/s.
Indian Oil Blending Limited.
staled that after the withdrawal of the facility tijc union sent a notice dated 19-01-1995 to raise the dispute- on the maitur before the Regional Labour CoirunisMoncr and the process of conciliation was Mailed, biu lite conciliation could noi materalised and the matter was accordingly referred to the Central Government. Therefore, it hns been prayed that the said withdrawal of th^ facility of half day casual leave lo the employees of the IOBL be stiuck down as illegal.
AND
Their Workmen. _ ' -
PRESENT :
Mr. Just-ice Bha<-;t< Prasad Sharma, Presiding
3, Actually, there were two unions of the employees involved in the matter, but subsequently, the union known A-J IOBI Employees Association failed to ap- pear to contest the matter. The other union, IOBL Employees Union pursued the matter,
Oiiieer.
APPEARANCES ;
On behalf of Management : Mr. A. Ghosh, Advo- cate with Mr. D\ Mukherjee, Advocate and Mr. R. Taiukdar, Advocate.
Oh behalf of Workmen : Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Indian Oil Blending Ltd. Emp- loyees Ij'nioii.
None for the Indian Oil Blending Ltd. Employees
Association (Cal.).
STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Petroleum
AWARD
By Order No. L-300l2/73/97-IR(C-I) dated 30th June, 1998 the Cenlial Government in exercise of its powers under Seciicus 10(1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Blending Limited, Calcutta to disconti- nuing 1/2 day casual leave practice even on Saturday is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen tiro entitled to 7"
4. On receiving notice, the management appeared and filed a written statement to contest the claim. It has been stated that the present reference is not com- petent as the order in question has been passed in terms of a settlement being memorandum of under- standing executed between IOBL and its workers re- presented by IOBL Employees Union dated 10-9-91. It has been further stated that at the instance of the workmen represented by the IOBL Employees Union a memorandum of understanding was executed which was signed by the representatives of the management as well as of the union. It is further stated that as a result of this memorandum, facilities, benefits, terms and conditions of service applicable to the workmen of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. were made appli- cable to the employees of the IOBL. Tt is further stat- ed that it was s/ipulatcd in the memorandum of under- standing that all policies of the Indian Oil Corpora- tion Ltd. would ipso facto be applicable to the work- men of IODL. It is stated that the said memorandum of understanding was a settlement as defined under the Industrial Dispuics Act and is still valid and sub- sisting. It is further stated that the condition of service of the workmen of the Indian Oil Corporaion Lfd. are governed by long term settlement entered into between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and its work- men represented by their trade unions. So, upon exe- cution of the said memorandum of understanding the workmen of fORL became entitled to and receive all the benefits provided by the long term settlement then in vogue which was dated 5-12-1992. Subsequently, another long term settlement was entered into between the I.O.C. and its workmen on 19-09-1994 and the said seltlr-ment was also made applicable to the work- men of TOBL as per the terms of memorandum of understanding. It is stated that since the said long term settlement of 19-09-1994 for upward revision ot pay scales, dearness allowance, special allowance, leave encashment and other benefits and the same were m:'de available to the workers of IOBL, entire settlement was applicable to them. Accordingly, be- cause in the long term settlement the system of grant of casual leave for half day to the workmen was done away with nlongwith other provisions, the same were made applicable to the workmen of IOBL also. It has been denied that the f.ioilitv of grant of hnlf day's casual leave was unilaterally discontinued and it has been stated that (he same was discontinued bv reason of the memorandum of understanding dated 10-09-91 read with long term settlement dated 19-09-1994. 2; The' present dispute arose because of the objec- tion on the part ol the workmen of Indian Oil Blend- ing Limiied (hereinafter to be referred as TOBL) regarding curtailment of benefit in respect of half day casual leave available to them from before. It has been stated on he-half of the Indian Oil Blending Employees Union (hereinafter to be referred as IOBL Employees Union) that on 1-1-1995 Ihc management of TOBL withdrew unilaterally the system of grant of half day's casual leave (o the employees which was available to them from before. It has been stated that since it was done without issuing notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the action of the management ts illegal and this order being of unilateral nature is fit to be cancelled and withdrawn. It has been stated that for withdrawing the facility of half day's casual leave including on SatOrdavs, it was necessary according to Rule 34 of the TridnsTial Disputes ('Central') Pules, 1957 to send a niXlGc to the einploveo^ j-rsd the Union representing the employees and such notice is in accordance with Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but no such notice was served in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, It has also been3615 Therefore, it lias been stated on behalf of the man- agement tnat the claim of the workmen in this refer- ence is not tit lo be entertained.
the employees because of settlement of 4994 in I.O.C. which was applicable to the IOBL also. He has also iurthei siiHeu iliat a ieiter Ext. M-4 was also written by the Chief 1'ianl Manager of the 1OBL to the IOBL Employees Union communicating that certain facili- ties were grained to them and another letter, Ext. M-5 was aiso issued regarding fixation of pay of the workmen, in this view of the matter, he has stated that there was no necessity of service of notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for withdrawing the iaeiiity of half day .casual leave as cia med. In his cros^-examination, jthc witness has stated that as per the terms of the memorandum. Ext. M-l there was stipulation of integration between I.O.C. and 1OHL and he process of integration has started as per Ciause-6(1) of the memorandum. Ac- cording to him four of the clauses of paragraph 6.1 have already been implemented and the process is going on lor Implementation of the rest. However, he admitted that uptil now there is no merger as per Clause-6.1 (a), but the other clauses have been imple- mented and accepted H.e stated that Clauses 6.1 (b) 6.1 fc), 6.1 (dj and 6.1(e) arc independent of Clause 6.1 ( a ). He denied the suggestion that these clauses arc dependent on clause 6.1 (.a). He has also stated that because by agreement of 1991 local union had abrogated their right to raise issues of all India impli- cation, the question of consulting the local union of JOBL for implementing the agreement of 1994 .did not ari'-e. He, however, denied the suggestion that the settlement of 1W4 WLts not a settlement in terms of the requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also denied the suggestion that because there was no integration for making any provision of the settlement applicable, notice under Section 9A of the Act ,was necessary.
7. So far as the memorandum of understanding, Ext. M-l, is concerned, the terms of understanding arc indicated in paragraphs 6 and 7. Paragraphs is quot- ed below :
"6.1 The workmen cadre of IOBL, Calcutta Plant and that of IOC (MD), E.R., will have identical service conditions. The said integra- tion would result in : —
(a) As and when the merger takes place :
5. Both the parlies produced certain documents and adduced oral evidence also in support of their res- pective claims. So lar as the union is concerned, it examined WW-1. Rabinclranath Mukherjee who hap- pened to be the General Secretary of the IOBL Emp- loyees Union. He slated that IOBL has its only plant at Paharpur in West Bengal and the total strength of the staff is 233 and the number of workmen is 195. He also stated that the membership of the union is f70 and the union is also recognised by the manage- ment. He further stated that the practice of taking half day casual leave even on Saturday was in vogue since 197 3, but the piactiee has been withdrawn by the management in 1S>94 and no notice under Section 9A of ihe I.D. Act was issued to the workmen for withdrawal of the said facility. It has been denied by him that IOBL has merged with the Indian Oil Cor- poraion Ltd. in terms of a memorandum of under- standing dated 10-09-1991. He slated that the Board of Directois and General Manager of IOBL are dif- ferent from Ihe Hoard of Directors and the General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the Registration Numbers of both the organisations are also diifercnt. He also stated that the Head'Offices of the two undertakings are different and both the undertakings have their different service conditions and standing orders. He stated that there was short term agreement on 06-04-1993 between the management of the IOUL ; nd the workmen represented by the IOBL Employees Union and the workmen of IOBL are not bound by the terms of the agreement between ihe em- ployees of I.O.C. and the management of I.O.C. In his cross-examination he stated that memorandum of understanding dated 10-09-1991 was effected between the management and this union. He also identified his signature on the said memorandum, marked Ext. M-l. He also stated that he is aware of the provisions of CIause-6 of the agreement. He stated that the work- men of IOBL were getting all the benefits which they are getting from the very begining. He also agreed that there'was a settlement on 19-09-1994, marked Ext. M-2. He also stated that he knows that the faci- lity of half day casual leave was withdrawn by this settlement. However, he denied the suggestion that the union is nor entitled to notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, but he admitted that he was covered by the r^cnorandum dated 10-09-91.
(') An automatic dissolution of the sepa- rate cadres of IOBL, Calcutta work- men
(ii) Automiuic absorption in the •workmen cadre in the Parent Company i.e. 1©C (MD) without any break in service.
(Yn) Fitment of IOBL workman in the -com- bined seniorly list of IOC workmen in TCR according to the date on which the workmen of IOBL have gone in a par- ticular grade either by the process of direct recruitment or by promotion.
(b) Existing facilities enjoyed by the IQBL workmen regarding subsidised canteen and staff bus transport, will continue ,to be enjoyed by them.
6. On the other hand, management examined MW- l. Sunil Puri who happened to be Deputy Manager, Personnel of the IOBL. He claimed that he is acquain- ted with the facts and circumstances of the case. He stated that in September, 1991 there was a settlement arrived at between the TOBI Employees Union and the management by which it was settled that whatever facilities were enjoyed by the workers of I.O.C. shall also be available to the employees of the I.O.B.L. and on this action no objection was raised by the IOBL Employees Union. He further stated that there was a settlement in the veai 1994 and copy of agreement was circulated by the Deputy General Manager, Human Resources. This copy is marked Ext. M-2. According lo him as per this settlement the facility of half dtiy's casual leave was abolished and there was no scope left for grunt of half day casual leave to
(c) The present number of closed holidays in a year will stand revised from 40 to 8 days. However, the two restricted 'holidays will continued.
3616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2 0 0 1/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (d) In view ol :h: integration, the prornot on policy signed by I he Indian Oil Employees' Unir-n, Calcutta, uiil appty to die imeg.a- ted workmen. 'i'iiC old and new nomen- clature ol ucsignuiiOiia for ail categories of workmen hcicby integrated will be as per. AnneKUIe 'M\
(c) The request transfer may be considered sympathetically depending upon the avail- ability of positions at the locations cfesired in lino with the policy preveailing in IOC (Ml)) from time to time."
It appears thai withdrawal of facility of gjant of hall" day casual le^ve was UKIJC on the basis of the pro- vision ol' Clause (a) of paragraph 6 ot tnc settlement of the year 1994. IS.tl. M-2. The other documents have been liled aid brought on record on behalf of the management on:y in order In show that several benefits were gnmle'i to the workmen of TO9L in accordance with this agreement of 1994.
8. The main contention on behalf oL the workmen is that so far as (his memorandum of the year 1991, Ext, M-I Is concerned, it JS not actually an agreement in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been contended that in paragraph 6.1 several clauses have been mentioned and the first clause indicates that there WHS an automalic dissolution of I he separate cadre of IOBL, Calcutta workmen as and when the merger takes place. The oilier clauses (b), (c), (d) and (c) are legurding the clirferent kinds of 1'acilhies to be allowed to the workmen. It has been contended on behalf of the union that from a reading of Clause (a) it appears that the other conditions were to apply only in case of merger of the two establishments, i.e. of 1OBL and J.O.C., but 'idmittedly the merger has not taken place. Therefore, there is no question of automatic dissolution of Ihe separate cadres of 1OBL, Calcutta and oiher facilities are independent, but these are stops to the merger of tht two establishments. It has been submitted that '•ince merger has not taken place, any agr^cmeni arrived between the workmen of l.O.C and tlie management of I.O.C. cannot be binding on the workmen of IOOL.
y. Learned Advocate for the management has strtVi sed that since other clauses are independent whether the merger has taken place or not is not going to affect applicability of the other clauses of paragraph 6. Mav it be, the question remains that has there been dissolution of separate cadres of IQRI. emp- loyees ? Obviously, H was step to the merger as per clause 6.1 (a) and admittedly the merger has not taken place. Therefore, even if there was agreement be- tween the employees and the management of Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1994 under which the facility of grant of half day casual leave was with- drawn, it could have been made automatically applic- able to the workmen of 1OBL. If at nil, the mnnrge- ment of IOBL intended to make it applicable. it was obligatory on the r part to issue notice to the workmen and the unions as per provisions of Section 9A of tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. which has not been done. Therefore, the manner in which the facility of grmit of half day casual leave to the woikmcn o)' ihe IODL has been withdrawn is uni- lateral and arbitral y and the same cannot be held to be v:i!U and piopu1. However, jt has been stated thul the workmen ot IODL had also repudiated the provision ui' the. vvlihc'rawa! of the facility of half day casual Lii"e by V,,.I'!;IL, io the Regional Labour Com- missioner,
1(J. The grievance of ihr workmen, theiefore, ap- peau; to be correct ;;nd lit lo be upheld. It is hereby ordered that the willdrav/al of half day casual leava by the miiiiagrdHjnt ei 1GJ.5L in respect of the work- men (if U'c IOBL is not U-gai, justified mid valid ami accordingly i) is set aside. The workmen are entitled to thh, facility of grant of half day casual leave, in- clud'iig on Saturdays as were available lo them before tlr; witlidrnvj] of fhi:-; facility.
Dated, Kolkata,
the 4th Tune, 2001.
T. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 !^.O, 1758. — In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received 'r-y the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
[No. L.-24012|77|8(5-D. IV(B)1
N. P. KESAVAN. Dtsk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri TC. I1ir;was, Presiding Officer.
In the inat'.Jr of an Industrial Dispute under Scc- fi'jn IO;l )<\\) of the I,D. Act., 1947.
Uefei-cii.-^ No. If cf 1987
PARTIES:
Emp'oyor:; in relation to ihe manaucmenf of Mudulih Collirrv of M[s. IJ.C.C.L. and their wciknieii.
3617APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman--None.
On behalf of. the employers—None.
STATE : Jhai'khand INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, Dhunbad, the 11th June, 2001
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )- (D) of ID. Act 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-2-MJi77|86-D, IV(D), dated the 31st December, 1986.
SCHEDULE
"Whether thv demand of the Union for legulari- sation of Shri Tulsi Saw, Miner as General Mazdoor and paymf.nl of wages for the idle period from 18-7-85 to 13-2-86 by the Management of Mudidib Colliery of M|s. Bhjrat Coking Coal Ltd, is justified? If so, to 'A'tial relief the workman is entitled ?'" 2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W.S. documents etc. Subsequently both the parties abstained from appearing before this Tribunal and taking any steps in spite of issuance of Reed. Notices to them. The reference is pending since 1987 and it is of no use to drag the same. Under such circumstances, a 'No -h'spute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispu'f' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dis- pute between trr.- parties presently.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June. 2001 S.O. 1759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal No, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Anncwure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2001.
[No. L-20012/396/92-IR(C-T)|
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESEN f :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section J O ( l H d) of the LD. Act, 1947
Relerenee No. 7 of 1994
PARTIES •-
Employers in relation to the management of Topa Colliery of M/s. CCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen : Shri Chandrika Prasad, Advocate.
On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th .lune, 2001
AWARD
The Govcrnnienf of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1)
SCHEDULE
"Whether tiie stoppage from joining the duty (o Smt. Jitni Devi, CMPF No. R-55/3599 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is Suit. Jitni Devi entitled ?"
2. The case of the concerned employee is as fol- lows:—Thy concerned employee in her W.S. submit- ted that prior to nationalisation of Topa Colliery she was an employee of the same. After nationalisation she also was absorbed and continued her work and became an employee of M/s. CCL. Tt has been sub- mitted by the concerned employee that the manage- ment without assigning any reason stopped her from working in the said colliery in the year. 1978. She submitted that her services were placed in O.B.R. of Second list at screening No. 22. She disclosed that there was another employee named Jitni Devi wife of Bhuboneswar Singh and her name was recorded in Screening No. 8 of O.B.R. and C.M.P.F. No. R / 5 5/ 3599. Disclosing this fact the concerned employee submitted that her identification in the concerned O.B.R. and identification of another lady workman was quite different. She disclosed that after stopping her work by the management she tried to convince the management personally and also through union that she was the regular employee of the said colliery continuously from 1973 to 1978 and had no relation with another lady worker named Jitni Devi but her nil attempls went' in vein because of the fact that the management did not give any importance to her 3618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 IPART II— SEC. 3(ii)l
3619were actually the employees under the private owner- ship 01 tne said coiuery and they were- actually ab- sorbed bui as ihe name oi the concerned work woman was not i'ound in ihe registers her eiaini at all could not be considered as ihe employee of the colliery ai the initial outset after obtaining report from the screening committee. Now the moot question which is to be decided here is whether Jitani Devi wife of Bakhali Mian was an employee under che management even alter the nationalisation of Topa Colliery. I have considered the Form B Register which during the evi- dence was marked as £xt. M-l and from which it transpires at SI. No. 820 the name of Jitani Devi wife of Bhubaneswar Singh was recorded. No name of Jitani Devi wile of Bakhali Mian is found from this Form B Register. From the service sheet marked Ext. M-2 it is seen that Jifani Devi wife of Bhubaneswar Singh was allotted with C.M.P.F. No. R.-55-3599 and said Jitani De-vj died on 17-2-93. I have also consi- dered ihe service papers of Bakmali Mian alleged husband of Jitani Devi. From the statement in Form F made by Baklmii Mian it transpires that Hamkia Bibi was made nominee by Bakhali Mian in respect of his claims of dues. Further from the service excerpt of Bakhoii Mian it transpires that the name of Jitani Devi was also recorded being his wife along with Hamida Bibi. Now from this document as such it transpires appartenly that Bakhali Mian had 2 wives namely Hamida Khatoon and Jitni Devi. Tt has been specifically asserted by the concerned work woman that her C.M.P.F. No. was R/55/3599. WW-1 fur- ther during her evidence disclosed that her C.M.P.F. Number was 3579. Therefore, C.M.P.F. Number which the concerned work woman disclosed in the W.S. does not taliy with the C.M.P.F. number which she disclosed in course of her evidence.
of paper in support cf her claim. On the contiary papers the management dining hearing produced dearly siiow thac one Jitni Devi wife ot I3hubaneswar Suigu was an employee of Topa colliery who died on i"/-2-iJy3. Learned Advocaie tar the management submitted that even if the concerned work woman is considered as an employee under the management after her retrenchment she took more than 15 years to make reference over industrial dispute in the matter cf employment, fevfcthout explaining any reason for such long delay. Accordingly at such belated stage the claim of the concerned work woman cannot at all be entertained. In support of the claim learned Advocate for the management referred to a decision reported in 200 Lab. I.C. page 7G3 and 1993 Lab. I.C. 1672. In para-6 of the decision repor'.ed in 2000 Lab. I.C. 703 Their Lordships observed that "Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exer- cised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and in a national manner. There appearsto1us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in tlhis case after lapse of about seven years of order dis- missing the respondent from service. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of Reference under Section 10 of the Act". On the contrary in the decision reported in Lab I.C. 672 Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that "Delay disentitles the aggrieved person from any remedy and right". Considering the decisions referred to above it is clear that untill and unless any proper explanation comes for causing delay in the reference the concerned work wnnifn is not entitled to get any relisf. Here in the instant case it transpires that the concerned work woman raised Industrial dispule by making reference rffer P lnpce of ntleast 12 years from her alleged re- trenchment. No sufficient cau^a WEK assigned for such long Ions delay in raising such dispute. There- fore, considering a'] aspects it is ctaar that the con- cerned work woman not only has failed to establish he claim that she was an eranl^vee of the manage- ment but also has failed to assign any satisfactory* explanation for causing Ions? delav of raising indus- trial dispute by making reference.
7. After considering all facts and circumstances of the case carefully I hold that the concerned work woman has failed to establish her clpim for reinstate- ment of her serv;cp at all i<->r) fOr which she is not entitled to get am' relief. In the result, th? following Award is rendered :—
"The sfot>nagp, from joining the HiUv to Smt.
Titni Devi. CM P F No R-5V3SQQ ;<, legp.1 and justified, rvinepcpjcntiv. she is ir>t entitled to any relief".
p r o d u ce fhe s aH I . D. c a rd e vd a R \I < ; * • •? p ay r l i r> fo
36-0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2
LNo. I_-20012[213|90-IR(C-I)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURII
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT
DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec- tion 10(1) (d) of the LD. Act., 1947.
Reference No. 46 of 1990
PARTII:S :
Employers in u-Uttkin to the management of Mohuda Washcry of Mjs. BCCL and their workmen,
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen : Shri Surendra Prasad, Area Secretary, R. C. M.S. Union.
On behalf cf Hie employers : Shri G. Prasad, Advocate. State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal, Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th June, 2001
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section J O ( l ) ( d) of the LD. Ad.. 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012l213j90-IR-(Coal-I), dated, the 11th December, 1990.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the mun^i-mmf of Mahuda Washery in Mahuda Area II of M|s. Bharat Coking To?] Lk!., P.O. Mahuda Dist. Dhanbad (Bihar) is justified in denying promotion to Shri Manoranjan Parashad Mahato Mech. Fitter cum-Operator in the post of Mech. Fitter Guide- i in Cat. V I? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to r
2. The concerned workman's case in brief is as follows : —
The concerned workman in his W.S. disclosed that hs was working as Mechanical Fitter-cum-Opcra- tor since 1983 at Mahuda Washery since 1987. As per NCWA-II and the settlement dt. 6-7-88 he was placed in Cat. V wi'h ,,'fiect from 1-1-83. As per norms and rules workmen on completion of 3 years in Cat. V arc entitled to get tho post of Cat. VI and iiccordingly the concerned workman submitted that he was entitled to get the benefit of promotion in Cat. VI with effect from 1-1-86 and accordingly he al-,0 was enitlcd to get the post of Asstt. Foreman in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C on and from 1-1-90. The concerned workman alleged that inspite of his eligibility lo get his promotion in Cat. VI as well as to the pout of Afstt. Foreman the concerned management did not consider necessary to promote him to the said posts and as a result he was super- ceded by ntleaSL three workmen who were junior to him. The concerned workman submitted that the matter in issue was discussed with the manage- ment but they did not give aiij importance to his prayer in Ihe matter of his promotion. Accordingly the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute and referred the matter to the ALC(C), Dhanbad for conciliation but as the conciliation failed the matter was referred to the Ministry resulting reference to this Tribunal. Accordingly the concerned work- man has prayed for his promiJion to Cat. VI from 1-1-86 and his promotion as Asstt. Foreman frojn 1-1-90. The concerned workman also prayed for financial benefit in relation to his promotion.
3. On the contrary the management after filing W.S.-cum-rsjoinder has denied all the claims and alleg itions which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been disclosed by the manage- ment thut MJs. BCCL has prepared cadre scheme for the promotion for all its workmen employed in different tradeldesignation department, section etc. in consultation with all the Trade Union operating in the coal Mines which is binding on workmen. II has been submitted that promotion upto Techni- cal and Supervisory Grade-A is made at the area level and thereafter at the higher post to the com- pany level. It is mbmitted that no common pool| lKt of emplcvees employed upto Technical and Supervisory Grade-A exists and therefore promotion in particular area of workmen t'epend upon chances and circumstance1; prevailing there. While promot- ing a workman in the area of the concerned the cases of other workmen employed in other area are not taken up into consideration as it is not practi- cable nnd Feasible. Moreover, the management submitted that promotion of a workman depends on training, experience, educational qualification apti- tude etc.. recommendations of (he concerned D.P.C. and on 4he e.v"fpnce of vacancies. Accordingly, the management submitted that the concerned workman's pnve-r is not based on cogent footing and for which he is not entitled to any relief.as prayed for.
itoll
4. The points fur consideration in this reference
are :—
"Whether the rnoPiigeineiil of Mahuda Washcry in Mahucla Area II ol' M|s. Bbarut Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Mahuda, Dist. Dhanbad (Bihar) is jusfihed m denying promotion to Shri Munoryujun Parashad Mahato Mech. Fitter-cLim-Openitor in the post of Mech. Fitter Grade-1 in Cat. V I? If not to what relief ihc said workman is entitled to ?"
DECfSIONS AND REASONS
5. The concerned workman in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as WW-1 while the management has examined one witness i.e. MW-1. From tin; evidence of the coiiccrned workman it transpires that he was appointed at BCCL on 8-12-78 and promoted to CYu. V with effect from 1-1-83. I he concerned workman submitted that after completion of 3 years service in Cat. V he made representation before the management for his pi emotion lo Cul. VI but die management did not consider his prayer and for which he raised this industrial dispute. The concerned workman sub- mi: ted tint previously he was ;,n employee of Barora area. This witness disclosed that the management ignoring his claim consider the case of his collea- gues and promoted them to the post of Supervisory and Technical Grade-C sup^ix-eding him though they were his juniors. The concerned workman during his evidence admitted that promotions are- made as per cadre scheme. Inspite of admitting this fact he alleged that he was never called for inierview at any time by the D.P.C. From Ihis widencL- it furlher transpires that originally he was posted at Barora wherefrom he wjas transferred to Mahuda area on 14-4-89. From his evidence if transpires clearly that Barora and Mohuda areas falls under different wren. Now the point for consideration is w IK-! her the man- agement neglected and refused to give any promotion to the concerned workman to Cat. yi inspite of his fulfilment of his requisite qualification. Tt is seen that before raising that industrial dispute Hie concerned workman also raised his dispute abo'it geMing his nromotion to Cat. V before the appropriate authority. It is seen that on 6-7-R8 there was a settlement and as per settlement the concerned workman was allow- ed waees and other benefits! of Cat. V as per NCWA- IIT with retrospective effect from 1-.I-R1 and he was placed against sanctioned post in the Coal Washerv. If this settlement is taken into consideration it will expose qlcarly that the concerned workman was onlv allowed to enjoy his wajres and other benefits of Cat, V but the settlement is silent if iV was promoted tr> that post. As per NCWA-IU Mechanical Fitter Cat, IV is eligible to pet his promotion to Mechanical Fitter Cat. V subject to fulfilment nf rennisite quali- fication given in Annexure-V1T-I3. Though the settle- ment is si1>T*t if (he concerned workrrnn was pro- moted to Cat. V or not, if all nsp?rts relating to the settlement in questions are t;il <'n into rons-idi-mion
3622 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2 0 0 1/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [ P A R, I I ^ S E C. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen : None,
On behalf of the employers : Shri B, Joshi, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand
INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhnnbud, the 7lh June, 2001
AWARD
The Govt. .of Indi.i, Minisiiy of Labour, in exercise of four gociKts pf .the evidence of the concerned work- nwijl ItAVCfailed to-find out an iota of.material reJying on vrfliaJi tljcfc is .scope ,to say ,that tile name of the CQOOjtned workman though duly recommended by the ibftC ,*vas ignored by tii^ management. Accord- ingly ,in .this .particular case I do not find any fault on itrje part of ,tbc management to consider iins case relating to this .promotion to "Cat. Ml or Asstt. iFf"rc- man Supervisory and Technical GradcrC.
the powers conferred on them under Section lOUHd) of the liD. Act, 1347 has referred the following dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudicalion vidi- their Order No. L-200l2( 198)1 yi-I.R. (Coal-1), dali-d, the Nil,
SCHEDULE
fi. I haye jQArqfully .cqnsidoretl i\\[ ,r>iatcru>lfi ,qn re- cgrd .grid jl am of ;thie view -that the ccinQpfned work- man ,(jasrfaUed to s,ubstanliate his claim to get his pro- mot jpn yvhfch he :h,as .prayed for.
In the result, the fallowing Award is rendered :—
'•Whether the action of the ,m^riagemcnt of Mis. Bhnrat Cpking C03I LU'. in refusing ernployment to Shrl Binod Murumu husband of Smf. Ljlabati Manihi, Dahtbari Coili-.'rv under voluntary retirement solwme is .justified? If not, to what relief the work- man is entitkd'?"
2. Tt is jseen fr>Mn the records that the miinnpement jn "Themanagement of Mahuda Washcry in tytthuda Area H of M/s. '5'harat Coking Coal -Ltd., -P.O. Mahuda, District Dhanbad (Bihar) is justified in 'denying promotion lo {ihri Manoraftjan -Partshad K4aha(o -Mech. fitter- "cum-G>pcrator* ip ihe post ,qf -Mech. Fitter Gradc"-I Jn Cat. V-I. -Consequently, (he con- cerned workman is- not entitled "to any re- lief."
B. BiSWAS, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 158 OF 1991
PARTIES :
Employers in relation lo ilic management of Blrowra (N) U|G Vlincs untie.- Bhowra Area No. XI of M|s. BCCL and their workmen.
APPEARANCES.
On behalf of the workman : None.
On bchHlf of the employers ; None.
STATJ3 : Jrmrkhaml
INDUSTRY ; Coftl.
Dated, DhanbaJ, the 7th June, 2001
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of L.ibour, in exercise of the powers conferred on thurrr under Section 10(1)(d) of the l.D. Act, 1947 has referred- the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Order1 No. L-20012] (1490|91'LH:(Co"l-l), dated, the 26th November. 1991.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (N) U|G Mines under Hhowra Area No. XI of lvf|s. BCCL in terminating the seivices of Shri Parmasiiar, DC Loader vide their letter No. GM1 PER|Bhov/r[i.XI|81i5H9-^l dated 28I29-1-1981 is justified? If not, t;i what relief the workman is en- titled?"
2. In this refer"!ice both the parlies appeared and filed their respective W S. documents etc. Subsequently at the stage of oral evidence both the parties abstained from appear- ing before this Tribunal and taking any steps. The reference is pending since 1991 and it is of no use to driiR the same year after year. Under such cii'cumstantes, a 'No dispute' Award is rendered nnd i\\c reference is disposed of on the basis of the 'No dispute' Award presuming non-e\islence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.
B. BTSWAS. PresidiK Cfficer New De'Hii, tlie 22nd June!, 2001
S.O. 1763.—In pursuance of Section 17 Of the Industrial
mi PARTIES :
..
Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
Ori behalf of the workman : None.
On behalf of the employers : None.
STATE : Jharkhand
INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbnd, the 7th Ibnc, 2601
AWARL*
The Govt. of Jpdia, Ministry of Labour, in pjcercis$ of th" powers conferred on them under" Seqtfon. lOf 1) (d) pf the l.D, Act, 1947 has rcf.-nxd the' foljo)yinjj dispute* to, this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20U)2< 1^3) t 87-n.llI(A), dated, the November, 1987.
SCHEDULE
"Wheirjer the demand of Bihaf Colliery Kamgar Union Dhanbad thpt Smt. Tarula Loharin apd" 17 others Piece rated workmen of.'Chapapur If Colliery of Mfs.Eastern Coalfields Ltd.- Dhanbad be rcfiularised as jimerated workman is justified? If yes, to what relief are these workmen rntftled?"
2. In this reference bol>i the partres appeared and filed their respective W.S. Subsequently at the otnfte of filing documenls bqth the partie? abstained: from appearinfl -before this Tribunal and taking any steps. The reference is pending sines 1987 and it is of no use to drag-the same any-more. Under such circumstances, a 'No dispute' Award is. rendered and the reference is' disposed on the basis of 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.
B. BiSWAS, Presiding-Officer New Delhi, ihe 22nd June', 2001'
S.t>. 1764.—Irt pursuance of Seftidh 17 of the Industrial 3624 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA:."UI.Y 21, 200J/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. J(ii)] PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of M|s. Taf.i Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and their workmen, APPEARANCES:
On belialf of the workmen : Shri D. Mukherjcc, Ad- vocilc.
On behalf of the unployeis : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. STAIE :Jliarkhiind
INDUSTRY ; Coal.
Dated, Dhaubad, the 12th June, 2001
AWARD
The Govt. of India, P"iiiiii>try oL Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on tliem under Section 10(1)(d) of the l,U. Acty 1947 hus ielcntu the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012l72| 91-l.R. (Cottl-1), dated, the Nil.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management in awaidinj> pumshmjiu of 10 uiiys suspension w.e.f. 27-8-191/0 vide their leuer No. JMb|47a|(Ji)B932 dated 21-S-UO to S'Ti J. J. Bhaltacharjee, Special Grade Clerk, P. No. 20M/4 at Central Accounts Office of JvJ|s. T1SCO Ltd,, P.O. Jamadoba, District Dhanbad is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled?"
' 2. The case of the workman is as follows:—• • U h as ticeii s u b r a m e ct by t . .e k A - n c e r n .d w o r k m an L IW he : wa" spOciui (jradi; LlClk in ^emrul A<-C0luns UiHee of "i b LU Ltd. It liii's been submitted by thj concerned workman ijnu over keeping possession of a q muter iiy Miss Roma Btiaitu- ctiarjee who happened io ue ms sister tne management created unnecessary piessiuc on him, I he conceuied work- man submitted tnat in repiy tie pvuuled out c/eaily thai tr,e quarter m question was nut in nis possession and ihe sjm; was in her occupation and she was the real allotlce of the quarter, but being dissatisfied wilh the reply the manage- >mont issued a-chargesheei on-2'6^2-i 99U to him under clause jy.l of the Certified S.O. of the management for not vacating the quarter in question, l ne coiicenied workman submit- ted his reply bin the management being not satisfied with the reply of the concerned workman started a departmental enquiry. against him, The Enquiry Ollicer in course ot enquiry found him guilty to the charges framed against him and subsequently the management imposed a penalty of 10 days suspension with elfei_t from 27-8-90. As a result, the concerned workman made a representation to the manage- ment against the said, penalty but the management did not consider his prayer and for which this industrial dispute raised. . Accordingly the concerned workman prayed lor passing an Awaid holding that the action of (he maniiKi1- ment in imposing penalty of 10 daya suspen, ion vm him vv'ih effect from 27-8-90 was illegal nnd unjustified and accordingly they are liable to pay full wages to him for the said period.
3. The management on thu contrary after filing W.S.-ciiiu- rejojnder has denied all the claims and allegation which - the concerned employee asserted in hi:; VV.S. Accordingly . the management has prayed for passing an Award holding that the action of the management is legal, honalide and justified .and the concerned workman is not entitled to any - relief- which he has prayed, . .
4. The points to be considered in this reference is as follows :—-
"Whether the action of the management in Awarding punishment of 10 days suspension w.c.f 27-8-1990 vide their letter No, 1MB|473|OO8932 dated 2I-H-9O to Shri J. ,T. Bhaltacharjee, Special .Grade Clerk, P. TNo. 20fi974 at Central Accounts Office of M|s. TTSCO Ltd. is justified? If not to whet relief the workman is entitled?"
5. DECISIONS WITH RPASONS
WHS taken up first by this Tribunal and the Tribunal by older dated 17-10-19'Jj held that the domestic enquiry held against the concerned woikmun WQLS lair pioper ami JII act''Ji.iain.c wib .hj piiiiciples of natural JUSJL;;. Accord- ingly final hearings was taken up over the reference made. In course of heaiing learned Advocate for the concerned wo:knian was present and submitted that he had no in.st- luction from the concerned workman to piocecd with the in?.l,ini h-'armg of the refernici'.. ljndcr ihc ciicunistancca as iht concerned workman is rot prosi-ii* inspite of fiivinH several opportuiiilits f heard lajrcd Advocate for ih^- mana- gemenl. Learned Adv.icate fo. the njanagement dm ing hear- ing submitted that (he management did not commit any ille- gality and impropriety suspending the concerned workman for 10 days in view of the domestic enquiry report submitted by the E.O. J have considered the evidence and all male- rials on ICCOHI and f find no dir.puie to hold that suspension order passed against the concerned workman was legal nnd proper, and it did not violnte natural justice. As such at this stage 1 do not find any sufficient giound to say that the management has committed any illegality in passing the suspension order nguinst the concerned workman. In the result, the concerned workman is not entitled to get nny relief which he bus prny^d for. An Award is passed ac- cordingly.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001
S.O. 1765; —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government IndiHrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispulr between the employers in relation
[No. L-20012/68/91-lR(C-l)l
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANWXURE
BliFORH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD PKHSFNT:
Slni B. Biswas, Pies'dins Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d) . ol the I.D. Act. 1947.
Reference No. 144 of 1991
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to Ihe management of BCCL and their workman.
AfPHARANCES:
On behalf of the workman—Shri S. N Go:,wami.
Advocate.
On behalf of the employers—Shri \i. Joshi,
Advocate.
STAT1'. : Jhnrkhand
INDUSTRY : Coal J J25 AWARD
The Government of India. Ministry of Labour, in exercise oi the powers conferred on them under Section lu(l)ut) of the I.D, Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute 10 this inbunal lor adjudication vide iiieir Urder n o. L-lUOiZ/bB/ 91-R.R.(Coal-l), diUcd, the 23rd October, 1991.
SCHEDULK
concerned employee was given as 3 years whereas her age was shown an J5 years. Disclosing mis fact the management sub- mitted that it became absuid tor u girl ot J2 years to become molhei and for which when clarification was sought iiv the concerned employee could not give any satistactory explanation and tkit was also a reason lor rejection of her application. At has been further submitted by me management that even after rejection ot her application under V.K.S. the concerned employee remained in service very much and reined on the date of her superannuation. Therefore, the claim made by the concerned employee for employment of her son does not stand un cogent footing. Accordingly the management hhs prayed for an Award in their favour holding that the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief.
"Whether the management of Barora Aiea No. 1 of l\I/s. BCCL is justified in denying employment i
4. The points for consideration in this reference are ;—
2. The case of the concerned workwoman Smt. Kulsi
Kamin in brief is as lollows :—
"Whether the management of Barora Area No. I of M/s. B.CCL. is justified in deny wg employment to the dependent ol Smt. Kalsi Kaniin who has applied fur seeking voluntary letiremcnt under V.R.S. 7 jf not, to whal relief the workman is entitled V"
5. MND1NGS AND REASONS
Ilic concerned employee in her W.S. submitted I hut she entered into the service at 1'nmantand Colliery on J/-JU-/I Slack Loader. I ne concerned employee submitted that in. couisu oi her service the management issued a circular ul V.R.S. in respect of their employees that au option to jjet the btuelil oi that scneme wno nave not exceeded the uno oi 30 years. Under the said scneme option was piven 10 provide one dependent in employment it any empiuy./e lakes tliu opportunity of that scneme. The concerned emplovee Mibmutcd that in response to that scheme she submilled her application on 5-4-Si with a prayer for accepting l>-'i" resig- nation and also simultaneously with a further prayer to get IIIM son employed under the management. The conce.ncd employee lurihcr submitted that the management atter con- sidering all her papers referred her case to the headquarters lor cmi-mliranon and acceptance but the management did not accept her prayer. The management distributed service e,\crrpts uinongbl its employees in the year 1987 for furnishing service paiticiilurs if any. On seeing that service excerpt she raised objection relating to her date of birth recorded in the same and accoidingly she submitted an application for rectification ot her age. On receipt of her prayer the management duccted the concerned employee to appear before the Medical tioardi for determination of her age in question. Tl has been admitted by the concerned employee that atter medical Board the Apex Medical Board held her date of birth to the effect that she was 57 years old as on 18-2-88. Disclosing this fact the concerned employee submitted that on the date of her appli- cation for V.R.S. she was 54 years old and for which there was no reason on the part of the management to eccept her resignation and to provide her son in employment under the management according to that scheme. It has been alleged by the concerned employee that the management was un- justified in rejecting her prayer, Accordingly she has prayed IV-r passing necessary direction to the management lo give employment to her son in accordance with the terms and conditions of the V.R.S.
Considering the records its transpires that the management in order lo substantiate the action taken against the concerned employee examined one witness. Jn course of evidence the management produced some documents which were marked as l'.xt. M-l to M-7. The concerned employee though did not adduce any evidence relied on some documents which were marked as Ext. W-l to W-18. Consnderng submission ot both sides there is no dispute to hold that the concerned employee was an employee under the management since 1971, There is also no dispute to hold that in the year 19S5 a circular was issued in the matter of V.R.S, for the female employees in BCCL, I have considered the said ciicular and it transpires that the said circular remained valid from 21-3-85 to 20-6-85. By that circular the management issued V.R.S. for the female employees in BCCL in order to rationalise/ mipioved the man power structure against the actual require- ment in BCCL and for generating a productive labour force against such female employees who arc not being Gainfully employed. Learned Advocate for the concerned employee submitted in course of hearing that the concerned employee in lesponse to that V.R.S. submitted an application for petting its benefit with a view to arrange for employment of iier son. the pre-condition of the said circular WHS that the concerned employee at the lime of the operation of that scheme shall be below the age of 56 years. It is the contention of the concerned employee that on the date of filing the said appli- cation she was below 56 years old and inspite of knowing this fact the management without any reason rejected her prayer. Learned Advocate in course of hearing submitted that in the year 19X7 service excepfs were handed over to the concerned employee with a view to furnish service parti- culars if any. It has been further submitted that the concerned employee raised her objection relating to her age u'corded in the service except and accordingly submitted application for rectification of her age. Thereafter the concerned em- ployee was referred to the Apex Medical Board for her medical test. Relying on the report of the Medical Boaid learned Advocate for the concerned emplovee submitted that the concerned employee was 57 years old on 1R-2-SS. The medical report during evidence of the management was marked as Txt. lvf-7. Therefore, according to this medical report it is clear that on the date when the application for V.R.S. wa" submitted by the concerned employee she was 54 years old. Therefore, she was very much eligible to opt. the said scheme. Admitting this fact learned Advocate for the. management submitted "that the said V.R.S. was in ope- ration only from 21-3-85 to 20-6-85. Knowing fully well of that circular the concerned employee submitted her application on 29-6-R5 i.e. after expiry of the time limited. The appli- cation submitted by the concerned employee during evidence of the management was marked as Ext. M-2, As such it is elenr thai beyond this statutory time limit the concerned employee submitted her application and in natural comse it was not possible on the part of the management to consider her apniication to avail the opportunity of V.R.S. Apmt from this fact learned Advocate for the manafiement tub- milted further thai immediately after the circular was issued n serious dispute raised from dillerent corners for r>on-imp1e- menfntinn of the said circular and ns a result of wlvdi the nwnacement was compelled not to act upon the said circular, 3. The management on the contrary after filing W.B.-cum- rejoinder has denied all the claims and alienation which the concerned employee asserted in her W.S. The management in the W.S. did not raise any dispute about the circular in question but the management submitted that immediately after issuing thai circular strong disputes were raised from different corners in the matter of withdrawing the same and .is a result of which the management considering all aspects did not implement the so-called V.R.S. for female woifccrs and peimilted all female workers lo continue in employment till the age of CO years. The management further submitted thai the concerned employee also did not raise objection when her application under V.R.S. was considered and rejected. It has been submitted that even after rejection of her prayer the concerned employee carried on her dulv properly and worked under the management till the dale ot her superannuation. It has been further submitted by the management that the acceptance of resignation of an emplovee is pnrclv at the discretion of the management and for which one cannot demand as a matter of right for acceptance his/ hei resignation as soon as he/she applies und resigns, from the job The management further submitted that resignation tendered by the concerned employee was not accepted con- sidering her utility of service in consistencies available on that particular moment. Apart from this fact the manage- ment also disclosed lhat the age of her son rjiven and the ane of the concerned employee came into miestion relating to its genuinity, In the application the age of the -.on oF tnc t 36-6 THE GAZE1TE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART I I- SEC. 3({i,j Learned Advocate for the management during ai'fiument also n lied on a decision reported in Alii 1987 Supreme Court P-1015. J11 the said decision Their Lordships of tlic Arx'x Court held that sons and wards of Delhi Police cannot claim preference in-the matter oi recruitment. Referring that decision tile Learned Advocate for the management submitted that the circular issued by the management in respect oi the V.R.S. in view of the decision, reierred to above became ultra virts and could not be operative. Apart from this fact it has been further submitted by the learned Advocate for the management that after rejecting the prayer of the con- cerned employee she did not agitate anything over this issue. On the contrary she went on service and was superannuated after attaining her age of 60 years and received full benefit \vbidi !>he was entitled to get, Accordingly when the concerned employee was superannuated at the age of 60 years there was no scope on the part of the management to consider the prayer of the concerned employee for the employment of her son.
6, After carelul consideration of all the facti and circum- stances and also after hearing learned Advocates of both sides it is cleai that the concerned employee submitted her application to avail of the opportunity of V.R.S. beyond the statutory time limit. As such at .the very outset there was no rcope on the part of the management to consider any Mich prayer. Accordingly in view of the facts and circumstances dii-cusscd above 1 hold that the concerned employee is not entitled to get any benefit which she has prayed for. fn the Jesuit, the following Award is rendered:—-
"The management of Barora Area No. T of M/s. B.C.C.L. is justified in denying employment to the dependent of Smt. Kalsi Kamin who has applied for seeking voluntary retirement under V.R.S. Consequently, trie concerned employee is not entitled to any lelief."
B. BISWAS, PresidipR Officer New Delhi, the 26th June, 2001 SO. 1760. --In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Aci, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government, hereby publishes tl.c nwaid of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the AimcAure in I IK- Indus- trial Dispr.tc b-tween the employers in rdaliim to the management of B. C. 0. L. and Iheir workman, which was received by the Cential Gove, nmmt on 25-06-01
[No. L-20012/6.V95-IR (CM] N.P, KESAVAN, Dosk O nicer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS TKML TRIBUNAL ( NO. 2) AT DHANBAD.
PRESHNT
Shri 13. Bisw;p.i, Presiding Ofti •:••:.
In I he .ivLh-r or an Ir.duMrial Dispute under Suition 10(l)(d)(ji'ilhJ-l. D. AcL, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1936
P\RTl.'iS : En\pljy.-rs i:i relation to the mana- gement of BCCL and theii' wiokman.
APPEARANCES :
On bo/ialf of t!"e workman None.
On behalf of the employers Shri H. Nath,
Advocate.
S.ate : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.
Dated, Dhai.bad, Ihe 12;h-.Tunc, 2001.
AWARD
The Govi. of India, JV1 in/.stry of Labour, in exer- cise oi' [he powers conferred en them under Section 10(1) (d) of ihe 1. D. Act, 1947 has referred the foil-.vving dispute to (his Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No, L 70012/61 9J-T. R. ( Coal-1), da^d, the 28th December, 1995.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Union for depends,it employment to Smt. Murti Devi W/o Shri Ram Sarau yadav or. the basis of Shri Ram Saran Yadav being missing since 22-9-87 h justified? if so what lelief js Smt. Mufti Devi enti leJ ?"
2. The case of ihe concerned workman in brief is as follows :— -
It has b;ea submitted the concerned workman ihat Ram Saran Yadav was a permanent employee of West Mudidih Colliery and worked there as Hau- lage Operator. On 11-9-87 the said Ram Saran Yadav reported for duty to work there, but thereafter he was found missing, Accordingly wife of Ram Saran Yadav on 14-9-S7 reported the incident of missing of her husband to the management since 11-9-87 after performing his job in the Colliery. Smt, Murti Devi wife of Ram Saran Yadav also informed the Police and other authorities regarding missing of her husband. She also published new* in the news- paper namely 'Awa// regarding mi-sing of her hus- band. It has been submitted that inspi
3fi28 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : JULY 2 ], 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 |PART II—Sr;c. 3(iiV|
"The demand of the Union iv. dependent employment to Sim. Murti Devi w/o Shri Ram Saran V-dav on the basis of Shri Ram Saran Yadav byi;i<: missing since 22-9-87 is not justi- fied. Concequrntly Sir:t. Nfnrti Devi is not entitled to any relief."
P.. BISWAS, Presiding OITicer
Now Delhi, the 26th June, 2001
S.O.1767.—fn pursu'-mce of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute A-1 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government, hereby publisher the award of the; Central Government Industrial Tii'ovnal, BangtJoic as shown in the Annexing in the Industrial Dispu'.e between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlinvs and their workman, which was received by the Cential Government on 25-6-2001.
[No. L-20030/10/95-IR(C-I)]
N- P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, III CROSS, TTPHASH, TUMKURROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
Dated - 15th June, 2001
PRESENT
HON'BLC SHRI V.N. KULKARN1, B.ComLLB PRESIDING OFFICFR
CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
CR. No. 3/98
I PARTY II PARTY
Shri K. Ravindranath, The Stahdn Manager, C/o Guruppa Chetty, Indian Airlines, No. 236, New Someswara Cauvery Bhavan, Temple B.T.M. Layout, K..G. Road, Old Madivala, Bangalcre-9 Bangalore-68 (Advocate- (Advocate - Shi i K. Kasturi) Sl-.ii Vishwar.ath Bhaf D.R.)
considered the domestic enquiry papery and I hold thai the domestic euqbiiy papers bear no such dis- crepancy and anamoly. h has been submitted by the management that wlu-n an employee is dismissed from service there is no scope to provide any job 1o Ihe iren ber oi h^ i an ily. The moo; poin for consideration here is whether Murti Devi is entiled to £el any employment. W-J during her evidence has failed to produce a single scrap of paper lo show that immediately after missing of R, S. Yadav she submitted any petition to the concerned authority to redress her grievance. No cogent paper is also forth coming before the Tiibunal that she ;ilso lodged G. D. before the local Police. On the contrary it is seen that the union Oi wife of the victim did not consider necessary to publish the said missing news in the leading newspaper with is reason notice periud from ihc date of missing considering Ihe record it is clear thatprior to publication of the said news in the newspaper chargesheel was issued against the concer- ned workman Ram Saran Yadav i. e. on 30-7-89- Thereaf er he concerned workman "w.is dismissed from service on the basis of the said exparle enquiry. Disclosing this fact learned Advocate for the manage- ment submitted that there was no provision under Ihe NCWA to provide employment of a dismissed employee. Learned Advocate further submitted thai there was inordinate delay in submitting application by Murti Devi i'or her employment before the manage- ment which cannot be accepted. Jt has been agita- ted by the union representative in the written argu- ment that on compassionate ground previously the management provided employment to the depen- dents of the missing employee. But in support of this claim during cross-examination of MW-1 no question was put to her. No coguit paper is also forthcoming before this Tribunal that on similar ground compassionate appointment was given by' the management. It is the contention of the Learned Advocate for the management that employment on compassionate y round c;:ii be provided in case the said employee becomes invalid or dies during har- ness. This is completly ;\ separate case on the ground that not only (he concerned employe; remained absent from duty for a long period but also no information was received to the effect on the. part of the concerned workman. It is not the case of the concerned work- man union that Rani Saran Yadav was murdered while he was on duty. After cerel'ul consideration of all facts and circumsl.'incis f am of the same view with the Learned Advocate for the management that the prayer for consideration of employment of the legal heirs of the missing employee cannot be consi- dered after a person is dismissed from service. No', a single scrap of paper is forthcoming before the Tribunal that Murti Devi took all her initiative for tracing out her husband. Accordingly at this stage I do not find any sufficient ground t > give any relief to the concerned workman/union. In the result \\ia following Awaid js rendered :
3629•AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powefti conferred by clause (&) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes'Act, 1947 has referred llm dispute vide order No. L-20030/ O1P/95(1R)(C4) dated 2<>-12-97Tor adjudication on the- following schedule.:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action ef the- management of Indian Airlines in terminating the services of Shri.K. Ravir.dranath is legal ar.d justified 7 If not, to what relief the said .workman is entitled?" 2. The first party workiran was working with the second party as Porter. There was 'nisconduct and charge sheet was issued. Enquiry waj hejd and on the basis of the enquiry report the second party manage- ment terminated the services of the first party work- man so industrial dispute is raised.
3. First party appeared and filed Claim Staiemcnt.
4. The case of the first party in brief is as follows:
5- The first party workman joined the services of the Second Party management with effect from 4-8-1977 as Porter. He worked at HAL Airport, Bangalore. He was confirmed on 19-2-1978 and he was transferred to Cargo Department in 1983. He Was illegally refused employment w.e.f. 6-8-1986. He was not keeping well and sick from 15-7-86. He approached the Medical Officer, Indian Airlines, Bangalore for treatment and his case was refused and referred hirr to the Si. Martha Hospital for treatment. He was taking treatment in that hospital for two weeks. He recovered from his illness and reported for duty on 6-8-1986. But he was physically prevented from carrying out his normal duties. He gave representation but nothing happened. The action of the management is not correct. He submitted leave application for grant of leave but not order was passed. Charge Sheet is not correct and enquiry is not proper. He remained absent only on medical ground. Police complaint was lodged against the first party regarding missing of airticlcs and he was implicated falsely in the criminal case. Jt is the further case that he was acquited by the competent court. The action of the management is not correct. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
6. Second, party appeared and filed counter.
7. The case of the second party in brief is as follows :
8. The main contention of the Second Party is that the first party had remained unauthorisedly absent for a total number of 1084 days in a span of 8 years. He was issued serveral warning letters with regard 135 GI/2001—24
to unauthorised absence. He was not workin properly. On carliei occasions the first party was awared minor punishment and charge sheet was issued and enquiry was h;ld. The enquiry is proper and corrccl. The first parly even after many adjourn- ments did not r articipate in the proceedings and after all the efforts Enquiry Officer conduced an ex-parte enquiry and submitted report. The enquiry report is correct. It is also said that an application under Section 33 C (2) is also filed. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.
9. Tt is seen from the records that on behalf of the management two witnesses were examined and docu- ments were marked. My learned predecessor by order dated 12-8-1999 has held that the enquiry is fair and proper and answered the DE in favour of the management.
10. It was argued on behalf of the first party that the first party was not feeling well on 15-7-86 and he was referred to St. Martha Hospital and he took treatment for two weeks in the above said hospital. He has filed documents which arc Ex.W2 to W5. On 6-8-86 he went to Airport to resume to his duty but was not allowed to do so.
11. Relcveni documents are filed and the first party was referred to St. Martha Hospital when he was sick. Considering the evidence and docu- ments before me I am of the opinion that the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party is not proportionate to the misconduct and therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to take some lenient view and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Termination is set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the first party to his original post with continuity of service and in the given circumstances back wages are not allowed. Accordingly award is passed.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by mo on 15-6-2001).
V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 3630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PAR: I I ~ S E C. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001
S.O. 1768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes (he award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Godavarikhani, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by 'he Central Government on 4-9-2000.
[No. L-22012/25/2000-IRi.C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Pesk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI PRESENT: >
-~ . . •#'"'3P"W Sri P. Gumnadha Rao. B.Sc, B.L., Chalnnan-cura-Presiding Officer. Wednesday, the 26th day of luly, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 66 of 1996
BETWEEN
Anaparthi Rajaiah S/o Ramaiah, Aped 36 years, Occ : Ex-Coal Filler, (Badll Filler) of 8-A Incline, R/o Siripuram Village, Manthani Mandal, Dist. Karimnagar (A.P.) Petitioner
AND
The General Manaaer, Singateni Collieries Co, Ltd., Ramagundam Area-IV, Ondavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar (A.P.) Petitioner This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Rajaiah. Advocate for the petitioner and of Srt C S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, (he couit passed the following :—
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, HS amended by A.P,, Amendment Act, 1987.
Facts of the case briefly are as follows :—
The petitioner was appointed as Casual Worker on piece rate basis in the year, 1976 in the resDOndent company. Thereafter he was appointed as Coal Filler on permanent basis. He was suffering from Abdominal complaints. He applied for sick leave on 28-7-93. But he was removed from service on 5-9-93,
2. Respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was continuously absent from 22-5-91 un-authorisedly. Trig peti- tioner submitted an application on 28-7-93 for sick leave. The petitioner Ought to have made this petition in the vcar, 1991 Itself. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 5-9-93 due to absenteeism.
3. WW-1 is examined and Ex. W-l to Ex. W-10 are marked.
MW-1 is examined and Ex. M-l Is marked.
4. Heard both tides.
5. The point for consideration is whether the petltinoer is entitled to be reinstated into service.
6. POINT:—WW-1 is petitioner. He deposes that he was appointed as Badli Filler on 3-3-86. Prior to that, he was working as Coal-Filler. He was removed from the service in the year, 1982. Again he was re-employed as Badli Filler in the year, 1986. He was terminated from the service on 5-9-93. No notice was given to him before termination. No amount wns paid to him before termination."He WHN on sick lenve from 28-7-93 upto the date of termination order. He further deposes that he applied for sick leave from 28-7-93 onwards.
7. MW-1 is Sri M. L. Sadanandam, Personnel Manager of the respondent company. He deposes that the petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 3-3-86. He worked for 154 davs in 1986. He worked for 43 days in 1987. He did not work in the years, 1988 and 1989. He worked for 6 days in 1990. He worked for 4 days in 1991. He did not work in 1992 and 1993 upto the date of his termination. He further deposes that the petitioner did not work for 190 days in any calender year from the date of his reappointment i.e., 3-3-86 till the dale of his termination. Therefore, the service of the petitioner was not regularised. As badli filler, the petitioner did not work for 190 days in a continuous period of one year, no domestic enquiry is required for terminating the service of the petitioner as per the circular of the respondent-company. He further deposes that the petitioner did not apply for any leave till 28-7-93. He further deposesthat the petitioner applied for sick lenve on 28-7-93 for the period of his absence without enclosing any medical certificate.
8. Ex. W-l is a letter dt. 26-8-82. It shows that the peti- tioner applied for casual leave for four days from 1-6-82 to 4-6-82 and did not resume duty from 5-6-82. His name was removed from the rolls of the company and he was placed on bfldli list. He was directed to report for duty on or before 26-8-83.
The petitioner deposes that he was re-employed HS badli filler in the year, 1986,
Ex. W-6 Is letter dt, 28-7-93. Tt shows that the petitioner made an application to the respondent company statins that he was on leave for the last one year four months. He was undergolne treatment for abdominal complaints. Therefore, he requested the respondent company not to remove his name from the rolls.
9. Ev M-l is office Order dt. 5-9-93. It shows Ihat the lietiiioner and others had put up very poor attendance and therefore terminated their service*.
The petitioner was not attendinfi to duty for more Minn one year prior to termination.
AN per the evidence of MW-1, the petitioner did not work in thr venr, 1992 and 1993. The petitioner worked f"r 6 duvs in 1990 and 4 days In 1991. The petitioner did not work in 1988 ™d 1989.
I theiefore, consider that the petitioner w entitled tn he reinstated into service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
Tn the result, this petition is dismissed. Each party do bear their cwn costs.
Tvpcd to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me In the open court on this, 26th day of luly, 2000.
P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chalrman-cum-Prosldinp Officer Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman :—
WW-1 — A. Rajalah, petitioner.
For Management :—
MW-1 — M, L. Sadanandfm. Personnel Mnnfigtfr, S. C. Co. Ltd., Ramajmndam-TI.
Exhibits
For workman:—
Fx. W-l dt. 26-R-82 Proceedings No GDK No. 7-A' R2/01-E/3136—keening the petitioner's name in Badll-list (xerox copy).
Ex. W-2 dt. 23-10-87 Application of the petitioner (xerox copy).
Ea. W-3 dt. 26-6-87 Application of the petitioner (xerox copy).
E\. W-4 dt. 29-10'-90 Application requesting for General Mazdoor post (xerox copy).
3631Ex. W-5 dt, 23-10-91 Application requesting for General Mazdoor job (photostat copy).
Ex. W-6 dt. 28-7-93 Application requesting for sanction of Rick leave (carbon copy).
E*. W-7 dt. 5-9-93 Termination order.
Ex. W-8 dt. 12-12-94 Mercy petition (photostat copv).
Ex. W-9 dt. 20-11-95 Mercy petition (photostat copy).
l:x. W-10 dt. 22-02-95 Mercy petition (photostat copv).
For Management :—
Ex. M-l dt. 5-9-93 Termination letter.
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001
S.O. 1769,—Jn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kagpur, as shown in the Anneuue in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-7-2001.
(No. L-22012/36/2000-lR(C-Il)l ' tnvaiA^L^. N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 319/2000
The Sub Area Manager, ' (WCL).
fW ANP
Shri S. K. Rokanjwar, (Workman).
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (J) and Sub-Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudical tion vide letter No. L-22012|361200O-I.R.(CM-H) dated 14/21-11-2000 on the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the management namely Sub Area Manacer, Durgapur Open Cast Sub Area of WCL in dismissing Sh. S. K. Rokamwar. Ex-EPCH, Gr. 'E' Durenpur Open Cast is legal, proper and justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled und from what date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?
This reference was received from Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 27-12-2000 and notices were issued to both the parties for 14-02-2001. Nobody turned up from the side of workman to file statement of claim.
Again regeistered notice was sent to the -workman on 27-04-2001 which was received by him 12-05-2001. The acknowledgement received of post office shows that the notice was received by the workman S. K. Rokamwar.
The case was taken up on 28-05-2001 but the workman oi the Union representative did not submit any statement of claim.
The case, was again adjourned to 15-06-2001 but no state- ment of claim has been filed by the workman. The reference is therefore disposed off for want of procecution.
" ORDER
No statement of claim has not been filed by the workman S. K. Rokamwar, hence the reference is disposed off for want of prosecution.
No other directions are necessary in the matter.
Date : 15-6-2001 B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001
S.O. 1770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation U> the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-7-2001-
(No. L-22012/44/99-IR(C-Il)l N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officei
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NAGPUR
PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 291/2000
Employers in relation to the management of S.fc.C.L.
AND
Their Workman Shri Ramesh Kumar Rathore.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and sub Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012/44/99-IRlC-U) tinted 21-09-2000 on the following schedule.
3632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART IT~SEC. 3(i0] SCHEDULE
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
"Whether the action of the management of Balii Project. SECL, in denying promotion to Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kathore in Cat. IV w.e.f. 5-12-94, i.e.. the date from which his junior Sh. Ghanshyam Tripathi, was §ivcn promotion in Cat. IV is justified 7 If not. what relief the workman is entitled to-7"
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 294/2000 General Manager, W.C.L.
•- AND
Shri Moolchand In the reference received from the Ministry of Lubour, New Delhi the schedule contains the name of the workman as Ramesh Kumar Rathorc The Secretary-of Samyukta Kovla Mazdoor Sangh (AITLJC) has submitted the statement of claim for the workman Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore: The manage- ment of SECL has submitted the failure of conciliation report dated Oth August, 1999 in which the name of the workman is mentioned as Ramesh Kumar Rathore.
AWARD The case was taken up today. Both the parties were absent. As the name of the workman in the failure of conciliation report shows the name of the workman Raincsh Kumar Rathore and the schedule- received from Ministry of Labour dated 21-09-2001) also shows the name Of the workman Ramesri Kumar Rathorc, hence this court cannot change the name of the workman. The statement of claim dated 03-10-2000 submitted by Rajesh Kumar Rathore, in this court on 10-01-2001 cannot be accepted.
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, Nejwj Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (I) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,, 1947 Ins referred this dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal vide order No. L-22O12/85/200O/IR-.(CM-IT) dated 28-9-2000 on the following schedule,
SCHEDULE On 27-04-2001 the management has submitted the applica- tion that there is no concern of workman named Ramrsli Kumar Rathore with this reference. No person bearing name Ramesh Kumar Rathore is working in S.E.C.L., hence the reference is void ab initio. The management has prayed for dismissal of reference.
As no statement hus been filed by workman Ramesh Kumar Rathore mentioned in the schedule, hence the case is therefore disposed off for want of prosecution.
ORDER
"Whether the action of the Manager, Damuu Colliery of WCL, PO : Daniua, District Chhindwara (MP) in not correcting lh& date of birth of Shri Moolchand S/o Ganesh Prasad, Chowkidar of Dainua Colliery as 7-9-64 instead of 16-10-92 is justified? If not, to what'relief the workman is entitled ?" No stalement of claim has been filed by workman Ramesh Kumar Rathore who is mentioned in the schedule and failure of conciliation report dated 06-08-99 of ALC (Central).1 Bilas- pur. Hence the reference Is disposed off for want of procecution as no statement of claim has been filed by Ramesh Kumar Rathore. :
B. O. SAXENA, Presiding Officer
Dated : 22-05-2001
The workman has submitted statement of claim on 16-2-2O01 through Union representative that his date of birth is recorded as 7-9-64. He was appointed in the Nandan Colliery of WCL in 1984. In the schedule received from Ministry of Labour, H is men- tioned whether the action of management in not correcting the date of birth of Moolchand as 7-9-64 instead of 16-10-92 is justified.
No Written Statement was filed by the counsel for management of WCL in this case. On 23-5-2001 the management's counsel N. R. Bhishikar had moved application for seeking time for filing written state- ment.
- appeared in the court. The counsel for the WCL also did not turn up. No, Written Statement has been filed from the side of the management to show as to what is the date of birth recorded in the form B Register and what the workman is claiming the date of bii«h. New Delhi, the 4th July, 200] Tn the statement of claim the workman has men- tioned that the date of birth was wiongly recorded in form B Register. His date of birth in the Board of Secondary Education Certificate is written as 7-9-64. His date of employment is 16-10-84. It shows that the workman has not mentioned anywhere that the date of birth has been recorded in any record as 16-10-92 which is mentioned in the schedule of the reference. S.O. 1771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dipsute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Anncxure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-7-2001. [No. L-22012/S5/2000-TR(C-II;l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer As I mentioned above the management of WCL has also not submitted any Written Statement, it is there- fore not{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} clear as to what is the actual dispute between ↩
ANNEXURE
the management of WCL and the Chowkidar Mool- chand.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN', HI MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESRWANTHPUR, BANGALORE If the workman got employment in 1984 at Nandan Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area, his date of birth can- not be 16-10-92 as mentioned in the schedule. Thus the dated 16-10-92 mentioned in the schedule of re- ference is absolutely baseless.
Dated. 19th June, 2001
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LabuuL- Court, Bangalore.
C.R. No. 44/91 Probably the Desk Officer N. P. Keshavan has not tried to sec as to what is the actual dispute regarding the date of birth. What date of birth the workman is claiming and what date of birth is mentioned in the record of Colliery of WCL. The Desk Officer should see the documents properly before sending the refer- ence to this Tribunal. The reference is therefore defec- tive as the date of birth mentioned in the schedule 16-10-92 is totally wrong.
I PARTY
In the above circumstances the claim of the work-
man cannot be decided in terms of reference.
ORDER
Shri S. K. Muniyappa, Munckollala New Extension, MarathalH Post, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. (Advocate-Shri Satya Narayan) The date of birth of Shri Moolchand, workman mentioned in the reference as 16-10-92 is absolutely wrong.
II PARTY
Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, 9, Mission Road, Bangalore-27. (Advocatc-Shri Y. K. N. Sharma)
AWARD
No relief can be given to the workman on the basis of this wrong reference. N. P. Kesavan, Desk Officer has not mentioned the correct date in the schedule. Reference is therefore1 disposed of on this ground that the term of reference is itself defective and no relief can be given to the workman, Moolchand S/o Ganesh Prasad Chowkidar of Damua Colliery, WCL, District Chhindfsvfara, M.P.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 cf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-22012(87)F/ 9MR(C-1I) dated 3-7-1991 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action on the part of management of Food Corporation of India, Bangalore in removing the services of Shri S. M. Muni- yappa, Ex. Watchman w.c.f. 9-7-1986 for alleged misconduct is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"
2. The first paity was working with the Second party as Watchman. Charge sheet was issued. Enquiry was held against the first party and on the basis of the enquiry report first party was removed from ser- vice. Therefore, dispute was raised.
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001
3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.
4. Tn order to dispose off this dispute few facts arc
necessary and they arc narrated as under :—
S.O. 1772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI ynd their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.
5. First party was appointed as Watchman in the year 1976 and he was working with the management. Charge sheet dated 16-9-1982 alleging that he absent- ed himself from duty with effect from 3-7-82 and committed a theft of one, 139 bags of superfine raw rice from Kalpathar godown on 11-7-1982 was issued.
LNo. L-22012(87)F/91-IR(C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
6. The case of the first party is that he was on leave from 3-7-1982 to 16-7-1982 and after that 3634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j he went to the management and tried to convey them that he was on medical leave during the period of theft but nothing was done by the management. So far as enquiry is concerned it is said that the enquiry is not proper and fair. Full opportunity was not given to him. The report of the Enquiry Officer is not cor- rect and the- action of the management is illegal. The punishmen'L is not correct.
7. Second party appealed and filed Counter.
8. It is true that the first party was working as Watchman. It is the case of the management that the first party remained absent himself from duty from 3-7-1982 and the first party committed theft of Rice bags, Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was con- ducted. The enquiry is fail ana proper. Full opportu- nity was given and all the allegations made by the first party are not correct. The management has alleg- ed that the action of the management is correct.
9. It is seen from the records that so far as domestic enquiry is concerned two witnesses were examined and workman also got examined himself.
10. It ii seen from the records that by an order dated 31st December, 1993, the domestic enquiry was held not fair and proper. Thereafter the management examined MW-2 to MW-5. Again first party got examined. 1 have heard both sides in detail. T have perused all the documents and read the evidence carefully.
11. In the instant case the domestic enquiry was held not proper by an order dated 31st December, 1993. In view of this the management has to prove the case against the first party workman to show that he has committed theft.
12. I have read Die evidence of MW3, MW4 and MW5. At the very outset 1 am of the opinion that the evidence of these witnesses is not sufficient to involve the first party workman directly in theft case. It was argued by the learned counsel for the second party that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show that the workman has committed theft. He pointed out saying that since 3-7-1982 to 16-7-1982 the first party workman was unauhorisedly absent and he engaged lorry and earned rice. It is true that the first party was not on duty on 3-7-82 to 16-7-82 but the case of the first party is that he was on medical leave and he has produced leave application and medical certificate. The management has to prove that the first party has commitcd theft.
13. I have already said that the evidence of MW3, MW4 and MW5 is not sufficient to show that the first party has committed thef of rice. We ate having the. First Information Report which is Ex. M- J3 and according to that the name of the first party is not shown as accused. The first party workman has filed "B" report The competent criminal court has stated that there is no material to frame charge against the accused and therefore the accused is discharged. With this 1 am of the opinion that the management has failed to prove that the first party workman has committed theft of rice bags.
14. Taking all this into consideration the action of the management in removing the first party from work is not correct. The first party has given evidence say- ing that since his removal he is unemployed.
15. I have given my best consideration to the mate- rial before me rind I om of the opinion that the action of the management in removing the first party work- man is not correct and the order of removal is set aside. Accordingly 1 proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
The management is directed to reinstate the first party workman from the date of his removal with con- tinuity of service and in the given circumstances no back wages are allowed. Accordingly award is passed.
(.Dicated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 19-6-2001.)
V N KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi the, 4th July, 2001 S.O. 1773.—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, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 4-7-2001.
[No. L-22012|160!90-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR Present Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer Reference No. 161]200O
Shivpuri Sub Area of WCL, Pencil Area
VERSUS
L Bhauial S|o Gunchi.
2. Decna S|o Harchand.
3635AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the power; conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (J.) and Sub section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012|160|90-IR(C-TT) dated 29-03-96 on the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, WCL, Pench Area in stopping Shri Bhau Lai Slo Gunchi and Shri Dcena Sjo Shu Harchand from work is legal and justified ? If not, what, relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ?"
Bhaulal S[o Gunchi and Deena Slo Harchand. had sub nutted statement of claim in C.G.l.T. No. I at Mumbai on 23-05-96. This case was received by transfer in this court in June, 2000.
Bhaulal and Decna have stated that they were employed as Telephone Majdoor at Shibpuri Open Cast Mine of WCL in February, 1994 on the job of Telephone installation and its maintenance. They were stopped from work from 13-12-85 without any reason, in contravention of Section 25-F of ID Act. After terminating their services two other workmen Ramnath and Kuber Singh were appointed.
The management of WCL stated that these workmen were not appointed according to the recruitment rules and procedure for fiil- ing up the Vacancy of General Majdoor. The management had not appointed Bhaulal and Deena. They were casual workmen who had not completed 240 days work dur- ing the period of 12 months preceding Ihe date of alleged stoppage from work. The Shibnuri Mines telephone lines were extend- ed from pench East Exchange to Colony of Shibpuri Mines. These workmen were engag- ed for grouting of telephone poles, digging of drains and laying r>ipe line. As soon as the work was over their services were not required. They were engaged on purely tem- porary casual nature of work.
The statement of Deena and Bhaulal were recorded in this court and they were cross examined.
R. B. Mishra and R. K. Awasthi had liled their affidavits from the side of management. The workmen or their counsel did not prefer to cross examine them. The union represen- tative of the workmen also did not turn up to conduct the case of workmen after 25-01-2001.
I have hcared the counsel for the WCL and have perused the entire oral and documen- tary evidence on record. Bhaulal in his cross examination stated that he was employed by engineer Awasthi. No appointment letter was given to him. He was paid Rs. 8 per day. He was doing the work of digging the pits of telephone poles. After installation of telephones, the work was finished and he was therefore not called for any work.
He also admitted that he did not work for 240 days continuously in any year.
Workmen Deena also stated that he was engaged by the engineer for the installation of telephone connections. He was not ap- pointed for regular work. He wt".s paid Rs. 8 per clay, thereafter he got Rs. 10 per day for sometime.
From the statement of these witnesses it is clear that they were daily paid worker.
Deena and Bhaulal were not appointed for any regular work. As soon as the work for installation of telephone lines was over, they stopped work. They were not engaged for any other work by the management of WCL.
R. K. Awasthi, Executive Engineer in his affidavit dated -18-01-2001 mentioned that Deena and Bhaulal were engaged for the work extension of telephone lines. Tt was a purely temporary and casual nature of work. They were engaged till the work was available.
R. B. Mishra, Area Personal Manager also mentioned in his affidavit dated 08-01-01 that Bhaulal and Deena were not employed as Mazdoor for any permanent nature of work. There is no post of telephone Maidoor in Coal Industry of WCL. In view of the above evi- dence the action of the management of General Manager, WCL, Pench Avsa, in slopping Bhaulal and Decna from work was legal and justified. They were pot the re- gular employees of the WCL.
ORDER
The action of the management of General Manager. WCL, Pench Area in stopping Bhaulal S'o Gunchi and Decna S*o Hnrchand from work is legal and justified.
3636 THE OAZETIE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fii)J The workmen arc not entitled to any relief.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dated : 25-06-2001.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001 S.O. 1774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of J947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal]Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 4-7-2001.
j[No. L-22012|164|95-IR(C-II)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT : 29212000 Employers in relation to the management of The Sub Area Manager, W.C.L.
AND
Their Workman Shri S. C. Niranjane
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-2?.O1?J164I95|IR(C-II) dated on follow- ing schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Durgapur Opencast Sub-Area of W.C.L. in terminating the services of Sh. S. C. Niranjanc, Cableman, Durgapur Opencast Priject is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is en- titled ?"
This reference was sent by the Ministry of Labour to C.G.I.T. Court No. 1 at Mum- bai on 20-11-95. The workman was represent- ed through Shri S. Mazhar, representative of the union and the case was conducted by Shri B. N, Prasad, the counsel for W.C.L. On 21 -03-97 the Award Part 1 was passed in this reference by Shri R. S. Verma, Presid- ing Officer, C.G.I.T. No. I. The detailed order regarding the fairness of enquiry was passed and Shri Verma was of opinion that the workman S. ,C. Niranjane was working as Cableman and he was found guilty of com- mitting theft of the cable on 04-09-92 at 9.00 p.m. belonging to the management of W.C.L. at Durgapur Open Cast Sub-Area. The piece of 20 ft. cable was cut and the workman was responsible for committing the theft. The three witnesess Shri M. L. Viswakarma, Shri Ramji Tandckar and Shri Jayant Kumar Suryawanshi were examined, in support of the incident of theft during enquiry.
Mr. Verma also mentioned in his order, the workman was acquitted in criminal case on technical ground. The finding of criminal case was not based on evidence or merit.
In view of the above finding Justice R. S. Verma, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. Court No. 1, held that the domestic enquiry was just and proper. The finding of Enquiry Officer was based on evidence recorded dur- ing the enquiry.
On behalf of the workman the written argument was submitted by Shri Mazhar, representative of the union on 02-07-97. The workman had also filed affidavit on 06-07-96 that the punishment awarded is severe and his dismissal order is unjustified.
This case was received in this court on 29-09-2000. Workman moved application for adjournment on 13-11-2000. The case was adjourned on 05-01-2001. After that S. C. Niranjane, workman did not turn up. His union representative also did not turn up to areue the case on the point of punish- ment. On 13-11-2000 S. C. Niranjanc had moved application in this court that his coun- sel is ill and another date be given to him for hearing.
Tt is therefore clear that the \vori':m;ni was aware ihat the proceedings are pending in this co>:e for hearing, but neither Iiis conn.-.el r.pivme
As T pointed out above that the vvorViuan was the cabieman appointed at the Durgapur Opyn Cast Sub Area of W.C.L. and was thnvt'oiv responsible to keep watch, over the property of management. He himself com- mitted ibeft of the cable. The finding of Shri R. S. Vorma, Presiding Officer, dated 31-03-97 is on record and has not been challenged in any court.
In view of the above facts when the work- man was found guilty of committing theft of the eibie which was the property of WCT,. the order of his termination from service bv the management of Durgonur Open Cast of WCK. is legal and justified.
The workman is not entitled to any other iriiet.
The punishment awarded i.e. termination of service can not be considered dispropor- tionate anyway keeping in view the ofrience theft committed by workman.
ORDER
The action of the management of Durganur Open Cast Sub Area of WCL in terminating the services of Shri S. C. Niranjanc, caW'Wn Du'^npur Open Cast Project is legal and justified.
The workman is not entitled to any other relief.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Date : 21-05-2001
3 M7 New Delhi the 4 th July, 2001
S.O. 1775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 1* of 1947), the Cen^ tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Centra) Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received b\ the Central Government on 4-7-2001,
[No. L-22012|l91|91-IR(CMI)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT:
Shci B. G. Sirtejin,, Presidinf Officer.
Reference No. 1O3J2000
The sub-Area Manager, INeeljai opencast Mine.
Versus
Baba S. Bhougb, LVDrill. Operator
AWARD
The Central Government Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause fd) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal vide order No. L-22O12'1"1|99-1R (CM- II) dated 25131-08-^9 on the following schedule.
SCHEDULK
"Whether the action of the management namelv Sub Area Manager, Neeljai Opencast Mine of WCL, PO : Bellow Tah : Wani D'stt. Yavatmal in terminating Shri Baba S. Bhonale, Ex-Drill Operator, Nceljai Open Cast Mine WCL, is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date? What other direc- tions are necessary in the rn.altt.-r?" B. G. SAXENA. Presiding Officer 2135 GI/200I—25
Ba|>a S. Bhongle has submitted statement of claim that he was working as drill operator in Sub-area Neeljai Opencast, WOL, Yavatmal for last more 3638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2 0 0 1/ ASADHA 30, 1923 TPARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] than ten years. Cbairgesheet w"s issued to him vide order date 25-09-96 that he was absent from duty without sufficient cause for more than ten days. He was also habitual of becoming absent from duty with- out sufficient cause. The enquiry w&> instituted against him from 5-12-96 and he was dismissed from service by management's order 05-08-98.
He further alleged that the duration of absence from duty was not mentioned in chargesheet. The list of documents and witnesses was not given to him and he could not defend himself with the help of co-worker. The enquiry was conducted e.xpartc. He was called and asked to pay Rs. 10,000 on 7-7-98 fpT quashing departmental proceedings. His uncle had erirruty with an officer of WCL, so he has been victi- mlssed and dismissed from service. He claimed re- instatement with full backwages.
The management of WCL, has contested (he case. It is mentioned in Written Statement that the job of the drill opCrfttor is highly skilled and responsible. The workman's unauthorised absence caused serious dislocation of work and directly affected on the production of eoaj.
In 1994 he worked for 176 days, 1995-176 and in 1996 upto August only for 76 days. He was warned Several! times tor his unauthorised absence. On 25-9-96 chglrgesheet was issued to him and he was called to explain his conduct. He did not submit any (sxplaination. On 5-1J2-96 departmental en- quiry started, 9-1-97 the first date of enquiry was fixed, thereafter 9-3-97, 20-9-97 and 17-4-97 were fixe,d, b.ut the workman did not attend the en- quiry proceedings. On 17-4-97 he was informed that if he will not turn up, the enquiry will pro- ceed exparte. The workman did not reply. The enquiry was therefore concluded and on 5-5-98 en- quiry report was submitted The enquiry report was sent to the workman on 11-6-98. He was dis- missed from service vide order dated 5-8-98.
I have heard the counsel for the workman and the counsel for WCL a|nd have perused the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.
The workman Baba. Shankar Bhongle was cross examined on 17-10-2000. He admitted that choirge- sheet was issued to him as he Was absent for more than ten days. He admitted that he did not submit any medical certificate about his illness for the period, he remained absent. On 22-3-97 he had approached the management and was allowed to join the duty but he has po document to show that he was allowed to join duty. He has not filed such document, He also admitted that he had got the ;opy of enquiry report. He did not submit any reply of show cause notice in this Tribunal. He further says that R. K. Srivastay, Manage/ had demanded Rs. 10.000 for closing enquiry against him. In cross- examination he changed the name of the officer con- cerned. He says that S. S. Srivastav was the project officer when charseshcet was issued to him. This chargesheet was given to him by personal officer of WCL. Chargeshcet Wa, not issued to him by S. S. Srivastav. The document W4 filed by the workman dated 7-7-98 shows that the manaeer had sent him letter to join duty from 8-7-98. The name of the manager is not mentioned Sn this letter., -r The counsel for the management, o*gue4 that ordp- for dismissal was passed on 25-6-98 by Deputy C.P.M. So there was no question for calling him for duty from S-7-98. The management has not admitted this document. It is also argued that on 7-7-98 the order for termination was passed by APM. The charge against the workman was proved as per report of the enquiry officer daited 5-5-98. V. P. Jobi was the enquiry officer/personal officer. It is therefore clear that the enquiry was not conducted against the workman by R. K. Srivastav or S. S. Srivastav as alleged by him.
The statement of V. P. Jobi v as also recorded on 3-4-01. In cross examination the enquiry officer says that on 25-9-96 cbargssheet Was issued to the wort- man Baba S. Bhongle. During enquiry on 9-1-97, 3-2-97, 27-3-97, the .notice?- were issued to the Workman but hp did not turn up to attend the en- quiry proceedings. Ho does not know whether the uncle of workman had any quarrel with S. S. Spvastav or not. The above evidence therefore shows that the workman was given opportunity to produce defence during the enquiry but he knowingly absented and did not attend the enquiry.
The workman did not submit any satisfactory evi- dence during Ihe enquiry regarding his absence from duty.
In 1996 he worked for the following period—
January, 96—18 days February, 96—<> „ March, " -^ „ April, "—4 „ May, "—14 „ June "—8 „ July „—3 „ August .,—11 „
The Workman has not submitted any medical certi- ficate to show that he was absent during the above months due to any illness or any other satisfactory reason.
No documents have been filed to show that he was granted leave ioi his absence during the above months. Thus the charges under Standing orders 26.24 and 26.10 of WCL as mentioned in charge- sheet 25-9-96 are fully proved against the workman.
I therefore hold that the enquiry was conducted fairly a|nd according to the principles of natural justice. The workman was given opportunity to defend himself but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.
In the above circumstances the punishment awarded to the workman i.e. dismissal from service is also jusified. There is nothing on record to show that in the criminal case 64|R7 decided on 29-12-98 state of Maharashtra versus Balji Bhive Bhongle, the Workman Baba. S. Bhongle was a witness. The judgement dated 29-12-98 shows Baiaji Bbiva Bhdngle was acquitted. 'The occurance of this case was dated 7-7-87. In the above circumstances this criminal case has no concern with the dismissal of the workman" for his absence from his duty.
3639It was for the workman to show any justified ground for his absence from duty during the year 1994, 1CJ^5 and 1996. In 1994 he worked for 17* days, 1995- 176 days and 1996—.76 days. The absence of the workman from duty caused dislocation of ik- w.irk and affected the production of coal fr'wi the mire.
.In diese circumstances the order of the management of WCL in terminating the seniccs oi workman Baba S, Bhongle was tegal and justified.
ORDER
The action of the management namely Sub Area. Manager Neelijay Open casi. Mine of WCL. PS- Bellora. Tali ; Wani, District Yavaima) in tc-minati-iR Shri Baba S. Bhonpie, Ex-Drill Operator Nceljay Opencast Mini', WCL is Wat an:' notified.
The workman is not entitled for ;*ny relief.
No other directions arc necessary in the ma'tcr Dated 20-6-2001.
B. G. SAXENA, Preside? OfnVer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001
S.O. 1776.^In pursuance of Section 17 of thfi In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-7-200).
[No. L-22012/209/O9-IR(C-II)]
N. P. KRSAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXtJRE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT ;
Shri B. G. Saxtna, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. CGIT : 111/2000
Employees in relation to the management of the General Manager, W.C.L.
AND
Their workman Shri Satish Janardhan Perkar.
2135 .01/2001—76
AWARD
The Ccntial Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Subsection 2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L- 22012/209/99/IR(CM-II) dated, 22-11-1999 on following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of. the management namely General Manager, Majri Area, Kuchana of WCL, PO : Shembule, District Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri S. J. Dorkar, Ex-Clerk, Majri Area is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?"
S&tish Janardhan Derkar has submitted Statement of Claim that his relatives were having land in Kawadi, Tahsil : Warura. District : Chandrapur. He was ap- pointed as General Mazdoor on 12-06-90. He was promoted as Clerk Grade III w.e.f. 12-12-93. The charge sheet was issued against him on 21-04-97 for his remaining absent from 24-04-97 for more than 10 days. It was also mentioned in the charge sheet that he is in the habit of remaining absent. In the year 1996, he woiked for 79 days only.
The enquiry was conducted against him and both the parties were asked to produce evidence. On 6th May, 1997 the evidence was recorded. He did not produce any defence. The enquiry was concluded on 06-05-97 in his presence. The Enquiry Officer Prabha- kar S. Deshpande submitted, Enquiry Report on §th May, 1997. His service was terminated vide letter No. WCL/MA/GM/PER/Termi./97/310 dated 27th|29th May, 1997.
His mercy application for permitting him to join duty dated 10-06-97 (this paper is Exhibit W-5) was also rejected. Tlic appeal of S. J. Derkar was rejected by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (IR) MSR, WCL, Nagpur vide order WCL/IR/MSR/U 79/3066 dated 18/24-11-1997 (this paper is Exhibit W-6).
The workman had requested for reinstatement and setting aside the termination order dated 29-5-97.
In the Written Statement the management of WCL stated that the workman was absent without any inti- mation from 24-02-97. He also did not get his leave sanctioned. The charge sheet was issued to him on 21-04-97. He submitted his explanation on 25-4-97. He explanation was not found satisfactory. Enquiry was constituted vide Memo Enquiry No. WCL/MA/ G M / P E R / 9 7 / 6 16 dated 27-4-97. He received this letter on 5-5-97.
The workman attended enquiry on 06-05-97. He told the Enquiry Officer that he does not want any help of co-worker in the Departmental Enquiry. He cross examined the witness produced by management.
The workman Saiish S. Derkar did not produce any evidence in his defence. He made his defence state- ment and filed some documents. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry with the consent of both, the • 3 6 4 0 ' • " -• T H E ~ O : A Z E T TE OF I N D I A; J U LY . 2 1, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D HA 3 0, , 1 9 2 3,
parties and submitted his report on 17-5-97. The Enquiry Officer mentioned in his Enquiry Report that the charges under standing order of, WCL ' clauses 26.24, 26.30 have been proved against the workman S. J. Derkar. Vide order dated 27/29-5-97, his ser- vice was terminated w.e.f. 30-05-97.
Both the parties produced evidence in this case before this Tribunal. Satish J. Derkar submitted affi- davit on 30-6-2000 and he was cross examined on 11-08-2000.
From the side of management Enquiry Officer Prabhakar De^hpande submitted his affidavit on 29th August, 2000 and he was cross examined by S. B. Phande the advocate of the workman. The cross- examination of Enquiry Officer was recorded on 13th October, 2000. The parties have submitted documents.
Both the parties also submitted their Written argu- ments through their advocates. However, for oral argu- ment also a number of dates were given to both the parties. From 22-12-2000 to 08-05-2001 eight dates were given, but the counsel for both the parties did not prefer to argue the case orally.
I have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.
The counsel for workman has mentioned in the Written argument that enquiry was not conducted fairly and according to Principles of Natural Justice. The workman also could not produce his defence.
The above argument of the counsel for workman is baseless.
In cross examination on 11-08-2000 the workman S. J. Derkar had admitted that chargeshcet was issued to him on 23-4-97. He had received the charge-sheet and had submitted his explanation on 25-4-97.
The workman also admitted that he had not sub- mitted any document related to the treatment of his any illness. He had no original certificate of the Doctor with his regarding his illness. He was allowed to join duty on 27-4-97 when enquiry was pending against him.
. The Enquiry Officei had informed him on 05-05-97 that he will take up Enquiry proceedings on 6-5-97. He participated in the Enquiry Proceedings. He had received the copies of document Nos. 10 to 17 con- cerning Enquiry Report. During Enquiry he had sub- mitted Report that he was ill from 24-2-97 to 26-4-97. He did rot submit any Medical Certig- cate regarding his illness on 24-2-97 though lie says that he had given application regarding his illness to the Clerk in the office of WCL. He has admitted that during the period of illness for 2 months hs did not move any application to management of WCL. He also did not submit any Medical Certificate to the management regarding his illness.
The workman has further admitted that he was pro- vided opportunity to produce his Defence Evidence .during the enquiry. He did not produce any Defence ""Witness. This' workman also admits that he had con- tested the Assembly Election in 1998 as an Indepen-
[ P A RT I I —S EC , 3 ( i i )1
dent candidate. It shows that the workman is well qua- lified and knows that his unauthorised absence from duty was his gross misconduct.
The above statement of the workman S. J. Derkar shows that enquiry was conducted against him fairly and according to the Principles of Natural Justice. He got full opportunity to submit his Defence Evidence. The workman examined himself in his Defence and did not produce any other oral evidence.
The statement cf Enquiry Officer Prabhakar Desh- pande also shows that the statement of managements representative M. K. Tul was recorded during enquiry. This witness was cross examined by workman S. J. Derkar. Tlie workman did not produce any other oral evidence in defence except examining himself.
The Enquiry OJlicer has submitted his detailed En- quiry Report in which he has mentioned that the charges against the workman S. J. Derkar have been proved.
In these circumstances I, therefore, hold that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and accord- ing to the Principles of Natural Justice.
Now, the question is regarding the punishment awarded to the workman. According the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court 1983 LIC page 1629 D. P. Mahcshwaii Vs. Delhi Administration, all the issues should be decided together. Hence, the issue regard- ing the punishment to the workman is also been con- sidered and decided.
The charge-sheet dated 20/21-4-94, M ( l) clearly shows that the wotkman worked only for 79 days during the year ]996. It shows that he was in the habit of remaining absent unauthorisedly. The work- man also could not produce satisfactory evidence for his illness from 24-02-97 to 26-04-97r Thus, the charges under standing order of WCL clauses 26.24 and 26.30 have been fully proved against the •workman.
In these circumstances his termination from service was justified. The order No. WCL/IR/MSR/U 79/ 3066 dated 18/24-11-1997 of Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (1R) MSR, WCL, Nagpur also shows that the attendance of the workman during the period of 1996-97 was only 48 days. Considering the gravity of the misconduct the appeal of workman S, J. Derkar was dismissed by the management of WCL. The request for re-employment of workman was also not considared.
In these circumstances the punishment of termina- tion awarded to the workman S. J. Derkar is not unproportionate. The order of termination of work- man by the management of WCL is justified. The workman is not entitled to any other relief,
ORDER
The action of the management namely General Manager, Majri Area Kuchana of WCL, PO: Shem- bulc, Disfnct : Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri S. J. Dorkar, Ex-Clerk, Majri Area from 30th May, 1997is justified.
The workman is not entitled to any other relief,3641 No other directions are necessary in this matter.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dated ; 28-5-2001.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Ouicer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001 S.O. 1777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1'947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-7-2001.
[No. L-22012|397|98-IR(C-II)
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NAGPUR PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxcna, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 129/2000
SUB-AREA MANAGER (W.C.L.)
Versus
SHRI DHANRAJ
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) (if Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of die Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this depute for adjudication vide Order No. L-220I2r/397/98-IR(CM-II) dated 30-7-99 on following Schedule,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management namely Chief General Manager, Ballarpur . Area of WCL P.O. Ballarpur. Distt. Chan- drapur in terminating Sh. Dhanraj S|o Biaen Neware, Ex-Casual Worker. Cate- gory-I, Ballarpur Area, WCL, is legal, preper and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ? What other directions are neces- sary in the matter ?"
The workman Dhanraj was appointed as casual labour in September, 1995 for a period of 3 months. He joined service on 30-9-95. He was given break in the service alier 3 months i.e. Dec, 1995. Again he was appointed v'de order dated 2-3-96 and his service was extended for 12 months. Again vide order dated 22/24-4-96 his service was extended. He was geiling salary Rs. 4205.70 per month. His service was terminated from 29-4-97 vide order 28-4-97. It is further alleged that no chargesheet was issued tu him. He had completed more than 240 days continuous service and his termination order was illegal. The provisions of Section 25(F) and 25 (G) of ID Act were not complied with and no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. He has claimed reinstatement.
The management contested that the workman was appointed for three months from 30-9-95 and his service automatically terminated on 30-12-95. He again joined service on 30-4-96 and on 29-4-97. His service automatically terminated. He worked for undernoied psricd during 1995, 1996" and 1997.
Oct, 95—Doc, 95 — 71 days May, 96—Dec, 96 — 171 days Jan, 97—Apr, 97 — 75 days
He did not work for 240 days in any calander year. He was appointed for specific work under specific contract, hence he has no claim for retrenchment compensation. No vocational training was given to him for under ground services.
1 have heard the counsel for the management and the counsel for the workman. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments, hence they did not prefer to argue the case orally. I have considered the written arguments of both the parties and the oral and documentary evidence on record. The satement of Dhanraj was record. He was cross examined by the counsel for management on 11-12-2000. The work- man admitted ihat he worked from 30-9-95 to 30-12-95 for three monifrh as casual labour.. Again lie was appointed for 12 months from 1-5-96 to 29-4-97. He was not called through employment exchange. He was given 24 days training for under- ground work He was educated upto class IX, Shri 1. M. Chandok personal Manager who appe- ared for the management represented that the work was available for 12 months so he was given exten- sion four times for a period . of 3 months each. When the work was completed his service was auto- matically terminated in April, 1997. His appoint- ment was on contract basis for 12 months so his .service discontinued w.e.f. 29-4-97. From the above evidence of the parties it is therefore clear that fur underground duty, 190 days service is required in a calendar year. Shri I. M. Chandok in his statement on 22-2-2001 has admitted that for underground work, 190 days service is required in , a calendar year. The service of the workman was.terminated as he was appointed only for 12 months from 1-5-96 and the period of one year expired on 29-4-97, 3642 TPIE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 (PARr ll—SEC. 3(ii>] In view ef the above evidence on record the workman is not emitled to reinsatement in service, His termination order is proper and justified. The workman shall however get retrenchment compen- sation under Section 25F(b) of I.D. Act i.e. 15 days average pay for every completed year of contincous service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
ORDER
The action of the management namely Chief General Manager Bnllurpur Area of WCL, P.O. Ballarpur, Distt, Chandrpur in terminating Shri Dhanraj S/o Bisen Nuware Ex-Casual worker, Category-T, Ballnrpur Area, WCL is legal, proper and justified.
The workman shall however get retrenchment compensation under Sed'.on 25F(b) of I.D. Act. He is not entitled to any o
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dated 26-6-2Q01
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001
S'.Q. 1778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- latton to the management of WCL and their work- man, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 4-7-2001.
[No. L-22012/464/99-IR(C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :
Shri B. 'G. Saxena, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT : 243/2000 Employers in relation to the management of S.A.M., W.C.L.
AND
Their Workman Sbxi Bharat Krishnaji Awari
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, Now* Delhi by exercising the powers confer- red by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012/464/99-IR(C-II) datsd 8-8-2000 on-following Schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management immcly Sub Area Manager, Chargaon Open Cast Sub Area of WCL, P.O. Konda Tun. Bhadrawali, Distt. Chandrapur in ti^nniina'ting ,Sh. Bharat Krishnaji Awari1 Ex General tvluzdoor, Chargaon Open Cast of WCL is legal, proper and justified ? Jf not, to what relief the workman is en- titled and from which date ? What other dircctios are necessary in the matter ?" In this reference notice was issued to the parties on 5-9-2000 fixing date 24-10-2000. The counsel for WCL Shri B. N. Prasad filed Vakalatnama on 24-10-2000, The notice was issued to the workman Shri Bharat K. Awuri on 19-12-2000. It was re- turned by the Post Office. Again the notice was issued to workman on 1-2-2001. The management submitted the address of the workman on 1-2-2001 and the notice was again issued to the workman on 13-3-2001 by Roistered Post. On this Registered notice there is report of the postman dated 21L3-2OO1 that the workman is not living at Dealwada, P.O. Konda, Dist. Chandrapur. It is also mentioned on the envelope that no other address of the workman is available.
The notice dated 19-12-2000 and 1-2-2001 were send on the address of workmaq at Ali Petrol Pump, Kunbi Society, Bhndrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. On this address which was given in the reference order received from Ministry of Labour, New Delhi also, the workman was not available.
Nobody turned up from the side of the union of the workman to file any Statement of Claim or to contes! the case as many as eight dates were given in this case, but neither the workman turned up to file any Slaternuit of Claim nor any represenative of his union appered io contest the case.
In fhc-s'J circumstances the workman has not sub- mitted any Statement of Claim in this court. The reference is therefore deposed of for wjant of pro- smition.
ORDER
The reference is disposd of for want of prosecu- tion as no Statement- of Claim has been filed by the workman or the representative of the union. Date : 2 K5-2O0L1
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer3643 New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001 S.O. 1779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Anne\ure in the Industrial Dispute between the Linployers ill relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-7-2001.
TNo. L-22012/552/99-lR(C-II>l
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :
Shjfi B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 248/2000
The General Manager, W.C.L,
Versus
Shri Hamid Beg, Mech. Fitter
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour. New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clnu.se (d) of Sub section (1) and Sub section 2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-220l2/55Z/99/IR(CM-TI) dated 1-8-2000 on the follojwfrng schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the actifon of the Manager, Bhamori Colliery of WCL, P O: Parsia, District Chhindwara (MP) in retiring Shri Hamid Beg S/o Kedar Beg, Mech. Fitter of Bhamori Colliery w.c.f. 1-1-92 is justified? If not. to what relief the workman is en- titled ?"
He had mentioned that in Foim B Register in 1974 his age is shown 36 year. He therefore was due to retire on 1-1-98 at the age of 60 years. He liar, retir- ed o" 1-1-92 as his date of birth is shown 1-1-32. The Determination Committee on 3-2-90 had told him that his age was 42 years as on 1974. He therefore claimed that the order for lertiremcn: is illegal and the amount be paid to him considering his age of re- tirement 60 years on 1-1 -98.
The workman Hamid Beg died on 25-11-2000. However the advocate of the work-man examined his son Nurul Arnin in this case and he was cross examin- ed on 1-5-2001.
From the side of rnariagem.eni the statement of Senior Personal Officer R. K. Sihha was recorded and he was cross examined on 29-5-2001.
The Management has also submitted documents that the date of birth of Hamid Beg was 1-1-32 and he was therefore retired on 1-1-92 on completing 60 years of age.
I have heard the counsel for the management A. K. Sash? and the counsel for workman Shri Dilip Desti- pandc. I have also considared the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. Hamid Beg had submitted application dated 5-9-2000 in this court on 12-10-2000. He had mentioned that the date of birth was changed in the record in 1974. He had also mentioned that the agP determination commit- tee had informed him on 3-2-90 that his age was recorded 42 years as on 1974. The counsel for man- agement has argued that the workman had retired on 1-1-92 at the age of 60 yean. He has raised this dispute in 1999 after lapse of 6 years. He did rot challenge his date of birth as 1-1-32 before the age determination committee. Tn fr.rm B Register main- tained by the management, the date of birtlh of Hamid Beg is recorded as 1-1-32. He did not raise nnv objection when his date of birth was informed to him, in 19-82, when notice was displayed and his name figured at Serial No, 37. He had opportunity to report w5th in 90 days about his grievance. He also did not produce any document before the ace determination committee that Ms date of birth was 1-1-32.
In the court also wlwn Nuiul Amin, the son of Hamid Beg was cross examined, he stated in cross examination that he has no document in his posses- sion to show the age of his father Hamid Beg. He also stated1 that on Form B, the photo of his father is affixed and his age is shown 42 years as nn 1-1-74, Thus from the statement of Nurul Amin witness, it is clear that there was no document with the work- man to show that the date of birth of Hamid Beg is 1-1-32.
3644 THE GAZET'IE OF INDIA : JULY 21, 2001/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART II—Sue. 3(wJ Bonus etc. was left unpaid to the workman on his retirement on 1-1-92.
The Honourable Supreme Court has clearly held in 1997(2) LLN-1034 State of Orissa and others and Ramnath Patnaik that it is well known that the ser- vice record wil] be opened when the employee en- ters in the service. State Government employee not making attempts to have the service record corrected when entry was made in service record and wher he was in service. Any amount of evidence produced subsequently wfould be of no nvail. Date of birth can- not be corrected.
In view of the above law, Hamid Beg, Mechanical Fitter of Bhamori Colliery had no proof to show thai he was born on 1-1-32. He was rightly retired from service on 1-1-92 by the Manager, Bhamori Colliery, Parsia, District Chhindwara. The workman was not entitled to any other relief.
ORDER
The action of the Manager, Bhamori Colliery of WCL, P.O. Parsia, District Chhindwara (M.P.) in re- tiring Hamid Beg S/o Kedar Beg, Mechanical Fitter of Blhamori Colliery with effect from 1-1-92 is justi- aed.
The workman was not entitled to any other relief.
The reference is decided accordingly.
Dated: 22-6-2001.
B. G. SAXEMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4lh July. 2001
S.O. 1780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947\ the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Mumbai, as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer? in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001,
[No. L-22012/578/99-IR(C-lI1]
N. P. KESHVAN. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ' INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT:
S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Oilicer.
Reference No. CG1T-2/12 of 2001 Employers in relation ID the Management of Food Corporation of India Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Mistry Blhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020,
AND
Their Workmen Sr. Vice President, F.C.I, Employees Association, Room No. 9, 4th Floor, Mistry Bhavan, D.W. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer—S/Shri A. A. Hotchandani, Nimoalc, K. V. Vasudevan Representatives.
For the Workmen-—No Appearance.
Mumbai, dated 12th June, 2001
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-22012/578/99/IR(CM-II}, dated 21-8-2000, have referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred on it by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section JO of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 :
"Whether the action of th# management of Focd Corporation of India, Mumbai in not paying overtime allowance to the workmen deploy- ed at Javjaharlal Nehru Port during the period 1995-96 at double llhe normal rates of wages as alleged by FCI Executive Staff Union is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned (list enclosed) are entitled ?"
2. Pursuant to the reference and corrigendum dated J 9-1-2001 (Exhibit-4) this tribunal issued notices to the management and the union. However, though served (vide Exhibit-7), none appeared on behalf of union. Management's representative Mr. A. A. Hot- chandani appeared (vide Exhibit-8) Matter was fixed for filing of Statement of Claim bv the union on various dates i.e. on 7-3-2001, 28-3-2001, 20-4-2001. 11-5-20O1, 1-6-2001 and today i.e. 12-6-2001. How- ever, none on behalf of the union appeared nor put statement of Claim, which cbarly indicates that the union is not interested in prosecuting the reference and therefore, reference deserves to be disposed of for non-prosecution and hesce the order :—
ORDER
Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution.
S. N, SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer3645 New Delhi, the 10th July, 2001
S.O. 1782.—In exercise of the powers conferrcd New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001
by sub-s;Ction (3) of Sou'on 1 of the Employees1 State In.u,arcc Act, 194R (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Is August, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 "nd 45 which have already boen brought into force) and Chapter V arid VF (except snb-sretion (i) of S^d'on 76 and Sections 77, 78. 79 and SI wh'ch have alr'-'.dy b^.n brought into TLIC;) of [h'j Said Act shall come into fore" in the following are?* ;n the StJ>tc °f Tamil Nadu jianie'y :
S-O. 1781.—'n exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 7D of the Employees provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Mahesh Prakash, Indi.-in Legal Service, as a Presiding Officer of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the pay scale of Rs. 22400-24400/ for a period of five years from the dale of takirg over charge of the post or till he attains the a£c of 62 years v.hicke\er event iccurs
earlier.
[F. No. A-l 2026/1 /2001-SS. I]
M. C. MITTAL- Dy. Secy.
J ' g^ " THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21; 200J/ASADHA 30, 1923 [PART I I - ^ £ E C. $(")] New Dcll.i, the 10:Ii Jujy. 2001
S. O. 178?.—Tn ev?rciv of the powtrs
conferred by sub-ssction (3) of S^ct'on 1 of the
Employee's Slate Insurance Art, 1948 (34 of 194S)
the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st
August, 2001 as th<; date on wh'cli the provisions
uf Chapter IV (c\ccp( Scct'ons 44 ;;nd 45 which
hay; already be^n brought into force) and Chapter
New Delhi, tho 9th July, 2001 V and VI (except sub-sr^tion fi) of Section 76 ;trid S.vl;ons 77, 78, 79 ?nd 81 which liave already
been brought into force) of thu >aid Act shall
conic int'> foroj 'n ihc follow'^ fi-uis ,n 'he Stale
of Ke-.IIL. nam.'ly :
"The ar-.is within the Revenue villages of
Ki LtLp.iruthy fiiicl Athavandad in Tirur Taluk und
S.O. 1784.—Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the pufcdic interest so required had, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of the clause (n) of sec- tion 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declaied by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Lnbour S.O. No. 285 dated 2 Feb.. 2,001 the Uicnium Industry to be a public utility service for the pur- pose of tho said Act, for a period of six months from the 2 Feb., 2001.
Ldaoal village !P Ponnuni Taluk in Malappmym
DKtrict."
And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period bv a further period of six months ;
[No. S-38013/14/2001-SS. I]
JM. C, MITTAL. Dy. Seoy.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by tho proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to b" a public utility ser vice for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 2 August, 2001.
[No. S-11017/9/97-rR(PI.)l
H.C. GUPTA, Under Secy.
printed by tho Manneer Govt, of India Press, Ring Road, New DdJu-110064 •*d Published by ih; Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2001