This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGN. NO. D.L.- 33001/99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 30] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 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 Notification issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIE-

VANCES AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

S. O.1785.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Sub-soction (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

(3647)

2204 GI/2001—1 3648 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA : JULY 28. 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(fi)] 1946 ( Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Deptt, accorded vide Notification No. 39418 HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the m:mbers of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of tho State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of IPC and/Or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetrmnts in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of th" o u n c es committed in rsspect of award of contract and execution of work "Excavation of Right Bank Canal from RD 43.563 KM to 48.680 KM including structures other than NH crossing Railway crossing and HR of Rengali Irrigation Project AIBP>\

[No. 228/24/2000-AVD. II (i)]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

Now Delhi, th? 20th July, 2001 S.O. 1786.—In exercise of tho powers conferred by Subjection (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946). the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Deptt, accorded vide Notification No. 39419/HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers and juris- diction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offen- ces punishable under sections of IPC and/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetments in relation to or in connection with one Or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence Or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in resntct of award of contract and execution of work -'Cons- truction of left bank cana! from RD 44.50 KM to 47.50 KM with all structures other than HR and CR or R. T. P-LBC-II OECF package No 15".

[No. 228/24/2000-AVD. II (Ii)]

HART SINGH, Under Secy, New Delhi, the, 20th July, 2001 S. O. I787.j-In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Sub-rcction (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, :',Vi's ••, i< ;'•••'

the consent of the State Government of Orissa. Home Deptt., accorded vide Notification No. 39421/ HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extcuds tho powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regards to , alleged commission of offencos under different sec- tions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of JPC end/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetmwnts in relation to or in connection with one or more of tho offences mentioned above and i;ny other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offerees committed in respect of award of contract and execution of woik "Construction of spill way (Stage-1) of Manjore Irri- gation Project".

[No. 228/M/2000-AVD. II (iv)] 1946 (Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of tho State Government of Oii^a, Hqsnc Deptt,, accorded vide Notification No. 39420/ HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of 1PC and/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetmunts in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection w'th one of the offences commuted in respect of award of contract and execution of work '•Construction of LBC from RD 41.36 to 44.50 KM with all structures other than HIR and CRof Rengali Irrigation Sub-Project-OECF Package No. 14".

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

[No. 228/24/200O-AVD.II (in)]

HARI SINGH, Under Socy.

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

New Delhi, the, 20th July, 2001 S.O. 1788.—In excercisc of tho powers con- ferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 i/w Section 6 of tli? Bc-Uii SpecM Police Establishment Act. 19*16 (Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with

S. O. 1789. —In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act WPM ' i.^tm UWCCCIifS M*¹

I W J I A ' W U I HY 28, ^ W l/ tSKAVAWA 6, 1V23 [FARtf H~*4flf€, 3(fi)]

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001 XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Horn: Deptt., accorded vide Notification No. 39472/HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different section of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of IPC and/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetments in relation to or in connection ivith one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of work 'Construction of LBC from RD 50.5 KM to 55.50 KM with all structures other than HR and CR of Rengali Irrigation Sub-Project-LBC-II-OECF Package No. 1"

[No. 228/24/2000-AVD. II (v)] HARI SINGH, Under S.cy.

S. O. J 790.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-s-ctioa (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1916), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Deptt., accorded vide Notification No. 39423/HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the poswers and jurisdiction of the msmbcrsof the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of IPC and/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetments in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences conmmitted in respect of award of contract and execution of work "Excavation of Macro Planning Survey and preparation of construction drawings for of the distribution net work of RBC (RIP) through several agreements executed piecemeal with consulting agencies engaged by the CE and BM, Rengali Rights Basin and without approval of Chief Engineers, Designs, Orissa."

[No. 228/24/2000-AVD. II (vi)]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

JBTJi -

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

S. O. 1791 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Deptt., accorded vide Notification No. 39424/HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of IPC and/or any other law/s and criminal cons- piracy, attempts, abctments in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of trie same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of work "Construction of Kusumi Jore MTP (Earth Dam head regulator, surplus escape and glassic fall in surplus channel in Nowrangpur Block under NABARD assistance".

[No. 228/24/20OO-AVD. II (vii)]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

S. O. 1 792.—In exerci'" of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Dcptt., accorded vidu Notification No. 39425/HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the i>o\vcrs und jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Spcviul Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for invtstigation of offences in regard io alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of IPC and/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetments in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences Mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of work "Replacing under sluices of Baitarani Weir including renovation of head regulator of HLC Range-Ill (Civil Works) covered under WRCP Package No. I A".

[No. 228/24/2000-AVD. II (viii)]

HARI SINGH., Under Secy.

36$2 THE QAZETTE OF INDIA ; JULY 2 8 , 2 0 0 1/ SftAVANA 6, 1923 [PAR* II—SEC. $&.)] New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

New Ddhi, the 20th July, 2001 S, O. 1793.— In exercise of the powers coilfciml by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 f/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946), the Central Gcverrmtnt with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Deptt,, accorded vide Notification No. 39426/IiD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Orissa for investigation of offences in regard to alleged commission of offences under different sections of Prevention^ of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections Of IPC and/or any other law/s and criminal conspiracy, attempts, abetments in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with ore of the offences committed in respect of award of contract and execution of work "Construction of service Road on left bank to Right Main Canal from KD 11 Km to 11 Km".

S. O. 1794.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Orissa, Home Deptt.. accorded vide Notification No. 39427/HD dated 17-7-2001 hereby extends the powers' and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole Of the State of Orissa for investigation of offerees in regard to alleged commission of offencos under different sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences punishable under sections of IPC and/ or any other law/s and crimii.al conspiracy, attempts, abetments in relation to or in connection with one or more of be offence:; mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transactions and arising out of the same facts or in connection with one of the offences committed, in respect of award of contract and execution of work "Improvement to Sakhigcpai Branch Canal from RD 30 Km to Tail of Mahanadi Dtlta Stp.ge-II covered under WRCP Package No. 7 of Furi Irrigation Division".

[No. 228/24/2000-AVD. II (ix)]

HAR1 SINGH, Under Secy.

[No. 228,24/2000-AVD. II (x)] HART S I N C J H, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 1795.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of uub-seeUo'i (1) of section 9 of ihr. Indian Stamp Act. 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees seventy six lakh seventy four thousand cigln hundred fifty only chargeable on account Of the stamp duty on bonds in the nature of Promissory Notes described as JOB VRS 2000 Unsecured Redeemable Bonds—1st Series bearing distinctive numbers from 000001 to 767485 of rupees one thousand each aggregating to rupees seventy six crorc seventy four lakh eighty five thousand only, to be issued by the said Bank. rNc. 2512001-STAMPS|F. No. 33|36|2001-ST]

R. G. CHUABRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

STAMPS

SO. 1796.--Tn euTCiSe of the powers conferred bv clause (b) of subjection (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Ciovcinn-cnt hrvb> poni. is State Ban* of Hyderabad

3653 fo pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees ninety six lakh fifty thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds in the nature of Promissory Notes described as 1 1.50 per cent SBH BONDS— 2nd Series aggregating to rupees one hundred twenty five crore only, allotted on 23-2-2001 by the said Bank.

fN'. :-•<• 7.001 -'< r*JVIPS|F. No. 33129.2001-STJ

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 1797. —In cxcrc.e of the pov\-,r comVued by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, \'M') (2 oC 1899), the Central Government herebj permits The South Indian Bank Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees twenty six l;>kh eighty three thousand only on Bonds in the native of Promissory Notes described as SIB BOND—2000 bearing distinctive numbers from 00lM in 2683 of rupees one lakh each aggre- gating to rupees twenty six crore eighty three lakh only, to be issued by the said Bank.

[No. : 7;2 0 0 1 - S T A J Y ! P S | F . ' N O. 33|37|200l-ST]

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

^3*34--. THE GAZETTE OP W D l A j J t J t Y ^ a O O i / S M V A ^ AA 1923 ' [PA*T tf—$E& 3<%] ORDER

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 1798.~1" t.teff ise of the powers conferred by CI.IU^L (bi of sub-frrctioii (1) of S3;'ic.i 9 ot the Indiar Stamp Act, lf>£>9 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits United Bank of India, Calcutta to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees eighty lakh fifty few thousand only on Bonds in the nature of Promissory Notes described as UBI UNSE- CURED REDEEMABLE NON-CONVERTIBLE BONDS—SERIES-1 of rupees one lakh each aggre- gating to rupees one hiMv'red forty crore only to be issued by the said Banki

[No. 28:2001-STAMPS|F. No. 33|34|2001-ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

CENTRAL BOARD O? DIRECT TAXES

New D;lhi, the 11 th July, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 1799.—Tt is hereby notifisd for general in- formation that the organisations mentioned below have neen approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1951, read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Institu- tion" subject to the following conditions :—

(j) The notified Institution shall maintain <,epa*

rate books of accounts for its research activities;

; (ii) The notified Institution shall.furnish the Ann- ual Return of its scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Re- ' search, 'Technology Bhawan', New MehKiuli Road, \ New Delhi-) 10016 for every financial year on or be- |\ fore 31st May of each year;

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on be- half of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions), 10 MiddJeton 50^ Row, 5th Floor, Cakutta-70007 J ,(b) the Secretary, De- partment of Secientific & Industrial Research, and (o) the Commissioner of Tncome tax/Director of In- come tax (Exemptions), having jurisdiction over the ofganisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited annual Accounts and also a c^py of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was gran*ed under Sub-section (1) of section 35 of Income tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

Period for which

Notification is effective

Name of the orga- nisation approved

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

s. No. ~V.

MTN1STRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE CAR1TAS India, C.B.C.l.Ashoka Place (GoleDakKhanna) New Delhi

(Department of Health)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2001 Notes: The notified Institutions are advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal (j)f the approval, to the Central Government ijhrcugh. the Commissioner of Tncome 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.

S.O. 1800.—Tn partial modification of corrigen- dum dated 11-6-2001 of this Ministry's notification of even number, dated 1-11-2000, the file number may please be read as No.V.12018/18/2000-PMS in place of V.12017/10/96-PMS. The remaining part will be the same.

[No. V-12018/18/2000-PMS] S. K. RAO, Director [Notification No. 207/2001/F.No. 203/28/2001- ITA-II] PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.

2204 GI/2001—2 3655 TflE GAZETTB OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2001

S.O. 1801.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (I) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Govcrn- mont hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing No. C-I(E)III/JJNR/676-102000 dated the 3rd October, 2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector Yavatmal (Mahareshtia) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1., Council House Street, Calcutta.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification may deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Head of the Department (Revenue), Western Coalfields limited. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

•*3Q^*V'*'.'

SCHEDULE

PATHARI BLOCK

WAN! NORTH AREA

DISTRICT YAVATMAL (MAHARASHTRA)

(Plan No. C-l(E)III/JJNR/676-102000 dated the 3rd October, 2000).

Name of village

Tahsil , District

Remarks Patwari circle numbtr

Area in Hectaics $erial Number

'.' 20 19 20 . 19 19 19 19 20 20

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. :' 7. 8. 9.

Warud Chinchala Salebhati Pathari Pandharkawada flhalewadi Pisgaon Pahapal Gaurala

Maregaon Maregaon Maregaon Marcgaon Maregaon Maregaon Marcgaon Marcgaon Marcgaon

Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal Yavatmal

v401.U0 '"205,00 65.00 180.00 60.00 65.00 175.00 1.00 115.00

Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part

Total Area :

1267.00 hectares

(approximately)

or

3130.757 acres

(approximately) Boundary description:—

A—B Line starts from point 'A' and passes through villages Pisgaon, Bhalewadi, Pathar', Salebhati, Warud then proceeds through village Gaurala and meets at point *B\

B—C— D—E Line passes through villages Gaurala, Warud, Chinchala, Pandharkawada, then proceeds through village Pisgaon and meets at point 'E\

£—A Line passes through villages Pisgaon, Pahapal then proceeds again thiough village Pisgaon and meets at starting point 'A'.

[No. 43015/5/2001-PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

365* tim GAZETTE OP INDIA : J u ly 28. 26oi; SIlAvAKA-6, 1923 [FART* n-SEfc: 3(ii)j

(b) in Boundary description, in A-B, in line 4, for CORRIGENDUM

"Lahangi Kohar" read "Lahangi Kothar", New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

(c) in D-E, in line 2, for "Lahangi Kothan" read

"Lahangi Kothar".

S.O. 1802.—In the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Coal No.S.0.599, dated 12th March, 2001, published at pages 1193 to II96 of the Gazette of Tndia Part-11, Section-3, Sub-Section (ii) dated the 24th March, 2001—

at page 1195, in H 1, 1 and 2nd, for the words in line 1 and 2, "Dhanbhai-Nausemar" read "Dhanbahi- Nausemar".

[NO.43015/J/2000-PRIWJ

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy, Secy.

at page 1194, (a) in plot numbers to be acquired in village Lahangi Kothar (Part), in line 2, for "57 (Part), 458 to 63" read "57(Part),58 to 63";

.$*•;•

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

S.O. 1803.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

The plan bearing No. C-l(E)m/FUR/680-102000, dated the 23rd October, 2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notifiaction may deliver all maps, charts and other docu- ments, referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Head of the Department (Revenue), Wostern Coalfilclds Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

MAKARDHOKRA TOC BLOCK

UMRER AREA

DISTRICT NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

(Plan No. C-l(E)IIT/FUR/68O-102OO0 dated the 23rd October, 2000).

Serial Name of village

Tahsil

District

Remarks

Patwari circle number

Area in Hectares Numberr.

22""" 22

2.

Kanhwa Sirpur

Umrer Umrer

Nagpur Nagpur

145~00" 80.00

Part Part

Total area :

225.00 hectares (approximately) or 555.99 acres

(approximately) Boundary description:—

A—B Line starts from point 'A' and passes through village Kanhwa then proceeds through village Sirpur and meets at point 'B'.

B—C Line passes through village Sirpur and passes along the outer boundary of village Sirpur and meets at point ' C.

C—D Line passes through village Sirpur and meets at point ' D\

D—E-—F Line passes through village Kanhwa and meets at point ' F\

F—A Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Kanhwa and Kalamna and meets at starting point 'A'.

[No. 43015/6/2001/PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

&$m-:- ft^jMfflfe; m&em* m*is, zooi/ flfomlU-^ i m^ -••" ' ^ A R f ^ t ^ i ^ ^^ 3661

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

S.O. 1804.—Whereas it appears to the Central. Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed :

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

The plan bearing No. C-I(E)III/JJJR/683-0201 dated the 7th February, 2001 of the area covered by this noti- fication can be inspected in the Office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector. Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kojkata.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver al) maps, charts and other docu- ments referred to in sub-section (7) of section J3 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Chargc/Head of the Department 3662 THE GAZEITH OF INDIA : JULY 28,2001/ SRAVANA 6, J923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (Revenue), Western CoaJfidd:, Limited, Coal tisttilc, C'vil Lines, Nagpur-4^0 COJ (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification, namely:—

SCHEDULE

PAUNI EXPANSION OPENCAST PROJECT

DALLARPUR AREA

DISTRICT CHANDRAPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

(Plan No. C-I(E)UI/JJJR/683-0201 dated the 7th February, 2001),

Name of Village Patvvari circle Tahsil

District

Remarks Serial Number

number

Area in Hectares ¹ Gouri

3

Rajura

155700

Chandrapur

Part 2

7

Antargaon (Khurd)

Rajura

Part 3

3

70.00 945.00 4

3

Chincholi (Khurd) Nimbala

Chandrapur Chandrapur Chandrapur

3

5

25.00 110.00

2

6"

Hirapur Sakri

Rajura Rajura Rajura Rajura

Chandrapur Chandrapur

Part Part Part Part

2

7

945.00 210.00 Part

8

V> rf$H>fe, 2204 GI/2001—3 ••SB* ¥ WE GAZETTE OP INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/rSRAVANA 6, 1923 [PA"f H - ^ e: 3 m] 36$;

Seetf THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28,2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1925 [PART II—SEC. 3

.:vf#r

i66H '^Hft-^Azfc-nfe OP MIA . JtiLy 28,2001/SRAVA^A 4, 19^3 t^ART ii—SEc. iobi 3669 36tfl THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:,JULY 28, 2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART ill—SEC. '3(")]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AMD NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 1805 .—In pursuance of proviso to rule 4 under explanation of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)'Rules, 19G3, framed under Section 17 of the Petroleum and Mineral pipe- lines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Competent Authority, Kandla/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 ownerhip of the piepline in that area vest as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of laying liquefied petroleum gas pipeline from KandUi/Jamnagar-Loni (via Delhi) as mentioned in column (8) of the Schedule annexed herewith.

SCHEDULE

District

Tehsil

Village

Notification U/s 3 1)

S.O. No- and Date

Date of Publication (of

Gazetie

2

1

3

Alwar

Alawalpur Tijara

Kalgaon

Majri Gurjar

Mandana

Sarkanpur

Tshroda

Notification LJ/s 6(1) Date of Publication

4

5

2684 (E) dated 10 December,

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 June, 1999

1998

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2684 (E) dated 10 December,

1998

2684 (E) dated 10 December,

52 dated 26 December, 1998

1998

2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 June, 1999

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999 2684 (E) dated 10 Decembe, 1998

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 June, 1999

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999 2684 (E) dated 10 December,

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 Juno, 1999

1998

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999

Date of Termination of — Operations

S.O. No. and Date

7 6

533 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999, 677 dated 15 November, 1999

553 (E) plated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November- 1999

553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

553. (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dat.-d 15 November, 1999

8

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000 4 1

2

• 3 ' Alwar

Tijara

Khidarpur

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 June. 1999

307F

5

2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999

52 dated 26 December, 1998

Jokhupur

Bubk'ahcda

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 June, 1999

Dholi Phari 52 dated 26 December, 1998 453 dated 24 July, 1999

Rambhana

52 dated 26 December, 1998 362 dated 23 June, 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999

7

533 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November 1999 533 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

1419 dated 7 July. 1999 !677 dated 15 November, 1999 419 dated' 7 July, 1999 1677 dated 15 November, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999 v 419 dated 7 July, 1999 i677 dated 15 November, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

1

2

3

4

52 dated 26 December, 1998

Tijara

Bichala Alwar

52 dated 26 December, 1998

Nartaghcdi

52 dated 26 December, 1998

Chawandi Khurd

52 dated 26 December, 1998

Patan Kalan

Pawati

52 dated 26 December, 1998 453 dated 24 July, 1999

2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

2684 (E) dated 10 December, J998

477 (Eydated 23 June, 1999 2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

597 (E) dated 24 July, 1999 2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999 597 (E) dated 24 July, 1999

8

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000'

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

3

2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

2684 (E) dated JO Dccombor, 1998

2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

2684 (E) dated ]0 December, 1998

2684 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

597 (E) dated 24 July, 1999 1218 (E) dated 6 December,

751 dated 7 December, 1999

Pathoudi

751 dated 7 December, 1999

Bandapur

7

" 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 U08 (E) dated 11 November, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999 1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999 613 (E) dated 29 June, 2000 613 (E) dated 29 June, 2000

]419 dated 7 July, 1999 Pll9 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999 ^19 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 Novcmbor, 1999 432 dated 29 Junt, 2000 432 dated 29 June, 2000

2204 GI/2001--4

1999

1218 (E) dated 6 December, 1999

8

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000 31 August, 2000 31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000 31 August, 2000 367! im^GAZETtE Of INDIA -. JULY V28,2odl/SkXVX^A 6, 1923 [Pattr 'iI^Sic. 3(n)]

3

2

1 '

Khedi Tijara

Alwar

Gwalda

Chopanki

Huesepur

Gandhoia

Nimbahedi 6

4

5

1093 (£) dated 22 December 828 dated 22 December, 1998

1998

1093 (E) dated 22 December, 828 dated 22 December, 1998

1998

1218 (E) dated 6 December, 75) dated 7 December, 1999

1999

1093 (E) dated 22 December, 828 dated 22 December, 1998

1998

1218 (E) dated 6 December, 751 dated 7 December, 1999

1999

1093 (E) dated 22 December, 828 dated 22 December, 1998

1998

1218 (E) dated 6 December, 751 dated 7 December, 1999

1999

1093 (E) dated 22 December, 828 dated 22 December, 1998

1998

1218 (E) dated 6 December, 751 dated 7 December, 1999

1999

1093 (E) dated 22 December, 828 dated 22 December, 1998

1998

362 dated 23 June, 1999

477 (B> dated 23 June, 1999

8

7

31 August, 2000

553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

613 (E) dated 29 June, 2000

432 dated 29 June, 2000

31 August, 2000

613 (E) dated 29 June, 2000

.432 dated 29 June, 2000

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

613 (E) dated 29 June, 2000

432-datdd 29 June, 2000

553 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 Jury, 1999

31 August, 2000

613 (E) dated 29 June, 2000

432 dated 29 June, 2000

1108 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

3 " 1

Lalpura Alwar Bansur

Basdyal

' K h e r a-

Shyampur

Mandli

Ladpura

Guwara

Chainpura

Chbipari

Bbad Bhaw-

Singh

5

4

47~dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

47 dated 21 November; 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

362 dated 23 June, 1999 47 dated 21 November. 1998

477 (E) 23 June, 1999 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

4? dated 21' November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

J998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17"November,

1998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998 0

/

$

s

723 (E) dated 2 September, 1999

544 dated 6 September, 1999

L74(E) dated 16 March, 1999

J40 dated 16 March, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

31st July ZOOO

174 (E) dated 16 March, 1999

|40 dated 16 March, 1999

31st July, 2000

725 (E) dated 2 November, 1999

344 dated 2 November, 1999

174 (E) dated 16 March, 1999

^40 dated 16 March, 1999

31st July, 2000

174 (E> dated 16 March, 1999

440 dated 16 March, 1999

31st July, 2000

174 (E) dated 16 March, 1999

140 dated 16 March, 1999

140 dated 16 March, 1999

31st July, 2000

174(E) dated -16 March, 1999

31st July, 2000

275 (E) dated 20 April 1999

ilO dated 20 April, 1999

31st July, 2000

725 (E) dated 20 November, 1999

$44 dated 20 November, 1999

275(E) dated 20 April, 1999

210 dated 20 April, 1999

1

3

4

2

Fatehpur Baasur

Alwar

Dhundala

Jhagdctkaian

Harsora 31st July, 2000

5

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

199S

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,,

1998

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

453 dated 24 July, 1999

Dhirpur Jagir

Nawalpura

Khi,vahcri

• Milakpura

Mauthuka

Majra Rawat

M&yabas

Bass Shekhawat

Bachiya Bass

Bansur

Bawli ka Bus

Naroal 597 (E) dated 24 July, t99S>

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated-27 November,

1998

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

362-dated 23 June, 1999 50 dated 12 December, 1998

477 (E) dated 23 JjUDe, 199.9 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

140 dated ) 6 March, 1999 171 (E) dated 16 March, 1999^

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

2558 dated 27 November,

50 dated 12 December, 1998

1998

50 dated 12 December, 1998 2558 dated 27 November,

1998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

47 dated 21 November, 1998 2387 dated 17 November,

1998

2358 dated 27 November,

50 dated 12 December, 1998

1998

2558 dated 27 November,

50 dated 12 December, 1998

1998 :SBt4>~ fSpf-OAZfitt? 0F IND*A ; jtJLY 28, 200l> SfeAVAKA 6, i$23 [PART T^MI'MH

6

255 dated 17 May, 1999

8 ..

7

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

67T dated 15 November, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

255 dated 17 May,. 1,999

31st July, 2000

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

,1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

• 346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

555 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999 ,.

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 Novemb"r, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

275 (E) dated 20 April, 1999

210 dated 20 April, 1999

31st July, 2000

275 (E) dated 20 April, 1999

210 dated 20 April, 1999

31st July, 2000

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

346 (E) dated 17 May, 1999

255 dated 17 May, 1999

31st July, 2000

1107 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

3 1

Bansur

Mandlia AJwar

Mundawar

Alwar

Nangal Santokhara

. Pehal

Ranoth

Tatarpur •

Raipur

Rasgaon 4

5

J40 dated 16 March, 19,99 171 (E) dated 16 March, 1999

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2687 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2687 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2687 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2687 (EJ dated 10 December, 1998

140 dated 16 March, 1999 ' 172 (E) dated 16 March, 1999

140 dated 16 March, 1999 172 (E) dated 16 March, 1999 7 6

" V3&73¹

.8

555 (E)"dated 7 Ju!y~ 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

369 (E) dated 24 May, 1999 1110 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

274 dated 24 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

31 July, 2000

31 July, 2000

369 (E) dated 24 May, 1999

274 dated 24 May, 1999

369 (E) dated 24 May, 1999 1110 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

274 dated 24 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

31 July, 2000

3! July, 2000

369 (E) dated 24 May, 1999

31 July, 2000

1! 10 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

274 dated 24 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

556 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

31 .My, 2000

556 (E) dated 7 July. 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

31 July, 2000

1110 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

3

2

V

Kishangarh Bas

Alwar

Bngheri Kalan Machroli

362 dated 23 June, 1999

Bassi Birthal

• 5

4

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2686 (E) dated 10 December

§2 dated 26 December, 1998

1998 2686 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999

52 dated 26 December, 1998

362 dated 23 June, 1999

Zamuwas

Khera

140 dated 16 March, 1999

Gugal Hedi 140 dated 16 March, 1999

2686 (E) dated 10 December, 1998 477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999

52 dated 26 December, 1998 2686 (E) dated 10 December, 1998

170 (E) dated 16 March, 1995 170 (E) dated 16 March, 1999

453 dated 24 July, 1999

Nava Gaon

6

597 (E) 24 July, 1999

7

6

720 (E) dated 2 September, 1999

544 dated 6 September, 1999

31 August, 2000

1109 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

720 (E) dated 2 September, 1999 1109 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

544 dated 6 September, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

31 August 2000

31 August, 2000

554 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

, 720 (E) dated 2 September, 1999

544 dated 6 September, 1999

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

554 (E) dated 7 July, 1999

419 dated 7 July, 1999

31 August, 2900

1274 (E) dated 23 December, 1999

793 dated 23 December, 1999

31 August, 2000 3676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28,2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [ P A ^ - M I - ^ S ^ C. 3QpI

3

1

2

Karwar Kotkasim

Alwar *

4

5

52 dated 26 December, 1998

362 dated 23 June, 1999

Bhojpur

Hanpur Khard

Harsoli Chekawal

Jatiana

Jharina

Shahzadpur

Baghtri Khurd

G'Twas

7

6

2688 (E) dated 10 Dcccmb cr, 1998 477 (E) dated 23 June, 1999

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (IZ) dalcd 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December, 1998

797 dated 9 December, 1998 1057 (E) dated 9 December,

1998

8

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

31 August, 2000

1111 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 date,d 15 November, 1999

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

31 August, 2000

1111 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 Juno, 1999

31 August, 2000

1111 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

31 August, 2000

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

31 August, 2000

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999

451 (E) dated 17 June. 1999 1111 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

31 August, 2000

31 August, 2000

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

31 August, 2000

451 (E) dated 17 June, 1999

345 dated 17 June, 1999

677 dated 15 November, 1999

31 August 2000 .

1 111 (E) dated 11 November, 1999

[F. No. L-14014/12/01-GP (Part-I)] SWAM-1 SINGH, Director W?T

MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi, the 19th July, 2001

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001 S.O. l$06.—In the notification of Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O, 2687 dated 4th December, 2000, Central Government herewith makes the following amendment :

S.O. 1808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubttshees the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as' shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 3-7-2001.

For the words "Punjab Refinery Project" the words "Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited" shall be substitued.

[No. L-41011 /68/88-D2(BVlR(B-T)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

AMNEXURE [No. R-31015|5|2000-OR 1T1

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy. BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. JABALPUR

Case No, CGTT/LC/R/126/89

PRESENT:

Presiding Officer: Shri K. M. Rat.

Shri Shaid Ashik Ali, S/o Shri Shaid Hatam Ali, Resident of Old Grain Market, Bina (Jtawa), Distt. Sagar.

'Applicant

Versus

The Assistant Engineer, Central Railway, Bhopal.

. . .. Nori-Hpf>Hcant

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of June.TOOl

1. The Govermnerit of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-41Oll/68/88-D-2(B) dated 12-6-89 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2001

, "Whether the management Cehtrel Railway Bhopal

For the words "Punjab Refinery Project" the words "Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited" shall be substituted.

- [No. R-31015|5|2000-OR HI

2. The case for the workman is that he was appofnted as motor driver on 13-12-86 by the Central Railway and on 19-11-86, his services were terminated. Prior to his termina- tion, he wai served with a notice dated 21-10-86 holdinR him responsible for the accident of (he feep alTbtted to the Sr, Scale Officer. Prior to termination of his service¹, 'neither any chfirResheel was served on him "or the DP. Was conducted. He had acquired the status of temporsry employee find was in continuous service for a period of more than 240 davs in a calendar yrnr preceding the dfife of his termination frr.m service. He was not Riven any retrenchment compen- sation according to ihe provisions of Section 2J-F of the J.D. Act, 1947, In this wav the management's order for termi- nation from "ervice is illegal and deserves fo be qumlied. Hence he is entitled to reinstatement with back waRes.

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

J2".'" . " W " ™ *l A^ vr IISUIA.: jui,Y z", a w i/ SRAVANA 6, 1921 [PART II—SEC. 'arjttl 3. The case for the management is that on 31-12-85, the workman was employed as casual motor driver on daily wage basis. The workman did not acquire the status of temporary employee and therefore no DE was conducted for the allied misconduct before terminating his services w.e.f. 14-11-8(1 He never continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date ol termination of the service. On the rcpott of Sr. Scale Officer, Sliri N. K. Nirnbark, The Prihminary enquiry was held and the workman was not tound suitable for driving vehicle. In the case of workman, no DH was required to be conducted prior to termination to his service. The casual labour can acquire the status of temporary labour only when he continuously works for 360 days in a calendar year in the project. Provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 are not applicable in the present case. Rule 2301 is not applicable to the project casual labour as contended by the workman. On 17-10-86. the workman was diivinp the vehicle of Sr. Scale Officer Shri S. K. Nimbark and at that very moment of time, he dashed against a tanua caueinp damage to the vehicle. This accident took place dire to negUjjent driving of the workman. He was therefore rot found suitable for the job of driver and consequently his services were terminated. Tho termination order is ncrfeciv just and proper ?>nr| does not need any interference. The work man is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

4. The followJnc issues arise for decision in this case :—

1. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages ?

2, Relief and costs ?

5. Issue No. 1 : The workman has stated in para-7 of his statement that he was given written appointment order by the management. To establish his claim he has not produced the said written order of appointment to disclose the terms nnd conditions stipulated therein. Tn the absence of this docu- ment, it cannot be proved lhat he had been given written appointment by the Railways. From the perusal of record, it becomes amply clear that the workman was Riven appoint- ment of a casual labour to perform the duty of motor driver w.c.f. 31-12-85. He was working in Railway Electrification Project at Bhopal and he was a project casual labour. In case of project casual labour, the Supreme Court in writ petition No. SC-147, 320-69, 454, 4335-4434|83 etc. etc. Inderpal Yadav and others versus Union of Tndia and others has held that the wokers who completed continuous service for 360 days in the project shall be entitled to net ihe temporary status. The wrvkman did not fulfill this condition as he did not complete the continuous service for 360 days as proiect casual labour in Railway Electrification Project. In view of this fact. he cannot acquire temporary status in the employment of management. Before terminating his services, he was not T*- qu'red to be served wi'h dwrgesheet. He was neither required to be served with chargesheet nor any DE was required to be held before terminating him from service, He is also not entitled to compensation as claimed by him. At the snmr limp he was not found suitable to perform the duty of Motor Jrivrr at nil. Against this order, he never made any representation to the competent authority. Tn view of this fact, it cannoi b- held that any prejudice has been caused to the workman in terminating his services w.e.f. 19-11-86. The order of termi- nation is perfectly lrgal nnd does not require nny interference. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

6. Issue No. 2 : On the reasons stated above, it is held that the termination order dated 29-11-86 passed by the m u n i- ment against the workman is just and proper. The workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wa.t". The ref-n-nrf is accordingly answered in favur of the management ;md against the workman.

7. C^™ of the award be sent tn th; i\f''rnVrv of T.fihour as per rules.

12-6-2001

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1809.-— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Centra] G wZ i " ^ ^ f i* t hc ,awari <* t hc Central Government Industrial Tnbunal|Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in tne Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplo- yers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman, which was received by thc Central Govern- ment on 3-7-2001.

fNo. L-41O12|25|94-1R-(B-1)] AJAY KTJMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No. CGIT|LC|R|107|95

PRESENT :

PresidiriK Officer; Shri K. M. RAI

Applicant.

Shri Oirdhari Prasad Tripathi, S|o Lute Ayodhya Prasad, Fireman, Loco Foreman, Central Railway, Satna. Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager. Central Railway, Jabalpur. Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of June 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-41012|25|94-IRBI 'dated 1-6-95 ha* referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribumi—

"Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Jabalpur in removing the workman Shri Girdhari Prasad Tripathi from service! w.e.f. 12-1-92 treating him to be unfit on medical exa- mination of his eyes is correct ? Tf not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2, The case for the workman is that while performing his duty as a Ilnd Fireman, Central Railway, Satna he suddenly fell sick on 14-6-91. He was medically examined bv the Medical Superintendent, Central Railway, Jabalpur who declared fit on 26-11-91. On the basis of this fitness certificate, • the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Satnn declared him fit to join his duty on 28-11-91. The manage. rnTit hni failed to m"ke naynient of waprs w.n.f. 14-6-91 to 28-11-91 which is illegal in view of the medical rule-520 ' -1-Hiw TI).

3. The workman further allepes that while rterforminc his duty on 19-11-91, he recrived a messa"e from Loco foreman. Satna to report himself to the Medical Superli¹- dent, Jnbalpur for necessnrv medical examination. Tn view

"•'Mrsf-

of thii letter he reported to the Medical Superintendent, Jabalpur on 7-11-92 and after Medical examination "by him, he was declared fit on 7-1-92 and advised to report to his duty at Satna, Thereafter again as per instruction Of Medi- cal • Superintendent Jabalpur, he reported himself for further medical examination on 10-1-92 and after medical examination ho was declared fit and certificate in this regard¹ was Issued to him On 11-1-92. On this very _auy lie was inlcnned by the Loco Foreman Satna that he was under the sick leave but no letter in this regard was Riven to him. He was a paiieot of eye catract since 19814 and was advised for medical examination during 1989. The medical Superintendent Jabalpur examined him and declared him fit. As per direction of medical superintendent he was examined in 1990 and passed in A.I category without glasses. The Medical Authorities of Jabalpur division dec- lared the workman unfit for any iob while the CHS Bom- bay declared him fit on A.I. without glasses on 23-3-93. Again he was examined by CHS Bombay on 19-4-93 and was declared fit in A-I with glasses vide his letter dated 27-4-93. This certificate of fitness issued ly the CHS Bom- bay has been declared to be forged one by the Chief Medical Superintendent Jabalpur which is not just and pro- per. The management has illegally not permitted him to • perform his duty w.e.f. 12-1-92. He is therefore entitled to be allowed to resume his duty bv the management and the period of absence should b* treated as a reviod srvnt on duty. The monetary benefits alio should be allowed.

4. The case for the management is that the applicant in case No. OA 652|92 has claimed the reHef that the respon- dents be directed to allow the applicant to continue in service as usual and pay all arrears of pay and other emoluments. The case of the respondents|non-applicanl therein was that the Applicant was directed for special Medical Examination vide CMS Jabalpur letter dated 6-9-91. However the applicant took a decision on Ws own not to undergo the special Medical Examination. Since the CMS Jabalpur letter dated 1-1-92 had clearly men- tioned that the applicant is not fit to work as a fireman, he was not allowed to discharge the duties as fireman.

5. The Central Administrative Tribunal disposed off the petition of workman and the observations of tho tribunal are reproduced ns under :—•

"Consequently the conclusion is inevitable that unless the applicant presents himself before the Chtef Medical Superintendent, Jabalpur and obtains flt- nes" certificate for category A-I or any other natejiory he cannot be allowed to resume riuti'ls. It is In the own interest of the applicant thai ho nresents himwlf before the Chirf Medic.nl Supermtendont, Jabalpur, the intervening neriod. on the b?>sis of his anrtl'cat>on, mav be treated M leave dup, leavi? without pay as the case may be. in accordance with ibe- m'es and thereafter absorbed in an alternative job if found unfit for category A-I job."

6. The management further alleges that in the linht of directions pfven by CAT Tabalpnr, the workman fall?rl to report to tho Chief Medical Superintendent, Central Rail- way, Jahalpur for social Medical Examination and there- fore he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

7. The following issues arise in this case and the finding thereon are noted hereinafter. :—

1, Whether the management Illegally not permitted the workman to diichnrgc Ira duty w.f.f. 12-1-90 ?

1. Relief and costs ?

8. Issue No. 1 ; Admittedly the workman was serving as fireman under the Railway Administration at Satna and during the course of hi" emplnvment he fell sick '-"m 14-6-91 and resumed duty oniv on 29-11-91. Ho performed his duty as such till 11-1-92 and thereafter he was not allowed to perform his duty ag fireman. The workman challenged this order b-fore the CAT JabalpuT by petition No. OA 652 of 1992. Th^ Central Administration Tribunal disposed off the workman's r a t i on of 10-2-93. The CAT has cieariv held that the applicant belongs to lafcty category staff and 2204 GI/2001—5

since he was suffering from cataract on both the eyes, ipfr- cial treatmenet was • required • to be- meeted out! The applicant was directed for special medical examination by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Jabalpur vide letter dated 6-9-91. The Chief Medical Superintendent, after examina- tion, confirmed that the workman was suffering from cata- ract on both eyes vide his letter dated 1-1-92. The work- man did not present himself before the Chief Medicul Superintendent for special medical examination. The Chief medical superintendent clearly mentioned in his letter dated 1-1-92 that the workman was not fit to perform the duty of fireman and therefore he was not allowed to discharge the duty of fireman by the management unless the workman present himself before the Chief Medical Superintendent for special medical examination and obtain fitness certificate for ctegory A-I or any other category, he cannot be allowed to resume his duty. Taking the entire facts into consideration, the CAT held that in case the applicant presents himself before the Chief Medical Superintendent the intervening period, on the basis of his application, may be treated as leave due, leave without pay _as the case may be, in accordance with the rules and thereafter absorbed in an alternative job If found unfit for category A-t lob.

9. In view of the above said directions of the CAT. It appears that the workman had already moved the said tribunal for granting relief in the present dispute, referred before this tribunal, and he was directed to present himself before the Chief Medical Superintendent, Central Railway, Jabalpur for special medical examination and t*> obtain certificate of fitness to permit him to perform his dutv. After the clear direction, the workman has failed to comply with the same so far. The whole matter has already been disr^fd off by the CAT ard therefore I do not find any- thing *o srlr) ,inv more in thi* connection. I Agree with the direction of CAT. It K held that "he workman shall present h;m.r"ncr with the mien ami thronrtet- V bo obsorM '"> an nitemetive inh If found unfit for cpteaory A-I iob. ISWP No. 1 is decided nccordinelv.

10. Tissue No. 2 : Tn vl"w of my finding given on issne No. 1, it id hereby oitfpred that the workman "hall wesent himself before the Chief, Medleni Superintendent, Ceti*n1 Rflllwav. Jabnltinr for special medical evaminaMrtr) with'n tho period of 3 months rvnd the intftrvenintr rteriod on the honh of hk anniimtioti. hi; m'v he trented on Irnve d"n *o hiivi or lpnvp without r iv ni" the enw mnv hi> In accordance with thi* niT|i"i nnd tbwuftfr hft he ;>hsorb"M 'n nn J"1W- Tinfivp i"'' b" tbr Tnnnarrrwer'i if *rt)ind vinflt for Cfltpfl'On' A-T Job H'.-""!innW iho he pa?d back wfleei as **r miM.

11. Conv of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labor"-

K, M. RAI, Pre-iidlns Officer New Delhi, the 4th July. 2001

SO lfilO.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947,1, the Central Government hereby publishes the sward of the Ccntrtd Government 3U86 flffl ©AZ£TfE OF INDIA : JIJLY 28,^OQ1/SRAV^A 6, 1923 IPAJT J!~SEC. $ #J Ipdustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annejure iq the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L-41012/36/99-IR(BD] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXUKE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT :

Presiding Officer: Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I D. 132/2000

BETWEEN

Sunder Lai Tewari. S/o Sri Shobanath Tewari, Vill. & Post: Bhagvant Nagar. Distt. Unnao (U.P.)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabfld.

AWARD

By reference No. Lr41012/36/99-IR(B-I) dated 11-5-99, the Central.

The reference is re-produced as under:

"Whether the action of Management pf Northern Railway in not allowing Sunder Lai Tewari, on duty w.e.f. 4-4-19195 is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

1. -The cryptic reference whether action ol management of Northern Railway not allowing Sunder Lai Tewari, on duty w.ej. 4-4^95 is legal and justified, require* scrutiny of entire facts and circumstances which did not permit' manaae- ment of the Northern Railway to allow workman to resume duty and also requires determination of legal status of the workman who admittedly remained absent for more than 5 years, without submitting any application to sanction leave and regularise the service. The totality of facts and circum- stances constituting such ,a long absence from service, on the part of the workman, in absence of termination order, whether may be taken .to be legal abandonment of service ?

3. Coming to the facts, the case of the workman, Sunder Lai Tewari, Is that he was appointed as gangnian on 10-5-89 in the Bcale-of 775-1025 in quota of ex-servicemen. Prior to th><- nnnnWm*nt. h* was in Armv anil retired in December. 1987. He ww called to represent Moradabad Division of Northern Railway in Volleyball competitions to be held, from 4-10-R9 to 6-J 28-10-94. H>'s JHtie"te from the RflUwav Medfcol Officar. Unrmo (certjflrntf Nr>. TA.17W J - ^J V*i-Qin ,r\irl onfcTTvHivl WR fitneiq w^'.ficnt*¹ to tn" jiTithflritieft.- De"nlte hjs fltnesw he "ra" not nVn^^d t" l"in duties on one pretext or the other. Finally, this industrial diipnt* was raised.

4. The workman further claim*, non-issuance of any notice or holding any inquiry, and ^lso no payment of retrenchment compensation etc. Thus, the management acted in malaiidc manner and committed breach of section 25-F. 25-G. 25-H of the I.D. Act. 1947.

5. The management has not denied temporary appointment of tbc workman under the Ex-servicemen quota and his ioin- ing on 10-5-89. His releiving on 2-10-89 to participate in Volleyball tournament representing the Moradabad Division of Northern Railway, is also not denied. However, it is pleaded by the management that Sunder Lai Tewari absented from Delhi and did not submit participation certificate, and so, was treated absence w.e.f. 4-10-89, He reported to join duty after more than five years without lawful authority or medical certificate from an authorised medical officer. His abscondance for more than 5 years coupled with his habit of absenting, clearly demonstrate his unwillingness to be in service. Details of absence from the date of his appointment, is given below to fortify submission that the workman aban- doned his service.

6. The Asstt. Divisional Engineer, Sitapur, in his affidavit has detailed, unauthorised absence period since the appoint- ment of the workman on 10-5-89 as follows:

= 03 days = 11 days •= 31 days "c 09 days = 5 years 93 days

17-6-89 to 19-6-89 18-7-89 to 28-7-89 29-7-89 to 28-8-89 29-8-89 to 6-9-89 4-10-89 to 4-1-95

5 years + 147 days

In addition to above unauthorised absence, the workman remained on authorised leave ai under:

= 04 days Leave on Average 10-6-89 to 13-6-89

Pay

" 03 days -do- = 15 days -do- 14-6-89 to 16-6-89 7-9-89 to 21-9-89

= 5 days =. 10 days 22-9-89 to 26-9-89

commutod leave

27 days

1, It is pertinent to note that the workman joined as tem- porary Gangman on 10-5-89. He worked for 85 days, in all since appointment as under:

- 35 days = 28 days = 15 days = 07 days

10-5-89 to 13-6-89 20-6-89 to 17-7-89 7-9-89 to 21-9-89 27-9-89 to 3-10-89

85 days

8. Above facts are not denied by the workman, that he worked for 85 days only and remained absent from duty on authorised leave for 27 days and unauthorised leave for 5 years 147 days, The workman has not mentioned in his claim statement, to have submitted any leave application to rejm- larise unauthorised absence period but seeks joining on the basis of fitness certificate of a local valdya. In absence of regularisation of services for more than five years, the manage- ment could n0t have permitted the workman to join though found fit,' under the servjee rules. The workman did not explain as what persuaded the workman not to apply for leave but simply to inform about the illness?- 9, Under the "Leave Rules and Joining Time', applicable to the railway servants, the workman was, entitled to leave on half average pay, commuted leave, *leave not due' and extra ordinary leave. The workman had already exhausted his 'leave on average pay' and 'commuted leave'. 'Leave not due' i* granted to .permanent railway servants. However, in extra ordinary circumstances, such leave may be granted also to temporary servant with one year service, for a period not exceeding 30 days during the entire service, on medical grdunds for suffering TB, Leprosy, Cancer or mental illness. The workman was a temporary railway servant but had not completed one year service, nor was suffering with any of the dissases mentioned above. So, he was not entitled to 'leave not du6\ Extra ordinary leave may be granted in special cir- cumstances when no leave is admissible. In case of the tem- porary railways servant, such leave, may be granted under the exceptional circumstances by the President for 3 months on rftedfcal Certificate. There are no materials on records to justify Inference, that the workman was entitled to any type of urravailed 16ave. It was conceded that the working had not applied for any type of leavee so for and his absence period remained unregularised.

10. Let it be examined whether the workman was serious with his employment. He joined on 10-5-89 and in total worked for 85 days only- Details of this absence was given earlier. He absented continuously, from 4-10-89 to 4-1-95. The Workman was not at a place far of from Unnao. Medical certificate filed by him does not show nature of the illness. The workman was not confined to bed and so. was able to contact the railway doctor, locally. The materials on record do not justify inference that he was ever, serious, in seeking leave for the period. A Railway Medical Officer was available there but the workman chose not to present himself before the authorised medical officer. Even in this adjudication, he seeks duty, without exnlairiinc tho nature of illness, though he remained absent for more- than five years.

11. The workman claims to have kept informed the authorities about his illness and places reliance on letter of Asstt. Divisional Engineer dated 19-12-95 addressed to Divisional Railway Manager. This letter mentions that after 4-10-89 the workman was continuously absent despite notices issued to him to join duty. However he informed that he would join when became fit. On receiving the notices, the workman did not obtain certificate from any authorised medical officer and submitted to justify that illness was genuine. Treatment chart and cash memo of medicines, have also not been filed. The management's plea that the workman was not 111 e!nd his certificate is false, appears to be correct. 12, In any event, the circumstances from the date of joininK justify inference that the workman was never a willing worker. He was absent at his will, being fully aw"are of there beintt ht> leave to his credit, Her did not file participation certificate from the manager of the Voleyball team, left for home without obtaining permission of the competent authority or the Manager Of the team, remained continuously absent for more than five years, and till date, did not file evidence to justify genuineness of h™* illness, snve a fitness certificate of village vaidya. All these facts commulatively establish that he abandoned the service. He was a temporary railway servant and was not even a probationer.

13 In Lakshmi Kant VI*. PO, COIT. Gurgnon and others (1999) I-LLJ page 224, the Punjab High Court held that the Labour Court Is not only entitled to adjudicate upon the points of dispute but also on matter incidental thereto. In the present case, no doubt the reference Is regarding, legality of (he action of tho management not to permit the workman to join but incidently, matter is whether tho workman is entitled to join, by remaining absent more than 5 years continuously and in totality of facts whether he abandoned the service ? In such case, formal enquiry is not needed. The management has not terminated services Of the workman, but he abandoned the service as is established on facts and cirrirnistnncs. Tn Dhurtnrni Vitvinba Nntekflr V|s. Unique Industries & Others (1996) I-LLJ 948, the High Court of Bombay held as under:

"By now, it is well established, that abandonment of service Is an inference which can be raised upon consideration of the t6tality of circumstances and tho th" coiirt should raise this inference only if it h arftafled that the circumstances do Indicate that the

*fl-lj& workman wai clearly not interested in continuing With his service."

14. In B.V. Ramuarayan Vs. State Bank of India Hyderabad t H ^ ' V i¹Jy W) X'LU W⁰!- t he "" C w u't oi Andwa Pradesh held: tnat in the event oi abandonment of job voluntarily by an employee, the contract of service comes to an end. in order to constitute abandonment, there must be total giving up of duties to indicate an intention not to resume the same.

15. In the present case, the workman abruptly left tho team at Delhi without permission of the Manager, he did not inform tho authorities immediately thereafter explaining reasons therefor, he remained absent continuously for more than 5 years, he did not obtain certificate from the authorised medical officer, and he did not apply for leave despite notices to join his duty. All these circumstances justify inference that he was not interested in joining his duty. As observed earlier, hia medical certificate from a village vaidya, does not indicate genuineness of his plea of illness.

16. Accordingly, the only inference is that the workman abandoned his service and contract of his service came to an end. In such circumstances the provision of Section 25-F 25-H and 25-G do not apply.

17. The action of the management not permitting the workman to Join duty is legal and justified. The workman ii not entitled to any relief: '

18. Award as above.

Lucknow:

5-3-2001

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Offaer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tho Indus- trial Dispute Act,. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Jaipur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway Kota and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-4-2001.

[No. L-41012l60|87-D-II(B^|IR(B-t)] AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

CASE NO. CGIT-65|200O

Reference No. L-41012|60|87-D-II(B) dt. 14-12-88 The -Divisional Secretary, Paschira Railway Kannachnri Paruhad, Kota.

.. Applicant 3WM Itm W WU IB

., Non-applicant.

The Divisional Ralway Manager, Western Railway, Kota. ATTENDANCE:

For the applicant : Shri A. D. Grower. For tho non-applicant : Shri Tej Prakash Siiarma, Date of Award : 13-6-2001.

AWARD

The Ceritral Govarnment has referred the following dis- pute for adjudication under clause id) of subse-iion (i) aud sub-section (1) A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here- inafter referred as the Act, 1947) vide onier mentioued above. The reference wa" referred to CGIT, New Delhi, but later on transferred vide order No. L-41012|bO|87-IRbl dt. 28-8-2000 to this Tribunal by withdrawing the same ironi CGIT, New Delhi.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of D.S.T.E. (Cons) Western Railway Kota in withdrawing the temporary status of Slin Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Jagdev w.e.f. 20-2-87 and also terminating his service W.e.f, 5-3-B7 are justilicd 'I If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to aiid from what data?"

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was engaged as casual labour by Chief Signal Inspector (C) Kota (agent of the non-applicant) and was granted temporary "tatus vide,order dt. 31-12-H6. The temporary status granted to him was withdrawn by order dt. 20-2-87 by Assistant Signal and Telecom Engg. (C) Kota who was not the competent authority, on the ground that the service card submitted by him was found to Be false. Before withdrawing the temporary atatus no opportunity of hearing was given to him. Subse- quently, his services were terminated vide order dt. 4-3-87 w.e.f. 5-3-B7 in violation of Section 25F of the Act. 1947. It was prayed that the non-applicant may be directed to restore the temporary status and reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

The non-applicant in the reply admitted that tho applicant was granted temporary status which was withdrawn on the basis that the applicant obtained the employment on the basis of false service card. It was further stated that the service of the applicant war terminated on the ground of misconduct and hence provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947 are not attracted. The applicant was also directed to receive his dues on 6-3-87. The applicant failed to receive the payment of settlement. The applicant, however was again taken on duty.

The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

On behalf of tho non-applicant affidavit of Shri Ramdaur, Shri Rampal Verma and Shri M. P. Shrivastava were filed. However, Shri Ramdaur and Shri Rampal Verma were not produced for cross-examination and therefore, their affidavits have to be ignored. The learned representative of the applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine Shri M. P. Shrivastava. On behalf of the applicant affidavit of the applicant was filed. The non applicant was given opportunity to cross exBmlne him on his affidavit. Apart from above both parties filed certain documents, which will bo referred, at the appropriate place.

Heard arguments on behalf of both the parties. The parties have also filed written arguments, which are on the record.

It is not disputed that the applicant was granted temporary status vide order dl. 31-12-86 on having completed 360 days service. It Is also not disputed that temporary status granted to the applicant was withdrawn vide letter dt, 20-2-87. The learned representative of the applicant has contended that opportunity of hearing was not given to the applicant before withdrawing the temporary status. On the other hand the learned, counsel for the non-applicant has contended that the temporary lUtui granted to the applicant was provisional and the service card of the applicant having being found forged the temporary staius was withdrawn and the applicant was given opportunity to submit the explanation if any. It is not disputed that tho temporary status sranted to the applicant was provisional, P"ra-2 of the order vide which temporary status was granted reads as under:—

"Provisionally with the condition that candidates should pass the prescribed medical examination and their casual labour service cards are completed and veri- fied by competent authority within a months from tho date of issue of this office order, failing which the benefit of temporary status will be cancelled and recoveries mad© accordingly.

The-leltci dt. 20-2-87 (Marked M-W-6) vido which the temporary status wes withdrawn states that the temporary status granted to you vide this office letter referred above provisionally is hereby cancelled with immediate effect for tho reasons that the casual labour service card No, 056141 issued by PWI Bhawani Mandi which was submitted by you at the tima of your Initial recruitment under CSI (C) Kota has been proved to be false. This tantamount to serious misconduct on your part. You arc directed to submit ti> the undersigned a written statement if any within period of 10 days if you have to say anything on the subject"

It is evident from the abovo letter that the order of granting the temporary status to the applicant was cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant thus violating the principles o( natural justice.

It is also not disputed that the applicants' service were terminated vide letter dt. 4-3*87 w.e.f. 5-3-87. The letter dt 4-3-87 marked M-W-7 la being reproduced hercunder:—

ro,

Shri Jngdish Pratad, S/o Jagdev. Vill—Vhadana-kl Tapri,

Rangpur Road, Kota (Rajasthan).

Sub : Project casual labour—terms off employment of Rcf : This Office letter of even No, dt. 20-2-87.

Regarding submission of the false casual labour service card by yuu and the time of recruitment, you were asked to submit your reply -n thit; regard within 10 days from the date of Receipt of the said letter.

Despite lajyw of the 10 days, no reply has been received from you till date and us such it ts evident that you have deceived the Railway Administration.

In view of the above your services are hereby terminated with effect from 5-3-87,

You should present yourself to receive your dues on the date of termination i.e. 6•3-8.7.

Sd[-

, Divisional Signal ft Telecom Engg.

(Construction) Western Railway, Kota." As per rule 2Q05 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual the casual labour on grant of temporary status has the rights find privileges admissible to temporary Railways servants including the Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is admitted that no charge sheet was issued to the applicant for submitting false service card. His services could not be terminated without making eny enquiry under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 for submitting the false casual labour service card. If the order of termination is taken-to be simpli- citor his service could not have bean terminated without giving one month's prior notice or pay in lieu of notice and compensation'As provided under Section 25F of the Act, 1947 as the applicant had already served continuously from 6-4-85 to 5-3-87 before termination of his service. Mentioning In the order of termination that the applicant may collect his dues on the next date of ttrmlnatlon doe* not fUlfll th" 3*$:;

requirement of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 as no amount was disclosed in the order of termination.

On the basis of the above discussion the order of withdraw- ing the temporary status of the applicant vide order dt. 20-2-87 and termination of services of the applicant by the non- Wplicant w.e.f. 5-3-87 is hold to be illegal and unjustified. The applicant having alrw.dy been taken in service he will be Entitled to back wages which he was drawing at the time ttf termination of his service with continuity in service.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central government undar Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

SdA Illegible Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government lereby publishes the Award of the Central Government lji- iustrlal Tribunal|Labour Court, Jaipur, as shown in the Anncx- ire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- ion to the management of Western Railways, Kota and heir workman, which wa* received by the Central Gov- srnment on 3-7-2001.

fNo. L-41012]148|89-D-2(B)|IR-(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Caae No. CGIT-7312000

Reference No. 41012|148|89-D-2(B) dt. 2-9-90 The Divisional Secretary, Paachim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Kota

.. Applicant. above. The referenc was referred to CGIT, New Delhi, but later on transferred vide order No. L-41O12|148|89-IRB1 dt. 28-8-2000 to this Tribunal by withdrawing the wuna iram CGIT. New Delhi.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Divisional Signal and Tele- com Engineer (C) Western Railway, Kota i" iusti^ fied in terminating the services of Shri Kcli Ram S|o Shri Karen Singh, casual Khallasi w.e.f. 5-3-87 is justified? If not, to what relief the work- man is entitled to?"

luc uppiicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was engaged as casual labour by in* Cnief Telecom Ins- pector (\^.), Kota (agent oi the non-applicant) and grunted lempoiary status vide order dl. 31-12-86. SubsequenUy. the temporary siatua granted was withdrawn vide office Order Ut. 20-2-87 by the Assistant Signal and Telecom Engg. (C). Kota, who was not his emeptoyer. His service* were subse- quently terminated vide order dt. 4-3-87 w.e.i. 5-3-87 without complying the provisions of sec. 25-F of the Act, 1947. How- ever, he was taken back on duty after a period of about 17 months vide letter dt, 16-9-88 on the same status and last pay drawn. It was prayed that the non-applicant may be directed to treat him in service from the date of his illegal termination with continuity of service and back wages.

The non-applicant in reply to the claim has admitted that the applicant was granted temporary status which was with- drawn as per condition stipulated in Para 2 of the order vide which the, temporary status was granted. It wat further staled that there was complete ban on engagement of casual labourers in Railways after 14-7-81. The applicant presented his old service card and stated that he had worked eailler in the Railway as casual labour. On that basis he was engaged as casual labour in project work. As per judgment of the Apex Court in the case Inderpal Yadav v|i. Union of India the project casual labour wag also entitled for grant of temporary status, as per the scheme submitted by the Railway Board and approved by the judgment of the Apex Court dt. 18-4-85 and 11-8-86. The Board issued the orders in this regard vide letter dt. 11-9-86. In pursuance of the Railway Board's orders the non-applicant granted temporary status to all the casual labourers including the applicant on provisional basis. On verification the service enrd of the applicant was found foryed and, therefore, the temporary status was withdrawn. The applicant however, was given opportunity f© make representation if any within a period of 10 days. The applicant did not submit any expla- nation but left the service at his own w.e.f. 3-3-87. Subse- quently, the service of the applicant was terminated, as he was found guilty of proved serious mis-conduct by obtaining employment fraudulently.

The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts mentioned in the statement of claim-

VI*.

The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota

., Non-applicant.

\TTENDANCE

For the applicant : Shri A. D. Grower.

For the non-applicant : Shri Tej Prakash Sharma. Date of Award : 13-6-2001.

AWARD

The Central Government has referred the following dis- mte for adjudication under clause fd) of sub-section (I) md sub-section £)A of. the fnflmtt'si Disputes Act 1947 hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) vide order mentioned On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri Ramdaur Shri Ranipal Verma and Shri M.P. Shrivastava were filed. However, Shri Ramdaur and Shri Rampal Verma were not produced for cn>ss-cxamination and therefore, their affidavits have to be ignored. The learned representative of the appli- cant was given opportunity to cross examination Shri M.P. Shrivastava. In the form of documentary evidence letter marked M-l, copy of: service card (Ml|2), copy of order for grant of temporary status (Ml|3), copy of letter dt. 16-1-87 (M-l|4), copy of letter for withdrawing temporary status (Ml|5) and copy of attendance register (M 1|6) • were filed. On behalf of the applicant affidavit of the appli- cant was filed. The non-applicant was Riven opportunity to cross examine him on hia affidavit. The applicant also filed copy of notice (marked W-l), copy of order (mark- ed W-2) and copy of letter (marked W-3).

Heard arguments of the learned representative of, the applicant and advocate for, the non-applicant. Both the parties had also filed written arguments which are on the record.

It is not disputed that the applicant was granted temporary status vide order dated 3I-12-B6 on having completed 360 days service, it is also not dbputed that temporary status granted to tho applicant was withdrawn vide letter dated 20-2-87. The teamed representative of the applicant has ml '*rH£!GA*BTIE OF itfDlAtlXfcY^MWMA&Wft *> ^23 [^ART H—Stffc; xmi contended' th*t -opportunity of hearing wat .not gives to tile applicant before withdrawing the- temporary status. On th" other hand the learned counsel for the non-applicant has contended that the temporary status granted to the- applicant was provisional and the service card of the applicant having being found forged the temporary status was withdrawn and the applicant was given opportunity to submit the explana- tion

"Provisionally with the condition that candidates should pass the prescribed medical examination and their casual labour service cards are completed and veri- fied by competent authority within a months from the date of issue of this office order, failing wjjich the- benefit of temporary status will be cancelled and recoveries made accordingly. -y The letter dated 20-2^)7 (marked Ml|5) vide which the temporary status was withdrawn states that "the temporary status granted to you vide this office letter referred above provisionally is hereby cancelled with Immediate effect for the reasons that tht casual labour service card No, 42 issued by PW1 (C) K IT which was submitted by you at the time of.your Initial recruitment under CSI (C) Kota has been proved to be false. This tantamount to serious misconduct on your part. You are directed to submit to the undersigned a written statement if any within period of 10 days if you have to say anything on the subject."

It is evident from the above letter that tho order of grant- ing the temporaj-y status to the applicant was cancelled with- out BivinR any opportunity or hearing to the applicant thus violating the principles of natural justice.

It is also flot disputed that the applicants' service were terminated vide letter dated 4-3-87 w.e.f. 5-3-87. The letter dated 4-3-87. marked W-2 is being reproduced hereundev:—

as no amount was disclosed in the order of termination. The contention that the applicant left service at hi^l own cannot, also be accepted in fac^ of the order of termination.

On the basis of the above discussion the termination of services of tho applicant by the non-applicant w.e.f. 5-3-87 is held to be illegal and unjustified. The applicant having already been taken in service he will be entitled to back wages which he was drawing at the time of termination of his service with continuity In service.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Gov- ernment under section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publica- tion.

Sd|- Illegible.

Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

'To,

Shri Keli Ram, S|o Shri Karan Singh, Village Nagla, P.O. Band Baretha, Bayana, Distt, Bharatpur.

Sub : Project casual labour—terms of employment of— Ref : Thii Office letter of even No. dt. 20-2-87 Regarding submission of the false casual labour service card by you and the time of recruitment, you were asked to submit your reply in this regard within 10 days from tho date of Receipt of the said letter.

Despite lapse of the 10 days, no reply has been received from you till date and as such it is evident that you have deceived the Railway Administration.

In view of the above, your services are hereby terminated with effect from. 5-3-87 (A|N),

You should present yourself to receive your dues on Ihe date of termination i.e, 6-3-87.

Sd|-

Divisional Signal and Telecom En"g. (Establishment IConst.) Western Railway, Kotn" As per rule 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual the casual labour on grant of temporary stntu* has thej right"! and privileges admissible to temporary Railways servants including the Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is ad- mitted that no charge sheet was issued to the applicant for submitting false service card. His services could not be terminated without making any enquiry under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 for submitting the false casual labour service card. If the order of termination is taken to be the simplicitor his service could not havo been terminated without giving one month's prior notice or pay in Heu of notice and compensation as provided under section 25 iF of the Act, 1947 us the applicant had already served contfnu- owly from 3-4-85 to 5-3-S7 before termihntion of his service Mentioning h\ the order of termination that the applicant may rolled hi* dues on tho noxt date of termination docs not fulfill the requirement ofr section 25-F of the Act 1947 S.O. 1813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, J947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court.Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway. Madras and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

|No. JL-41012|162|93-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE " ""J"~" BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LAIiuUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the l.2tn June. 200]

PRESENT' :

K. Karthikeyam, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 28|2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 12|2000)

(In the matter of the t'jsputc for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A)' of Section- 10- of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14. o', 1947). between the Workman Shri DrSuresh and tht Minagcment of Southern Railway, Madras.) w* HLTWPEN

D. Suresh

: I Party|Workman

AND

The Deputy Chief fuigmeer iHQ) : II Party]Managc- Construction, mcnt Southern Railway, Madras.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman :

Sri M. Gnanasekar & C. Premavathi, Advocates.

For tlie Management :

Mr. G. Kalynnasundarnm, Advocate.

Thi3 dispute on coining up before me for final hearing on 31-5-2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other mate- rial papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on either side this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tri- bunal passed the following :—

AWARD

fwidence of Shri N. Krithivasati, Divisional Rail- way Manoiger, Headquarters office, Chennai on 19-2-90. In the appointment order, it was stat- ed that his services will be terminated wiihin three years if found unsatisfactory pr his services are apt required by the Divisional Railway Manager/ MAS or his successor or any other Administra- tive Officer within three years. If was further stated in the appointment order that the petitioner will be eligible for regular absorption as Peon|Lascair after three years continuous service either in open line or construction provided vacancy exists and that after regular absorption, if he is not requir- ed in the bungalow due to the transfer of the office concerned or his successor, he will be trans- ferred as Peon;Lascar enly in office against exist- ing Class IV vacancy and he will seek further arrangement along with office peon/lascar as per the existing channel of promotion. Consequent upon transfer of Sri N. Krithivasan; DRM]MAS, the petitioner was also transferred¹ along with the officer and posted as substitute Bungalow lascar in Chief Engineer, Construction, Madras under order dated 5-2-92. The Petitioned was issued a memo dated 17-8-92 alleging six acts, of mi&conduct. The peti- tioner had submitted his explanation on 21-8-92. His explanation was not accepted, since the officer under whom he was working found his service unsatisfactory. His service has been terminated by an order dated 28-8-92 with effect from 28-8-92. In that order of termination, the Petitioner was directed tfo collect compensation of Rs. 1,324'- and Rs. 1,986[- purported to bf. notice pay o|nd com- pensation as net section 25(F) of Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it Was taken on file as I.D. No. 22J2000. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their res- pective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending en^ury, 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 ad- judication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file on 10-1-2001 here as I. D. No. 2812001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side inToriing them about the transfer offhis case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tri- bunal to the file of this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case furlher on 22-1-2001.

2. The industrial dispute referred to in the Sche-

dule mentioned above reads as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Southern Railway, Madras in terminating the services of Shri D. Suresh, ex-peon|lascar without holding proper enquiry on the char- ges levelled against him is just, proper and legal. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the I PartylWorkman Shri D. Suresh (herein after referred to as Petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Management in. terminating his services.

*m tute GAZETTE OF mm •. JOLY 28,2001/ SRAVANA, e, 1923 CPA"* iHs"e-J ^]

Point :—

to assist the officer at his residence and it is based on the choice of the officer on whose recommenda- tion, the candidate will be appointed! and is not governed by the normal recruitment rule. The .Petitioner's service in the post is purely temporary in nature and that at any time his service is liable to be terminated within three years of service, if found unsatisfactory. The Fetiiioner cannot invoke the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, since the domestic service is not covered under the defini- tion 'industry' us per section 2(j) of the annended Industrial Disputes Acr. The Petitioner is not a railway employee and his service is temporary in nature and he has no right over the post, which is purely contractual in nature that could be terminait- ed at any time in terms of the contract. The Peti- tioner's service was terminated as per the conditions laid down in the appointment order dated 19-2-90- The Officer under whom the Petitioner Was working, found the Petitioner's performance to be unsatisfactory, the Petitioner was terminat- ed from service with effect from 28-8-92. The Peti- tioner has no Hen over the post as he is not a rail- May employee or railway servant. As per the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Rules, when a person without a lien on a permanent post under the Govt. is appointed to hold a temporary post or to officiate in a permanent post is entitled to no notice for the termination of service. Therefore, the question of issue of charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings wbuid not arise. Even after acquisition of temporary status of bungalow peon, his service can. be terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work without holding departmental enquiry. The Petitioner is not a regular employee of the Rail- ways and as a domestic servant, his service in the post is purely temporary in nature Because the Petitioner has put continuous service, it does nor arise that the bungalow peon acquires temporary . Ktaf.us. The termination of service o* substitute of NmfsV'W peon, who has acquired temporary status is -T>* barnedor illegal for want of notice before ter- ninat!'>.T). Tn such case, he may be entitled to pav f ^r fV nerinH of notice in lieu of • notice. Even rNrip'T Industrie¹ Disputes Act is not applicable to Uv Petitioner, the Petitioner was paid retrenchment r/Tirtncns^ticn towards notice period pay and an f.miium towards retrenchment compensation in accor- '.;;•.••.'-•; with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes As.'. Ti:°ncer tbe discharge from the service of the Prfir'tner is justified and he is not entitled to any rJi'-f under Industrial Disputes Act.

It is adihitted that the Petitioner workman was appointed by an order dated 19-2-90 as substitute bungalow lascar. The typed copy of that appoint- ment order is Ex. Wl. In that order itself, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as substi- tute bungalow lascar in the bungalow of Sri N, Krithivasan, DRM/MAS, subject to three condi- tions mentioned therein. The first condition is that his service will be terminated within three years, if found unsatisfactory or his sci vices are not re- quired by DRM/MAS or his successor or any other administrative officer within three years. It is also admitted that consequent on the transfer of Sri N. KritMvasan, DRM as Grief Engineer, Construc- tion, Madras, the Petitioner was also transferred and posted as substitute bungalow lascar to the Chief Engineer, Const ruction, Madras as per office order dated 5-2-92. That typed copy of office order is Ex. W2. It is also admitted on the report of the officer under whom the petitioner was work- ing as substitute Bungalow lascar had reported several instances of the petitioner's misconduct and on that basis, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice with a direction to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of that notice. The typed copy of show cause notice issued to the petitioner is Ex. W3. The Petitioner has submitt- ed his explanation dated 21-8-92 for that show cause notice. The typed copy of the same is Ex. W4. Sub- sequent to the explanation of the Petitioner, an ordci dated 28-8-92 was passed stating that the explanation submitted by the Petitioner is not satisfactory. The Officer under whom he was engaged as substitute bungalow Jascar has certified that his integrity is doubtful and he is disobedient. The typed copy of that order is Ex, W5. The note dated 14-8-92 sent by the officer under whom the petitioner was working, in respect of the misconduct of the Petitioner (xerox copy) is Ex. W6. Ex. W7 is the xerox copy of the office note dated 27-8-92 vftereby the explanation submitted by the Petitioner under his letter dated 21-8-92 was put up for the perusal of the officer under whom he is working. In that office note itself the concerned officer has passed his remarks dated 28-8-92 stating that, he considers that "it is not desired to continue his service any further and his services should be terminated with effect from afternoon of 28-8-1992, duly giving him necessary compensation due". Ho has further observed in his note that "he does not consider his request to transfer the Petitioner to other officer as indicated by him in his letter, in view of lack of integrity and misconduct."

7. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, cWn merits we're marked by consent of counsel on eiher S'de as F.x. Wl to W7. The counsel on either px'e have advanced, their respective arguments.

8. The point for my consideration is—

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the termination of the service of the Petitioner is a violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not given any op- portunity nor any enquiry to prove the charges an^ that the termination order was issued based on the certificate issued by the Respondent certifying that the Petitioner's integrity is doubtful. The learned counsel would further contend that the order of dismissal issued on 28-8-92 is not an order of sim- plicitor but by way of punishment for specific mis- conduct and hence the same is bad as there was no enquiry conducted by the Respondent to prove the "Whether the action of ih/s management ot Southern Railwby in terminating the ser- vices of Sri D. Suresh ex-peon [lascar with- out holding proper enquiry on the charges levelled against him is just, proper and legal ? If not to what re'ief the workman is entitled 7" 3687

within die meaning of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Dispute.. Act, attracting Section 2 5 (0 thereof." Hero in this case the service of the petitioner is contract- ual in nature and could be terminated without •^signing tf'iy reason but he was paid retrenchment compensation, even though Section 25F is not nUracLcd. A^ psr the later cited Supreme Court cv.e temporary appointment for the specific period, •wherein iherc is an enabling provision for ihc emp- loyer in icrms of the appointment to terminate the vrv'.a: of workmen at any stage without assigning any reason and the termination is effected even be- fore the expirv of the specified" period, did not •'mount to retrenchment and will not attract section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has ;.lso cc;i(ended th^t 1hc learned counsel for the peti- tioner';, reliance on Supreme Court judgement report- ed ;i-, (1984) II SCC 369 will not applicable to the present faefs of this case. Because, in that case the workman was appointed as probationer in a perma- nent post under UPSC recruitment and was discharge ed under Rule 12(b) IPS (Probationer Rule), 1954 and hence ihe Supreme Ccurt was pleased to hold that the impugned order amounted to termination of scvic; by way of punishment and in the absence of . any enquiry, in accordance w!ith Article 311(2) was liable to be shucked down. . But in the present case, the petitionerjwoTkman was only bungalow lascar and there is no specific rule for appointment of bumralow lascar and the post is not a permanent post but contractual in nnhire and the Petitioner was not removed by way of punishment but he was dis- chsrgcd from service, since his services were found to be unsatisfactory.

10. From the above arguments put forth by the learned counsel on either side and from the perusal of the documents filed in this case as Ex. Wl to W7, it Is seen that the trguments advanced by learn-, cd counsel for the Management is plausible and j'c^eptable. From the materials available in this case, it is seen thnt the Petitioner workman was ap- pointed as a substitute bungalow lascar at the choice iiad ihe recommendation by the .officer under whom V w?s t?ken for service fnr doing the domestic work in the bungalow of the officer and he h^s not been appointed through Railway Board or service com- mission or any other agency. The terms of his appointment order Ex, Wl clearly shows that it is only contractual in nature and the post is not govern- ed bv normal recruitment rules and he is liable to be discharged from service within three years, if found unsatisfactory. As H has been decided by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi which was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respo'idcntjlvianagement in his argument, the bungalow peon is not a railway emp- lovee and his services beinp purely contractual in p.auire could be terminated at any time in terms of Ihe contract, if found unsatisfactory. So, the Peti- tionerlWorkman was not a railway emniovee and he ha? no right over the post, since his service is on contr ictual br.sis, temporarv in nature, liable to be termnintf-d cis p~r the terms mentioned in the ap^ pointment order. So under such circumstances, as corree'lv out forth bv the learned counsel for the Rc"r)O'ident|MaTncement that the action taken by the Management in terminatint; the services of the Peti- tioner without pny notice, on the ground that the Petitioner's integrity was under doubt and his service 3688 THE GAZETTE OF TNDfA : JULY 28, 2001/SR'AVANA 6, 1923 [IVftT II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th Jiily, 2001 was unsafisfatHoiy, is riot be.d or Illegal. The deci- sions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learn- the conclusion that tne action of fhe Management takefl against the peti- Horier|w6rkman is just, proper and legal and that it cannot'be held as bad fcr want of proper enquiry on the eh*af|6s levelled against th'6 petitioner and under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any ftt&l, as prayed for. Thus, T answer the point ac- cordingly,

S.O. 1814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govemmcnt hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of Southern Railway, Madras and their work- m"n, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

|No. L-410l2/2O1/95-TR(B-I)] AJAY KOMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE 11.'In (he ftsujt/an award is passed holding that ttie actidn of tTie Management of Southern Railway, 'Matfras Tfj (effriinaffng the services of Sri D. Suresh, Ex. ^eeniLa^car without holding. proper enquiry on the cftattfe's levelled against him h just, proper and I£gal. 'Hence, the concerned w6rtman Is not etitl- ed to any relief. No Cost.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and 'Np&i"by htm, corrected and prdnou'ticed by me in

fhe 6pen co'urt on this day (he 12th June, 2001.)

Monday, the UOi Julie. 2001 K. KARTHtKEYAN, Presiding Officer

PRESENT ;

Witneisfes^Xanifmcd :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

On either sWe : None.

Industrial Dispute No. 408/2001 Documents Ivlarked :

(Tamil Niydii State Industrial Tribunal T.D. No. •91/96) F6r!I:P&Wyiaaim*mt :

(In'the* matter of the dispute for adjudication under Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 19-2-90.—^Xerox copy of appointment order

of the Petitioner.

clause (d) wi sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1-947), between the Workman Shri S. Abraham and the Management of the Divisional Railway Mana- ger, Southern • Rsrihvay, Madras.) W2 5-2-92.—Xerox copy of order of transter

issued to the Petitioner.

BETWEEN *W3! 1 7 ^ 9 2. —Xerox d6py of Shdw cause notice.

S. Abraham.

. .1 Party /Workman.

W4 21-8-92,~Xerox cojfy of explanation of

AND the Petitioner to show ca"use notice.

' ^5 '2'8-8-92.—Xerox copy of order of Termina-

fio'n of the Petitioner.

The Divisional Railway Manager. Southern Railway, Madras. . . II Party/-¹ M&nagement.

' W6 14^^-92.—Xerox' ccfpy of a corifl'aehtial note

APPEARANCE:

from the C P M ' C J C | MS to DY. CE|HQ| •MS.

\V7 27-8-92.—Copy of office note from Secre-

For the Worlunan : Sri S. Bakthavatsalu, Autho-

rised 'Representative.

tjiry to CAOlC & DY. CE|Hd.|CN to CPM|GC.

F o r i hc Manap'.'ir.L'iit : V.i. P. Arulmutli, Advo- P6r IT'Pa'fty/Maridgemeht ; Nil,

cate, The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- sectiqn ( I) and sub-section 2(,A) of Section 1(J of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (,14 of iy47), nave re- ferred the following dispute for adjudication vjde Order No. L-41012/201/95-IR(B-l) dated 27th September, 1996 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of South- ern Railway, Mndras in removing Shri S. Abraham from service w.eif. 28-05-87 is legal and justified ? Jf not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Assistant Me.ftc.fU¹ Qilicer at Jolarpet wtfuiM, any ahflfl. cause nptife or conducting enquiry. The a.c#p.n qf t^e. Assistant Medical Officer is arbitrary, illegal, and. against the principles of natural justice- T^he appeal preferred by the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority was also dismissed without any speaking qrders. The unjustified and arbitrary act of the Assistant Mpd4ca}, Officer, who is not the appointing authority, when he failed to take prior permission from the CQffllfftfint authority, the Peliiioner is dcenjed to b,e in service, from 28-5-87 onwards. The Respondent has CQinmitr ted various unfajr labour practice and lb.e cqnrp£te,pt authority has not applied his mind, in passing qrfjers for removing the Petitioner frpm services. Hence, the action of the Kespondc:uyMunagernent is illegal and unjustified.

4. The H Party/Respondent/Management, in thejr

Counter Statement has stated as follows :—

This matter, came up betfoxe me for final hearing on 3 0 T 4 - ^ 0 0 1, upon pelosing the Claim Statement, Coun- ter Statement and other material papers on record, the. oral evidence of. the Petitioner and the documen- tary evidence of the .Respondent a nd upon perusing the written arguments submitted on either, side ana this matter having stood ov.er till this date for, consi- deration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARP

2, This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it w#s taken on me as I.D. No. 91/96. On receipt of notjee from that Tribunal, the Petitioner through his autho- rised representative at\l the Respondent through his counsel, entered appearance and file,d thfiir respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement Whep thp matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu Stkte Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of, transfer by thp Central Government, this case lias been tran^' ferrcd, from, the file of. Tarnil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. Oh receipt of records of this case from the Tamjl Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been, taken on tile here as I.D. No. 408/2001 and notices Were sent tp the representative of the I Party and the counsel for the II Party, informing them ahoul the transfer of this case from the file °f Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Court with their res- pective parties to prosecute this case further on 22nd February, 20Q1. Accordingly, both the patties ap- peared before this Tribunal alpng with the authorized representative and the counsel on record respectively afld prosecuted this case fur.ther.

3. The. facts of tin's industrial dispute in br,ief as stated in the Clyiin Staement of I Party/Workman are as follows :—

* j # fc ^ ^ m \ ^ ^ ^ i & ^ - ) M A' f W t w y, m i/ W T OW • - i tm

• .,

' wm ^ w & y * v f lF accepted by the administration. The Petitioner had produced a private medical certificate from a Doctor who was residing at Muinilingapurain, JViadras-34. The Petitioner might as wen availed llie treainienl at Railway Hospital situated at Egmore or Perambur, Madras. The removal of the employee from the ser- vices of the Railway Administration does not attia<-t any other provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner has raised Lhe issue in various Forums. The CCP No. 128/87 the Petitions hied be lore the La- bour Court was dismissed on 29-3-93. He hied ano- ther petition before that Labour Court CCP 65/96, still pending. Now the Petitioner has raised the same issue" before this iribunaj. Hence, the Petition is bar- red by principles of res judieata. The petition is de- void of merits and is misconceived wiUi a mala fide intention to defraud the union exchequer. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed.

5. When the matter has been taken up tor enquiry, the Petitioner who already hied into the Court nis proof of allidavit, was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Respondent and his evidence has been treated as evidence of Workman witness No. 1. On the side of the Respondent/Management, documents were marked by consent of either party as Exs. Ml to M i l. The learned counsel for the Respondent has informed the Court that the TI Party/Management has no oral evidence. The written arguments of the autho- rized representative of the 1 Pury/Petitioner and the counsel for the 11 Pa.y/iUjnagement were filed separately.

6. The point for my consideration is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Southern Railway, Madras in removing Shri S. Abraham from service w.e.f. 28-05-87 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Point:—•

that returned postal cover is Ex. M5. Then an order was passed by the Assistant Divisional Medical Offi- cer, Joiarp^t, Southern Railway oil D-12-86 imposing the punishment of removal from service of the Peti- tioner Sri Abraham w.e.f. i-l2-8o. The xerox copy of the same along with the covering letter is Ex. Mb. The Petitioner has submitted a petition to the Appel- late Authoiily dated 15-6-87 along with medical cer- tificate issued by Dr. kuinadoss, Psychiatrist. The xerox copy of mat letter is Ex. M7 and the xerox copy of the Doctor certificate JS EX. MS. Tne Sr. Divi- sional Personnel Oih'cei' as Appellate Authority has dismissed that appeal confirming the order passed as a penalty by the Assis.am Divisional.Medical Officer on 5-12-86. A xerox copy of ihai. order tlated 24-8-87 is Ex. M9. The xeiox copy of ihc service register ot Lhe Petitioner Sri S. Abraham is Ex. M10. The extract of leave rules 521 (xero.\ copy) from the Indian Rail- way Establishment Code has been filed as Ex. M i l. AJ1 these documents have not been disputed by the Petitioner Sri S. Abuiham. In the cross examination the Petitioner, as WW1 has admitted that there is a railway hospital at Jolarpet and if he ii, to avail medi- cal leave, he has to get a medical certificate from the Doctor of Railway Hospital. He has admitted that once he was given a punishment for going on ieavc often and he denied the suggestion that for his ab- sence from 23-10-83 to 01-08-84 disciplinary action was taken by issuing a charge shuet and after con- ducting an enquiry; punishment was imposed with- holding one inclement for a period of six months. A perusal of the Service Register Ex. M10 shows that this Petitioner was imposed a punishment of withhold- ing the issue of one set of piivilegc pass due for 1984, since he remained a.'^sent for du'y unauthorisedly with- out obtaining prior sanction of leave for a total num- ber of 26 days in six spells. That entry in Ex. M10 in his service book has not been disputed. There is another entry in hus service book stating that he had absented himself from duty during the periods men- tioned thereunder unauthorisedly without obtaining prior sanction of leave. For that he was imposed with punishment of withholding his annual increment for a period of six months. His removal from service w.e.f. 5-12-86 for his absence from dutv unauthorisedly from 4-9-85 to that dntc continuously without sanc- tion ot the competent authority has also been men- tioned in his service register, Ex. M10. The said punishment imposed by ADMO/JTJ which has been subsequently confirmed by the appeallate authority also has been made as an entry in his service book. From this it is seen that WWJ has deposed faisclv by denying fhe suggestion thrn for his unauthorized absence from 73-10-83 to 01-8-84 the disciplinary action was taken and he was imposed a punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of six months. He has admitted that from 4-9-85, he stopped going for work at Jolarpet and he has not informed his inability to attend the work to his superiors from 4-9-85. ft is nlso his admission that he was perma- nently residing ;\t Aynnawaram at Madrns and he knew that there is one Railway Hospital at Perambur and from Ayannwarum to Perambur it is 3 kms. in distance. H.? has also admitted that he has not pro- duced anv records fnr having taken treatment in Kil- puik Mentpi Hospital. If is also his admission that from 4 9-85 to the rtote on which he gave the certi- ficale in 1987 he had not gone for work. He has also The I Party/Workman/Petitioner Sri S. Abraham was working as Sanitary Cleaner under the control of Health Inspector at Madras Central Railway Station under the Respondent/Management, Southern Railwav w.e.f. 1-1-77. He has admitted 'n evidence ns WW1 that he last worked as Sanitary Cleaner in Railways at Jolarpet and he was under (he control cf Health Inspector, Jolarpet. Ex. Ml is the xerox copy of par- ticulars for the attendance of the,Petitioner for duly from 30th August, 1985 to July, 1986. As per this document, subsequent to August 30, 1985 he remain- ed absent for the period from September, 1985 to J •,;!,, 1986. The Health Inspector, Jolarpet h:is inti- mated the Petitioner's unauthorized absent for duty as Sanitary Cleaner to higher authorities by his letter 'daicd 26-7-1986. A xerox copy of the same is Ex. M2. In pursuance of that the Divisional Railway Manager has directed for initiating action for the Peti- tioner's unauthorized absence from 4-9-85 for impos- ing major penalty. The xerox copy of that letter dated 28-7-86 is Ex. M3, Accordingly, disciplinary action has been taken and the charge sheet dated 11-8-86 was issued to the Petitioner. A xerox copy of the same is Ex. M4. The charce sheet sent by Registered Post was returned unserwd with thr postal endorsement "as the addressee is not avnihibV. A xerox copy of jurisdiction of the Railway Medical Officer will be taken to cover railway servant residing within a radius of 2.5 kms. of the Railway Hospital or Health Unit to which the Doctor is attached and within a radius of one kilometre of a railway station of the Doctor's beat." So from all these it is evident that ihc Petitioner, Workman who has said to be ill from 4-9-85 has not followed the procedure that he has to adopt as per the prescribed rules for availing medical leave. U is his evidence that only wlhen he presented (he petition after dismissal from service by his appeal dated 15-d-87 under Ex. M7 he had sent a medical certificate issued by a Doctor under Ex. M8. He has not chosen to inform the authority about his mental illness. The treatment he obliged t.¹ take for the same in a hospital other than the Railway Hospital has not been intimated to the authorities concerned prior to his representation dated 15-6-87 under Ex.M7. From the documentary evidence, available on the side of the Management, it is seen that the com- petent authority has taken disciplinary action against the petitioner|Workman for his unauthorized absence from duty as per Indian Railway Establishment Code and Railway Servant;, (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. So under Mich circumstances, it cannot be said that the action taken by the Management, the Res- pondent herein, for the unauthorized absence of the PetitioncrjWorkman from duty by way of disciplinary action and by passing an order in removing Sri S. Abraham from service with effect from 28-5-87 is illegal or unjustified. Hence, the Pctitioner[Workman is not entitled to any lclicf. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.

7. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management, Southern Railway in re- moving Sri S. Abraham from service with effect from 28-5-19S7 is legal -and justified and hence the con- cerned 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 11th June, 2001.)

K. KARTHfKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :—

For I Parly|Claimant : W.W.I Shri S. Abraham.

For the II Party/Management : None.

Documents Marked: —

For I Party/Claimant : Nil.

For II PartyJManagement :

Ex. No. Date ; Description

Ml March, 1986-Copy of the Attendance

Register.

M2 26-7-86—Copy of the correspondence bet- ween the Health Inspector, Southern Rail-

way and the D.M.O. Madras.

M3 28-7-86^Copy of the correspondence bet-

ween the DMO & Head Office.

M4 IJ -"-S6—Copy of the charge sheet.

M5 27-8-86—Xerox copy of the postal acknow-

ledgement.

"admitted that except the Doctor certificate he has not produced any other- document to show that he was taJung ueatmeno lor l\.c> voais 111 tue iiientai hospital. It is his iuLiher admission tiiat in Railways, ail medical treatments are given to employees in the Railway Hospital on ircc ui tost, it is his further admission tfeat he had no, I reported to Lhe Doctor aL Railway Hospital to get a htness certiii- cate and that only ii the hincss certificate issued by medical oilicer of vhe Railway Me.^ fal, he can rejoin duty. 1 hough the Doeiu: ecn;fiedle has been pro- duceU by tho Petitiuner along with representation under Ex. M7 the Doctor who gave the medical certi- ficate unuer Lx. MS hat! not been examined by the Petitioner| Woikman lo speak about the contents of that medial certiiicaie. So, Ex. M8 Doctor certificate remained unproved. { rom the facts available from out of the oral and documentary evidence in this case, it is seen U'.at die Petitioner was a frequent absentee and he was unauthorisediy absent from duty on many decasions, due lo which he wins imposed with penalty. On sueh punishments given to the Petitioner lor his unauthorized absent from duty, relevant entries had been made in service iegistcr, Ex. M10. It is the ad- mission of the Petitioner himself as WW1 that he remained absent from 4-9-85. He had not reported the authorities about his absence for duty due to ill health. He Las also not chosen to take medical treat - rhent for his alleged ill health from the Railway Hos- pital wherein he can get free treatment for his ailment. From the facts available in this case it is seen the petitioner WHS absent fiorn 4-9-85, when there was no response to the charge sheet sent to the last known address, the Disciplinary Authority has taken action against the Petitioner for his unauthorized absence without prior sanction trom the authority and had ' taken a final decision under Rule 14 of Railway Ser- vants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and had passed an order of removal from service on 5-12-86. There is sufficient materials available in this case by way of documentary evidence on the side of the Res- poadenl|Management that . the penalty advise was communicated by Registered Post to the Petitioner to the last known addicts and the same was exhibited in the notice board where the petitioner was last working ije. in Jolarpet. Under Rule 521 of Leave Rules mentioned in Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. T, it is eleaily stated that an application for leave on medical certificate made by Railway seivant in (Sroup C and D shall be accompanied by medical certificate given by a Railway Medical Officer defining as clearly as po.ss'bie the nature and duration of illness. J( is also staled as sub-rule 2 of Rule 521 that when n railway ?er\ant residing outside the juris- diction of Railway Miedical Officer requires ICMVR on rricdical certificate, he should submit within 4R hrs. a sick certificate from the RetnVered Medical Practition- er. The Competent Authority may at bis discretion ac- cept the certificate or in eases where it has reason to stispect the bona fide referred the case to the Divi- sional Medical Officer for advise or investiaaiion. A medical certificate from Registered Private Prac- titioners useil by railway rcrvant in support of their application for leave may be rejected by the compe- tent authority only after a Railway Medical Officer has conducted the necessary verification on the basis df the advise tendered by him aftor such verification. As a note to this Rule it is stated that "ordinarily the

M6 14-12-86—Xerox copy of the order of remo- val from service of I Party by the Manaee- ment.

* [ P A RT • n ~ i $ $ ? & $i ? 6 92 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : W l JY 2 fc & > 0 1 / 5 f c j W A WA tfy # 43

MV 15^6-87—Xerox- copy of the Petitioner's re-

presentation. to the D.M.O. Madras.

M8 25-5-87—Xerox copy or the Doctor Certi-

ficate.

M9 24-8-87—Xerox copy of the letter of DMO informing the order of the Appellate Autho- rity against the appeal filed by the Petitioner.

M10 Nil—-Xerox copy of the sevvic; rvgister of

the Petitioner.

M il Nil—Xerox ccpy of the Indian Railway

Establishment Code Vol. I.

"Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of Indie, Jaipur awarding the punishment of stoppage of< 5 increments of Shri ij. L. Jopat, Chief Secretary of the union in contravention of Principles of Natural justice and against the established norms and practice of RBI (Staff) Regula- tion, 1948 was justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled¹ ?" New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1815.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cenr tral Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 3-7-200L

[No. H2012/410/99-lR(B-D]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

3693

2. It is reported that :—•

(i) On December 21, 1994 when a section of the employees had struck work, the power supply to the Bank building won. off around 12.30 p. m. On enquiry by Shri Bansode, Assistant Engineer '(Elcc), Shri Ved Prakabh Singh, sub-station Attendant reported that he was forced by some of the striking employees to switch off the power supply. The Assistant Engineer (Ebc.) could get the power supply restored at around 2.15 p.m. Hnwrver, about 10 minute-, later, you, alongwith Shri Om Singh, again forced Shri Ved Prakt-.sh singh lo switch off the power supply to the Bank building. When Shri Ved Prakash Singh was explaining the situation to the Assistant Engineer (Elcc), you entered the Estate Department and shouted at the Assistant Engineer (Elcc' stating that your (Union's) member wil rot switch on the supply. Shri Ved Prakash Singh, suh-siation Attendant was then forcibly led r.way from the Fstatt 3694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28,2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3695 in fillhy and highly offensive language, and in acts of intimidation ;

fiii) having tried to intimidate the Manager and other seniorollicers inside the Manager's chamber as also inside Deputy Manager's chamber and held out physical threats rfainst them ; and

(iv) having been in the Bank's premises in a state

of intoxication and smelling of alcohol ; in violation of Regulation 41 B of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948.

2204 GI/2001—7 3696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] "13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to rcapprcciate the evidence or the nature of punish- ment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant, Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. Tn Union of India vs. H. C. Goel this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse of suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certicrari could be issued."

^3897?

3698 "# 1H§ GAZETTE OF INDIA rJUtY^S,"J0"M/<$RAVAt"A><5, i923 [PART tl-^fec. H&)]

369f

3700- THE'0A2ETTE OP INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART ttOsfee,3(6);

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001

S.O. 1816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of (he Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur us shown in the Anne\ure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Slate Bank of. India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.

,[No. L-12012/314/99-lR(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNKXURE

BEFORE TUB CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT : 1|2000

Employers in relation to the management of

D.G.M., State Bank of India,

AND

Their Workman Shri Dattatray S. Joshi.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-scctiou (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Ins referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-12OI2|314|99|IR(B.I.) dated, 17|2(M2-1999 on following schedule.

3701 SCHEDULE

"Whether the quan.um of penalty ami the pro- cesi to del ermine and award the same by th.j Huungoment of State B;mk of India, Zonal Ollice, Nagpur to Shri D. S. Joshi, iJy. Head Cashier and General Secretary, Siatc Bank of Tndia Workers Organisation, Nagpur icr his alleged misconduct is just, Jegal and reasonable ? If not does the workman deserve any relief ?"

The cross examination of ihc workman DaUutray S, Joshi was rrcurticd in Ihis couri on 8-11-2000. In cross examination he admilieci that he is in the ser- vice or bank since i(;70. He is the employee of (he Kink yad he is aho Genera] Secretary of the imii'ii of the bank employees. He also represents tiie bank employees in departmental enquiries. He I'dmhtcd that he had addicted Press Conference at Jnigaon on 5-3-90 without permission of his Superior Officer:. He ulso admitted that prior to this inci- dent he was also awarded punishment of warning for addrcssinc Press Conference. On 29-8-96 he has been punished for reduction in pay to the next lower stage for the period of two years. He had admitted that he had addressed Press Conference at Nagpur ou 23-9-1991.

The chargesheet was submitted against him for calling to Press Conference without permission of bunk authorities on 23-9-91. He admits that P. P. Padalikar wns his Defence Representative in the en- quiry proceedings.

Thus from the admission of the witness as men- tioned above ihe charge of misconduct has been proved against him,

Shri D. S. Jo:;lii, workman has submitted State- ment of Claim that lie is an employee of State Bank of India since 4-5-1970. He is General Secretary 01 Trade Union i.e. State Bank Worker's Organisa- tion. In the capacity of General Secretary he add- ressed Press Coiiiere'iiee on 23-9-1991 and express- ed views regarding the working of the management of State Bank of India. He was issued chargeshcet on 6-2-1992 for his act of addressing the Press Conference in violation of Rules of Conduct. He was charged under clause 521(4) (b) and (j) of Sastiy Award. The enquiry was started against him for his above misconduct. The enquiry was con- cluded on 17-3-94. His appeal was dismissed on 11-1-97.

Shri V. S. Kumar was examined by the bank

man igefiiei¹.'. Ho did not conduct the enquiry.

He has taken the plea that he has been victimised due to being involved in the trade union activities as General Secretary of the trade union of State Bank Workers Organisation. The enquiry was not con- ducted according to Principles of Natural Justice.

The representative of workman Shri Sahastra- budhc has argued that the workman had addressed Press Conference at Nagpur on 23-9-91 as a General Secretary of the Trade Union. There was no rela- tionship of workman and management hence he should not be punished. This argument is base- Jess. He is firstly the employee of the bank and thereafter he is the representative of the union. With- out obtaining the permission of Superior Officers to address the Press Conference, he violated the rules of service. • .

Reference book on Staff Matter, Volume 2, Chap-

ter 25 conta'ns para 25.1,1 as under :

The bank management submitted Written State- ment and stated that the workman D. S. Joshi had completed more than 22 years service at the time of service ot the chargesheet. He made defamatory state- ments and frivolous allegations against the Bank Offi- cers, in Press Confidence at Jalgaon on 5-3-1990 for which he was punished. On 2-11-91 he wrote objec- lionable letter to his Branch Manager, Nagpur Branch, Nagpur. On 23-9-1991 he addressed Press Con- ference at Nagpur. His explanation was called. On 2-11-1991 he submitted reply. His conduct was in violation of the Rules of Fidelity and Secrecy of the bank. His conduct amounted to gross misconduct under clause 521 (4) fb) and (j) of Sastry Award.

"No employee shall in any radio broadcast or in any published document or communica- tion to the press or in public utterance make any s ^ ' r ^ it which has the effect of disparaging ths Bank or its management bringing the same into disrepute."

The details given in the Press Conference were published in the Newspaper on 24-9-1991 with the hooding "SB1 pension fmud culprits being shielded". The statement given by Ivm in Press Conference were reported in the Newspapers in Hindi, English and M;irarhi. These documents arc in file.

During enquiry nineteen dates were fixed. On 13 occasions he avoided to cooperate in the conduct- ing of enquiry either on the ground that his defence representative has not turned up or that he needs some documents and so on. Ur>ltimatelv the en- quiry Mas conduced en 17-3-1994, He cot full opportunity to submil his Defence. Mr. P. P. Pada- ltknr. Telex Operator, Pune Main Branch, Pune was his Defence Representative during the enquiry. The char ires have been proved against the workman and the punishment awarded to him by reducing the pay to next lowfr stare for a period of two years vide 'inW three* "29-8-96 is jiHificr.;.

I have heard the representative of I he workman Shri Saha^trabudhe and the Law Officer of the State Rmk of India. Both the parties have submitted their Written Argument. The representative of Ihe workmen and rep^c;ertati"e of the bank management also argued the case orally.

Management hos submitted ruling AIR 1998 Supri?me Court 1064, M. H, Devendrappa Appel- lant Vs. The Karn I'aku State Small Industries Deve- lopment Corporation, Respondent. In this ruling it is held by the Hon'bie Supreme Court that appellant had made a direct public attack on the Head of his organisation. He had also in the letter to the Governor made allegations against various Officers of the Corporation with him he had to work and his conduct was clearly detrimental to the proper functioning of the Organisation or its internal dis- cipline. The statement amounted to lowering the 3702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28,2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART I I- SEC. 3(ii)] pre-tigs ni' organ'r .Ltkm in which he worked. It was Lhc lit case where the employer was entitled to take disciplinary pciion under rule 22.

In .view ofubove ruling of Hon'blc Supreme Court the woikman D. S. Jushi hus been rightly punished by tlie management of Siaie Bank of India for his misconduct. As representative of the union he could discuss the matter with the Senior Officers to find out the solutions of lhc problems he wanted to bring to the noiice of the Superior Officer. He had no right to call or address any Press Conference¹ with- out obtaining prior permission of Superior Officers.

The action of management in punishing him for reducing the pay to next lower stage for a period of two years was justified.

The management has itself taken a lenient view in awarding punishment in the circumstances discussed above, hence the workman is not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

The quantum of penalty and the process to deter- mine and award the same by the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur to Shri D. S. Joshi, Dy, Hend Cashier and General Secre- tary, State Bank of India Workers Organisation, Nagpur for his alleged misconduct is just and reason- able.

The workman D. S, Joshi is not entitled to any other relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Date : 22-5-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001 S.O. 1817.—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, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in'the Industrial Dispute be - ween the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was: received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 54|2000 Stale Bank of Tndia

AND

Shri Ghanshyatn N. Sapatc Shri Dinesh N. Sbinde Shri Prakash S. Fulzele ..Workman

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Secfion (1) and Sub-Secion (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has. referred this dispute for rdj indication vide order No. L-12011|30|98-1R(B-I) dated 29-1-1999 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Naepu,- in terminating the services ef three workmen namely Shri Ghanshy^m N. Sapate w.e.f. 5-7-1997, Dinesh N. Shinde w.c.f. 5-7-1997 and F'rakash Shankar Pao Ful/ele w.e.f. 1-1-1997, arc legal and justified? Tf not, to what relief the- concerned workmen arc , entitled ?"

This referenee has been received from Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, re- garding the terminalion of services of Ghanshyam N. Sapate, Dinesh N. Shinde and Prakash Scnkar Rao Fulzele,

Tlie above workmen have submitted their state- ment of claim in the court of C.G.I.T. No.-IT at Mumbai on H-4-1999. It is mentioned in the claim that they are employed in the State Bank of India on temporary basis. Ghanshyam N, Sapate worked from 8-8-1994 tcr 5-7-1997, Dinesh Shinde worked from 1-6-1995 to 5-7-1997 and Prakash S. Fulzele worked from 1-7-1995 to 31-12-1996. Thus each of them has worked for more than two hundred and" forty days. Thev have been ille^aly terminated from service. Thev have claimed reinstatement with continuity in service and bacVwages.

The management of State Bank of Tndia contested the case that these workmen were enlaced purely on d'lily WEices to w.'rfprmrmimcsscneeni. Sometimes thev have worked for full dav and snmeilmes for pnrt of the dav. '

Thnre wns settlement between All Tndia Stnte Bank nf India Staff Federation mid the mnnrnremeni of the State Bank of India on 17-11-1987 nnd on that bisis the temnornrv emr-invpeslin^^prs vprp rallfj for i'nter- v;r>\y rirxi were niflffd iii pmiipl rir^nnrpri fnr nb'orhinc thfm ncflinst nfrmnnpn* vppinrips v'Hf'ri -iro<;r> bct- wt-ti 1QS7 to "OQT Th" Ti-in-.fs of t h "c" worVmrn [No. L-1201L|30|98-T.R (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer their ntftpoihtmenls in subsequent vacancies, The provisions' 6i s&Moh 25-F 61 IDA d(St are not' applicable in ihts caw.

The workmen are nof entitled to reinstatement They are also not entitled for any other relief.

I have heard the arguments of Shri Sahartha Budd'be the Union representative and the law officer of State Bank of India and have perused the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

On behalf of the workmen the affidavits of Dinesh N. Sbinde, Prakash S. Fulzele and Ghanshyam N. Sapate were filed. They were cross examined by the law officer of S.B.I.

Prajkash S. Fulzele stated in cross examination that | he was appointed¹ as waterman in Ttwari Branch of State Bank in 1995 by Branch Manager. He had not moved any application for appointment. He was called for interview on the basis of the settlement bet- ween the Union of State Bank employees and the management. He was removed from service as the waiting list expired on 31-3-1997,

Ghanshyam N. Sapafe also stated in cross exami- nation that he \v;is also appointed by branch manager of Itwari Branch on 3-8-1994. He was called for work when the work was available. He was working as waterman and temporary messenger. He was caflled for interview and his name was in waiting list.

Dinesh N. Sindhe also stated that he had not moved any application for appointment in the Bonk. He was not paid when he proceeded on leave. He does not know anything about the settlement beiween the all India S.B.I, stall federation and the management of S.B.I. His mime vns also in waiting list.

3703 Efclay conaomsdt; --' - r The specially leave petitions are dismissed on merits.

The above decision ot the Honourable Supreme Court in Madhav Rao petitioners versus State Bajjk of India and others decided on 16-7-1999 has be- come final.

In view of (he above findings' of the Honourable Supreme Court, these workmen Ghanshyam N, Sapate aad Dinesh N. Shinde and Prakash S. Fulzele are not entitled for reinstatment or any back wages. They also cannot claim any other relief.

The Law Officer of S.B.I. has argued that they were not employed by the officer cufiinulcnr , foi appointment. Their appointment was also illegal as the prescribed pro- cedure for appointment was not'followed. The work- men have no case for regularisati'on in view of ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in Ashwani Kum,ar and others versus State of Bihar and others 1997 (hbour-1, C-573).

In view of the facts and law discussed above the action cf the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur in terminating trie services of Ghanshyam N. Sapate with effect from 5-7-1997 Dinesb N. Shinde w.e.f. 5-7-1997-and Prakash S. Fulzele w.e.f. 1-1-97 is legal ?)nd justified.

ORDER

The action of the management of a State Belnk of Tndia, Najrpur. in termiuatinp the servics of Ghan- shyr.rn N.'Sapate with effect from 5-7-1^97, Dinesh N. Shinde w.^.f. 5-7-1997 npd Pralfash S. Fulzele w.e.f. 1-1-1997 is legal and justified.

These workmen are no; entitled to any other relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer rNo, L-.12012/21/20O1 -IR(B-I>] AJAY KUMAE.Desk Officer 3704 THfr GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28.2001 / SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART n—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT:

Shii B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CXHT : 180/2000 Employers in relation to ihe management of A.G.M., State Bank of India

AND

Their Workman Shri Kiran Shrikant Sathe. 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 Sec- tion, 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has refer- red this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-12012/21/2000/IR(B-I) dated 25/30-5-2000 on following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its Asstt. General Manager, Region TV, Zonal Office, Nappur in not promoting/appointing Shri Kiran Shrikant Sathe as a "Telex Operator" being a Seniormost Clerk/Typist in the branch is legal, proper and justified ? If not, so what relief and benefits the workman is entitled to?"

Shri Kiran Shrikant Sathe has submitted Statement of Claim that he was the seniormost Clerk/Typist in the branch of State Bank of India, Region TV, Zonal Office, Nagour. He was not promoted as Telex Opera- tor.

Shri Kiran S. Sathe has stated that he is working in the bank since 29-3-79. His name was recommended for appointment by Branch Manager, but his repre- sentation was not considered. He is therefore suffer- i/ir; financial loss.

In the Written Statement the bank has taken the plea that this is not an Industrial Dispute but it fa an Individual dispute, under section 2(k) of I.D. Act, 1947. The dispute ha^ been raised after 6 years by the union.

The Telex Machine was installed at Akolsi Treasury branch in April, 1994. For this post the senior most Clerk/Typist having minimum speed 50/60 w.p.m. was required in typing for appointment. The work- man appeared in the examination and failed. He pot only one mark out of thirty marks. Three other candi- dates had also appeared in the typing test with him on 18-11-94. Khri D. P. Chonde. one candidate got nineteen marks out of thirtv marks and was selected for this post. The workman has rtot therefore qualified the test for promotion.

The workman argued the case himself. The bank was represented by the advocate. On 14-5-2001 the workman Shri Kiran S. Sathe represented that be has submitted Written Statement and lie may be flowed to argue the case. The arguments of both the parties were heard on 16-5-2001.

I have considered the oral and documentary evi- dence produced by the parties in this case.

It is admitted to both the parties that Shri Kiran S. Sathe) is the employe© of State Bank of India, It, is also admitted to both the parties that typing lest for Hie post of Telex Operator was conducted by the bank. The paper set for English typing is Exhibit M-4. On 18-11-94 Shri Kiran S. Sathe had appeared in the test for typing. His test paper is Exhibit M-6. He got only one mark out of thirty marks. Another candi- date Saul S. G. Thatte also got one mark out of thirty marks. Miss Arti Abhyankar got zero mark, only Shri D. P. Chopde got nineteen marks out of thirty marks. It is. therefore clear that the workman got only one mark out of thirty marks and therefore he was not found fit for appointmen: for the post ot Telex Operator.

Circular letter No. PER/KCL/61 dated 12-2-94 Exhibit W-9 has been submitted by workman. This letter shows that for the appointment of Telex Opera- tor, the candidate must have minimum speed 50/60 W.P.M. in typ'ng and seniority in the branch. This practice wil] continue as per the understanding witli the Staff Federation. It is therefore clear that the workman was not having this required speed in Eng- lish typing on 18-11-94 and he got only one mark out of thirty marks due to which he was not consider- ed fit for promotion.

The workman has argued that when lie joined ser- vice he was having speed 50/60 W.P.M. but he was working on different counters and so at the time of examination he was not doing the typing work due to which he could not qualify the typing test. He argued that he should be promoted on the basis of seniority.

This argument of the Workman is absolutely base- less. When he has failed in the typing test and has got only oue mark out of thirty marks, the denial for his promotion by management was justified.

The management has also submitted letter No. AGS/NAG/2000/540 dated 24-11-2000 of S. T. Gulgulwar, Asstt. General Secretary of the emplo- yees union. In this letter the union has represented to the Deputy General Manager. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur that the appointment of Teles Operator should be made bv conducting aptitude test .(Typing fr-sO from eligible candidates and the appointment of one candidate of Amravati Camp branch is violative of this policy.

In the above circumstances the union of the work- man should have not raised this distmte. The Central Gbvernrnrnt Industrial Tribunals have been consti- tuted to decide the dispute of the employees of thy Public Sector Undertakings and the management in; which interest of a substantial or an appreciable num- ,ber of workmen of the establishment is involved. The individual matters or disputes should not be referred to the Tribunal under section 2fk> and 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

The management has also cited ruline the Bombay Unifip rf Journalists and others; Vs, The "Hindu", - ,•;", ; .->•_," Bombay and another, 1961 II L IJ pege 436 in sup- port of their argument that thi3 is not an Industrial Dispute but it is an Individual Dispute.

Considering the above facts and documents the Action of the management of State Bank of India through its Asstt. General Manager, Region IV, Zonal Office, Nagpur in not promoting/appointing Shri Kiran Shrikant Sathc as a "Telex Operator" is legal, proper md justified.

ORDER

The action of tbe management of State "Bank of India 'hvough irs A^stt. General Manager, Region IV, Zonal Office, Nagpur in not promoting/appointing $hri Kiran Shrikant Sathc as a 'Telex Operator" in the branch is legal, proper and justified.

He is not entitled to any other relief.

Daied: 17-5-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, tbe 6th July, 2001 S.O. 1819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in tbe Annexure in trre Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workman, which [was received by the Central .Government on 5-7-2001.

[No. L-12012/44/96-lR(B-I>] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxcna, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CG1T l'67|200O.

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

AND

Their Workman Shri PanduraiiR Nagaiao Moha- dika.

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 Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute fo- adjudication vide Order No. L-12O12/44/96/IR(B-I) dated 25-4-97 on following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. represented through the Manager, Gandhi Grain Market Branch, Near Telephone Ext. Lakadganj, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Pandurang Nagorao Mohadikar, an Armed Guard w.e.f. 29-6-94 is valid, just and proper ? If not, to what relief the workman is js entitled?"

Pandurang Nagorao Mohadikar has submitted statement of claim that he is an Ex. serviceman. On 18-12-90 he was employed as Armed Security Guard and worked up to 28-6-94 in the Bank of Rajasthan near Itwari Telephone Exchange, Nagpur. He used to go with the Cashier etc. to the Reserve Bank of India for taking Cash etc. He was paid Rs. 1100 per month In February 1994 Central Office of Bank of Rajas- than Ltd. called applications for appointment of Armed Guards. He applied for the said post but be has not heard anything about the fate of his applica- tion moved in February, 1994.

On 29-^-94 he vas informed that his services are not required.

The management of Bank of Rajasthan submitted written statement that the. bank has its Registered Office at Clock Tower, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and Central Office at Jaipur. The officials arc selected for appointment at Jaipur Office. The workman was appointed temporarily at contract rate of Rs. 1100 per month. He was not qualified for the post of Armed Guard. His service was therefore discontinued. He was not a regular employee of the Bank. He is there- fore not entitled to any relief.

The rejoinder was filed by the workman Shri Pandurang Nagorao Mohadikar on 25-8-99 at CGIT Court No. 1 at Mumbai. The case was received by transfer in this court in June, 2000 and the notices were sent to the parties for nppeirance on 17-8-2000.

The workman appeared on 17-8-2000, but he did jot submit any Affidavit or document in support cf his claim. On 4-10-20OO Shri S. M. Kah, Advocate filed Vakalatnama for the Workman. Another Advo- cate Sh. S. D. Shukla moved an application for filing affidavit of the workman on 12-12-2000. Both the parties were directed to submit their documents and affidavits if any on 31-1-2001. After that on 29-3-2C01 both the parties absented and no> evidence was pro- duced. Aj^ain the case was adjourned to 11-4-2001 and 14-5-2001. Both the parties absented and no , evidence was produced.

330&--VEHB.a*2ffm< 0F-4MWA-: JULY^2",^6ftl/^RAVANA-Via23 ^IU*^ l l i ^ c. M)J In view of the above facts it is clear that from l!7-8-2O0Q to 14-5,-.2001 the workman was given a number of opportunities to lead evidence, but the workman himself avoided to produce evidence in sup- port of his claim.

The letter No. FER(RQBY|5641|91 dated 17-9-91 is on the file which shows that the appoint- ment of Shri Pandurang Nagorao Mohadikar was made as Armed Guard on contract basis. The state- ment of claim of the workman also showls that he was not appointed by the management of Hank of Rajasthan on the regular post. He had moved an application for his appointment in February, 1994, but his application for pemmnem appointment was not considered.

From the admission of the workman in his state- ment of claim that he was not eppointcd as Armed Guard in the Service of Bank of Raiasfhsm nn to February, 1994 and he was not appointed according to the prescribed procedure clearly shows that he was not the employee of the bank.

In the above circumstances his service was dis- continued from 29-6-94. He was not terminated from service by the Bank and he is not entitled for rein- statement;.

ORDER

The action of the management tf the Bank of Rajasithan Ltd. represented through Manager Gandhi Grain Mafrket Branch, Near Telephone Ext., Lakad- ganj, Nagpur in discontinuing the service?; of Shri Pandurang Nagorao Mohadikar, an Armed Guard, w.e.f, 29-6-94 is valid, just and proper, Wovkniom is not entitled to any other relief.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dated: 15-5-2001.

B. G. SAXENA. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001 S.O. 1820.—In puisuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act,, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Governmont I^lustrial Tribunal]Labour Court, Bangalore as showu in the Annejiure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank or India" and their work- man, whicli was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.

[No. L^12012/190/91-IR(B-ni)/(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE TTfE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN'., Ill MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 28th June, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Co., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court. Bangalore,

C. R. No. 59/91

I PARTY

Shri Balachandra Joshi, C/o The General Secretary. Dhanvard District Bank, Employees Association Corporation Building, Hubli-580020.

II PARTY

The Zonal Manager, State Bank o" India, Circlc-J, Laminpton H.oaJ. Hubli-580020.

AWARD

J. The Central Govcm.neiu by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/ 190/91/IR-B(III) dated 18-9-91 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri Balachandra H. Joshi was a work- man of the State Bank of India ? If so, whe- ther t Le iiction of the State Bank of India was justified in terminating the services of Shri Balachandra H. Joshi, Janatha Deposit Collector w.e.f. 19-1-1991 ? If not, to what " relief Shri Joshi is entitled to?"

2. The First Party was working as Janatha Deposit Collector with the Second Party from 19-1-1976, He was terminated w.e.f. 19-1-1991 and therefore indus- trial dispute is raised.

3. First Party appeared- and filed Claim Statement, 4. It is the case of the first party that he joined the services of the second party w.e.f. 19-1-1976 as Janalha Deposit Collector and he was working sin- cerely and* •h'one5lly. He was paid a remuneration of ,"3'/"7*' JRs. '3,842 for the month of December, 1990, The management illegally terminated the services of the first party with a letter dated 19th January, 1991. No notice was given. No enquiry was hold. The termina- tion js illegal. It is said that the action of the manage- ment is oqly to sec that the benefits of the Award of the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad arc not given to i!ie first parly. The first party has prayed to allow the reference. It is the further case of the first party that the allegations against workman are not COJtect and the order of termination is illegal. First party for these reasons has prayed to allow the refer- ence,

5. Second parly management filed Counter. The case of the second party in brief is as follows :

6. The main contention of the Second Party is that the first parly was not a workman as defined in Sec- tion 2(s) of ihe Industrial Disputes Act. The first party executed dn. agreement and sorted working with the management as Agent and there is no master and servant relationship. The question of issue of notices and holding enquiry does not arise at all.

7. The first parly was not subject to the normal working hours of the bank. He was not paid any salary or wages. Only commission was paid. The work of the first party is not comparable with the work of regular employees. The average monthly income is not correctly shown by the first party. The question of issuing charge sheet and conducting an enquiry does not, arise. Second pa_rty for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. In the instant case the first party remained ab- sent. Vakalalh was filed for the second party and I have heard counsels

9. It is seen from the records that this is a very old case. It is the case of 1991 and we are in the middle of 200J. Parties have not taken any interest for the progress of the case. Many adjournments were given but no evidence was adduced. In view of the judgement of rhc Apex Court "Indian Bank Associa- tion Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others" I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served m adjourning this matter and therefore I closed the evi- dence and heard ihe counsels.

10. I have read the above decision of the Apex Court carefully anJ as per the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the first party is workman and the. contention of ihe management that the first party is not a workman will not hold good.

11. It is seen from the counter that mainly the management has contested this case on the ground that the first party is not a workman. Now in view of the judgement of the Hon'blc Apex Court the stand of the management goes.

12. I felt, it is not necessary lo give adjournment as per the wish of the parties, so I closed this case. Further in view of the decision Of the Hon'ble Apex Court, now it is clear that, the first party is a workman.

13. Once it is held that the first party is a workman, the termination of fust party by the management with- out any notice, enquiry and paving any compensation as required under the Indusl, iai Dilute Act is illegal.

Therefore, I am of the opinion" that this reference has to be allowed and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed. The order at termination is set aside and the management is directed to take the first party as ngeni, and act in accordance with the principles held in the above decision of the Apex Court. Accordingly reference is disposed off.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 28th June, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001

S.O. 182L-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 oi 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen^ tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur a& shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railway and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.

[No. L-41012/229/99~IR(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri E. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT : 12/2000

Employers in relation to the management of D.R.M., South Eastern Railway.

AND

Their Workman Shri Rajesh Kumar S. Shrivatri.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Demi by exercising the powers conferred by clause, (d) of Sub-section (]) 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- 41012/229/99/IR(B-I) dated. 23/24-12-1999 on following schedule :

TlW-V^iWqjBAZBlTB' OF mUIX'.JVLY2Sy2Ml/Sm'yi®iA$, W23- " " ^ ^ . ".tifriftB,,j':

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Divi- sional Railway Manager, S.E. Riy., Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar SunderlaJ Shrivatii, Ex. Sub-Partce/ Casual Labour R /o S.W.M., Station Sale- kasa, District Bhandara (M.S.) w.e.f. 9th November, 1992 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is en- titled and from what date ?"

Rajesh Kumar SuntJerlal Shrivatri has submitted Statement of Claim that his father was working as a Switchman in Salekasa Railway Station in operating department of S.E. Railway, Nagpur Division. He had applied fcr appointment as Casual Labour/Subs- titute Workman on 22-12-1989. He worked £or 184 days in Engineering Department under Permanent Way Inspector, Saoner. Again at Dongargarh he work- ed for 9 days as temporary Waterman. He also work- ed for 9 days in commercial department. On 18-11-91 screening committee prepared a list in which his name was mentioned at Si. No. 24 as Rajesh Trivedi. He was not placed in the selection panel and his services were terminated on 09-11-92. The screening commit- tee had mentioned that he had produced a false Casual Labour Certificate for his working in Engineer- ing Department. He prayed for reinstatement.

Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Divl. Railway Manager ( P ), S.E. Rly., Nagpur submitted Written Statement on 29-05-2000. It was contended that the workman was engaged as a Substitute Porter. His initial engagement was bas^d on fake casual service card. Assistant Personnel Officer Shri A. Vinayagain had conducted inquiry about the service card. His case was not considered for screening on receipt of inquiry report from Inquiry Officer and he was ter- minated from 09-11-92. He was paid retrenchment compensation and one months wages.

J. S. Sukhdeve submitted affidavit for management on 19-06-2000. Workman also submitted his affidavit on 16-08-2000. Both the parties closed the evidence. The counsel for both the parties argued the case orally on 14-05-2001. Ths counsel for both the parties had also submitted thcii Written Arguments. The docu- ments have also bt-cn filed by the parties. I ba\e con- sidered the evidence on record and the arguments of the advocates of both the parties.

It is admitted to the workman that he was working as Casual Labour or some times as a Substitute work- man. He was not appointed for a regular job. Work- man says that he worked Lor 184 days from 24-6-84 to 23-9-85. He again worked for 9 days as Waterman from 07-04-89 to 15-04-89. These documents are Exhibits VV-2 and W-5. Document No. W-8 shows that at Serial No 24 the name mentioned was Rajesh Trivedi. The name of this workman is Rajesh Kumar Sunder! al Shrivatri. Neither he nor his father name bear the caste Trivedi.

Another document W-l submitted by the workman Rajesh Kumar S. Shrivatri shows that he had moved the application that he is the son of -\ Railway Emp- loyee serving a.r a Switchman at Salekasa, who is fre- quently falling ill due to often stomach pain and there- by causing a great difficulty in managing the day to day expenses of home. He requested that he may be provided work on Casual basis.

This application contains order dated 22-12-89. It is strange as to how he obtained certificate for work- ing from 244)6-84 to 23-09-85. This certificate is dated 19-05-89. The screening committee prepared a list on 25-6-92 but this workman was not appointed by the Divisional Personal Officer, S.E. Rly., Nagpur. The order dated 09-11-92 (VV-11) shows that the De- partment had taken a lenient view and in. place of terminating him, considered his case for retrenchment. The workman Rajesh Kumar S. Shrivatri was not a regular employee of the S.E. Railway. However he. was given retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1161.00 and was further paid one month's wages Rs. 1416.00. On 30-03-93 Rujesh Kumar was not considered fit for reinstatement in service by the department and his application for reinstatement on humanitarian ground was also rejected. Il is therefore clear that the workman was rctrenr:!ied from service considering his family conditions. The department through Chief Per- sonal Officer, S.E. Railway had informed the workman that he was not found fit for reinstatement in service. Thus, trie action of the management was justified in retrenching him from the service from 09-11-92.

In the above circumstances no further relief can be granted to the workman when the management has already taken a lenient view in this case.

ORDER

The action of the management of Divisional Rail- way Manager, S E. Rly. Nagpur in retrenching Rajesh" Kumar Sunderlal Shrivatri from liervice w.e.f. 09-11-92 is legal und justified.

The workman is not entitled to any other relief.

The reference is answered accordingly,

dated : 16-5-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001 S.O. 1822.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal'Labour Court, B a n d o re as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Hyderabad flnd theii workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.

(No. L-12012|247|90-IR(B-III)|(B.I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN\ IIJ MAIN, HI CROSS. II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 25th June, 2001

^RESENT :

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNI. B.COM. LLB, Presiding Officer CGIT-CUM-LABQUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R. No. 7191

I PARTY :

Shri H. Indi. Ex. Cas-hier, Slnfc Bank of Hyderabad. Tavergera Branch, Raichur *">!••?.. (Advocate-N. iNarasimha Swamy).

II PARTY :

Regional Manager, And Dr;.' " , \ ry Authority, State Bank of Hyderabad. Regional Office II. Rnichur, (AcJvocn^,.- : K. Kasturi).

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 de- pute vide order No. L-12012l247!90-TR (B-I1T) dnted 12-2-1091 for adjudication on the follnvin? schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the nction of the management oi StT-e Bank of Hydirntori in r\h- 'rn^inT thf* services of Shri R S. Tr,di. Fx. Head Cashier wi'th effect

3709 from 9-1-1988 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled t o ?"

2. The first party workman was working with the Second Party since 1973. Charge sheet was given to him and enquiry was con- ducted against him for the misconduct. On the basis of enquiry report first party was dis- missed and therefore this dispute was raised.

3. First party appeared and filed detailed claim statement.

4. He ha?, narrated the incident and s:>ys that charge sheet was given to him. The main contention is that at the relevant time lie was taking treatment from Psychatrist and he was not keeping perfect health and he was getting attacks. He was under mental agony. He says that excess payment was made on 14-2-1986 and there was shortage of Rs. 36.000. The shortage was defected in the course of that day only and on 15-2-86 under compulsion gave a confes:.ion statement. He requested the management to lodge a police complaint so that investiga- tion can be done but it was not lodged. The first party has not done anything intentionally to cause any loss to the bank7 His further case is that on 17-2-1986 itself the next work- ing day he has deposited the entire amount and he has not committed any misappropria- tion. With all this, enquiry was ordered nnd the order of dismissal i> passed which is too harsh and not proportionate. F'r.t pr-rty b?s prayed to pas? award in Irs favour.

' 5. The case of the second party is that the dismissal order is correct and ' (here is no iHcara\vi,

6. Regarding enquiry detailed reply is given and is said that the cnouny N nroner end fair.

'

7. It is seen from the records that on haMf nf the nanigernent MW1 was examined. a*d worhnan get examined himself as WWt n iQ T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N B J A y: J U LY 2& 2 p Q l/ S J ^ A V A ^ A. 6, 1 9 23

X. This court by its order dated 2nd Sep- tember 1999 has passed ordeds holding that the DE is fair and proper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. I have heard detailed arguments. Second party has also filed written arguments along with citations. I have read written arguments and gone through the citat;ons relied by the sccoud party.

9. In the instant case true it is the domestic enquiry is held as fair and proper but Die learned counsel for the first party vehement- ly argued ihat in fact there is no misappro- priation and according the charge ako the imnaqement h,"s said that there is shortage ami the hhorragc i^ paid by the first party r.n the next working day i.e. 17-2-19?6 and the first parly during that period was not keop- ini> <:cod health r

10. Ajwnst this it was argued by the learn- ed counsel for th? sccon:! parry that ihe first party has misappropriated Rs. 36,000 and the punishment awarded is proper, i Inve c-jr^idered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for ?he parties. I have read all the decisions ci^ed carefully, Thj decisions are Wiit Petition Nos :

(1 ) 361 3111993, dated 9th February 1994.

(2) 8.104! 1984 dated 5th April 1991.

(3) 2594! 1994. dated 15th November 1994.

(4) 5224-5225'2000 dated 21st Scp tember 2000.

(5) HI8|]998, dated 26th September 2000.

1 I. Adm't'-dly the facts of the present rase are quite different from the facts of the above decisions rcl^d by the learned counsel for f'v Second Party. TVre is no clear evidence n^-nst tlr, first prrty that he has misanpro- prjat^f n sum if Rs. 36.000, Admittedly ?io

[ F A RT • I I - r S st 3 G t y]

police complaint was filed for this misappro- priation. From the records it is seen that the first party has given confession letter. Infact the first party requested to give police com- plaint to true the truth and culprit, but the management without doing that took confes- sion and issued charge sheet. Thi^ is a circumstance which shows that by oversight payment was made and there was shortage and first party-is innocent.

12. I have read the evidence of first party carefully and I had an occasion to sec hhn in the witness box. To my mind the evidence of first party is very natural and it is also established from the records that during the relevant period first party was not in perfect health and he was in depressed mood.

13. Apart from this the man?cement has not filed the lose cheque of Rs. 4700. Tak- ing all this into consideration I am of fhc opinion that the first, party is innocent and has not committed ony misappropvlit:on. It is alro a fact that the first pf>.rty has deposited Rs 36.000 on the next working day would £c tii show thct the %st party h?r/ no inten- tion to misappropriate the amount of the bnnk and it was a bonafide mistake. Tt is ako seen that from the bejjinninc it is s^id that there was shortage.

14. Taking all tills into consideration I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh ?vd end of justice will meet if the dismissal order is set aside and backwa(Tes are refused. Accordingly T proceed to pncs ths following order :

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. The order of dismissal is set aside with continuity of service and the second party is directed to reinstate the firft party from the date of dis- missal. Tn the eiven crrcirnstnT'.c>'s b\?k- wages arc refused.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her correct- ed nnd signed by me on 25th June 2001).

V. N.. KULKARNT, Prcsid;ng Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 201)1

S.O. 1823.—-In pursuances of Section 17 of the Indu&LiiwI Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government • hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and tlicii Workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-12O12|222|88|DI1(A)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESTDTNG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRJBUNAT- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 91 of 1988

Shri R. S. Bali, Ball Street, Mohalla Ravidaspura, Nawanshehar, Doaba, Jullundur (Pb.)

. . .. Petitioner

Versus

Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, I/E

New Delhi,

, . , . Respondent REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman—Shri B. S, Sa'ni,

For the manapement—Shri H. C. Gupta.

AWARD (Passed on ^Oth of May, 20011 TV Central Government. Ministry of Labour' vide Notification No. L-12012/X?,2/8R-D. 2(A) dated 4th November. 198R Vw referred the foliowinc dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether tbe act'f^n of tbf TDSWenicnt nf Indinn BanV ir dismissing from °ervic<" Shr! R. S. Bali is iustifi'-d ? If not, to whn! relief is the wcrkmin entitled?" 2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he was employed as Clerk in Roop Nogar Branch of the Indian Bank. While he was working there, he committed certain acts of misconduct during the month of July and August 1983. Charge sheet was Riven to him on 21-6-1984 by the discipli- nary authority and enquiry was conducted atrainst him, Conse- quently he was dismissed from service on 7-5-1986, He fil<*d an appeal to the General Manager of the Bank which 'vn"i also dismissed on 12-8-1986.

mi on surmises and conjunctures. The punishment inflicted upon was also harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the dismissal of the workman from service is illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice, which should be set aside and the workman be declared to be in continuous service of the management with all consequential benefits.

4. The manacemient has filed its written statement alleging that the charges levelled against the- workman, in charge sheet wijrc specific a\\i unnmbigious. The enquiry was uTcLded following the puuciple of natural justice. The statement of the witnesses were recorded in presence of the '.vciknian. The witnesses were croas-examineu on behalf of the workman. Relevant and admissible evidence was consi- dered by the enquiry officer, while givina hig findings re- lating to alleged misconduct. The charges were proved against him Before imposing the punishment, the rhow cause notices was given to the workman and nftcr considering the reply of the workman, the punishment of dismissal was Imposed upon him. The order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed by the appellate authority considering all the facts of the case. Thus no irregularity has been committed in conducting the enquiry apmnst the workmin \\v; findings given by the enquiry iifficcr is based on legal evidence. Therefore, the claim vl the workman is liable to be dis- missed with special cost.

5. The facts stated in paragraphs 1 to 5 in claim state- ment arc not disputed by the management. The workman has submitted his affidavit Ex. Wl and charge sheet Ex, W2 and his explanation Ex. W3. The management has filed affi- davit of Shri O. Suresh Ex. Ml. and affidavit of Chief Manager N. S, Khamesra which is Ex. M2. The manage- ment has also produced the enquiry file also. ,

6. The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the material witness namelv Shri Tnder Pal and Smt, Rd| Kumari wers rot examined by fhe Rank. Handwriting expert was also not examined, Tn absence of these witnesses the charge* levelled against him were not nroved by the management. The enqulrv officer has recorded his finding in mechanical man- ner. The disciplinarv authority while awarding the punish- ment of dismissal did not consider the past good conduct of the deponent. Personal hearing bv the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority¹ was not aiven to him, before passing the order of th; dismissal,

1. The witnesses of the management have deposed that- the enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner. The full opportunity was given to the workman for his defence. Th? findings of the enquiry officer is based upon admissible and relevant evidence. All charges have been proved fullv acatnst the workman. He hro misappropriated the money of Iir- bank incf the customer fraudulently. The examination of Smt. Rai Kumari Shri Tnder Psl and handwriting expert was not necessary to prove the charges. Personal hearing was also given bv tbe enquiry officer. The statement of Shri N S. Kharrtesra is b wd u^nn the record of case. He ha? admitted. In his cross-examination thnt he has no personal knowledge about the MSP. Another witness of the Bank Shri G. Sures-h h:is nflinittcd that tbe msnncemcnt did not produced any hand- writing expTt di'rin? the course of enauirv b^cnPSp the Tmnprror iiiri other ofRfial of the Hank wpri- conversant with Ihe hanrlwritrne Pnd sVrwliires of tbe workman.

2204 GI/2001—9 3712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II-^SEC. 3(U)] by him in proper manner. It can not be said that the findings arrived at b^ him is perverse and without any evidence. Con- iequently it is held that the departmental enquiry held by the management was conducted properly 4nd fairly.

14, Taking into consideration, all the facts and evidence pjsced before this Tribunal, it has been found that the de- partmental enquiry was conducted by the management against the workmnn in fair and proper manner. Therefore, tlie action of the management in dismissing the workman is justified. The icfcrence is answered by holding that the action of the management of Indian Bank in dismissing Shri R. S. Bali from scivice is justified. He is not entitled to get any relief from the management. Appropriate Govt. be informed,

i*. The charge sheet given to the workman has been exhi- bited as Ex. W2 in which the full details of the alleged mis- conduct have been given fully. Reply to the charge sheet Ex. W3 vi'as filed by the workman shows that the alienations made in the charge sheet were understood by the workman. Therefore, it can not be said that he was misled in his defence.

P. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh. 30-5-2001.

10, The first charge relates to the mis-appropriation of Rs. 3000 by the workman on 23-8-1983. On that day Smt. Rtii Kuroarl came to the branch to draw an amount of Rs. 1400 from her S.B. Account No, 3530. This amount wa" paid to her but in ledger Rs. 4400 were debited by making alteration in the figure of Rs. 1400 by the workman.

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1824.—In pursuanc of Section 17 of the Industrial The surplus amount of Rs. 3000 was found in the counter drawer of the workman bv Shri lnder Pal while he was replacing the rubber slamp of the cash department. The Sttcond charge is that a customer Shri A. L. Mandal depo- eittd a suin of Rs. 50 in his saving bank account No. 2249 but that amount was not credited to his account bv the work- man. Another customer Mr. Pandoy deposited a sum of Ri, 150 in his savins account No. 1199 but that amount was also pot credited in his account by the workman. These allegations are very serious and the workman has committed the rijijapfjropriation of balk money and customer? money. Takjnj? info consideration the gravity of the misconduct the punishfllent.Qf the dismissal is not harsh and disproportionate. tn ptfrauraph 7(n) it has been aliced bv the workmnn that the disciplinary authority ahd appallate authority did not takeg ipto account the Brevity of the misconduct and the previous record of the workman and other mitigatinR circum- stances before passing the punishment order. But in this case, the record of previous conduct of the workman and facts relatine to the cxtenuatine circumstances have not been placed bqforc this Tribunal for consideration. Therefore, the punj&hment of dismissal can not be held to be harsh and disproportionate.

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and¹ their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

fNo. L-17011|107|90-IR(B-II)| AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 2711991

Tn the matter of dispute :

BETWEEN

11. Go behalf of the workman, tbe ense of Vijay Singh Yadav Vs. State of Haryana und others 0972 L.A.B. IC 713) has been cited in which it has been held by Hon'hle High Court Of Pb. and Haryana that order of dismissal of an employee must be supported with reasons, This case law does not support the case of the workman as it has been disCUsSed in the preceediriE paraRraph of this Award, The anoffter, case law "Hans Raj Gupta Vs. State of. Punjab j'l 992 (1) Sfefvice Law Reporter 146)" has been referred by the Workman >n which it has been held by Hon'ble Punjab and HSrvana ftfjh Court that non-supply of copy of preliminary etfijtlify tepott may cause prejudice to the workman if the fltfaings of the enquiry officer based upon it, but in the case iinder consideration the findincs of tbe enquiry officer is not bfl*^ pfi the preliminary enquiry. But it is basej imon the Evidence adduced during the course of regular enquiry,

9. The- All India National Life Insurance Employees Federation, C-27 Jeevan Kanchan, Off Veera Dcsai Road. Andhori (West) Bombay-400058.

10. The Akhil Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Chaturtha Srcni. Karamcliari Sungh, 12 Chowrannhee Square, Calcutta-700069.

j|l, Shri Alok Kumar Bose C|o Sri N. C. Bose, Vinoba Nagar, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) (L. 17012|180|9O-|R- BUU,

12. Shri Prabhakar Rao N., S]o Sri Manjunatha Rao, "SD" Scctha Sadan, Nittur P.O., Udupi-576103. (L. 17O12|176|9O-1R-B(1I).

J3. Shri Raj Kumar, C|o Sh. Santosh Bhatnagar, 18- Arjunpuri, Behind Kamal Kirana Store, Imliwaja Fatak, Jaipur. (L. 17012|123|90-IR.B(II).

14. Shri Pradecp Kumar, C|o Santosh Bhatnagar, 18 Arjunpuri Behind Kamal Kirana Store, Imliwala Fatak, Jaipur (L-17012|124|90. IR.B(II).

15. Shri Mohd. Raffik, Co Santosh Bhatnagar, 18 Arjun- puri, Behind Kamal Kirana Store, Imliwala Fatak, Jaipur. (L. 17012|125|90-IR.B(H).

16. Shri Hari Singh, Clo Santosh Bhatnagar, 18 Arjun- puri, Behind Kamal Kirana Store, Imliwala Fatak, Jaipur. (L. 17O12|126]9O-IR.B(1I).

\1. Shri Jagbir Singh, Clo Santosh Bhatnagar, 18 Arjun- puri, Behind Kamal Kirana Store, Imliala Fntak, Jaipur. (I. 17012|127|90-IR.B(tI).

W. Shri Jagdish Nargin, C|o Shri Santosh Bhatnajjar, 18 Arjunpuri, Behind Kamal Kirana Stqre, Imliwala Fatak, Jaipur. (L. 170121132|90-T.R.TB(Tf).

-3" 33 Shri Dhiian Ghandfa BbUH, Clo SH Mantfurftn fitiurl. At and P.O. Chandankyari, Dhttflbad. (L. 17012|154[ 90-IR.B(ll).

34, Smt. MuihUmal Varghese Puthenparambil House, Payyapady, P.O. Via Puthupally, Kottayam. (L. 17012|159|9O-IR.B(II).

35 Kr. Rekha Karunakaran, Kartjna Niwas, Celloor, P.O. Kottayam-5860X)3. (L. 17O12|16O|9O-IJtfl(I0.

36. Smt. G Sobha, Kumbalathu Chirayrl Kllirour PO., Kottayam Distt. (L. 17O12|161|9O-IR,B(1I).

37. Kr. Laila C. John, Chirapurath House, Manarcadu P.O. Kpttay Ristt. (L, 17012|162|90-IR,B(I[). 3R- Km. Thulasi Devi K.H. Thulasi Mandiram. Neendoor P.O., Kottayam Distt. (L, 170l2|163|90-IR,B(H).

39. Km. Indu P. Charuthottaihil, Aymanam P.O.. Kotta- yam Distt. (L. 17O12|lG4|90-IRfi(ii).

40. Km. C.R. Jayalatha, Kiztrnkka Variani. Ettiinlfln-oor P.O.. Kottayam. (L. 17O12|165|9O-Ift. B(IT).

41. Km. Latha Kumari M.N., Mecheril House, Ayman- arn, p.O. Kottyam, Distt. (L. 17012[166|{MM.R. B(TI).

42. Km. S. K, Sudha Sudha Mandiram, Edavattom P.O.. Thalavolaparambil, Distt. Kottayam (L. 17012|167| 90-IR.B(TI).

43. Km. Ajaya Kumari K., Kalluveettikal House. Nzha- voor. P.O. Kottayam. (L. 170121168I90-1R. B(II).

44. Smt. Jolly Jarob, Pallathara Cheruvelil, Kuricby PO., Sachirolhamapuram, Kottayam. (L. I7OI2|181190- IR.B(H).

• Versus

19. Shri Maroj Kr. Ram, C|o Chhabila Ram. DGMS Office, P.O. and Distt. Dhanbad (Bihar) (L.17012I U4|9O-IR(B(IT).

20. Shri Tarun Kumar N-Thanial, Police Line. Hirapur. Hari Pura, P.O. and Disttt. Dhanbad. (L. 17012) 141[9O-1R-B(I1).

21. Shri Sanand Kumar C|o Shri Rajendra Nalh Prasad (Cashier) Accounts Section 1, DOMS, Office. P.O. and Distt. Dhanbad. (L. 17012|142[90-IR.B(II).

$2. Shri Dalip Kumar Prasad, Ex. Typist, Clo Shri R.N. Prasad, Account Section. DGMS. Dhanbad. (.L. 170I2|143|90-IR.B(II).

23. Shri Kailashwar Kisku, C|o Ruplal Ki&ku, Vil . P.O. Damodarpur. Dhanbad. (L. 17012[144|90-IR (B(II).

24. Shri Haradhan Rajwar, Asstt|Typist, C|o Shri Hangle Rajwar, Village Lobarikuli, P.O. Suraidhala, Dhan- bad. (L. 17012|145|9,0-IR.B(l?n.

25. ghri Ajay Kumar C|o Shri G. Paswan, Qr. No. III| 67, Jagjiwan Nagar Dhanbad. (L. 17O12|146]90TR. B(II).

26. Shrj Sudhir Kurnar Murrnu, Vill. Chaldhoba, P.O. Pradhan Khanta, Vir Mugma, Distt. Dhanbad. (X. 17O12|I47|TR. B(IT).

27. Shri Homanta Khamrai, Vill. Barumuri, p,o. BaliA Chapra, Via Mugmti, Dhanbad. (L. 170121148190- 1R. B(U).

2". Shri Ganesh Prasad Rajak, C|o Shri Harilal Rajak, at Rangaland Qr. NO. 51, (fyflN O.H. P.O. Dhan- bad, Distt. Dhanbad. fL. 170121149I90-1R B(II).

29. Shri Rasik Lai Bouri, Clo Sri Manpuran B"uri, At and P.O: Chandankyari Dh"nbad. (L. 17012|150|90- IR. fB(n).

30 Shri Hango Oraon, Coal field Timber Chiragorn, P.O. and Distt, Dhanbad. (L. 17012U51I90-1R, Ti(U).

31 Shri Niranjan Das, At and P.O. Chandankiyari, Distt.

Dhanbad' (L. 17O12|152|9O-TR.(B(TI).

32 Shri Opi Prakash Dad, Clo Sri H.N, Ram (Tvpist, Golakdin Open Cast P-rotcct, P.O. Jharia, Distt. Dhanbad-828111, (L, 170l2|l53[90-TR.B(n) The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life insurance Corporation of Tndia, 2 K.G. Marg, Nw Delhi.

2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Magerpara, Bilaspur (MP).

3. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Krishna Post Box No. 8, Udupj-576.

4. The Regional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Jeevan Prakash, Bhawani Singh Marg, JaijiuT.

5. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jamshedpur, Distt. Singhbhuin (Bihar).

6. The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life lniU"nce Corpora- tion of India Divisional Office, Jeeyan Prakash, P.O. No. 1001 Patom, Trivandrum-695004.

APPEARANCES :

Shri S.S. Jain for Life Insurance Employees Association. Shri S.S. Jain for Jolly Jacob and Ors. Kottayam.

Shri B.K. P"l for all India Life Insurance Employee?

Association.

Shri lnderjcct Singh for AH India Insurance Employees Association and Western Zone Insurance EmpibVeea Association.

Shri M.P. Patvnrdan fof National Organisation of In- surance Workers.

Shri Sukumni- Mukherjee for Akhil Bhartiya Jeevnn Bima Nigam Chaturth Shreni Karamchari Sartgh.

Shri R.C. Sachan for Al] Tndia Life Insurant Employ- ees Federation.

Shri R. SinBaraveIan for $. Prabhavati and others. Shri P. Mahudevan for Tamil Nadu Terminated full' time temporary LIC Employees Association with Shri R. Mohan.

Shri K.V. Appa Rao for All India National Life Insu- rance Employees Associatron|Fedemtion.

I F A UT H l — S c c. 3 ( i t )J

i f l t ^ f ' ? $ b t f , ':G A 2 & T tE OP I r " t > tA ! J U LY ^ S, 2 0 0 1 / S R A V A NA 6, 1 9 23 • ' *•

" Shri S.C. Shukla for Central Zone National Life Insu- rance Employees Association.

Shri S. K. Taneja A|R for the Management with Shri Ramchandran, V.K. Rai and Siin K.K. Sharrna.

4. In the case of Tamil Nadu terminated full time tem- porary LiC employees Association Corporation nas not tiled its written statement

AWARD,

Finding lhat an industrial dispute existed between the management of the Liic lnsuiaiii.ee Corporation of India, thereinafter referred to as Corporation) and their workmen regarding the absorption in regular and permanent service of the employees or the Corporation belonging to category 3 and 4 and working as lemporury|badli and part time. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-17O11|IO7|9O-1R-B(IJ) dated 4-3-91 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal under section 10(1) (d) and 2-A of Ihc Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for its adjudication on the following term; :

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insu- rance Corporation of India in not a b s o r bs Badlij temporary and part time workmen employed in the establishment of LIC after 20-5-85 is justified ? If not. to what relief the workmen ar" entitled." 2, The dispute has been raised by the workman of the aforesaid category in individual capacity and it has also been espoused by the various unions and association? of those workmen of the divisions and zones of the Corpora- tion throughout India. In the order of reference the discrip- tion of these unions and associations have been given from •erial No. 4 to serial No. 12 as follows :—

"4. The General Secretary, Life Insurance Employees Association, 2, K. G. Marg, New Delhi.

5. The All India Insurance Employees Association 24, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700012.

6. The Western zone Insurance Employees Association, 1|9A Laxmi Niwas, Manmala Tank Road, Mahim, Bombay-400016.

7. The All India LIC employees Federation, Bombay Mutual Second floor, Rustam Sidhwa Marg, >-ort, Bombay-400023.

8. All India Life Insurance Employees Association Tndia Building, 5th floor. Room No. 49 Sir P.M. 9. The National Organisation of Insurance Workers Association 3|A-B, Hashim Building, 19 Veer Narimaa Road Fort, Bombay-400023.

10. The Central Zone National Life Insurance Em- ployees Association, 70 D Shyum Nagar (Sujat- ganj) Kanpur-208013.

11. The All India National Life Insurance Employees . Federation, C-27 Jcevan Kanchan, Off Vera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Bombay 400058.

12. The Akhil Bharatiya Jeevan Bima Nigam ChaUutlui Srcni, Karmacrmri Sangh, 12 Chowranghec Square, Calcutta-700069".

The names of the workmen who have represented their case on individual basis have been mentioned at SI. JNo, 12, 14. 16, 17 to 23 and then from 25 to 39. Out of these work- men shown at serial No. 14, 16 and from 25 to 36 did not ;ppoar In the case. The workmen shown from serfnl No. 17 to 23 though appeared but at the later sinie case proceeded exparte against them. Workmen mentioned at s"r!al No. 37 to 39 reamined absent Besides these work- men more workmen shown from serial No. 41 to si. No. 51 bronginjt to Kottyiirn District huve also be"n m:\dt- pnrty. These workmen have been represented by tneir nuthonVd representative.

.>. it is to on noted UIUL eunnjcieu with tlie aispiiie pnur W uie pit.swn leiereiitx otlaer idercncLs were reici'rctl lo die Nuiioiiai inuLs.iial fiibuimi (hereinafter referred to as is 11 _) and were udjudic.ueii upon beside it numow of peti- tivins, were ai^o preferred and deckled by the various High Courts ot India.

ti. itente Uelore dculiuu with the present case I leel it i^cess^iy dun we .snoLiia got an ititiL uf the pusi. lustory i dialing LO me dispute bt;cuUi>e it will iiiive a very wrung ucaring m the present case.

/'. J ne corporation W:LS a creation Jt Statue namely Lile lnsuiaiicc L-oiyurunon Act, lyib ^fieitmuttLT retcned to us i^iC Act, lyjo. lo pii>viue ioi me iiationulisdiion oi i>ne insurance iJusuiess in Jlndia by transferring all such business uj a evaporation estabiisned tor the purpose and lo provide lor me regulation and control ot the business Of the cor- IJGiation and for rnatters connected therewith or incidental thereto. i.la section 4fs enables liie Central Government to IIWKC ruies to carry out the pertormaiice of the Act by notification in the o/hciat Gazette Section 4y sub clause (1) empowers the corporation to make regulations not jnconsis- taiu with tne LIC Act, 1956 aha tbe rules made thereunder with, '.he proviiiotis approval of the Central Govt. by noti- fication in the Gazette of India iff provide for alt matters, for which provisions expedient for the purpose of fiiving effect to the provisions of the Act. Section 49(2) of the LIC Act, 1956 lists certain matters for which regulations; mny without prejudice to the generality of the power con- ferred by sub-section (1) be made. The LIC Act 1956 wa" amended by the Amendment Act 17 of 1957 with retros- pective effect. Sub clause (bb) of sub-section 2 of section 49 of the amended Act, 1957 provides for the terms and conditions of service of the persons who have become em- ployees of the corporation under its section 11 sub-clause (T). By the authority vested in the corporation under clauses B and (bb) of sub-section (2) of section 49 corpora- tion framed regulation defining the terms and conditions of service of the staff of the corporation. Tt is known an LIC of India (Staff) Regulations 1960 ("hrcinafter referred to as LTC Regulations 1960). The Regulation was notified in the Gazette of India No. IV dated 23-7-1960 und it enme into force from 1-7-60. It is pertinent to note that although under thr regulation only a two types of employment in ser- vice such as (i) regular employees (IT) temporary em- ployees hnve been provided for and the employment In the capacity of badlis and part time is not provided there does rrot appear a specific nomenclature there but said type of employment is also prevalent in the Corporation.

8. It appears tha]t earlier a large number of employees of Class III and IV were employed by the Corporation in the capacity of Badli temporary and part time and what should be the wages amd other conditions of service ot badli tempoiary and part time workmen df the LIC of India as well as the conditions in their absorption in their regular cadte.

9. The said reference was taken on the file of the National Tribunal as reference No. NTR-I of 85. At the initial stage the Western Zone Insurance Em- ployees Association Bombay and the Central Zone National Life Insurance Corporation Employees Association Kanpur were only parties to the refcrenece besides (he Co/p^iation. Later on all the unions of all the regions and the zones in the country and joined as parties. They all filed their statements and put forth their claims.

During the course of the proceeding and interim award was passed by the National Industrial Tri- bunal on the prayer of the- workman for restricting the Corporation from recruiting of absorbing any person without prior permission of the Tribunal, : mr\ According to the interim award the corporation was ..esurainea iroin making any new appointment except vvueri; persons nau uj ot appointed over the above the tnen existing vacancies against which ihe con- cerned workmen who were working or had worked with the corporation m then capacity as badlis temporary or part tune workmen and wn

1U. Aitei a long drawn hearing in the said iererencc an award in invnani Wd\s given oy the Hon ble Mr. Justice R. 1). Tulpuie on i /th April, JIV60. lne award was given on Ihe basis oi the suggestions invited iron: ine parties both horn tne Workmen and Jrom the management oi ihe corpora- lion, lho. parties hati given tne mandate to tne said National Industrial TriDunul to base us award on any or the suggestions made by the parties alter making necessary moditicaitions. Thcso suggestions were made in sealed covers and were opened in the open court and the parties were heard on the rival suggestions and also on the suggestions made by the Presiding OUicer himself before finalising the award. The sug- gestions made by Hon'ble Presiding Officer were incorporated in the order datea 14th March, 1986.

11. In the iiual award it was held that only ihose workmen wno had worked during the period irom tne moiuh ot January 1, 1982 to the month ol May 20, lyso, tne date ot the reference be considered ais eligible lor absorption and a workman claiming absorption in Class 111 post should have woiked for tiS uays in a period oi two calender years and a Workman claiming absorption m Class IV post should have worXed tor 70 days in a period of three calender years. It was alsj held that the calculation of the number of cjays of work should be upto date 6f relerenece. The corporation was diiccted to appoint a screening. conranttee to consider suitability and desireability of such eligible workmen for absorption. It was also directed that the workman considered to be suitable and desirable for the absorption should be absorbed against vacancies which existed in the Corporation as on 31st March, 1985 atnd which may urise subsequently. Corporation was also directed not 10 recruit outsiders in a particular division till such lists were exhausted Directions given in the award on jhe question of absorptions have been mentioned in paras 40 to nO and 66. Since the question of the applicability of the award in the present cose has been raised by the Corporation in order to appreciate the points in controversy in this lesp.'d I feel it hecessalry that the relevant paragraphs of the award dealingwith the dcterrninatioi of point of absorpnon of the workman should be mentioned in extenso. Reside it I also feel it necessary 1o mention first about thfc interim order date! 14-3-86 passed in Ihe case.

"Persiunt to the directions on 6lh March, !9S6 parties have given their suggestions in seated covers. Most of the union suppestions say that everyone should be appoinlcd bui pene- rally there is ;i consensus that Ihesc people should be considered and given prefeience in appointments. The minimum emoluments payaois to these workmen have also been suggested. Ihere is also censible response from ine Management with regard to em- ployments 1 take that all these are Class 111 and Clates IV appointments. One of the suggestions which* 1 am moling was that part Dme employment in Class 111 should be totally stopped. Parties say that there is an part-time employment in Class III. We cam straight awaw ignor part-time Class 111 employees.

The management says that they have pro- vision for 10 per cent leave leserve. The unions have also given a list of the work- men viio have been in Badli employment, temporary employment or part-time em- ployment during the last 3 years;. We have lo-taki; a cut-oil, year and it is better if we go back upto 1-1-82. Most of the unions have suggested 1983. I aim suggesting 1982. Present reference came up in 1985 and since then normally all employees will have ,to be considered. We may take 1-1-82 as cut ofT date. All those who were in employment after 1-1.-8;' i c, in employment in various capacities with the LIC can be found out. I also wunt to say that only for purel> con- tract woik, such as shifting of records etc. contract labour should not be used for regular work and vice versa. That is generally the suggestion of the unions too.

Since over and above this 10 per cent leave reserve the LIC is employing Badli temp Hi part time employees it is necessary to hnd out how much more regular em- ployment there can be and how much more work, these people did¹ m Terms of man hours & day-;. You can find out the number of man hours i.e. number of hours worked by these workmen. Then divide it by the numbtt of hours per day. Thus we get the number of men. Then we may divide the number of men further by days. This will provide ihe requirement of men and days. From Uijy we can find out how many more people are required ovar and sbovc the 10, per cent leave reserve. As it is the Corporal ion is utilising men over and above 10 per cent and their icquirement therefore is more than 10 per tent. Once we find out this we can aseertain what is the total availability of employment with the Corpo- ration in which some of these people can be absorbed. Then vc cr

[ P A ST I t - ^ S f e c .; 5 ( i l )J

temporary aud part tira; workmen should be prepared ior ine persons in the employment of the corporation irom ine commencement ot tne cui or peiiou of 1-1-82. ii was laid down that for all those persons who had' worked from 1-1-82 till date of reference i.e. 20th May, 19ib and also till the date on v,hich certain orders were passed directing that the existing employees servces should not be terminated, the list of such employees was to be prepared for each cate- gory of workmen. It was also directed that in cal- culating number of days worked, work days only up|to the date of reference should be counted¹. It nullified the advantage which some workmen could have obtained on account of the interim orders. Specific orders were given in respect of the workmen who had worked in different names and different capacities. The pool was lv be made in accordance wilh the seniority which could be counted in terms of a days alone and not in the capacity in which the person worked, meaning thereby that if a person had worked in two capacities then total number of days for which he nad worked in both the capacities should be treated as number of days for which he had \i orked and should bo taken for seniority and ranking and not seperately in class or kind of work which he has done.

into a pool. There should be no permission to migrate from one pool to another. Unce person is ic the part time employees pool or in the temporary employees pool, he should remain in the same pool. But where a, workmaa says that he also worked in a temporal y or part time or casual workmen in more than one category, then we may have a problem but if (here is any such occasion, we can consider it sperately. These pools should be fotmed preferably ait the divisional level. After forming the pool, then a screening committee or board should be constituted for each division, which should look into these persons and ascertain their suitability for emplolymrnt considering their past record While form- ing the screening commiltees, T sugpest that such commiltccs should consist cf cne local msmher and two other members from out- side the division, so that local prejudice or bias would not be uilleged in the maiter of screening. After the screening is made all those employees should be placed in a panel in the order of their seniority. Wherever any future vacancies occur, they should be filled from these people onlv Only when the list iq completely exhausted, recruitment should be mads from outside. Recruitment should nol be made from ooen market un- less the candidates in the pool are completely absorbed.

]?. Its paragraph 4b deals with the formation of Zonal Committees for screening for purposes of ab- sorption of the workmen whose names were included in the lists (pools). In paragraph 55 guidelines to the screening committee has been given. Paragraphs 49 to 54 subsequently deals with the question of pres- cribing minimum number of qualifying days for being absorbed. After considering the suggestions of the panics the Hon'ble P.O. fixed 85 days in a period ol' two years as a qualifying period for class IIT emp- loyees and 70 days in a period of three years for class IV employees. Paragraph 56 provides about the specific directions legurding preparation of final list of workmen for their absorption Paragraph 57 con- tains about the creation of the vacancies of t he post for such employees ami if is observed that the ques- tion no specific direction to the corporation in this regard can be given and the question of determining actual number of post required for the work of the corporation was left open to the corporation. How- ever, corporation was directed to indicate its size in the light of the facts pointed out and indicated in the award and decide :md determine additional vacan- cies and posts which the corporation should create with a view to obviate and stop for all times. There- after employment cf badlec workmen and temporary workmen if possible Paragraph 59 contains final direclions. It is quoted below :

3717 future absorption and should look after pas- tuics elsewhere and not continue to hang on a remote possibility of future dougtftil aspect ol being observed in the corporation .service.

reference under Section 36-A of the Act to the Indus- trial Tribunal N il beuig presided over by Mr. Justice M. S, Jandar. Tfie tclevence was registered as refer- ence No. NTB (1) of 1987. The term of (he reference referred to was ol' as follows :—

14. Paragraphs 65 and 66 of the Award I find are most relevant in the case and thus both these para- g1a1jas aLc quoted below :—

"Can the Award dated 17-4-1986 with special reference to paragarphs 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 64 and 66 and the interim order dated 14-3-86 be interpret- ed to mean that the Central Oflice of the Life Insurance Corportaion of India is empower- ed to issue instructions/guidelines as con- tained in their circular issued in this behalf to implement the directions of the Award. If not, whai could be the correct interpretation or various directions covered by the said paragraphs in the circumstances of the case. Whether the term "absorption" referred to at various places in the Award can be inter- preted to mean "recruitment" ?" L'65. In the light oi the directions above with re- gard to observation and creation of additional post by the corporation I do not think that there would be any occasion in future for the corporation to empiy workman in the tem- porary and badlee categories existing for the occasional and temporary increase in work which necessitate employment of temporary stall. In all probability would be only amongst class II] cadre, in which ca^e there could be no occasion and there need not be I think any case or situation require consi- deration or grant of any other benefit apart from the wage to such workmen."

16. During the course of the hearing of the said reference an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal restraining the corporation to make any re- cruitment from the open market during the pendency of the proceeding.

17. The Honiilc Tribunal gave award which is dated 26-8-88. The Hon'b'e Tribunal while answering the term of reference gave its own interpretation of the earlier award given by Hon'ble Mr. iustice R. D. Tuipulc. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that obser- vations contemplated by the earlier award did not mean recruitment.

"66. 1 hope and expect that in the light of what has been said and a past exercise of the cor- poration situation where a large number of such employees could be engaged without adherence to any formalities or procedures by the various local managements would be completely eliminated and done away with and this kind of employment in the corpora- tion history would be the last occasion. Ex- cepting the temporary employment the cor- poration will have no occasion or necessity to employ badli workmen it is hoped in future. Though part-time employees will con- tinue to be in existence for some more time as T have indicated, the corporation will also see its own way to absorb the part-time em- ployees hi its regular employment as far as possible and reduce the number of part-time employees to the minimum. However, when- ever, hereafter any occasion or vacancy arises of regular employment in part-time cate- gories and employment, then those who have worked part-time in accordance with their seniority should be f>iven preference for ab- sorption in the regular cadre of the Corpo- ration's employment. This should be irres- pective of the qualifying age for the entry into Corporation's service and qualification but subject to his being found suitable."

18. Corporation had then preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the said award dated 26-8-88 challenging about its legality. The appeal so preferred by the corporation was registered as SLP No. 14906 of 1988. The corportion had be- come successful in obtaining special leave. During the continuance of the said appeal a compromise/settle- ment was entered into between the corporation and 8 of the 9 unions. On the basis of the said settlement the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order dated 1st March, 1989 pending final disposal of the appeal permitting corporation and trie members of the said 8 unions to implement terms of the compromise by way of interim measure without any prejudice to the right and contentions of the members of other union which was left over in the settlement aforesaid. It is pertinent to note that on the implcadment application of the other left over association the Hon'ble Supreme Court ^ide order dated 7-2-1996 passed in civil ap- peal No. 1790 of 89 allowed the implcadment appli- cation of the association. In order to implement the said settlement pursuanl to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the corporation gave appoint- ments to a large number of such persons to the posts in class TTI as well as in class IV in various Divisions. Certainly the said appointment was given to the per- sons recruited on temporary basis between 1st January, 1982 to 20th May, 1985.

19. Thereafter the employees employed as tempo- rary, badli and part-time after 20th Mav, 1985 raised demand for their absorption regularising too in the regular service. When their demaqds were not accept- ed by the corporation several writ petitions in this 15. Being aggrieved by the said award dated 17th April, 1986 The corporation preferred writ petition No. 1801 of 86 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay challenging Ihe legality of the award. The writ petition of the corporation was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide order dated 14-8-86 bin at the same time the Hon'ble High Court gave c-cri'flcnte of clarification. Pursuant thereto for the compliance of the award dated 17-4-86 the cor- poration while interpreting the awnrd with respect to the absorption as recruitment issued as long as si* circulars commencing from 17th September. 1976 to 25-2-1987. The workers union and associat;on disput- ed the instructions given in aWe^a'd circulars and an industrial disnute was again raised. The Central Gov- ernment in the Ministry of Labour had then made a 3718 THE GAZETTE QF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART I I ^ S E C. $(n)]

The corporation being the premier public sec- tor enterprises has a continuous growth rate both in business as well as in surplus. Details of the growth rate and surplus arc given in para 3 of the statement of claim filed by all India lii'c insurance employees association Bombay mentioned at si. No. 8 of the refe- rence order.

, respect were fil^d before the Hon'ble High Court of ivluckj;.. These ^v^U pet if ion; wore liled before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras between the years 19&9 to I9y!, I lie writ pdilion No. J0367J89 tiled was be- tween the terminated i'utl-linic temporary L1C Wel- fare Association and Senior Divisional Manager, L1C, Khanjawar. This writ petition alongwith other writ petitions total 18 writ petitions were listed for hearing before the full bench of Hon'bie High Court of Madras. After hearing the parties of all the writ peti- tions the Hon'ble High Court of Madras gave judg- ment which is reported as 1993(1 )LLJ 1030 between terminated full temporary employees welfare associa- tion and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Khanjawar. All the writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

20. Parties had then preferred civil appeal before the Hon'blc Supreme Court of India against judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. These civil appeals were numbered as SLP(C) 10393 to 10413/ 92 E. Prubhawati and others Vs. LIC of India and others. It appears that in the said civil appeal on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Corporation had framed a scheme for the reguJarisation of the employees who were grunted ad hoc appointments for 85 days at intervals from time to time was placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After hearing the parties by means of interim order dated 23-10-92 found the scheme as reasonable and was'approved to the existence of the scheme contained in clauses fa) and (d) of paragraph 1 and the corporation was direct ed to proceed to regularise the employees eligible in accordance with the scheme. The clauses of (a) and (d) of the scheme have been reproduced in the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. With the aforesaid direction all the civil appeals were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

26. It is further case of the workman that according to the regulation 8 of the Regu- lation only two kinds of employees viz (i) regular and (ii) temporary being only been regularised. Badlee and part time employ- ment do not find place as a specific nomen- clature but such employment are prevalent in the corporation. Corporation has been continuously employing workmen directly or through contractor as temporary badli and part time in centre also of its various offices throughout India. These types of workmen have been continuously working in different capacities such as peon shamals, waterman, watchmen cum-pump man, lift nianfrash, test house attendants, sweepers, cleaners, assistant typists etc. on chiilv V;>.U;L\ basis against permanent and other vacancies. The work volved is of regular and permanent nature. Alibough on the basis of the require- ment of the work large number of employees are needed to be recruited on regular basis hui the corporation has always rcsoUed to engage workman as temporary badli and part lur.c and has been indulging in unfair labour piactice by denying such workmen benefit of their absorption in the regular service and also their U':I<7P condition and increment in salary, and other service benefits available to regular employees of their categories.

21. It appears that during the continuance of the hearing of the writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras as stated above the present reference was sent to this Tribunal by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide order dated 4-3-91. It also appears that during the continuance of the proceedings of the nresent reference E. Prabhawati and others sought their impleadmcnt and vide order dated 1-12-93 of this Tribunal irapleudmcnt applica- tiou was allowed.

22. In the reference the union have filed their state- ment of claim. Some of the workmen paries in the reference order have also filed their statement of claim jointly.

23. The written statements of corporation and re-

joinder have been exchanged between the parties.

24. The case put forward from the side of the workman including the unions associations is almost on the similar facts.

2-5. Common c^e of the work™ m is thai corporation was constituted by in Act of Parliament namely Act No. 31 of I

27. The case again is that corporation has been encaging large number of employees in the aforesaid categories through various con- tractor :irid other agencies, but these em- ployees are unreasonably treated by the cor- poration as outsiders and not its employees whrn for every purpose these employees should be treated rs employees of the corporation and .'hmild be given -"ill the benefits like its other emplovees doing similar job. The comorafion Ins Iven following all ihe time the practice ol hire and fire by engngirig persons temporary brdii ;m^l pnrt time and rcmovin-r them Iron viV'ee before they could corn- plo'e ih.: 'equiry-J period of time by them so that they may not be able to claim a right of 3719

itself to be the sole union of class IV employees has prayed for the absorption of the badli/tcmporary and purl-time workmen engaged through contractors tenants and licensees associations prayer for direction regarding payment of wages to these workmen simi- lar to the workmen working as permanent has also been made. On behalf of the All India Insurance Employees Association Madras it is alleged that the recruitment procedure of L979 of the corporation deemed to have been waived and the workman con- cerned should not be asked to produce or fulfil any of the requirement of it. According to the case of AH India LIC employees federation appointment made in temporary capacity against regular nature of work and not as stop gap arrangement there is an element of pendency a<< well as continuance of service as each one of Ihe workman had worked for more than 85 day;; or 70 days belonging to the class JII and class TV workmen respectively. It is also stated that the Regulation 8(2) of the Regulation 1960 being arbitrary maJa fide discriminative and illegal has no application.

tiiat they may not be able to cbim a right df regularise)tion in the service. The Cor- poration after removing such employees from tfie service used to employ olhcr persons in tlheir place. These types of workmen have a^so been discriminative with otik.r counter ptirts working on regular basis in Llie. naon- njer thai: ilvy have been denied the similar service benefits including their pay on the principles of equal pay for equal work. Again tljiet'e types of workmen after "heir engage- njent v/ere allowed to continue in srevice for i]jidefinit',-x! period bv giving artiricial break in service despite the fact that vacancies of prrmnrrrit nature in tin: job existed ihe vork- nian for which such appointment were rrtcide actually existed the employees vvcrc continuing to work as temporary hadli and pfirt lime and were not absorbed it! the re- gular service. Their case also is th.it the Workmen M) employed were also exploited by the corporation. The incident of exploitation h\ivc bee^i givpn in para 18 of the statement of claim of AH Tndia Life Insurance Cor- poration of Tndia Employees Association Bombay.

29. The case of E. Prubhawatl and others is related with the terminated employees of the state of Tamil Nadu. The case of the workman subsequently is that they, were appointed in class III and class IV post in various branches of the corporation in the State of Tamil Nadu through the procedure established, by law for certain number of days subsequently mentioned in the letter of appointment issued to them. Some of the workmen were appointed even orally but after follow- ing the procedure-it is stated that after expiry of the specified period mentioned in the letter of appoint- ment service of most of the workmen were extended for a further period of 30 days and more and there- after their services were terminated finally. It is again stated that the appointments in the aforesaid catego- ries of classes III and IV were mostly done through respective, district employment offices and on the basis of their performance in the interview conducted by the concerned authorities of the corporation. In some of the cases workmen were called for recruitment of temporary assistant typists/sub-staff and were inter- viewed by the committee legally constituted for that . purpose. Tt is also stated that some of the workmen had worked fo- nearly 150 days and more than that and some of them were appointed temporarily on the aforesaid post for a period of 85 days and thereafter their services were terminated after the expiry of the period of 85 days. New -candidates w ee recruited through the district employment office of the concern- ed district in place of the terminated employees afore- said. It is also contended that clause 8 of the recruit- ment procedure prescribed for th^ recruitment of sub- staff but there is nothing that written test would be taken for such appointment. The appointment were mninlv done bv ways of oral interviews. Tf is further stated that it would be wrong to sav that the work- man appointed in clashes TTT and tv post nor bv wav of written test were not eligible for their absorption in the respective post.

30. The Corporation has filed its written statement against the statement of clnim nled by the workman as well as bv the Onions. A common objections is takf*n bv the Corporation agnin^t all the statement of claim¹; of the workmen. The plea at the first inshnce as taken by the Corporation is nbrnit the incompe- tency of the reference as well as incompetency of the.

3720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, J923 [TART II—SEC, 3(fi)]

1981 by the LTC (Amendment Act, 1981) (herein- after referred to ay Amendment Act) and as a conse- quence of th^ amendment the provision in Section 49 sub-clause 1L of the LIC Act for framing of regula- tions relaiing to the terms and conditions of the ser- vice of the employees was taken away and vested in Central Government under Section 48 of the Amend- ment Act but however, as per provisions of Section 48-2(A) of the .Amendment Act the regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Act with respect to the terms and conditions of service of employees including those who became its employees on the ap- pointed ,day under Section' 11(1) of the LIC Act. Tt also provided that power to frame rules relating to terms and conditions of service of the employees of the corporation would include the power to give re- trospective effect to such rules and also the power to amend by way of additions/variations or repeal, re- gulations and other provisions referred to in sub-sec- tion 2-A of Section 30-A of the Amendment Act with retrospective effect from a date not earlier than 20th June, 1979. It is again stated that in exercise of the power so conferred by Section 48 of the LIC Act. Central Government had amended various provisions of staff regulations besides consulting some rules in the said staff regulations. In view of the fact the cor- poration has stated that the regulations were statutory rules having effect not with standing anything contain- ed among others provision of the Act or in any other law or in any agreement, settlement, award, or other instrument lor the time being in force.

workmen belonging to the categories of temporary, badlec and part-time i circling their absorption in the regular cadre, It is submitted by the corporation that the workmen havt: no case and their claims are liable to be rejected. The corporation has taken the preli- minary objections in this respect at the first stage. The assertion ot the corporation firstly is that the workmen were appointed on temporary basis on exigencies of the work and on expiry of the period of their employ- ment they seized to be the employees of the Corpo- ration and thus a question of absorption of such emp- loyees never arises because they were not the regular employees of the corporation. Secondly that the cor- poration was governed by the statutory rules and re- gulation concerning recruitment of the staff and it was governed by the recruitment instructions 1979 which was statutory and binding on the corportaion. Recruit- ment of the regular employee could be made as per provision of the said Instructions. Temporary and Badlee employees weie employed as a stop-gap mea- sure without following procedure prescribed in the NIC Recruitment of ("Class III and class IV staff) Rules, 1979 which became enforceable on 27-11-79. The workmen of the present dispute cannot claim their absorption as regular employees without following the procedure prescribed in the recruitment rules for re- cruitment of regular employees. Even if these emp- loyees are held to be regular employees their absorp- tion in the permanent service can be done only after following procedure set out in recruitment rules. Thus according to the corporation the action of the manage- ment in not absorbing temporary employees is fully justified and the workmen are noi entitled to any relief.

33. Tt has again been stated by the Corporation that under rule 8 of the Staff Regulation the authori- ties mentioned therein had a power to employ staff in class III and TV category on a temporary basis subject to such general or special directions as may be issued by the chairman of the corporation from time to time. Again under its sub-rule 2"no person so appointed on a temporary basis should only be reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of the corporation or claim preference for re- cruitment to any post,

34. Tt is again stated by the corporation that under Section 23 of the LTC Act the corportion was vested with the power of making recruitment of persons in service and it had recruited a number of persons in accordance with the rules relating to the appointment of the stnff on a regular basis. The extent of the rules relating to such recruitment were those laid down by the recruirment rules issued by the chairman of the corporation in exercise ol his statutory owners. The recruitment rules relate to such matters of recruit- ment of employees in class TTI and class TV cadre as conditions of eligibility method of selection for recruit- ment. Resides above staff taken on its regular estab- lishment the corporation on occasions had engaged few persons on temporarv badlee part time basis under various stations mentioned in detail in paragraphs 9-A, °-B and Q-C of the written statement.

31. On facts the corporation has stated that it is a body corporate established under Section 3 of the LIC Act, 1956. Under Section 6(1) of the LIC Act Corporation is enjoying to carry on life insurance business and to exercise its powers under the Act as to secure that life insurance business is developed to the best advantage of the community. Sub-clause II of LIC Act empowers the corporation to do all such things as may be incidental or conducive to the proper exercise of any of the powers of the corporation. Sec- tion 7 of LIC Act provides for the transfer to and vesting in the corporation all the assets and liabilities pertainine to the controlled business of all consumers. Section 23 of LIC Act provides corporation may emp- loy such number of persons as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling it to discharge its functions under the LTC Act. Under its'Section 48 Central Govern- ment makes rules to carry out performance of the Act and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power providing for all or any matter specified in sub-section (2) of said Section 48. Further its Section 49 empowers the cor- poration to frame regulations not in ennsistant with the act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the LTC Act. This power of framing regulation was subject to the provision of approval of the Central Govern ment and by notification in the Gazette of Tndia.

32. It is again staled that in exercise of the afore- said power the corporation had in the year I960 fram- ed regulations namely staff regulation defining terms and conditions of service of its emolovees. Tt is fur- ther stated that the LTC Act was amended in the year

35. The corporation has further stated that in the case of all these temporary employments the proce- dure prescribed bv the recruitment rules was not gone throuch for the obvious reason that the engagement of such persons was limited to the minimum needs of the situation. Some of the employees were even em- , . --,'V, ployed without record to the minimum eligibility stand- dcJrds or the merit or suitability requirements and such employees could not look forward lor appoint- ment on a regular basis.

36. Again the eorportion has stated that it had enjgaged a limited number of persons on a part time bqsis where duration of the work in a day was limited ndt more than four hours and in this manner there was no work to be periormed by the incumbent for the whole of the day and the quantum ofi work 10 be carried out being limited. There was no need for their engagement on a whole time regular biisis. IThese persons were generally sweepers and gardners. Sweepers were engaged on a part time basis where corporation office was established in rental pre- mises and the sweepabJe area was less than 10000 sq, fe£t. In the like manner the gardners were also ap- pointed in some of the offices on a part time basis on account of the fact that there was no work to be prjovided ior the whole duration of the day. These persons engaged on part time basis were free to take any other employment and in fact most of these part time employees were employed in other establish- ments.

37. The corporation has further stated that the badlee employees were those selected candidates a panel of persons maintained at the divisional head- quarters which panel was prepared after compliance wjith the procedure specifically laid down for the pur- pose. Generally they were persons whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange and whose employment was limited to need base categories namely watchmen, liftmen and sweepers in class IV. Besides badlee appointments were made against the leave vacancies also. No badlee employee was gene- rally engaged for more than 85 days at a stretch and ir^ excess of 220 days in a period of 12 months. The t6mporary employees were not appointed out of any panel nor their names were sponsored by the employ- ment exchanges. The temporary employees were being engaged for a maximum period of 85 days at a stretch and for not more than 2 spells of 85 days in two * cpnsecutive years.

I 38. The corporation has then slated in detail about tjie earlier reference made to National Industrial Tri- bunal being provided over by Mr. Justice R. D. tulpule, Bombay and the reference made to Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Jan Jar and proceedings held be- fore those tribunals and the decisions given therein. Jjf is contained in paras 14 to 20 of the written state- ment. Thereafter the corporation has stated in detail dbout filing SLP No. 14906 of 1988 before the Hon'blc Supreme Court of India against the award dated 26-8-88 given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Jlandar. The corporation has also stated about the facts relating to the compromise and settlement ar- rived ut between the parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, the said SLP No. 14906 of 1988 4nd the order dated 1-3-89 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court granting special leave and ordering tor the implementation o[ the compromise petition ray way of an interim measure without any prejudice io the right and contentions of the members of the One union who had not entered into any compromise with the management. The copies of the terms of com- promise and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed on 1-3-89 have been annexed to the written statement as Exs. C-I and C-ll respectively.

39. The corporation has further stated that in ac- cordance with the aforesaid order dated 1st March, 1989, of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India corporation had appointed over a period of time a number of persons in terms of the compromise. According to the corporation during the period from 1985 to 1990 there was no recruitment from the open market. Due to the restraint placed on corporation by the orders of the aforesaid both the national industrial tribunals and the proceedings connected therewith before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The corporation has stated that the wo. kinen of the present dispute are the aforesaid persons who were appointed by the corporation under the distressed circumstances and these workmen according to the corporation also are not entitled to claim absorption in the regular service of the corporation.

40. It is again stated by the corporation that as stated above the stall regulation has clearly laid pro- hibition on the persons appointed on temporary basis to claim their appointment or any preference in the recruitment in the regular service of the corporation. Neither such workmen can claim their absorption in regular cadre nor this tribunal has jurisdiction to grant any such relief to the workmen.

41. The corporation has also mentioned about the facts of filing writ petitions by some of the workmen. After the said award given by the Hon'ble NIT be- fore the Divisional Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court claiming absorption in the corporation on ac- count of the temporary appointment during material time. The writ being registered as CMW No. 13583 of 1988 and also about the fact of dismissal by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad it has again stated about the factum of filing writ petitions before Hon'ble High Court of Madras and Andhra Pradesh by the workmen who were appointed on a temporary basis subsequent to the dismissal of their civil Misc. writ petition No. 153832 ot 1988 as withdrawn vide order dated 20th February. 1989 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is stated that all these writ petitions filed for their absorptions to the regular service of the corporation and these writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Courts. In the Jast corporation has reiterated that these workmen are those who had worked temporarily for very short spells of time and they arc not entitled to claim any preference in the matter of their appointment to the services of the corporation on any basis. The present reference according to the corporation is bad in law and devoid of any merit and. it has to be rejected both on preliminary pounds and on merits.

42. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the workmen against fhc written statement of the corporation most- ly the-allegations made in their statement of claim have been reiterated. Both the parties have led oral, evidence in support of their cases. On behalf of the workman as many us 260 affidavits of the workmen have been filed, Out of these only 30 persons could appear for their cross-examination and they proved their affidavits. These affidavits have been marked Ex. WW1 to WW13. These workmen have mostly stated about their period of employment and conditions of their employment.

& # 5 W * >^ GAOTm OF imtfr-; Wty as, 2001/ SfcftWM; S, "Hkjar-""'" . #ARtf 1-CW - f ^ j' 43. On behalf of the management the affidavit of Mr.'P. D. Kini haa been hied, He has also been cross- examined on behalf oi me workman as MVV 1. 1 he afudavit hied by him has been marked as M W l / 1. He has stated abuut the case of the corporation as taken in written statement.

44. Arguments oi both the parties were heard at length. Each of tne union and also the workmen in individual capacity through iheir authorised represen- tatives have advanced" lengthy arguments. 'I he cor- poration's relevant materials available on the record have also been perused carefully.

45. At the first instance it is urged on behalf of the corporation that the reference m question is in- competent and this tribunal has also no jurisdiction to grant relict to the workmen with regard to their absorption in the regular cadre of their service. The argument in this respect specifically is that workmen concerned in the present dispute have been employed in exercise ot the power vested under rule 8 of the regulation. Rule 8(2) of the Regulation provides that no person appointed as temporary staff shall by rea- son of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of the corporation or to claim preference for recruitment to any post.

46. It is submitted that the corporation was created under L.l.C. Act, 1957 and by virtue of power vested in it under its Section 4y staff regulation i960 was named providing conditions of the service of the em- ployees cf the corporation. The L.l.C. Act, 1956 was subsequenUy amended by Act No, 1 of 1981 and thus in view ot the amendment in corporatcd under Sec- tion 48(2) a new sub-section 70A ot Section 48 was inserted by which the Regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of Amendment Act, 1981 with respect to the terms and the conditions of the service of employees shall be deemed to be rules made under sub-section 2(ec). Thus in view of the said amendment the Regulations and othei provisious relating to the terms and condi- tions of the service of the employee shall be deemed to be rule* made under Section 48(2)(cc) of L.l.C. Act, 1956. Hence the provisions of Sub-section 2 of rule 8 of Regufation are statutory and the provisions of I.D. Act have no application in respect of the matter governed by Sub-section 2 of rule 8 of the Regulation namely claim for absorption of temporary stall' in the service of the Corporation. The corpora- tion has further submitted that in the event of any conflict between the provisions of the I.D. Act and those of Regulation, provisions of Regulation shall prevail and thus the present reference is incompetent. Further since rule 8(2) of Regulation provides abso- lute prohibition against absorption of temporary staff, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant relief of absorption to workmen and if granted it would violate the statutory provisions contained in rule 8(2) of Regulation.

47. The ncit contention of the corporation is that both the awards of Honourable Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule and of Mr. Justice M. S. Jandar have no ap- plication in the adjudication of the present reference. The specific argument of the corporation in this "res- pect firstly that the award of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tulpule has overstepped ils jurisdictions under Sec- tion 10(4) of tlie I.D. Act. According to the Cor- poration the order of reference has indicated that the tribunal should lay down (a) wages and other service conditions, (b) and condition ot absorption in regu- lar cadre of the badlee/lemporary/part time workmen of the corporation. It was not dnectcd that time sche- dule fo> giving service biyielit including absorption of such workmen be also decided. But the Tribunal overstepped the reference order by fixing cut of date as 1-1-82 to 20-5-85 ef the workmen under employ- ment foi- the benefit of their award. It according to corporation is exceeding the scope of Section 10(4) of the I.D. Act. The order of reference only required the tribunal to lay down thy conditions of absorptions in regular cadre ot tcmporary/badlee/part time work- men without specifying any period of employment for consideration of such absorption. Hence the action of the tribunal in limiting the eligibility only to those who had worked between 1-1-82 and 20-5-85 is violative of the provisions of Section 10(4) of I.D. Act and renders the award void and inoperative in law.

48. The corporation in support of its contention aforesaid has relied on the case of the Management Rambagh Paji.ce HOIJI VS. The State of Rajasthan, 2000(86) FLR 134—140. It is held as follows:—

"It is settled law that the industrial tribunal can only adjudicate the reference made to it by the government and can not substitute its own reference in terms of reference or even can not go beyond terms of the reference. It is function of the industrial tribunal to ans- vver the reference as is referred to and once the reference has been made on the demand made by Hie workers/uniou it is incumbent on the labour court or industrial tribunal to decide Ihe same."

49 Second limb of the argument in this respect of the corporation is that the aforesaid dated of 1-1-82 to 20-5-85 was stipulated with the consent of the parties which is also an illegal action of the tribunal, [t is well accepted principle of law that neither acquiescence nor consent of the parties can confirm jurisdiction on an industrial tribunal. In support oi this preposition the corporation has relied on the case of A. Khader Mohideen Brothers (Express Beedi Factory) Vs. Its Workers, 1960 Il-LL.l 669—673. It is held thai :

"The jurisdiction being by virtue of the State and limited by the terms of ihe reference under Section it would not be open to tho workers and the management to confer juris- diction upon the tribunal or a question not covered by the reference,¹'

50. It is next subiniiicd by the Corporation that the present reference order does not speak about extend- ing the benefit of both the said award of Honourable Mr. Justice R. K. Tulpule and Honourable Mr. Jus- tice M. S. Jandar to those workmen employed after 20-5-85, Tt only speaks whether the action of the management in not absorbing such workmen who were appointed after 20-5-85 is justified. Thus reference order requires that dispute be adjudicated on its own terms and withiTut reference to both the aforesaid award.

L"'S73r:

51. Again thd corporation has submitted in this ispect that the award oi Mr. Justice Tulpule has tidicted its jurisdiction by not indicating the cri- :ria fui determining the suitability and desirability f the workmen eligible tor absoiption and leaving on the screening committee. The order of rclerence ;nt to Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule required it to decide le conditions of absorptions of the temporary |badlee, art time workmen and not to lay down the rule of bsorption. Hence in view of the terms of relerence' was necessary for the tribunal to have decided the onditions of absorption and to law down specific uidclines of screening committee and not to leave it n |he committee itsclf> It is left incomplete and un- esolved and ihus the award can not be considered s an award at all.

52. In the like manner corporation has challenged he legality of award of Honble Mr. Justice M, S. andar. It is contended that in the writ petition No. 801 of 1986 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of lombay by the corporation against the award given >y Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tulpule and Hon'ble High Tourt vide order dated 14-8-86 though had dismissed he writ petition but made certain observations re- jarding the findings on the point .of absorption record- id in the award and thereafter in order to implement he award of Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule the steps were aken by the corporation and thus according to the •orporation the award of Mr. Justice R. K. Tulpule lad merged in the said order of Hon'ble High Court )f Bombay and the reference under Section 36-A of he Act sent to National Tribunal presided over by vlr. Justice Jandar for clarification of the award of vlr. Justice Tulpule was not improper. In the award ;iven by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. J andar while dis- :ussing over the plea of the corporation regarding the ipplicability of the theory of merger of the award )f Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule. In the order of the -lon'ble High Court of Bombay the Ld. Tribunal lias recorded, its finding that the theory of merger was 'oreign to the scheme of the T.D. Act and the submis- sions of the corporation were not sustainable is totally erroneous and contrary to the principles enunciated 3y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1990 S.C. 10 to 17. It is held that :

"A distinction adopted in Mohammed Noons case (AIR 1958 SC 86) between a Court and a Tribunal being the Appellate or Division Authority is one without any legal justification. Powers of adjudication ordi- narily vested in courts arc being exercised under the law by Tribunes ar.d other cons- tituted authorities. In fact in respert of many disputes the jurisdiction of the court is now barred and there is vesting of juris- diction in Tribunals and authorities. That being the position we see no justification for the distinctions between the court's and tribunals in regard to the principle of merger".

53. The corporation lias vehemently nrtjuetf that the award piven by Mr. Justin* R. D Tn'pul? had merged in the said order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and hence Mr. Justice M. S. Jandar had no jurisdiction to interpret the award of Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule under section 36-A of the I.D. Act and the interpretation of the award of. Mr. justice R. D. Tulpule given by Mr. Justice Jandar ignoring iiie direction of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay will necessary follow* that the award of Mr. Justice M. S. Jandar has no binding effect, it is next submitted in this jiegard that Mr. Justice Jandar had no jurisdic- tion to record any finding on the unfair labour prac- tice by the corporation but the tribunal took this issue of unfair labour practice by the corporation in consideration and recorded finding in para 62 of the award and in this way Mr. Justice Jandar had ex- ceeded jurisdiction in the award yivcn by Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule. No finding regarding the unfair labour practice by the Corporation was any where recorded. Again Mr. Justice Jandar had no jurisdic- tion to pass interim order dated 29-6-87 directing for the maintenance of the status quo and the order so passed amounts to wong assumption of jurisdiction by Mr. Justice Jandar.

54. In view of the fact the corporation has sub- milted that the award by Mr. Justice M. S, Jandar was given in exercise of existing jurisdiction and was not binding on the corporation.

55. In this continuance next arguments of the corporation is that after the acceptance of the terms of compromisc|settlement arrived at between R out of 9 unions representing 99% of workmen and the corporation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 1-3-89 passed in SLP No, 14906 of 1988 both these awards of Mr. Justice R. D.Tulpule and Mr. Justice Jandar were substituted with the terms of the compromise. So arrived at and it was also agreed by both the parties accordingly. The legal effect of such substitution of both the awards by the terms of the compromise is that both the awards do not exist thereafter. It is also contended that in the aforesaid circumstances since the workmen were willing parties to terms of the compromise now they cannot place reliance on the aforesaid two awards of Mr. Justice Tulpule and Jandar in the present case.

5f>- It has again been contended by the corporal ion that the present reference also does not speak about extending the benefit of both the aforesaid awards to temporary badlee, part time workmen appointed after 20-5-85. The corporation has thus argued that in view of the aforesaid circumstances the present re- ference should be decided without the help of the aforesaid both the awhrds of Mr. Justice TJi1pu!e and Jandar. It is next contended by the corporation that the scheme regarding absorption of hadlee, temporary and part time workers engaged after 20-5-85 submitted and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23-10-92 passed in SLP(C) No. 10393-10413192 E. Prabhawati end others Vs. T.TC" and others shall be binding on the workman and their case of nbsorpt'on can be considered in accordance with the sriid scheme.

57. In this resoect it is submitted by the corpora- tion that the SLP (Civil) No. 14906 of 1988 was filed bv the corporation before the Hon'blr Sunremc Court against the authorities of Mr. Justice R. D.

P/Z4 THIS ifttytUTU OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2001/-SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(fl)] '

59. On behalf of the workmen at the first stage i':e whole of the contention of the corporation about the inapplicability of the award of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. \J. Tulpule as well as the uwtird oi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jandar has vehemently been denied. It is submitted that it would be wrong to say that in view of Ihc compromise entered into between the corpo- ration and the majority of the Workmen both thiese awards have lost its alTicacy and are not in exisienee. The award of Mr. Jbslice R. D. Tulpule has been f;ivcn in a legal manner and has imposed a continuous obligation on the corporation for the absorptions of the temporary|badlee!part time employees even after pu'.sing the award, the award, will have a binding ci'Vct on the parties in view of section 18(c)(d) of the Act and it will also continue to operate until it is terminated in accordance with law. The award will continue to operate even after the expiry of the stipu- lated period given in a second proviso of sub-section 3 of Secrion 19 of the Act & it will cease to operate only after in the circumstances enumerated in sub clauses (6) & (7) of the said section 1Q of the act. Tn other words the award can cease to be effective after giving notice by any of the parties of the a^ard and after the expiry of two months lime from the date of the notice. On 'he present case according to the work- men no such not;ce has ever been given by either parties and hence it will totally be unjustified to say that the -aforesaid award stands terminated,

'iO. It is furiher submitted in this respect on behalf df the workmen that it is wrung to say that these awards were repudiated by the terms of the compro- mise aforesaid. The said compromise- according to tin? workmen since being entered into between the corporation and the employees then existing and thus it will not include the cases of the present em- ployees, more over the compromise aforesaid as sub- mitted on behalf of the workmen being opposed to public policy is violative of section 23 of the con- tract act and such compromise will have no binding effect. The award aforesaid imposes a legal obligation and thus it can not be taken away by the corporation. Again the argument of the workmen is that both these awards have not been set aside either by nny of the Hon'ble High Conns of India or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the pwards should be held to be in continuous operation,

Tulpule and M. S. Jandar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to granicd special leave on 1-3-89 in the light of the terms and conditions of I he com- promise entered into between the unions representing y9% of the workmen and the corporation. Again special leave pctitr-n filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said SLi; on behalf cf the winker see- king some relief of absorption as given to workmen from 1-1-82 to 20-5-85 in the award of Mr. justice Tnlpule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of admission oi this application on 6-10-92 had directed the corporation Lo frame for Regulation of the em- ployees who were granted adhoc appointment lor 85 days at intervals from time to time. Contention is that the aforesaid special leave petition was filed by wbrkmen on which order dated 6-10-92 aforesaid was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it makins it abundantly clear that corporation was authorised to frame scheme of absorption of ad-hoc temporary employees and subsequently corpo- ration had submitted scheme of absorption before the Hcn'ble Supreme Court on 23-10-82 which was accepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court and is thus binding on this Tribunal also under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Fact ibat Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the corporation to evolve a scheme for negularisation of the serv'cc of ad-hoc employees in accordance with the guide- lines contained in Piara Singh's case and then accep- ting it on 23-10-92 be in," in o n s a v nc vilh f-e principles laid down in Piara Singh's rise ->nd the workman had consciously approached Hon'ble Sup- reme Court clearly shows that the workmen are bound by the said scheme. It is submitted bv the corporation that order dated 23-10-92 of thr- Hon'- ble Supreme Court was given for setting the law relating to the rcgiihrisation of the Adhoc employees engaged after 20-5-^5 and as such being law of The land is binding on this tribunal too. Tt is again sub- mitted that in view of the said fact that scheme of corportniou was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reasonable. It is to be held that their work- men arc entitled to be continued in service on the same terms and conditions until the rce^iarlv s t a- ted candidates is appointed. The workman according to the corporation have to undergo the selection process of written tesf and interview, rind their selec- tion win depend imon the over all performance in the written test and the interview.

61. It is further submitted thai the terms of the compromise nowhere provides about the termination of the award and in view of this ;i1so is uncorrect to say that both the aforesaid awards haw lost its existence. Again the memo of the compromise does not show any such stipulation that the right of the parties created by the said award has been taken awny and on this ground too according to the work- men the corporation will not be permitted to assert about the ineffectiveness of the award aforesaid.

62. It is also argued in this respect that the e

58. Tt is thus further submitted that recruitment in accordance with the statutory instructions issued by the Chairman known as L.I C. of India Recruitment (of Class TTI and TV St?ff) Instructions 1993 is the normal instance of the working of the corporation and appointment of a temporary staff should be made in arcorrlaiu-r y)*b 'he i">^n":t:Tis. The instructions issued bv the Chairman of the Corporation has a statutory force and it will lmve retrospective effect and in view of this also the workmen are not entitled to take any benefit of the award of Mr, Justice R, D. Tulpule and Mr. Jvc-tire Jandar, Lastly it is submitted that the workmen were appointed for a short spell due to exigencies of the work and under the circumstances enumerated in pan 0 to 14 of the wriff" ' ri-'tf"rnrni

63. A?mn it is submitted thnt vide order dnVd ] -3-89 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 3745 simply directed for¹ the implementation of the terms of compromise during the pendency of the appeal and thus on this ground loo the compromise will not be considered us a binding effect on the piescnt employees.

(U. TV:;, 'vorkmen have also denied the manage- ment contentions about the iinality and the permanent cflect of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 23-10-92 accepting and confirming the schema of regularisation of the temporary employees of the workmen and it is asserted that the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be considered to have been passed under article 141 of the Consti- tution of India and it is not binding on the present, workmen. Likewise workmen have also denied the corporation allegations that the temporary employ- ment rules being issued in the shape of Life Insu- rance Corporation of India (Employment of Tempo- rary Staff) instructions 1993 will have binding effect for the absorption of the workmen in the rojjiihr srr-

' vice of the corporation.

67. Next the workmen while denying the corpora- tion';; contentions about the incompetency of the pre- sent reference on die basis of the binding effect of the rule 8(2) of the Regulation the workmen have strongly submitted that the regulation the workmen have strongly submitted that the regulation has no eftect in the case and the corporation cannot take any benefit of it. The regulation only refer to tem- porary appointment in certaiin conditions and not at all deals with such cases of temporary|badleelpart- tiinc year after year and continuously, Tn this conti- nuation the workman have also denied thai the r.\ev- lation will have overiding effect on the Act and will operate as a bar for raising of an industrial dispute under the Act, The Act jiucording to the workmen is a special act dealing with specific problem which in the present case relates tn the absorption of badlee! temporary! part-time workmen OL corporation employed after 20-5-85 and in a view of the peculiar fact that there is no rules existing which has been validly framed or is in force. The dispute of absorption of the temporarylbadleelpart-tiine workmen of the cor- poration employed after 20-5-85 can well be adjudi- cated upon on the present reference. The present reference thus according to the workmen is legal and well.

68. Tt is further argued on behalf of Ihe w'orkmen that the corporation has been engaging large number of employees in the said categories through various contractors and other agencies. But these employees are unreasonably treated by the corporation as out- siders and not its employees. For aU purposes these employee shall be treated as employees of corporation and should be given all the benefits like its other employees doing similar job.

65. As against the applicability and binding nature of the- said instructions 1993 it is submitted on behalf of the workmen that it will have no binding force because of the fact on the date of the reference the said instructions 1993 was not in existence nor the said instructions of 1993 w'as lever produced before this tribunal in the case and thus. no cogni- zance of it can be taken it. The said instructions of 1993 has also not been either approved or accepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention of the corporation that the said instruction of 109.3 should be deemed to have been approved by Hon'bk Sup- rcme Court is according to workmen tofallv rr>ise.nn- <-]v p\?.,-_?rf and employed persons nftcr 20-5-85.

69. Workmen have fuith^r submitted that the cor- poration is indulging in the unfair labour practice and also following the practice of hire and fire by engaging persons as tcmporary/badleo/part-time and removing them from service before they coukl com- plete particular period of time with a view lhat they should not claim the right of rcgularisation in the servib?. The corporation after removing :uch emplo- yees use to employ other persons their place again these types of workmen after 'heir engagement were continued in service for indefinite period by giving them artificial breaks. The corporation further allowed to these workmen to continue in service not in their actual name after sometime but to work in fictions names, It is also submitted

66. V is vert submitter! on beh;ilf of the workmen that the terms of the present reference itself shows that corporation has deviated from the practice and has failed to fulfil its obligation to absorb|badli!tem- pornry/'part-time workmen engaged after 20-5-85. On as of proving this departure from an established practice basv-d on judicial pronouncement of the N.I.T. of Mr Justice Tuloule and b:ing upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court is in any n;mm:r justified SQUAPLY .LIES ON THE CORPORATION. Method and criteria of absorption have already been determined W the NIT of Bo^biw i:f Mr. Justice R.D. Tulpule in his award ;>nd mfdifici and upheld bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court Hence, the prone of the present reference h rctfrir.fe-l to the action of the corporation in not absorbing thes? workmen.

70. In reply to the workmen's contention about the unfair labour practice being committed by the Cor- poration is denied by the Corporation. The Corpora- tion has asserted that the large number of such workmen were employed on the direction of the tribunals and courts and thus were allowed to con- tinue in service for which the corporation had nothing lo do and thus if such workmen were allowed to continue as temno'anjbadlee'part-time the eva- poration cannot be charged for practicing any unfair practice. In this respect it is again submitted by the f f 2S ' T f l f f i f y ' X X Em OF _ l N t " ¥A •: J t T L \ * 3 8 , 2 0 01 y S R r t V A N $- "N 1 ^3 • - [ P A RT 1 1 ^ - S K C. * 3 ( f l &} corporation that instances are also there when these workmen were allow to continue in their job for a long period on the pressure excited by- their unions on [he corporation. It it, thus strongly amlendfd by the corporation that it would basically incorrect and totally wrong that the Coiporation had indulged in any unfair labour practice.

that there can be sio substitution in award is well acceptable to me. The theory of merger of Award of Hoii'ble Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule in 'he order of Hon'ble High Court 'jf Bombay as placed by ihc corporation I find has got no force. This point has viVKiiy been dealt wilh in the award of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Jamdar. The finding so recorded has no where been recalled to set aside. It has be- come final. This tribunal has thus no jurisdiction to re- cord any finding again on the same issue. This con- tention of corpora'ion is rejected.

74. Likewise the award of Hon.:ble Mr. Justice can held as applicable in this proceeding on the same reasoning as found in respect of the applicability of an award of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tulpule, After having considered the submissions and con- tentions aforesaid made by both the parties and I he relevant facts and circumstances of the case at the very beginning I find it true that as per terms of Ihc present reference the scope and ambit for the adju- dication of the dispute is limited only to the extent of the justifiability of the action of the corporation, for not absorbing thj temporary[badlee|part-time workmen employed after 20-5-85 in the corporation. Tt is also true that for the adjudication of the dispute of the present case this tribunal is not, required to lay down any new conditions of service for absorptions of these workmen but to decide a dispute on the existing facts and circumstances of the case.

75. Now as regards the binding effect of the order dated 23-10-92 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 10393-10413192 E. 1'rabhawailliy and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another confitming the scheme of absorptionIre.qu- larisation as argued on behalf of the coiporaiion in my view can be veil accepted. The order passed I find is between the same parties. E. Prabhawathy and other is the party in this proceeding being impleadedf at the subsequent stage of the proceeding,- Statement of claim has been filed in the present case bv the aforesaid workmen. The said order dated 23-10-92 of Hon'ble Supreme Court is thus between same parties of the case and in view of the circumstances I find that workmen has no ground to challenge th<* lepalitv of the said rrder datec¹¹ 73-10-92. The conditions of the workmen rmdi in this repnrd n'~c not accepted.

71. Tn my view it is undisputedly true that re- cruitment and absorption can not be equated together. In the award of Hon'blc Mr. Justice Jamdar it has finally been held that absorption could not mean re- cruitment. Hence the rule and procedure applicable to the recruitment will not be applicable in the case of absorption. Absorption in my view prc supposess a valid appointment in the service and its continuity in it. The absorption of the workmen in the service I find has to be done on the basis of the recognised princi- ples and the rules and regulations validity framed,

7t3, Instruction 1993 providing temporary employ- ment rules with respea to the absorbtion of tempo- rary|badli|part-lim^ workmen I find is not applicable in the present case. I agree with the contention of the workmen ihat sine;; on the date of reference was not in existence hence its cognizance can not be taken by this tribunal. Further the instruction 1993 was not even produced in this case nor it wais approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the corporation and simnly given information for framing scheme in reeircT to future adhoc appoint- ment and requlntion The Contention of the corpora- tion that it would be deemed to have be"n approved as subseouenf oven 1v ITon'bie Sunrprrie Court in my view is' fftriipnus anrj not acceptable,

77. Moreover the Instruction 19QT jp mv view has been framed without anv authority, Earlier the a u t h o r^ of framing the terms "nd conditions of ser- vice rn view of the provisions provided in section 4 9 f bM of LTC Act. 1956 was vested with the cor- poration. But Inter on bv amendment Act. No 1 nf 19R1 ^ c ' i on 4UfHit wns d p l r wi nmf this autho- ritv 'nf frnmin" t^rriT nurf r-nTirHt'nn¹; of t f r v i rf ivi?

vMfcrl with ^" jTViifr;ii Gnvernmcnt v'dp section 4 R / ^ f c^ of I..TC Art, 1056 newly in^rted after nimmclment.

72. In the present case as seen above earlier an award by NIT presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule, laying down the condition of absorp- tion of temporary'bad'eelpart-time workmen of the corporation has already been given. The said award has not been reversed or set aside- bv :"nv nf the Hon'ble High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Tndia. It is n<">t even terminated as y:t, Tn view of the fact I find mvself imsHe to agree with the whole of the contentirp of the corporation regarding the inapplicabiMiv of the award in this proceedings. In mv view it will not be correct to say that bv re- cordine finding alvrnt cut off date i.e. 1-1-R2 to 20-5^85 the Tribunal his c^eedert jurisdiction in any manner. It was simply an incidental matter nncl wns necessary for the determination of main dispute re- ferred to the tribunal. The pwnrd in mv view rnn not be held as invalid f^ncf inannliciWe in ihe ease. The submissions made on bHnF of *hf wnrVmrn in this re'-oect I find has substantial forcr. O r t a i nb awiprd even ifter thn exniry of stipulated Tvn'ofi siven in 2nd proviso of srctjnn 1QH) of th" Art can Vie terminnted orrlv nftier exnirv of nrriod of fv" nirnthc of the notice given ^v either paTty as provided under section 19(6) of the Act.

bv (ft'* rnrr-orofion wnt I^CPIIT fnmpH T TnripT i*^ T'i1r> A n o " ' '¹' fif" th" ;mn'<'v>np-"⁴'ltif¹Ti r>f pf>rrii^i<;r-,n

IV"-- rri-riaT) tf, J' - -. r T i n i r m nn Tbr" it-iftTlir-f Ir.n 1OOT

' ' " •• 1 - i r - on J i ; c m n ,l 1 - , ,, ( I T /- P T i i i i n r ' Hi - I I T - , I 4 - .T- v n Tn / ^f t j ,u "

P^^nin+'on TTFMT''^ m v m u' of tT"^ iTa^^iT^ inq^rfr"-!

Instruction 1993 can b" held valid. It is not accep- table tp me. Sub Section 2-A of Section 48 of L1C A£t 1956 is reproduced below :—

"(2-A) The Regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the comence- ment of the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981 with respect to the terms and conditions cf service of em- ployees and agenis of the Corporation in- cluding thosj wha became employees and agents of the Corporation on appointed day under this Act, shall be deemed to be rules made undsr Cl. (cc) of sub-section (2) and shall, mb'ect to the oihet previsions of this section, have effect accordingly."

79. From the above it is abundantly clear that the provisions with respect to term and conditions of service which existed and was in force on lYe date of the comencement of the Amendment Act 1981 were only served and not that provision which was framed subsequently tc the Amendment Act, 1981, even by the authority being competent under the Regu- lation. Admittedly Instruction 1993 was noi in exis- tence at the time of the commencement of the amend- ment Act 1981. The Corporation T find cannot take any benefit of the previsions of Instruction 1993. I find and hold that instruction 1993 is not applicable in the case.

si-"•fl'frr" under Section 4 8 ( 2 } ( J " ;} of LIC Act, l ? 5 6 as amen- ded by the Act 1 of 1981 exist. Thus I find that the present reference under the Act is valid amd legal and this tribunal ha-j jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred¹ to under section 10(1 )(d) and (2A) of the Act.

82. As regards the workmen contention of the un- fair labour pracrica being adopted by the corporation after having considoi od the entire facts and circum- stances of the case I do not find it satisfactory. It is the definite case of the corporation that the work- men employed as temporary/badli/part-time continued in their service due to the fact that they were em- ployed on the directions of the tribunals and other courts and were continued in service on the basis of the restraint orders and also to the fact that these workmen were continued in service on the pressure of their unions. This has well been alleged by the corporation and it has not been refuted from the side of the workmen.

83. This apart 1 find that this tribunal is incompe- tent to record any finding in thic; Tespcct because the term of reference does not mention about it. This ajspect of the case cannot be taken into considera- tion being an incidental matter. In view of this also I find myself enable to accept the contention of the workmen with respect to the unfair labour, practice of the corporation.

84. Now coming to the ma|in dispute regarding the absorptions of these tcmporaiy|badli!ptift time workmen of the Corporation as stated by the cornd- ration it is no denying the fact that these categories of workmen were employed for a short term on the exigencies of ihe work without following the pro- cedure. The witnesses examined on behalf of til* workmen Shri Saibal Chowdhary WW7, Shri A. S. Dev WW 9, Shri S. S. Iain WW 29 amd Shri P. V. Kulkarni WW 26 have all admitted that temporary appointments were made against leave vacancies and for occasional work and also pending regular recruit- ment.

Mil THE. GAZETTE OF INDIA : KLY 28,2001/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART JJ—SEC. 3(ii)l Nadu Terminated full time L.I.C. Employees Asso- ciation. Workmen have ajso stated in evidence Sri Ram Bharose Fd. WW16 as stated in. his affidavit he had put in work in the following manner :

(II) 1985—151 days

1986—291 days 1987—182 days 1988—190 days 1989—184 days 1 9 9 0 - 1 93 days 1 9 9 1 _ 1 34 days 1992—244 days 1993—224 days 1994—162 days upto the month of June.

Shri Ravfader Kumar WW14 working as watchman has stated that he was appointed after interview ac- cording to term in para 8 of his affidavit it is stated that he has been working as temp since 1986 but not regularised as vet. His affidavit was given in 1996. Fandurang Kulkarni WW 26 has stated in para 2 of his affidavit 195 temporaryibadli'patrt time wotkmen working as watchmen, liftmen, sweeper in Ahmedabad and were amraintcd on 20*5-85. Some of them were sponsored by Employment Exchange of Government of Gujajr**.. Majorily nf such employes were cm- ployed in permanent vacancies arising out of retire- ment promotion transfers and death. Permanent vacnn- cfes arose due tc increase of busine** cf LTC.

86. These workmen have not been effctivelv cross- examined by cornoratinn. Their evidence can well be accepted. Tt has not been specifically denied by th"- corooratinn. Corcoration has not even fiVd its written statement acainst the statement of claim of Tamil Natfu. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association, Under the circumstances in my view a vested right of absorption has accrued to tnem,

87. In the service jurisprudence it is an established principle that ad-hoc or temporary employees em- ployed in service after following the procedure and were allowed to continue in their job for longer period should be regularised in their service.

88. In view of the fete: I nm of definite view that fiuch type of workmen belonging to temporaw|badli| part time categories in class TIT and class TV service of the corporation who were emnlovecT after following the procedure and were allowed to continue service bevond thjt qualifying period and were eligible and surtflible in every respect should be given absorption fn these service from date of the vacancy in the service in which they could have been absorbed. It will slso apply to those such emvjJoyees whose services were terminated by the corporation.

89. As regards the case of me workmen employed on a contractual basis in the corporation in mv view t hw could claim their absorption in the service on fulfilling the aforesaid¹ requirements in case their exist direct relationship of master and servant between them and the corporation. The benefit of absorption in service will not be available to there contracted cm- plovees where nrv relAtionshio of master and servant existed between them and the corporation and also thsit thev wet? not possessing the rermtsite ircwire- rienfe of the eligibility and suitability for the absorp- tion.

90. Now coming to the point of the absorptions of these workmen I find that the basis for the absorption should be as laid down in the award of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. D. TuJpule and also of the award of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Jandar.

91. While dealing with the point of eligibility for absorption of such workmen Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule in para 54 of the award has clearly found that the workmen belonging to class four service who have putting v.ork for a total period of 70 days during a period of three calendar years they should be considered as eligible for being ab- sorbed. Likewise the workmen belonging to class III service who has worked for 85 days in a period of two calendar years would be eligible for absorp- tion, ft is also especifically found that the work- men putting their working days less than 70 days during a period of three calendar years in the case of class IV employees and less than 85 days in the c&se of class III Employees, a period of two calen- dar years will not be eligible for their absorption in any manner.

92. It is also found that the absorption of such workmen should be considered on their suitability, fn this regard specific guidelines have been given in the award. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Jamdar while interpreting and confirming the award of Hon'ble Mr, Justice Tulpule has also made his ob- servations regarding the ehgibility and suitability for the absorption of such workmen.

93. It is observed by him that while counting the working days of the employees for their eligibility for absorption in regular cadre the working days will not only include those days on which the workmen had actually worked, but it will also include the days on which he is deemed to have worked. The workmen should be deemed to have worked on all days on which he was required to take extraordinary leave in lieu of casual leaves or earn leaves. Age of the workman at the time of his first employment should be taken into consideration and not at the time of considering him for absorption. If the workman is found to be over age at the time of ab- sorption pud he ii satisfying all the requirement of his eligibility for absorption he should not been denied the benefit cf absorption on this ground of becoming overage. Question of desirability and suitability should be considered on the basis of the past record of service of particular workman. If no such record is maintained which is expected to be maintained corporation cannot take advantage of Us own omission in not maintaining the relevant re- cord, Possessing of normal qualification of eligibi- lity presented by the recruitment rule will not be necessary. It is only necessary at a time of intial appointment of the workman by the corporation.

94. In view of the matter I find and conclude that the action of corporation denying the absorption of these temporarylbadlilpart time workmen as dealt with above in the body of this award and employed after 20-5-85 is not justified. I further find that these workmen employed after 20-5-85 should be given absorption in their job on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforesaid two awards namely, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. D. Tulpule and of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Jamdar in respect of , -•' - ,. '• * .* ;i: ,

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2001 the workmen employed with effect from 1-1-82 to 20-5-85 and dealt with by rue as above. It is direct- ed that the corporation bhull take into consideration ttir the nb^rr'ti^r, of the wcrtmen. on their eligibi- lity and suitability as dealt with above in the award. The case of those workmen belonging to the cate- gory ol temporary, badli!part-time who had become eligible for their absorption in their job after complet- ing the qualified period of working and were suitable in every respect but ihcir services were terminated and they were turned cut of lhe job by the corporation should also be considered for the absorption of such terminated workmen of the corporation shall publish a notice in the daily newspaper having wide circula- tion throughout India und if in complience of the notice the workman concerned concent in writing within Ktipuhted period which could be given in the said notice the case of such workman should also be considered for their absorption in the regular vacancy then existing. At the time of the consideration of absorption oi" such workmen if it is found that no regular vacancy is available to such workmen. Super- numery posts should also be; created and such work- men sliould be given absorption in it. It is again directed that the cases of these workmen for absorp- tion in existing vacancies should be taken for consi- deration first irrespective of the regular recruitment if taken. The case of the contractual workmen for ab- sorption shall be taken into consideration as per observation made in the body of the award and on the basis and on conditions as stated above.

95. The term of reference is answered accordingly

S.O. 1825.—Whereas the Central Govern- ment having been satisfied that the public interest so required had, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the Notifica- tion of the Government of India in the Minis- try of Labour S.O. No. 202 dated 16-1-2001 the services in the Industry engaged in die manufacture of production of Mineral Oil (Crude Oil), Motor and Aviation, Spirit, Diesel Oil, Kerosene Oil, Fuel Oil, Diverse Hydrogen Oils and their blends including Synthetic fuels, lubricating oils and the like which is covered by item 26 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six month's from the 16-1-2001.

and the award is given in the like manner.

Dated : June 18, 2001.

K. S. SR1VASTAV, Presiding Officer

And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further, period of six months;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Govern- ment hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 16-7-2001.

[No. S-11017]6]97-IR(PL)]

H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

3 7 3U -m G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • -. J U LY 2 8 , 2 0 0 1/ S R A V A NA 6, W 24

Now Delhi, the 28th June, 2001

S.O. 1826.—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, Kanpur as ahown in the anhexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2001.

[No. L-12011/55/98-lR(B-II)l

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI R. p. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR. KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 80/99

In the matter of dispute:

BETWEEN

The Dy. General Secretary. PNB Employees Union, 2 West Arjun Nagar, Oppj Temple, Agra.

AND

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Vaibhav Nagar, Ajia.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-12011/55/98-IR(B-II) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—

':WhcS#er the action of the Regional Manager Office PNB Agra is in accordance to circular No, 1569 dated 16-2-97 and whether the above circulur is defective one as alleged by the union 7 If not what benofits the workmen are entitled to ?"

2. In the instant case after exchange of pleading between the parties, the union raising the dispute stopped comina to attend the proceedings of the case. However, the case was fixed for filling of rejoinder by the union, but neither ihe union nor any one on its behalf appeared in the case nor filed rejoinder statement. The union also did not adduce any evi- dence nor filed any documentary evidence In the case in support of its statement of claim. Needless to mention that on 12-1-2001 the proceedings of the case were adjourned to 26^2-2001 on the application moved by the union, but there- after none appeared in the case on behalf of the Union.

3.' Therefore, from the above discussions of the case. I am inclined to believe that neither the union nor its representative is interested in contesting the case. In view of it the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claim of the union, for the concerned workmen is liable to be dismissed for went of evidence and proof.

/(.Accordingly it Is held that workman are-not entitled for any.relief pursuant to the present reference and the reference ij decided against the workmen in respect of whom the present dispute has been raised by the Union.

[ P A RT B —S B O. 3 ( 1 1 )1

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2001

S.O. !S27.^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-II, Mumbai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer* in relation to tlie management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2001.

i*No. L-12011|224|2000-TR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. IL MUMBAI

PRESENT:

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No, CGIT-2/14 of 2001

Employers In relation to the management of BANK OF BARODA

The Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, 18th Floor, Stock Exchange Building. Dalai Street, Mumbai-400014.

AND

Their Workmen.

The Joint Secretary, Bank of Baroda Erap. Trade Union Congress, Flat No.3. 79-Hindu Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer: Mr, L. L. D"Souza and Mr.-*Haz Mohd. Representatives.

t or the Workmen: No Appearance.

Mumbai, dated 12th June, 200r

AWARD

The Government' of India. Ministry of Labour, by it* Order No. L-12Oll/224/2OO0-IR(B-H), dated 12/16-01-2001, have referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred on it by clause fd) of Sub- Section (]) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10, of the Induitrlal Disputes Act, 1947.

R. P. PANDEY. Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Bank, of Baroda by dismissing Shri Harish Salian from the services of the bank is justified and proper? Tf not, then what relief the workman is entitledto?" 2, On receipt of the reference from the Ministry, Tribunal issued notices to the union and the management. However, union though served (vide Exhibit-4) none appeared on its behalf. On behalf of the management Mr. L. L. D'Souza representative appeared (vide J3xhibit-J). Matter was fixed for filing of Statement or Claim by the Union, on 8-1-2001. 28-3-2001, 20-4-2001, 11-5-2001, 1-6-2001 and today i.e.

:fm

me reference u. produced as under :

12< 6^2001. Howoven till today done appeared, on behalf of the union nor put Statement of Claim, which indicates that union i" not Interested in prosecuting the reference. Conse- quently it detervto to be disposed of and hence the order:—

"Whether the action of tiiet management of Central Bank of India in not promoting to, Shri Moti Lai Yadav is justified? If not, what relief the workman i< entitled for ?"

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-prosedtticn.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR. Presiding Officer

2. Despite repeated notices, the workman did not respond. Registered notices were sent on 22-11-20OO, 21-12-2000, 15-1-2001, 9-2^2001, 26-3-2001, 30-4-2001 and 17-5-2001. In response to the notice from this Tribunal, the management appeared through S. K. Gupta on 17-5-2001 and 22-6-2001. There is presumption of service of registered notices. There seems no justification for the workman to remain absent despite notices and file claim statement. As the claim state- ment hat not been filed to far, it is not possible to adjudicate the case on merit.

3. The reference order¹ is also vague. It does not specify post on which promotion Is sought. Even the relevant date has not been given.

4. In the said circumstances the reference is returned,

unadjudlcated on merit.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Lucfcnow:

25-6-2001.

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2001

S.O. 1828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947J. the Central Government hereby publishes the award 6f the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the mmexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bant of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2001.

[No. L-12011/195/20O0-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

• New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

&.O. 1829—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- BliFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Presiding Officer : Rudrosh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 173/2000

Ref. No. L-120U/195/20OO-IR(B-lD

Dated 18-10-2000

The Asstt. General Secretary, Central Bank Staff Association, 13/11, Shiv Nasar Colony Allahapur, Allahabad (U.P.) (espousing cause of Moti Lai Yadav)

AND

The Regional Manager, Central Bailk of India, Zonal Office. Lanka, Varanasi.

AWARD

By reference No. L-12011/195/2000-IR(B-IT) dated 18-10-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of siib-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 I D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Asstt. General Secretary, Central Bank Staff Association. Allahabad espousing cause of Moli Lai Yadav and the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Varanaal for adjudication.

Up \ im GAZBTfS OF INDIA : JtJLy a*, 2001/ sfcAVAKA 6, i923 [fART a^S"c: f(ii^M No. 1, Maruthi Nllaya, 11th 'A' Cross, S. P. Extension, BANOALORE-560 003.

II Party

The General Manager^ Canara Bank Staff Section, Bangalore Circle Office. 25, MGRoad, P.B. No. 5147 BANGALORE-560 001.

APPEARANCES :

Now Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government Hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the axinexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in ielation to the management of Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2001.

[No. L-12012/69/95-IR(B-I[)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No. CGIT/LC/R/118/96

Presiding Officer: Shri K. M. Ral, Shri P. K. Samanta, through Secretary. Bank of India Employees Union, Russei Chowk, Jabalpur,

. , , . Applicant

Versus

The General Manager, Bank of India, Napier Town, Russel Chowk, Jabalpur.

. . . .. Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of June, 2001 J. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vJde Older No. L-12012/69/95-IR(B-2) dated 26-5-97 has referred tfie following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the demand of the Bank of .India Employee Union, J-iTialptir on th" management of Bank of India. Jabalpur for grant of two additional Incre- ments and promotion to Shri P. K. Samanta clerk by treating him at par with graduate from the entitkd dates, is juntified ? If not, what relief Ii the said workman entitled to ?"

2. The workman did not apoear before this tribunal when the case was called on for hearing. Hence proceeded e.vparfo OBair.rt him.

3. The workman has not been able to establish Mi claim¹; rts referred for adjudication. No Dispute exists between the parties.. In virw of thia fact, No Dispute Award is PM

4. On the above said reasons, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed bv him, The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the mnnagement and against the tjwkman.

5. Copy of tbfi award be sent to the Ministry of l.iibonr. Government of India us per niles.

K, M. RAI. PresidfaR Officer

3733 New Delhi, the 3rd July. 2001

S.O. 1831.—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 aunexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers ID relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02 07-2001.

[No. L-12011/36/92-IR(B-lI)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN*. Ill MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated: 19th June. 2001

PRESENT:

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

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT.

BANGALORE

C.R. No. 88/92

I PARTY

The General Secretary, Union Bank of India Employees Association, Karnataka Unit, No. 582, Avenue Road, Bangalore-560002. (Advocate: Shri Sathya Nnrayan)

H PARTY

Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Central Office, No. 239, Bombay Reclamation Point, Nariman Point, Bombay, (Advocate : Shri K, R. Anand)

AWARD

l.'The Central Government bv nxcrcisinp the powers con- ferred by clause (d)of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred th^ dilute vide order No. L-12011 /36/92-IR(BU) dated 11-12-1992 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the part of the m-inasenipnt'Of Union Bank of India for not rewiiarU'nT the qerv'oM of seven farm labourers namelv Shn Nflninnd"t>n,v, Annivappa. ADpaiinppa Smt. LnHhmakka. Smt. Aclituirnmma, Kmt, Sflmrmnsanima and Sift. Chikkni'avflrnrrm along with the consequential benefits is instifled ? If not what relief the workmen rro entitle to?"

2. The first nartv union workmen n>'mbcfin" sewn r m o rn ni'mdv Shri Nanhjnd8nrw", Anniyonnn, Appajiaopn. Smt Lakshmalrka, Smt. AchaarammB, Smt. Sampansamma and "-S734": ,iHRmZETTE OV W^A : Jt^y2?,J001/^M^NA % 192$ " "'" ' [ * ^ f:| p & C^ at* Smt Chlkkajayatoma were working with the Second pArty management. Their grievance is that they are not regularised and therefore dispute was raited.

3. The first party union on behalf of the workmen filed Claim Statement.

4. The case of the first party workmen is that the workmen joined the services, of the Second party during the year 1981 at Gardeners and they are working continuously and in the beginning they were paid Rs. 3 per working day and after that wages was increased as Rs. 15 per working day. Attcn- dar.ee Register is maintained in respect of these workmen. Tho management has not regularised their services mid the action of the management is not correct. There is unfair labour practice and the union has prayed to pass award in its favour,

5. Second party appeared end filed Counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as undtr :

7. The main coptention of the Second party is that it wanted to impart training to employees inorder to Improve the calibre of its employees, so that they may render better qualitative service to the customer!. For this, a suitable premises was needed¹. The present premises of the Staff Training College was purchased in the year 1981. The Staff training c o l l ie has a total area of 36 acres of lend. The land lord wai not rendy to sell only the built up area as stated in nara 3 of the Counter.

8. In para 4 it is said that the banking industry is an industry as defined in I.D. Act, 1947. The farm labourers have been engaged to do seasonal work of fanning and nre paid according to minimum wages applicable in the State. The activity of farming is neither business nor trade, nor an under- taking, nor manufacturing process, nor calling of tin industry or incidental to it. The nomenclature farm labourer* does not find place in any of the Award of Bi-partite Settlements. Therefore, the demand" for payment of wages applicable to the Bank employees along with all other benefits have no merits at all. Therefore the dispute itself is not maintainable!. Some other details are stated in para § and 7 and it is alleged that the dispute h not maintainable.

9. It is the further case of the management that these farm labourers were paid wages dailv and no appointment order was given to them and none of these workmen have worked more thp.n 240 days and therefore there is no merit in this dispu'e. For these reasons and some other reasons the second party has prayed to reject -the reference.

10. It i* seen from the records that on behalf of the mKiKs-m'-nt MW1 is examined who is an officer with the STo"d Party mBtwrnerit. Ajrainet this WW 1 & 2 examined. T buy resd the evidence of theae witnesses carefully. I have purred all the documents and scrutinised the material.

H: Accordant? tb the evidence of MW1, training college is envrr.-d P-> area of 16 acres and these workmen nre wovklnR !>•• f-nn lthoi:rrrn a-, casual employees from 1981. But he f'l't Mi-,* t'ipv were not wprVintj continuously hut clurinc ths c'ii-"-p r-r rrn'.'i CTfiminatior> h⁰- prfnr'ts that fhw. workmen ,.."„ v.'^rf-jy continuously from 1981. This itself ii sufficient -.% *..v iw the nc+'Of "f the management in not reRiilarisinR lluv.o workmen h illegal,

i? TH< JT, thp evidence of MW 1 that attendance rechtrrs nn- rv.-^'-'f-f) in rrstj^ct of these fnrm labour?™. It is onlv wi bv * *V 1 t^r>* t" the hr"t of his Vnowledct none of ( We vr^rVtn.-n wo^icd more thart 240 dnvs. V i n i ^ m c nt has n-* iHrt>i<--H DTIV rVnr flnrt cop^m rv'drri™ to <^v t*iat these wrVmnfi "nv(" not v,-rtrfrfA contirmnuslv for 24f> d?vs.' M W! -aw in *\ n-(w exflrninafien thnt b e d - vn not ^rive ncrsonal VnnvT-riw" uTiiiit thp work ^ncl other r"*l"^d incidi-nti rcp"rri- :ii(T f> prow TcaV.

t.*. Tr w>i "ririffl hv •h*-li-am'-(i counsel for tfie ircotid nf t^"-.ir> ' - I T- fl*tf"n"r! SrPCT-flTlTHl^iiTI ^nd thrrpfoi-f *h~rf V no Tn"*":t •" *hi^ ^!rr>tit(" if wH' "*s" i r t ^ '^ Vv (hi* """Tia""- f^i>nt t ' i "f ''•-"•" w ^ i t "! •"••^ r"i1v f-"TTi T"OrV"'-i T Vv i"rc fnjdtnpi. nf K"TI/ i t*iit tV"o V'nTVm^T" w f" worVM rrmilarl" sine" t*WJ. iVf^V J <:r^ in hf^ crri';'? f - ^ n ^ r i a ' f^ thnt frierr^* an officer for nulittatag this taha' house Who will look after these workmen. In otherwords this MW 1 is not aware of any facts regarding these workmen. Management has not adduced any cleaj and cogent evidence to show that these workmftn have not continuously worked. Wo arc hivine the evidence of WWI A II. According their evidence they arc working continuously. They are cross examined at lennth but nothing is made out from his cross examination. The learned counsel for the management has relied Civil Appeal No. 1813/1992 dated 29th April 1992 SC. I have read the above decision very carefully. The facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The management dannot take the benefit of the principles held in the above decision.

14. The learned counsel for the first party workman hes relied (1996) 2 Supreme Court cases 293. I have read the above decision very carefully. Keeping .in mind the principles held in the above decision, the fact that these workmen have continuously worked since 1981, that the management has to regularise these workmen.

J5. Accordingly reference is answered holding that the workmen are entitled for regularisation and I proceed to pass the following order;

ORDER

The reference is allowed. The management Is directed to reRUlnrise those workmen as per seniority and in accordance with rules and service conditions which are with the mnnafte- mirnt. Accordingly reference is answered.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and siiraed bv me on 19th Juno 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd .TuJy, 2001 SO. 1832.—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 Cburt, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7^2001,

[No. L-l 2012/6/91-1R(B-1I)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

"STJRAM SADAN", G.G. PALYA, TUMKUR &OAD, YESHWANTHJR, BANGALORE Dated : 20th June, 2001 PRESENT :

HorTble V. N. Kulkarni, Presiding Officer,

C R. No. 30/91

I Party :

Shri Ankaiah, S/o Late Madaiah, Pccluvaniigar, T. Hosalulli Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore District.

II Party:

The Deputy General Manager Syndicate Bank, I R Cell, Zonal Office, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9.

APPEARANCES :

T Party—K. N. Subramanyam, Advocate. TT Party—Pradeep S. Sawkar, Advocate,

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the pbwers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1> and Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-l2012/6/91-1R-B-T1 dated 25-6-1901 for adjudication on ' the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndf- cate Bank, Bangalore i:; justified in termina- ting the services of Sh. Ankaiah, Clerk, KSRTC Extension Counter, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore w.e.f. 31-10-1989 is justified ? Tf not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 2. I party w!as working with the II party as Cashier. Charge Sheet was Issued. Ennuiry was held. On the basis of the enquiry report be was terminated and therefore dispute is raised,

3. I party appeared ^"^ n'oi Claim Statement. The caise of the T party In brief is as under.

3735 functioning for public transaction from 10.30 ion. onwards. The I Party came late to the bank and another substitute was working as a Cashier in KSRTC Extension Counter. On 4-12-1982 to his surprise one Mr. R. Srinivasa Murthy was work- ing as Cashier in the KSRTC Extension Counter and also handling the SiMgle Locker, When the I Party reported for duty, he was asked to work as Cashier but he refused and protested. He was given details about the duties in the Claim Statement. The I party wrote the single locker scroll ledger page No, 108 and called Mr. Sridhara Murthy to verify the days account. The I party submitted the ^counts along- with the rough note of denomination written by the Omcier-in-charge and on verification it was poin!."d out by Sridhara Murthy that there is shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 45,500 in the Singl; Locker. The T Party approached the Manager and asked to give account for a sum of Rs. 41500 as per the rough note given to him to enter the Single Locker Scroll Ledger. Both of them again went inside the counting cabin and had discussions and after coming out of the cabin, the Oflicer-in-crnrge and Mr, Sridhara Murthy instructed the T party to cancel the entries in the Single Locker Scroll Ledger page No. 108 and revised rough note for loo"c cash denominations for Rs. 2,937,69, The Officer incharge mentioned an amount of Rs. 5,00,817,69 and that too without any remark or without the knowledge of the T party. The Officers arrived at the Extension Counter and had discussion with the Manager and custodian Sridhara Murthy and substitute Cashier upto 11.10 hours and thcrenfter I party Was called and Assistant General Manager informed that there is a report by the Mana- ger regarding handling of Cash in the Extension Coun- ter and there is shortage of Cash. The I party denied the charges. The enquiry is not correct. The action of the management is not proper. The T party has not committed any misconduct. I party for these rea- sons has prnyed to allow the reference.

5. TT party appeared and filed counter. The case of the TT party in brief is as under.

6. According to II party on 4-12-1982, while the T party was working as Cashier in the KSRTC Ex- tension Counter Bank and incurred Cash shortage of Rs, 45,500 and the Officer-in-charge called upon the T partv to reimburse the cash shortage that the I party submitted a letter dated 4-12-1982 that he handed over the amount of Rs. 45,500 to one Sri A. Rnmesh Kini but he failed to reimburse, The I party has com- mitted misappropriation causing serious financial loss to the Bank. The explanation given by the I party was not correct. Enquiry is correct. The allegations are proved and it is stated that the enquiry is fair and proper, and the management is justified in im- posing the punishment. Tt is true OTI 4-12-1982. I pariv enrne late nnd one Sri Sriniw;? Murthy was working in the cash department. The T partv protested to work PS Cashier on that day. Hg preferred tn work as Cashier, it is the further case of the management that the I party was prosecuted by the W;1son Garden 3736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Police Station and he was acquitted. It is said that it was not a clean acquital. The 1 party has misappro- priated the amount and the management for these rcasoris hus prayed to reject the reference.

It needs to be emphasized that in the Banking business absolute devotion, dili- gence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every Bank employee. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public would be impaired.

(e) 1996 Lab. l.C. J058 (SC)

Municipal Committee Bahadurgad vs, Kisha'n Behan

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any other punishment other than dismissal in case of misappro- priation and corruption.

7. Tt is seen from the records that on behalf of the management M.W-I, Kumar was examined who con- ducted enquiry. Agamst this WW-I was examined. This court by its order dated 7-6-1999 passed 'order holding that the Domestic Enquiry is true and cor- rect. There after matter was posted for arguments. I have heard both sides. I have gone through the mate- rial before me, the evidence and the enquiry proceed- ings carefully. The I party filed lengthy arguments, 1 have gone through the same carefully.

(d) IT L998 (9) SC ?7.

State of Karnataka & others vs. H. Nagaraja Dismissal—Punishment imposed after departmental enquiry—Principal of propor- tionality can be invoked regarding punish- ment only in a case where the punishment Vas totally irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. Such is not in the present case. Hence the order of the Tribunal which is impugned before us is set aside and the order of the Appellate Authority is restored.

(c) JT 1989 (2) SC 132

Union Bank of India vs. Paramananda 8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the II party that in the instant case, the I party has mis- appropriated a sum of Rs. 45,500.00 and this being a serious in nature, the action of the management is correct and there is no merit in this reference. Against this it was argued for the 1 party that the charge is not proved and it was further submitted that he was prosecuted by Wilson Garden Police Station for mis- appropriation of funds of the bank, but he was ac- quitted by the competent Criminal Court and only the Higher Officers have filed false case ngninst him and he has not misappropriated any amount. From the evidence and the circumstances,, it is clear tint the Criminal Court has acquitted T party from the charge of misappropriation. On going through the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer if is not clear that the charge of misappropriation is directly proved against the I party. Regarding shortage there is contradiction. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is not proper and does not clearly establish that the I party has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 45,500. The learned counsel for the II party relied on some decisions :

Dismissal from service—Inquiry Officer finding the Respondent guilty of fraudulent act for self aggrandisement—Penalty of dis- missal imposed by the Disciplinary Autho- rity—Scope of jurisdiction, power and autho- rity of Tribunal—Held that Tribunal have no discretion or power to interfere with the penalty which is lawfully imposed, (n) 1995 (I) LLJ Kar fDB)-1995 tt) LLJ

233(SB)

ff) 1987 Lab. l.C. 77

I>. Padmanabudu vs. Rank of India Sc Another

Wimco Shramik Union vs. Seventh Indus- trial Tribunal

Sec. U-A of the I D. Act—Powers of Labour Court of Tribunals to interfere with dismissal—Workmen found guilty of theft—Punishment .->£ dismissal justified—• No interference u/s U -A on ground that wbrkmen had rendered long period of un- blemished service and stolen property was only Rs, 150.

(g) AIR 1997 SC 2661

Once the enquiry is properly held and the Management has thought fit in pass an order of dismissal considering the nature and gravity of the act committed bv the em- ployee, it is not for the Court including the Labour Cburt to interfere with such order of management. These being a case of mis- appropriation bv a person who was holdine the position of Accounts Clerk in a Bank it cannot be said that the bank bad tnken ;i wrong view of the matter and the punish- ment \#as unduly harsh.

Punjab Doirv Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Kala Singh

(b) 1998 RC 2111-1098 Lab IC 2514

Union Bank of Tndia vs Vishwa Mnhan

The Hon'ble Supreme C'nirt has rntetfori- caily held that the Court cannot co into the auestion of imposition of punishment. Tt i^ foT the Discir"linarv Anthoritv to consider what be the nnHire "f 'he nunishment to be imposed upon the misconduct proved npninst him.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in

this case as under:

Sec. 11-A—Powers of Labour C o u r t- Reinstatement—Labour Court comme to the conclusion that misconduct had been proved aeainst workmen and that dismissal was justifiable—Management also l^osinc confidence that workman would faithfully carry on his duties in view of proof of mis- conduct—Refusal bv Labour Court to exer- cise power u 's U-A to grant reTirf nf re- instatement with minor penalty—Is impro- per.

(h) AIR 2000 SC 3028

State Bank of India vs. Tarun Kumar Bancrjee

is no direct evidence¹ against the I party to prove mis- appropriation. For these reasons I have said that the facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the above decisions. There is also explanation from the I parly that on that day he handed over the cash to one Ramesh. The Enquiry Report is not clear and in my opinion the finding is perverse.

10. Considering all these, I am of the firm opinion that the action of the management in dismissing the I party from service is too harsh and not proportio- nate. I feel ends of justice will meet if the order of termination is set aside znd backwages are not award- ed.

11. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

Sec. 11-A l.D. Act.—Industrial Tribu- nal—Interference—With finding of miscon- duct recorded in domestic enquiry—Bank cashier found guilty in domestic enquiry of receiving excess money from customer and retaining same with intent to misappropriate —Finding proved to hilt by evidence of branch manager and head cashier who act- ually saw the incident—Domestic Enquiry found to be just and fair by Tribunal— Setting aside of finding of misconduct on grounds of non-examinatioii of customer, non-production of money and non-produc- tion of confessional statement—Not proper.

(i) 2000(11) LLJ 1395(SC>

ORDER

ws i* isprGAzsrrra OF IMDIA : JULY 28,2001 / SRAVANA >^ /iraa* [PA** -W-^BC^ scii)!'

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SAD AN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated, 22nd June, 2001

PRESENT :

Horfble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB.. Presiding Oilicer, CGI f-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C. R. No. 35/91

I PARTY

Shri K. Nagaraja, Clerk, Canara Bank, Dcvanagcre Main Branch, No. 2603/1, M.C.C. "A" Block, Devanagere-4. (Advocate-Shri V. S. Naik)

II PARTY -

The General Manager. Canara Bank, Head Office, P.B. No. 5147, M. G. Road, Bang£"lorc-56000L (Advocate-Shri N. Venkatesh)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) ol sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/7/91-JRCB-1I) dated 24-6-91 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ot Canara Bank in dismissing Shri K. Nagaraja, Clerk from the service of the Bank is jus- tified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. The first party workman was working with the second party as Clerk. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held against the first party. OD the basis of the enquiry report first party was dismissed from service and therefore, industrial dispute was raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

4. The case of the first party is that he joined the services of the second party Bank as a Clerk from 30th May, 1977 and after the completion of period of probation he was confirmed. He served in different branches. It was alleged against him that when he was working at Davanagere Branch, there was a com- plaint that a sum ot Rs. 3,862 had been fraudulently withdrawn from the S.B. Account of Smt. Rathnamma by presenting a cheque No. 6109803 issued to her. The case of the first party is that he gave explanation saying that the allegations are false and he has not committed any fraud. The enquiry is not correct. Full opportunity was not given to him to defend during the enquiry. The evidence before the Enquiry Officer is not sufficient to prove the charges. The evidence of Hand Writing Expert is also not sufficient to prove the charge against the first party. The representation given by him was not considered by the Enquiry Offi- cer properly. The first party workman has not com- mitted the misconduct. The charge levelled against him is false. On that day, the first party workman had not only issued cheque book in respect of Smt. D. S. Rathnamma but he had also issued several other cheque books. Therefore, no motive can be attributed against the first party workman. The penalty imposed is not sustainable and the action of the management is not correct. The first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The ease of the management in brief is as under:

6. The charge No. 1 against the first party work- man is tbut he gave a false certificate while getting appointment regarding his caste. On enquiry it is said the first party had furnished false information.

7. Second charge is that the first party had fraudu- lently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3862 from the account of Smt. Rathnamma bearing A /c No. 31942 and it was complained by Smt Rathnamma. The enquiry was correct and all the formalities were completed and full opportunity was given to the workman and the alle- gations made by the first party regarding enquiry are not correct. The first party has fully participated in the proceedings. The first party committed misconduct and on the basis of the enquiry report he was rightly dismissed and the action of the management is correct.

8. Second party is a Nationalised Bank dealing in crorcs of rupees of public money and employees are expected to be persons of highest integrity and hones- ty capable of maintaining mental balance in the faw of various temptations and opportunities which aic laid open in view of Ihe sensitive and delicate nature of duties that they aiu called upon to perform. In view of these facts action of the management is cor- rect. There is no merit in this reference.

9. It is seen from Ihe records that this court by its order dated 28th March, 1994 has passed orders hold- ing that the DE held against the first party is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the same is illegal. Thereafter IA No. 1 wan allowed and the management was directed to pay 50 per cent of the last drawn salary to the first party till the dis- posal of this reference.

10. It is seen from the records that the enquiry was held illegal. The management examined four wit- nesses of the bank and also Hand Writing Expert was examined on commission.

11. Against this the fks'f party workman gave evi- dence. Various documents are marked in the evidence ol management witnesses.

examination that the Misc. Clerk can, also issue che- que book3 hi there is heavy rush on the instructions of manager and on that day the first party issued cheque books lo lour persons from his counter.

12. 1 have heard both sides in detail. 1 nave caic- lully read liie evidence adduced Dy die parties, iu liie instant case the uoioestic enquiry is lieiu as niegai and in view ol Uns the management was directed io icad evidence to prove tnc charges against me first party. It was argued by the learned counsel lor the nrst party thai so lar as charge of furnishing faise certiheate is concerned, nothing has to uo wiiii ihc relercnce under question. The learned counsel appear- ing lor ine hi at party in detail read the evidence ol the management witnesses and submitted that with the evidence of MW-1 to MW-4 and Hand Writing Ex- pert. The charges are not proved at all.

16. It is clear from this cross examination that on that day Ihc first party had not issued only one ciie- que book ot Smt. Rathnamma but he had issued some other cheque books and therefore no motive can be attributed against the first party. Then we have tjie evidence ot MW3 and in my opinion his evidence will not add anything to prove the charge against the first party. On the other hand this MW3 categorically states in his cross examination that it is true that in the slalemcnts given by the office's of the bank no body has stated that the first party has committed this fraudulent transaction. With this cioss examination what more material required to say that the manage- ment has miserably failed to prove the charge against the first party. MW4 has passed the cheque and has given evidence that the cheque was in order so he passed for payment. He says in his cross examination that he did not ask the party who presented the che- que to put his signature once again in his presence. Now the c-hly evidence which was vehemently relied bv lhe management is that of Hand Writing Expert.

U. MW1 is Mr. K. V. Chuiawudi. According to his evidence on 16-5-J988 iirst party was not in the work ol issuance oi cheque books. Une Customer namely i

17. At the very outset I am of the opinion that the evidence of Hand Writing Expert is also not helpful to prove the charge against the first party. Hand Writing Expert has also stated in his cross examina- tion that he has not "compared the front signature with the back signature of Ex. M-20 written in Kan- nada. He further says that he has not examined the signature in English found on the back of the Ex. M-20. He admits in his cross examination that stand- ard writings arc always preferable for the purpose of comparison. In the instant case the stand and hand writing of the first party was not taken for comparison.

18. The learned counsel for the first party relied 2 decraos namely AIR 1963 SC Page 1728 and AIR 1967 SC Page 1326.

19. I have read the above decision carefully and 1 am of the opinion that lhe evidence of hand writing experts wiil also net help the management to prove the charges against the first party.

20. We have the evidence of workman who has said that on that day he had issued 4 cheques to 4 customers including a lady customer by name D. S. Rathnamma. WW1 has denied all these suggestions and stated that he has not withdrawn any amount as alleged by the management. With this I am of the opinion that the evidence of WW1 seems to be natural.

14. In other words there is no direct evidence against the first party to prove die charge of wihdraw- ing fraudulently the amount from S.B. Account of Smt. Rathnamma. MWI further has stated in his cross examination that he is unable to say the identity of the person who had presented Ex. M20 to the bank and when the cheque was presented he cheeked the same and he has seen the 3rd party signature on the back side of the cheque and he called him In see him in person by announcing the token No. given to the cheque but "the person who had given the cheque hud not appeared bei'ore him. With this cross examination 1 have no hesitation to say that when the 3rd person presented cheque and without seeing htm. MW1 should not have passed the cheque but he has passed it. MW1 further stales in his cross examination that he did not inform the cashier about the absence of the 3rd party. He has also stated that he has not verified with the cashier when the cheque was encash- ed and by whom. He further says that when he pass- ed the cheque he was satisfied with the signature and therefore he passed the cheque. He says after some time later he found some differences in the signature.

21. I have given my best consideration to the evi- dence before me and 1 have scrutinised the same very carefully because in the instant case domestic enquiry is held illegal and I am of the opinion that the man- agement has miserably failed to prove the charges against the first party.

22. In ihc result I proceed to pass the following

order :

The orJpr of dismissal is set aside and the man- agement is directed to reinstate the first parly in his original post with continuity of service. It was vche- 15. With the above cross examination it is clear that the evidence of this witness is not helpful to prove the charge against the first party. We have the evidence of MW2 but in my opinion this evidence is also not sutnVtent to prove anything against the first party. On the other hand this MW2 says in his cross incntly argued by the learned counsel for the 1 party thdt to the instant case charge;.-, arc not proved by the management and therefore the first party workman is entitled for lull back wages. There is merit in this argu- ments. The management is directed to pay full back wages to the fiiVi. party by deducting the interim payment made to lnm v.s per the order of the court. Accordingly IXTerence is answered.

(Dictated to P.A. transcribed by her corrected and signed by rpe on 22nd June, 2001.)

V. N KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

SO. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (l-i of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- trial 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 02-07-2001.

|No. L-12012/210/98-IR(B-IT)J C. C.ANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA Reference No. 168 of 1999

Rel\ No. 2(c) of 2001

Management of UCO Bank, Zonal Olhce, Maurya Lok Complex. Patna and their workman Sri Ziyaur Rchman represented by UCO Bank Employees Association, Patna.

For the Management : Sri P. K. Sinha, A.CO,, UCO Bank, Patna.

For the Workman : Sri B. Prusad, State Secre- tary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Patna.

PRESENT :

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

AWARD

The 22nd June, 2001

Initially the Central Government in exercise of powers U/s J0( J >(d) ol tlie uiau^.ial Dispute,, Act by order No. L-12012|210|98|lR(B-iI) dated 26-3-1999)30-3-1999 referred the following Industrial dispute between the Management of UCO Bank, Zonal OiJice, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and their workman Sri Ziyain Rchman has represented by UCO fiank Employees Association .for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial 1 ribunal No. 2, Dhanbad :

"W'.iefhcr Shii Ziyaur Rehmau has woiked from 1-1-1991 to 31-1-1997? If yes, whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank, Patna in terminating his service w.ei. 1st Scplembei, 1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to V 2. Subsequently by order No. L-12012/210/98-IR (S-II) dated 23-11-2000 the Central Government withdrew the proceeding of the said dispute from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhan- bad and Iranetcrred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3. Both parties have Wed their respective written statements. The claim of the workman Sri Ziyaur Reh- man as stated in his written statement in brief is that he was urally appointed by the Management of UCO Bank, Kishaiiganj Branch, for discharging the duties of a Peon on and from 1-1-1991. He worked from that tlute till 31-1-1997 untenupredly. All of a sudden in the evening of 31-1-1997 the workman was orally told not to attend his duties from the next date as his services stood terminated. The further case of the workman is that during the period of his work in the Brand] he discharged the normal duties of a Peon. He worked lrom 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on every work- ing day. Initially he was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 15 pel day which was gradually increased uplo Rs. 42 per day. After termination the workman ap- proached the Management on a number of occasions for his reinstatement but without any result. There were permanent vacancies of two peons at the Branch Liguin.t which the workman hi'd been engaged by the Bianch to perform the duties of a Peon. The action of the Management in terminating his services is re- trenchment under the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He was neither given any notice nor pay in lieu of notice nor any retrenchment compensation at the time of his retrenchment under I he provisions of Section 25F ol the I.D. Act. Al- though the workman was performing all the similar duties of a permanent peon, he was paid very low wages in comparison to what a permanent peon is paid in violation of the principles of 'equal pay for equal work'. The Management being a State within the meaning of Article J2 of the Constitution of Tndia was expected to behave like a Model and enlightened employer. The workman worked for over seven years. When *he Management did not acceed to his request for his reinstatement the workman approached the sponsoring union which raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C.(C), Patna,. Ministry of Labour, Government of India. The A.L.C.(C), Patna held several conciliation proceedings, but due to the stub- born attitude ol the Management the conciliation pro- ceedings ended in failure and alter submission of the failure report by A.L.C.(C). Patna the Central Government made- the present reference for adjudica- tion. According to the workman the termination of his service is arbitrary, unlawful and unjustified and he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and 3741 regularisaticn at his service in subordinate cadre as ho worked more than 240 days in J2 calendar months.

Reference is made for adjudication the dispute is to be decided within Hie conceptual frame work of the I.D. AcL. The words 'authorised/unauthorised', 're- (jukuiirregular' are .il-cn lo the I.D. Act. The Man- agement resorted to unfair labour pracice while ex- tracting the services of the workman on exploitive basis as per schedule V of the I.D. Act. The Manage- ment while keeping the workman on tenterhook for years did not act pro;>erly"and fairly with the work- man.

8. The following issues arise for adjudication:--

(i) Whether Sri Ziyaur Rahman worked from 1-1-1991 to 31-1-1997 and if so whether tlir action of die Management of UCO Bank, I'atnu in tciminaling Hie services thereafter L justified '.'.

(ii) If not to what relief or reliefs is the vork-

man entitled to ?

FINDINGS

• 4. The case of the Management as has been made out in its wriilen statement in briei is thai the con- cerned workman bad been engaged by the Branch M-iuaga OL Kishanganj Branch of UCO Bank on Casual basis for performing certain contingent nature of work who had no authority to engage. Tims, the engagement wai void ab-inilio. Ever since the nationa- lisation, the Bank has become a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is obliged to function within the para-meters of articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of ln,dia in the matter of appointment. In the present case the normal procedure lor appointment was not followed. No advertisement was made inviting applications in- cluding requisition of names of candidates from the local Employment Exchange. Further there was no vacancy of Peon in the Branch when the workman had been engaged. According to the Management as the workman was engaged unauthorisedly and uncons- titutionally he can not maintain a legal right for con- tinuation of such a working in the guise of the provi- sions of the I.D. Act. At no time approval to the engagement or payment of wages was obtained from the competent auihority No appointment letter was issued to the workman.

5. Further case of the Management is that the Bjjik has been incurring heavy losses since last several years. The expenditures incurred over payment to ille- gitimately engaged workmen come to Ks. one crore approximately per year in Bihar alone. A policy deci- sion was taken by the Man-gemcnt to discontinue engagement oft such casual workers including the con- cerned 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 Mana- ger or Head of the Office. It was also made clear that the authority making such engagement will per- sonally be responsible for such engagement.

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 W.W.I Sri Ziyaur Rehman, the workman himself. In his evidence the workman has supported the fads of the case as de- tailed in his written statement and has stated that he worked continuously from 1-1-1991 to 31-1-1997 i.e. over six y-jart'. He has also stated that he had worked more (ban 240 days in a calendar year pre- ceding his retrenchment, but he has said nothing in his deposition as io v/hin he was retrenched. He has said that before retrenchment the mandatory requirements of notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensa- tion were not complied with. His duties included bringing out ledgers, registers, token from the Almi- rahs and placing them on Tables, bringing cash Box from the Strong Room, stitching of currency notes and vouchers, serving tea, water to the staff, distribution of Daks through Peon books, visiting post office for posting and bringing mails etc.

10. Both parties have filed zcrox copies of certain documents, majority of which have been admitted into evidence on formal proof having been waived¹ by each other. First I would like to mention the documents filed on behalf nf the workman, Ext, W and W|l are zerox copies of payment vouchers dated 31-7-1995 :md 18-1-1996 respectively. The signatures of the workman appear on the back of each of the vouchers in token of having received the pavment of wa?es. No other document hns heen filed on behalf nf the workman.

6. The further case ol the Management is that Sri Rchman 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 Government, Neither Sri Ziyaur Rehman 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 Pchman were terminated since there was no appoint- ment made. The aclion of the Management in not engaging Sri Rehman docs not amount to retrench- ment as per the Industrial Disputes Act since he had no right to any post in the Bank. According to the Management the workman is not entitled to any relief.

11. It may here be mentioned that on 26-8-1000 and also on 4-4-2001 petitions were filed on behalf of the workman recurring the Mrinaperneni to furnish details of WOTIC l'da1<:-wk_\ month-wis-; and veir-w'so^ topether with Thc amount pTi

^H P ^ h m nf iTV'i'Tw'KC pnd ypnt--\v'ep Th= c-'iir) 7. A rejoinder to the written statement of the Man- agement has also been filed on behalf of the work- man reiterating his case?. According to the workman ho te i workman wiil'in the definition of Sert^on 2Cs) of the T.D. Art nnd Ivs termination is retrenchment within the meanin? of Section 2(oo'" of the I.D. Act. As the* mandatory provisions of Section 25F were not complied with the retrenchment is illegal. Once a

3742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] JVurugymeiH lias nut howi.vci hL-d any information regarding the work oi Sri Rchruan date-wise or a no ul payments of v.agea.

for?jf>f1 fr, tilP l f ] l ' " T "' of t"TlP T T") A^t, ^fffji-in ?fi\

c$mm

Sri Rehman worked a total period of 222 days in 12 calendar mornhs preceding his retrenchment. In this view of the matter the provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act Income inapplicable. It was pointed out to me thait though the case of the workman before the A.L.C.(c), Patna was that he was retrenched w.e.f. 1-9-1997, ho changed his case before this Tri- bunal. Now he claims that he was retrenched with etfect from 1-2-1997 so as to attract the applicability of the provisions of section 25F of the T.D. Act, In the order of Reference made by the Central Govern- ment also the date 1-0-1997 is mentioned a;s the- date of termination as had been claimed by the workman. The workman fW.W.l) in cross-examination has admitted that he had. filed a petition before the A.L.C. (c), Patna that he had worked upto 31>-8-1997 but now he says tha; he had given the date 31-8-1997 by mistake in place of 31-1-1997. The workman has not however mentioned in the written statement that the date of retrenchment as mentioned in Ihc order of Reference Is wrong.

" 16. Further the workman has admitted that the two signatures appearing on the payment voucher (Ext. M) are his signatures. While admitting so the workman has added that he did not receive any payment through the said voucher. But it has never been the case of (he workman that at time^ his signatures were ob- tained on the vouchers without any payment.

17. The .workman, in his evidence has said that payment used to be made to him in his name and at times in the names of different persons. But be has not been able to disclose the names of such other persons except nnc Laxmi Pat vho used to operated the Generator in the Branch. The workman had not examined the said Laxmi Pat to corroborate him on this point. It is possible that Laxmi Pat being th<° operator of the Generator was also paid wages and hence he also i>ut his signajture on the vouchers.

18. Sri. B. PrasarJ, representative of the workman, has pointed out to me thai the Management at para 4(vii) of the written statement has admitted that no engagement of the workman was made after 31-1-1997. It was submitted on behalf of the Management that at the time when the written statement was drafted! he had not received any information ftom the Branch as to upto what date the workman had worked. The| representative of the Management came to learn the actual position when the information was obtained from the Branch in compliance to requisition made on behalf of the workman. This explanation of the Manage- ment appears plausible to me.

19. Moreover it is well settled law thai the claimant can not take advantage of the weakness of the Mannse- ment. The workman" has not come before this Tribual with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts that earlier he had filed B| petition before the A.L.C. i'c), Patna that he had woTfced upto 31-8-1997 In the fact and circumstances of the case it becomes apparent that the workman changed his version and nov- he claims that he was terminated on 1-2-1997 and not on 1-9-1997 in order to prdve that he worked a period of 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. As such I find that T have no hesitation to hold that though the workman worked intermittently from 1-1-1991 to till 24-4-1997 hs did not work 240 days 2204 GI/2001—13

in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. The issue no. (I) is according answered.

20. Issue No. (ii):—Since the workman had nejj worked 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment there was no requirement for com- pliance of the provisions of section 25F of the I.Dj Act. This being so the workman is not entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. The Reference is accordingly answered.

21. This is my award.

S. R. MISHRA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001 S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal |Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Corporation Bank and their workman, which Was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2001.

{No. L-12012[312|93-IR(B-II] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. "SHRAM SADAN" G. G. PALYA, TUMKUR, ROAD. YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-560022

Dated : 20th June, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble V. N. Kulkanti, Presiding Officer C.R. No. 11(97

I Party :

The General Secretary, Corporation Bank Employees Guild, Anund Plaza, Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore-560009.

3WB'-^Tl"r GAZETTE OF INXHAi JULY "28, 2

Appearances :

I Party : N. G. Pha&e.

Advocate.

II Parry : Pradeep S. Sawkar.

#&vdcate.

AWAiD

„„ J. Th$ Centra} Government,, by exercising t^e -jjowers conferred,,,by , Clause ( d ) of sectfqn /1 j arid Sub-secticm2A of the,S":tion 10 of t ie Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 $as referred this dispute vidfe Order No¹. L-i2012| 312193;IR(B-H) dated 24-03.-1994 for ad- judication on the following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Action of the Management ot Corporation Barjk to recover^ the shortage of the! CaSh froiri Srflt Stirtiajhi Shenoy is legal and justifi- ed .? If not; t& what relief the Work- man is entitled T

£. Tlie ,1 paMy ujnipn workraefj is wtjirfeifig Vith the U rifc. the # ^as ^ i ^s- f; coveipd fehoftj&^e, cash^ j^ipm Sr4t; Sumathi Shenoy and the^ejfore dispuiEe is raised. The caie of the I party tJniori workmen is as under.

3. The I party union workman is working as Clerk in the Biaflk. The relevant guidelines in counting note packets while remitting Jo the currency ch'e&t are stated in para 3 of the Claim Statement.

4. The receiving branch while acccptine tenders comprising bundles of note packets properly sfeaW in the manner stated below :

fa) The receiving branch or the currency eifciiring that the teat on each "pac- ket is intact and there are no signs of tanifierlrig.

(b) However, where the sealed ndte pac- kjfete do show ^igiis of UmpeHnfe, they Iho^ld be silbjected to detail^ CQuritoig in,t^;j)resenpe.of thftst^J who brought the. remittance, tf any discrepancy ES fduhd in any packet the strife shttffla be retiirried intact $ ffip$. ft ;cJ#e 4b dl|tre(>ari0^is foUjjd tjie Racket should be restietch- ed with a fresh label of the receiving brsrlchlctirreney cheit and sealed with' the plastic sticker.

(c) In the event of Sdy di&reparicy beiflg.subsequently detected iri the sealed p&ckets Which do ftOt sHo^ km $,i&$$imgt the. mt 4$ iiaye rkjoiirse to th& casmfef .wfjo rflgde the; packet and ,tHe,,officer who checked it fof qualitative and quantitative; . contents respectively an

$eriipr A^a^'g^r ^ssued \fttpt dated 27^)3-1393 to Smt. Shenoy stating tha,t a sum of R,s. 9CR?1~ is found to be short in the cash packets by her.

6. It is her further case that the worl;mnii by: a( letter. 4#iJ #-$K$$X . ^.%^*?

7. The bank by a letter dated 08415-1991 informed Smt. Sh^fidy that on the b^sis of the report of the, Trives'rlgatio'h Officers nn$ Qn thejf instr\icildhs to recover the money trotti her. sh]e is advised to reimburse |he entire money. It is the further case of the I party Union Work- man that the action of the Iviattagement. is npt correct. Smt. Shenoy informed that the attempt in recoverine; money is totally un- justified and unwarranted.

8. It is the further case of the I party that sire is not responsible for the shortage as expV-lined in para, 11 and 12 of the Claim Statement. The I party Has prayed to pass award in her favour.

9. IT party appeared and filed written, state- 3745 10. The decision directing Smt. Shenoy to Recover shortage of cash is an administrative order. It has been done after giving chance ixnd hearing the I party union workman. It is the further case of the Management that {he dispute is misconceived. The I party union workman has not counted aH the cover- ing flags and they are not affixed on cash pac- kets and she is responsible for the shortage.

were given to the Joint Key Holders without adhesive stickers and bundles were received and kept in the strong room. He says that note bundles arc not considered to be complete in all respects if there is no adhesive stickers. He says that in this case, the note bundles were without adhesive stickers with this evi- dence of WWJ. I am of the opinion that there is no clear evidence against the T party Union workman that the shortage was on account of her. According to this evidep"" the condi- tion of the brought note bundles was not dis- puted by the management. There is lot of correspondence between Smt. Shenoy and the Management. No proper enquiry is held by the Management in fix the responsibility of the shortage.

V 11. It is the further case of the TI party that he currency note bundles were sent to Manga- ore currency chest and they returned some of the packets to Mangalore Bunder Branch 6n account of shortage of currency notes aggregating to Rs. 39)4.00. In 65 Cash pac- jcets and then 11 packets bore the initials of the workman and in the cash packets verified •lanci initialed on 12-9-89, 17-10-89 and 15-11-R9 found that there was short nee of Rs. 900.00 and there were also denomination pf Rs. 10.00. The order of recovery is passed pn]y after following procedure. The fiction of the management is correct. The management tins prayed for these reasons and for some others reasons to rciect the reference.

14. It is seen from the records that only T parlv union workman was asked to explain some letters nnd she has suitably replied them. From the records it is clear that no proper en- quiry is held by the Enquiry Officer, to fix responsibility of the shortnge. In the "iven circumstances, there should have been detailed enquiry, but the Mine is not done. There- fore the evidence of MW 1 is not sufficient to Rny ihr.t a proper enquiry was held by the milavement and the responsibility was fixed on Smt. Shenov WW ! P.ISO snys m m's cross- cynminqnon that Smt. Shenoy has comrjinin'xl

"i, Ac^nrdinrrb'. T proceed to pass the

foi'ow'n-f order.

ORDER

37&> T H£ GAZETTE OF ^ p lA :,*ULY 28.2Q01/ SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PA*T H—SJJC. ,3£ii)4

"Whether I ho action of tlic P*unjab National

Bank management of not adding the marks of the CAL1B examination passed by the work- man Sh. Subh.ash Chardra Ghiya as per Bi- partite Settlement dated 29-3-94 is correct? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?¹'

Mew Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 183.6.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial"Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the annexu.re in the Indus- trial 'Dispute! between the employers in relation to the management .of Jtynjab National Bank and ,their work- man,' which was Received by the Centra] Government on 2-7-20CH.

{No. L-12013|127l98-TR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN. Under Sec-y.

I,,... ppy ./.'V;.:". "nT..

.,.* ...... , ^m^,^m^ym^m:vmmm,mt/:mmmhi^mw'''~ ^iFi.i,.,^^,^)!

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1. All permanent ALPM Operators (excluding, stand by ALPM Operators) as on the date of this Settlement will be posted as Computer Operators. These postings will be made taking town as a unit on the basis of their date of posting as ALPM Ope- rator as and when the vacancies of Computer Optra- tors arises.

2. In case of same date of posting as ALPM Opera- tor their seniority will be determined in terms of the procedure laid down in the Settlement dated 1-11-88.

3. If all the ALPM Operators ;ire not absorbed as Computer Operators in terms of Clauses 1 & 2 above, they will be kept in a panel till such time the panel is exhausted.

4. In addition, all willing confirmed employees possessing minimum educational qualification having at least 4 years service in the clerical cadre will In- eligible to apply for selection as Computer Operators.

5. For the purpose of selection under Clause 4 abov.', the respective Zonal, Offices will invite implications from the eligible employees in the town/city where the posts of Computer Operator exist or are likely to arise.

6. The applications received will be arranged in the order of inter-se-scniority determined in terms of procedure laid down in the Settlement dated 1-11-SR. Out of the applications, so arranged, eligible candidates equal in five times the number of vacancies, will be cabled for an aptitude test.

7. Only such employees who obtain "A" and " B" grades in the aptitude test shall be treated as having qualified the test.

8. The list of employees qualifying the aptitude test will be arranged according to these intcr-se- stMiiority. The candidates equivalent to the number of posts c£ Computer Operators will be posted as such and the remaining employees and exceeding twice tne number of vacancies of Computer Operators will be kept in a panel. From this panel, the candidates equal to the number of vacancies of Computer Operators will be posted as Standby Coir.iii'.^r Operator; an equal number of selected candidates will be empanel- led. This panel including Standby Computer Opera- tors will be valid for posting as Computer Operators for a period of 3 yeais including the year in which the panel is drawn. The permanent ALPM Operators will, however, get preference over Standby Computer Operators for posting as Permanent Computer Opera- tors.

9. Tn case of refusal to> accept posting as Computer Operator, the Clerital employees including ALPM Operators will be debarred from posting as well as working in stop gap arrangement as Computer Ope- rators for one year from the date of refusal.

10. Clerical employees fincluding ALPM Opera- tors) considered for posting as Computer Operators or Standby Computer Operators will be given training as considered appropriate by the bank.

11. Employees except ALPM Operators posted as I Computer Operators and not found suitable for the ' job will be reverted back to their original position within 30 days from the date of such posting. Simi- larly the Computer Operators except ALPM Opera- tors will also have the option to seek reversion to their original post within 30 days from the date of such posting. Those, who seelc reversion, will also be de- barred as provided in Clause 9 above.

!2. An employee .seeking reversion after 30 days from the date of posting as Computer Operator will be reverted as Clerk-cum- . . . Arid wiJJ also be debar- red as provided in Clause 9 above. In that event, he will have to forego' the special allowance, if any, being drawn by him before his posting as Computer Operator.

13, In case of absence of a permanent Computer Operator due to leave etc., the scniormost Standby Computer Operator' (Seniority determined as per Clause? 1 & 2 sbove) will be allowed to work as Com- puter Operator. In case of non-availability of any Slandby Computer Operator and/or empanelled Com- puter Operator, the senior most willing Clerk in the branch will be allowed to work a Computer Operator.

'STSfFf.'1 J GAZETTE OF JNDII\ : JOEY''2&, 2WT/ SKUVANft 6, 1923 ' [PXAt H-U^Sifc r3$t)] The Standby Computer Operators and the employees

20. Wherever existing ALPMs have been upgraded

in terms of the provisions of industry-wise Settlement working in such stop gap arrangement wil] be entitled

dated 29-10-93 by upgrading the corrJiguivilion beyond to prorate special allowance as admissible to Com-

256 kbs. (RAM), by ineicasing the number of ac- puter Operators for the number of days they actually

ciiinis or oy increasing the number of vouchers, the work on computers.

Operators shall be eligible for the allowance of

Rs. 410 per month out of which an amount of 14. Tn case any Standby Computer Operator re-

Rs. 369 shall rank as "p;iy"' for tin: purpose of super- fuses to work in the stop gap arrangement of Com-

annuating benefits, as laid down the industry~wise puter Operator, the seniormost willing Clerk in the

Settlement dt. 29-10-93 w.e.t. the date if such up ling as well as from working a;. Computer Operator

gradation.

in stop gap arrangement for i period ui one year.

15. Tn case of vacancies of Computer Operators,

arising due to any reason, (promotion, transfer, retire-

ment, death etc.) permanent ALPM Operators and

the Standby Computer Opcralor(s) in the town/city

in the order of seniority, shall be given posting /offer

for permanent posting as Computer Operator and in

the resultant vacancy of Standby Computer Operator,

the eligible Clerk from the panel in the -irder of

seniority, shall be posted at the branch as Standby

Computer Operator.

16. The Computer Operators shall be entitled for

special allowance and other related benefits* as pro-

vided for in the industry-le\el Settlement dated 29th

October, 1993.

17. In addition to their duties as Computer Opera-

tors, the Computer Operators shall also be required

to perform Clerical duties and when required, by th-.-

bank. The duties of Computer Operators will also be

interchangeable inter-se-irrespective of tbc jobs being

performed by them.

18. Hours¹ of work of Computer Operators includ-

ing those, who work in place of Computer Operators

in stop gap arrangements, can be staggered at the dis-

cretion of the Management in terms of the provisions

of the Bipartite Settlements.

19. The existing permanent ALPM Operators shall

continue to draty the special allowance of Rs. 350

p.m. till such time they are not given the duties/res-

ponsibilities of Computer Operators in pursuance cf

the industry-level Settlement dated 29th October, 1993

and the provisions, if any, iii.idc ui^.e under.

3751

" 1. Your attention it. invited to our aforesaid Circular Letters, advising therein the -deiails for filling up the Posts carrying special allowance.

2. The matter has been further discussed in the

Central 1RM Meeting held at ours on 22nd and 23rd May., 1990, and it has been decided that ;

Priority /seniority list in Clerical and subordi- nate cadre as on 1st January of evuiy year may be prepared latest by 31st Mn'-ch of the Calendar year.

—Consequent upon preparation of priority/seniority list, vacancies of posts carrying special allowance may be filled up immediately b".l not later than 6 weeks of occurrence of tho vacancy.

—Whenever vacancy of post carrying special all- owance arises, the seniority of employees may be considered as on the date of occurrence of vacancy and not on the date of filling up the vacancy.

It is further clarified that the posting of Spl.I Assis-

tants may be done in accordance with the settlement

dt. 1-U-I9S8, circulated vul? FD Cir. No. 1116 dt.

28-11-88." 3752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28^ 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(II)] New Delhi, the 4lh July, 2001

S.O. 1837.—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 (2), Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relaxation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001

[No.L-20012/4/94-IR(C-l>]

S.S.GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas

Presiding Officer

In (he matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (D(d)ofthcT.D, Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 6 OF 1995

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

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workmen : Shri D.K. Venna,

Advocate On behalf of the employers : Shri H. Nath,

Advocate State: Jharkhand • Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st June, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d) 2204 (iI/2001- 15

'3753 of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudiation vide their Order No. L- 20012 (4V94-I.R (Coal-I), dated, the 20th February, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Anugrah Narayan, Ex-Welder vv.e.f. 14-1-90 is justified? If not to what relic! '.lie workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the concerned workman in brief is as follows:—

The concerned workman in his W S. submitted that he was a permanent workman at Tetulmari colliery to the satisfaction of all concern It has been submitted by the concerned workman that the management issued a chargeshect against the concerned workman with ihe allegation for leaving the working place without information or sufficient reason instead of noting his attendance and that he was doing so only for the interest of his private business during duty hours. Against that chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply but being dissatisfied with the reply given by the concerned workman a domestic enquiry was held against the concerned workman by the Enquiry Officer by order of the management and tlieE.O. after completing that enquiry found him guilty and on die basis of that report the management dismissed him from service with effect from 14-2-90. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that the management illegally and arbitraril} and violating the principles of natural justice without any reason chargesheeted him and thereafter relying on domestic enquiry report dismissed him from his sen ice though he did not commit any mischief as alleged by the management. Accordingly the concerned workman has prayed for passing an Award Tor his reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits with retrospective effect.

3 The management on the contrary after tiling W S -cum-rejoinderhas denied all claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W S It has been submitted by the management thai the concerned ; workman was Welder Helper at Tetulmari workshop at Sijua Area. He was chargesheeted on V8-8¹) for his misconduct as per clauses 17(i)(f)(p)ofthe Model Standing Orders applicable to the concerned w orkman and he w as directed to show cause against chargesheet issued lo him. As the reply was not considered satisfactory Shri R.N.S. Yadav, Sr P.O. Tctulmari colliery was appointed as E.O. to hold enquiry into the chargesheet During enquiry' the concerned workman participated After completion of the enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty of the misconduct as per clauses! 7(i)(f)(p) of the Model Standing Order and 3754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)1 accordingly lie was dismissed from service with effect from 14-2-90. The management further submitted that considering ilic seriousness of the charges order of dismissal was fully justified and it was so done for the interest of maintaining discipline under the Mines of M/s. BCCL. The management submitted that the industrial dispute which the concerned workman raised by way of reference finds no basis at all. Accordingly the management has prayed forpassing an Award to the effect that the action of me management of Tctulmari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the concerned workman with effect from 14-2-90 was justified and for which the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4 The points for decision in this reference is whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Anngrah Narayan, Ex-Welder w.c.f. 14-2-90 is justified and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

Decisions with reasons

5. There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was Welder Helper at Tetulmari colliery workshop of Sijua Area under M/s. BCCL. There is also no dispute to hold that for .commission of misconduct according to clause 17(i)(f)(p) ofthe Model Standing Order a chaigcshccl was given to the concerned workman with direction to give its reply. It is admitted fact thai ihc concerned workman against that chargesheet gave his reply but the management being dissatisfied with the reply given by the concerned vVorkman ordered for a domestic enquiry and forthal charges the management appointed Shri R.N.S. Yadav. Senior P.O., Tetulmari colliery as E.O. The domestic enquiry was held in presence of both sides and after completing the said enquiry the Enquiry Officer found the concerned workman guilt}¹ and as a result of which Ihc management dismissed the concerned workman from his service w ith effect from 14-2-90. Being aggrcived by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal passed by the management the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute which resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

was engaged in doing his private business ignorning his duty hours and for which the concerned workman has violated the provision of clause 17(i) (f)(p) of the Model Standing Order. Therefore, from the chargeshcet it isclear that the concerned workman though used .to mark his attendance in the Attendance register would leave the office without prior permission of the authority concerned or without giving any intimation for the interest of the colliery. The allegation which has been brought against the concerned workman is no doubt a serious one. Now let us consider how far the management lias been able to establish the charge which has been brought against the concerned workman. The management In order to substantiate the charge has examined tlircc witnesses namely MW-1, MW- 2 and MW-3. From the MW-1 it transpires that in the year 1987 the concerned workman was on duty for 202 days while in the j ear 1989 he was on duty for 78 days. Copies of the attendance register during (he period as mentioned above were marked as Ext. M-l collectively. This witness during his evidence admitted that he was not aware if any chargesheet against the concerned workman was issued or not. MW-1 during his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman used to work under him for the period from 1987 to 1989 continuously. This witness disclosed that the concerned workman was not particular as we!! as regular in attending his duty. Accordingly he was served with a chargesheet for unauthorised absence from duty during the period from 24-9-88 to .1-2-89 and 29-7-89 to 23-8-89. MW-3 during his evidence did not disclose relating to the allegation which has been brought by the management. He only during his evidence disclosed that on one occasion the concerned workman was served with a chargesheet and he was found guilty during domestic enquiry and he was dismissed from service. Considering the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 1 do not find any bearing relating to the facts as disclosed in the chargesheet. It is the specific allegation thai Uic concerned workman though used to attend the office would leave office to meet his personal business without giving any intimation or prior permission. The allegation which was brought against him is no doubt serious. Onus absolutely lies on the management to establish the charge and to establish the charge management relied on the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 and MW-3.1 have already discussed the evidence of these witnesses and from the evidences of these witnesses I have failed to find an iota of evidence relying on which the allegations which have been brought in the chargesheet againsl tlie concerned workman could be substantiated, Apart from the evidence of these the management also has failed to produce any such relevant paper to show that the concerned workman inspite of putting his attendance in tlie office Attendance Register used to leave the officeunauthorisedly without giving any intimation to the authority concerned for the interest of liis own private business. Therefore, considering all aspects carefully I find no hesitation to say that the management 6. Before taking up for final hearing a preliminary hearing was taken up as to the legality, validity, fairness and propriety ofthc domestic enquiry held by the E.O. By order No. 29 dt. 28-1-98 passed by this Tribunal it was held "Domestic enquiry be and is hereby treated as not fair and proper." Accordingly on the prayer of the management they were allowed to adduce evidence to substantiate tlie charge which was brought against the concerned workman. In course of evidence the chargesheet given to the concerned workman was marked as Ext. M- V. It is seen that the management has brought the charge against ihc concerned workman for his leaving the place of work without information or sufficient reason inspite of giving attendance. It has been further charged that the concerned workman during the period of his absence has failed to establish the charge lamentably. I hold after careful consideration of the evidence on record that the management has illegally dismissed the concerned workman from his service violating the principles of natural justice and equity. In the result, the following Award is rendered:—

"The action of the management of Tetuhnari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Anugrah Narayan, Ex-Welder w e.f. 14-2-90 is not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled reinstatement to his original job with fu II back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal to die date of his reinstatement." .

The management is therefore directed to implement the Award with payment of full back wages and other consequential benefits within three months from the date of publication of the Award.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001 S.O. 1S38.—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, Guwahati Assam as shown in the annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-20012/07/96-IR(C-I)| S.S.GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : GUWAHATI: _ ASSAM.

REFERENCE NO. 1 (C) OF 1997.

PRESENT ; Sliri K. Sarnia, LL.B.,

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Guwahati.

3755 In the matter of an Industrial Dispute

BETWEEN:

The Management of O.N.G.C, Dhansiri Valley Project, Jorhat,

-Vs-

Their workmen Shri Indreswar Saikia and 36 others.

Dale of Award: 1-6-2001.

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute under section 10 of the I.D. Act has been referred to by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-20012/07/96-(R (Coal-I) dated 25-2-97 to adjudicate the dispute arising between the management of O.N.G.C. Dhansiri Valley Project, Jorhat and their workmen, Shri Indreswar Saikia and 36 others out of non-rcgularisation of their service and also for denying equal wages for work performed by them. The appropriate Govt. has framed the following issue to adjudicate the matter in centroversy between the parties :

"Whether the action of the management of O.N.G.C, Dhansiri Valley Project, Jorhat in not regularising the services of Shri Indreswar Saikia and "*>(> others (as per list enclosed) and denying equal wages for the work is legal and justified 7 lfnot. to what relief are these workmen entitled V On receipt of the reference, this tribunal has registered this case and issued notices to both the parties calling upon them to file their written statements, addl. written statement and documents, if any, in response to which both the parties have appeared and filed their written statement, addl. written statement and documents in support of their respective claim.

Apart from the documentary evidence, both the parties have adduced oral evidence in support of their pleadings.

After completion of evidence, the learned advocates for both the parties have argued the case at length and also submitted their written arguments.

The fact of the case as is reflected from the materials on record is that altogether 264 workmen were engaged by the management of O.N.G.C. to work in the Dhansiri Valley Project at Jorhat since its inception The workmen have alleged that they were engaged by the management directly for the purpose of doing some pcrennail nature of work such as Attendant, Motor Vehicle Driver, Generator Operator, Security Guards, Mechanical Helper, Electrical Supervisor, Khalasi, Helper, Typist. Plumber, Pump Operator, Sweeper Works, R/R Operator, Surveyor, Sanitary Cleaner etc. Although these workmen were engaged by the management directly on wages basis but, they are termed as contractual workers without existence 3756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(fi)] of any contract between management and any contractor, From the nature of job done by them and the control exercised by the management on them and the wages paid lo them, the workmen, for all purpose have claimed themselves to be direct employee of the management at iill material time. As the management has not regularised ihe service of total 264 workmen working in the Dhansiri Valley Project, the workmen forming an association under the name and style O.N.G.C. Dhansiri Valley Project Worker Association in 1986 have got it registered under the Trade Union Act and raised an industrial dispute in the year 1989 for regularisation of their service and said dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government to this tribunal for adjudication. This Tribunal has registered the Ref. No. 1 (C)/89 and answered the reference in favour of workmen directing the management to regularise their services. The management has nocked the door of the Hon'ble High Court against the award of this tribunal and having been unsuccesful has ultimately moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court where they also become unsuccesful The management, thereafter regularised the service of the workmen barring 37 who have raised the present industrial dispute. The management plea for non- regularisation of service of these 37 workmen is that their names have not been figured in original award and hence their service could not be regularised.

Out of 37 workers, in the list annexed with schedule of the reference. 3 against the serial No. 32, 33 and 37 left the service and I Raju Rao against serial No. 21 died during the pendency of the reference and hence these ramains 33 workmen claiming the regularisation of their service in this reference. These 33 workmen are doing the similar nature of work with those of who had already been regularised by the management vide award passed by this tribunal in Ref. No. l(C)/89 and they are doing similar nature of work with those of them as has already been mentioned herein above. These workmen claim in their written statement that they are never engaged by the contractor and are direct employees of the management having been direct control and supervision of the management and also paying remuneration to them directly by the management from thier fund. Movever, work done by them are perennial in nature and have been performing for 15 to 16 years, i.e. since inception of D.V.P. It is also contended that work done by them are also done by regular employee drawing handsome remuneration, but on the other hand, they have been deprived regular pay benefit entitled to them as per law.

The management, on the otherhand, has contended ihat the workmen are never direct employees of the management and have no direct relationship between the management and the workmen, but they are contract labour engaged through contractor and hence management is not liable for regularisation of their service. They have also den led the fact that workmen are doing the perennial nature of work as claimed by them. According to the management, as the workmen are not direct employees of the management, their claim for regularisation is not tenable in law.

I have carefully gone through the entire material on record including the pleading of the parties. But it is to be noted that in the pleading, managemenmt has not denied that 37 workers raising the industrial dispute were not the part of the 264 workmen who had originally raised the industrial dispute decided by this tribunal in their favour vide Ref. No. l(C)/89 which was ultimately upheld by the Apex Court. But their plea is that they could not be regularised as per award passed in aforesaid reference becuase their names were not mentioned in the said award.

In course of argument, the learned advocate for the management has submitted that if the workmen have to be regularised, how many percentage of the workmen has to be regularised has to be looked into by the tribunal. Because the management has adduced the evidence of M.W.2 who claimed to be a man-power expert undertaking survey as to requirement of man-power at D.V.P. His 2nd submission is that if the workmen are to be regularised in their services, they are to be regularised following the procedure prescribed in that behalf.

Although, the mangement has raised the plea in their written statement that the workmen were not the direct employee of the management, but a contractual workmen, but said plea is not tenable in law because in earlier reference being Ref. No. l(C)/89 which has been raised by total 264 workmen including persent 37, although whose name, according to management had not been figured in the award, workmen have already been held by the tribunal not to be contractual worker, but direct employees of the management and said award was ultimately upheld by Appex Court. In view of this, 1 do not see any reason to hold that the workmen are contractual worker, and not the direct employees of the management. Moreover, from the perusual of the entire material on record I find that the management has not established who is the contractor supplying the workmen to the management with licence under the provision of Contact Labour Abolition and Regulation Act, 1971. It goes without saying that to established the fact of contract labour the management must established that they have license to engage contract labour and the contractor also supplying the workmen has licence under the provision of the same act and vice-versa. In the instant case, the management has not established that they have licence to engage contract labour and contractor supplying the labour has also license. Without existence any of the aforesaid facts, it can be held that the plea of contract labour raised by the management is nothing but shame or camouflage in order to deprive the poor workers from getting the financial benefit who ;irc intiking profit to the company doing hard work in their ow n soil. Moreover, from the nature of the work done by the workmen il is found that Ihe works done by the workmen are perennial in nature and also perform for the benefit of the management. It has been laid down by the Appex Court in Hussain Bhoi, Calcutta Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union. Kozhikode and others (1978) 4 SCCV. 2?' as follows:

"The facts found are that the work done by the workmen was an integral part of the industry' concerned, that the raw materials was supplied by the management, that the factory premises belonged to the management, that the equipment used also belonged to the management, and that the finished product was taken by the management for its own trade. The workmen were broadly under the control of the management and defective articles were directed lo be rectifedby the management. This contention of circumstances is conclusive that the workmen w ere the workmen of the petitioner.

" 3-757"' he has not submitted any survey report prepared by him nor any paper showing that he was conducting manpower survey. From perusal of his evidence, I do not find any reliable material on record to hold mat he has conducted any manpower survey at D.V.P. as to requirement of manpower there and prepared any report showing requirement of less number of manpower due to diminishing business protencially. In view of this. I am not inclined to put any emphasis on evidence of P.W. 2 and lo act upon it. The management has further submitted thai if the workmen are to be regularised these are lo be regularised as per procedure of the compnay. But it is surprising lo note that services of the workmen have been exploited by the company by paying less than prescribed wages for a period of 15/16 years without following any procedure. But in case of rcgularisation if any procedure is to be followed it is uplo the company. What procedure is lo be followed by the company it is upto Ihcm. but fact remains that 33 workers raising this Industrial Dispute working for 15/16 years doing perennial nature of work must be regularised within a period of one year from the date of Uiis award.

In Set v. Ilarayana Electricity Board I's. Suresh and

others MR 1999 SCI'. 1161 Apex Court has as follows:

"(E) Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act (.17 of 1970.S. 10—Contract Labour—Absorption in sen ice—Electricity Board—Work of keeping plains and station clean and hygienic awarded to contractor-—Work not of seasonal nature— Contract itself stipulating number of employees lo be engaged by Contractor—Overall control workings of contract labour including administrative control remaining with the Board—Board neither registered as principal employer nor contractor was licensed contractor—contract system was thus a mere comouflagc which could be easily pierced and employer employee relationship between Board and employees easily visualised—Employees who have worked for more than 240 days can not therefore be denied absorption." In \ icw of aforsaid principle of law inunciated by Apex Court and different High Courts of the Country and also fact and circumstances of the case which I have already discussed herein above. 1 have no hasitation to hold that the workmen are not the contractual workers but also direct employee of the management.

So far as the plea of manpower survey raised by the management on the basis of evidence of M.W. 2 is concerned. I find that the evidence of P. W. 2 had not given any impression on us as to whether he is really a manpower expert or not having specialisation on the subject. From Ins evidence, it is established that he is simply an Asstt. Executive Engineer of ON.G.C. It is not established that he has any special qualification on the subject. Moreover, In view of my aforesaid discussion on material on record, I hereby hold that the management is not justified in not regularising the service of the 33 workmen and also by not paying the equal wages to them with those ofrcgular workmen. Accordingly, management is directed to regularise the services of the aforesaid 33 workmen within the period of one year from Hie dale of this award by paying all financial benefit entitled to them under rule. If all of (hem cannot be regularised within the aforesaid period of one year, they should be paid equal wages with those of regular employees and other financial bencfil entitled lo them till rcgularisaiion.

With this direction reference is answered in favour of the workmen. Prepare an award accordingly.

K. SARMA. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4lh July, 2001

S.O. 1839. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 3738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(11)] Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No, 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between (lie employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-20012/141/91-IR (C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas,

Presiding Officer.

I n the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d)ofthel.D. Act. 1947.

REFERENCE No. 153 of 1991.

management. The concerned workman was issued with a chargesheet allegedly dt. 15-5-79 for the alleged incident which took place on 14-5-79 by the Acting Workshop Manager. The concerned workman submitted his reply to tlie chargesheet and the management being not satisfied with the reply conducted departmental enquiry for the alleged incident. It is further alleged by the concerned workman that the Enquiry Officer conducted/completed the enquiry violating the principles of natural justice. Thereafter the management agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer dismissed the concerned workman from his service wilh effect from X-10-1979. Thereafter the concerned workman represented before the management several times but without any effect. Seeing no other alternative the union of the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C). Dhanbad which resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman/union has prayed before tins Tribunal to pass an Award in their favour holding that the dismissal of the concerned workman was unjustified and directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages.

Parties : Employers in relation to the maria- gement of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. Tisco. Ltd. and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of die workmen : Shri D. Mukherj ee.

Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union.

On behalf of die employers : Shri B, Joshi,

Advocate,

State: Jharkhand : Industry: Coal.

Dated Dhanbad, the 19th June, 2001.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the ID. Act. 1947 has referred the following dispute lo this Tribunal for adjudiation vide their Order No. L-20012/141/91-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the Nil,

SCHEDULE

•Whether the action of the management of M/s. TISCO, Ltd., P.O, Jamadoba, Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Rajendra Singh, Driver T. No, 2305 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the workman/Union as disclosed in

iheirW.S. is as follows :—

3. On the contrary the management after filing W. S. has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned w m t a an asserted in his W.S, It has been disclosed by the management that the concerned workman Rajendra Singh was employed as driver with effect from 1-9-68, He was dismissed from company's service with effect from 8-10-79 on account of proved misconduct of serious in nature. The management submitted that their action in dismissing the concerned workman with effect from 8-10-79 is legal bona fide and justified and in accordance to the principles of natural justice. It lxas been submitted that the concerned workman was on B. Shift duty on 24-5-79 at the Coal Washing plant of Jamadoba. The concerned workman was deputed to operate Dumper No. BHG 8290 for transporting rejections from the washery to the rejection dump. It has been submitted that in tlie process of washing the best quality used Tor metallurgical purpose is obtained and inferior quality coal used for burning purpose is seperated and deposited in tlie meddling bunker. Tlie rejection consisting Oi" shale/stone etc. are seperated from tlie meddling and the same are deposited in the rejection bunker. The concerned workman was deputed to transport rejection from the rejection Bunker to unload the same at the specified place. On 24-5-79 at about 10.45 P M. it was detected that the concerned workman loaded meddling from the Meddling bunker of tlie Coal Washery plant into Dumper No. BHG-8290 under his charge and attempted to move out of tlie colliery through No. 4 incline gate situated in infront of tlie Manager's Office at Jamadoba Colliery and in thai process the Watchman suspected him and signalled him to stop the dumper but instead of stopping the concerned workman attempted to run a\va> The concerned workman Shri Rajendra Singh had been working as permanent driver since long under the 3759

Rajendra Singh Driver, T. No. 2305 is justified and if not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

with die meddling loaded in the Dumper The watchman on duty over telephone informed the watchman at the Central Workshop gate to stop the dumper as in his opinion I he Dumper was loaded with coal or meddling, surreptitiously and was moving out of the colliery. The watchman Shri Kamal Deo Singh stationed at the workshop attempted to stop the Dumper at the gate but the concerned workman speeded away with the dumper without caring the singal given by Kamaldeo Singh to stop his dumper. Security Inspectors Shri Ajoy Kumar and A.M. Khan got i nfonnationaboul the same from the security control room ;md they followed the dumper in question on Jeep No. BHG 23'). While following the dumper Shri Ajay Kumar and A.M. Khan found that the dumper taking turn towards 3 Pit was proceeding towards 3 Pits Creche House gate after unlcr-ding contents at the fire are reject heap. Both the Security Inspectors and their staff examined the contents unloaded from the dumper and found that it was 3/4 tonnes ofmeddling. Thereafter the said Ajay Kumar and A.M. Khan went to 3 Pit gate with the said dumper proceeded towards washery. After reaching washery they found the dumper there without its driver, the concerned workman They came to know that the concerned workman left the Dumper handing over the key to the Khabsi oftlvu dumper.

4. It has been submitted by the management that the concerned workman was not authorised to load meddling into his dumper and that he had no gate pass to carry meddling Ihrough incline gate as well as the workshop gate. The management submitted if the watchman and the security persons would not have been •lltcrted (he concerned workman had the scope to take away the meddling out of the colliery for lus personal gain. It has been further alleged that the concerned workman acted in furthcrence of his dishonest intention to gain benefit by causing loss of property to the management and thereby he committed misconduct in connection with the Go's property and business. The concerned workman was charged under clause 19(2) of the Certified S.O. for commission of misconduct or (heft fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company's property and business and a chargcshccl dt. 15-5-79 was issued to the concerned workman. The concerned workman submitted Ms reply denying the allegation charged against him. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was held in presence of the concerned workman and after enquiry the concerned workman was found guilly and accordingly he was dismissed from service with effect from 27-9/4-10-79. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award in their favour holding the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman was legal and justified and that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was driver under the management. There is also no dispute to hold that on 24-5-79 the concerned workman was on B. Shift duty commenced from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. and during B Shift duty he was entrusted to operate Dumper BHW-8290 used for transporting rejection from the washery to rejection dump. The allegation which has been brought against the concerned workman is that on 24-5-79 at about 10.15 P.M. at Night in course of his duty- he was found to have moved through No. 4 incline gate with his dumper BHW-8290. As the watchman posted at No. 4 incline gate suspected him he signalled him to stop the dumper but ignoring that signal the concerned workman moved towards the Central Workshop gate. The walchman on duty over telephone informed the Watchman posted at the Central Workshop gate to stop the dumper at the gate. The Watchman Shri KamaJdco Singh stationed there took an attempt to stop the said dumper but the concerned workman left the spot accelerating the speed of the dumper and moved towards 3 Pit. On receiving information the Security Inspector Ajay Kumar and A.M. Khan followed the dumper and came to Pit No, 3. As soon as they reached there they saw the concerned workman to move towards 3 Pit creche house gate with his dumper and after unloading contents at the fire area rejection left that place handling over key of the dumper to itsKhalasi, It has been submitted by the management mat on that day i.e. on 24-5-79 the concerned workman was entrusted to operate the said dumper for transporting rejection from the washery to rejection dump. They submitted that meddling which are used for burning purpose were not entrusted for handling by the concerned workman on that night during his B.shift duty. During inspection it was found that the concerned workman unloaded meddling there from his dumper at fire reject heap instead of unloaded rejection from the washery. It has been alleged that with dishonest intention for his personal gain the concerned workman instead of carrying rejection carried meddling with a view to take the same out from the colliery surreptitiously. Accordingly chargesheet was given to him under Clause 19.2 of the Certified S.O. and thereafter a domestic enquiry was held and he was found guilty and dismissed from service. Thereafter by way of reference in the present industrial dispute was raised by the concerned workman and the case was referred to this Tribunal for hearing. Before taking up final hearing, preliminary hearing was taken up to consider if the domestic equiry held by the E,O. was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The said hearing was taken up by my Predecessor-in-office in presence of both sides and by Order No. 19 dt. 28-4-93 my predecessor-in-office held that the domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman by the management 5. The points for decision in this reference arc whether ihe action of the management of M/s. T1SCO. Ltd.. P.O. Jamadoba, Distt, Dhanbadin dismissing Shri 3760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART Ili-SEc. 3(ii)]

conclusion that the concerned workman committed mischief which comes under the purview of clause 19.2 of the Certified Standing Order. It is seen that the management thereafter dismissed the concerned workman from his service with effect from 8-10-79. After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances it is seen that absolutely with dishonest intention the concerned workman took his attempt to remove 3/4 tonnes of meddling in his dumper outside the colliery of the management for his personal gain with view to incur loss to the management. This act on the part of the concerned workman appear to be very serious in nature. The management dismissed him from his services as they lost all faith on him. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman in course of hearing submitted that the management has taken drastic step which could be avoided. On the contrary learned Advocate for the management submitted that it because very much difficult on the part of the management to entrust any job to the concerned workman if it is found that he at all cannot be relied upon for his misconduct and illegal motive. It is seen that concerned workman was found guilty of his serious misconduct which comes within the purview of clause 19 (2) of the Certified Standing Order. There is reason to believe that on the part of the management it was not possible to trust this concerned workman in future. As such it also could not be possible on the part of the managment to entrust any job to him considering his act. Accordingly if all there aspect are taken into consideration there is reason to believe that the management did not commit any illegality in dismissing the concerned workman from his service. As such 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the management. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—

•"The action of the management of M/s. TISCO.

LTD. P.O. Jamadoba, Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Rajendra Singh, Driver, T.No. 2305 is justified consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.'T

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, Thereafterthe case was taken up forfinal hearing. In course of final hearing I considered the domestic enquiry papers held by the Enquiry Officer. I have carefully considered all the relevant papers of the domestic enquiry including the evidence adduced by the management. Considering evidence it transpires clearly that the concerned workman at about 10.15 P.M. on 24-5- 79 while he was on B shift duty was found moving towards No. 4 Incline gate situated in front of the Manager's office at Jamadoba colliery and thereafter ignoring the signal of that watchman of that get moved towards the Central Workshop getting then towards 3 Pit. Thereafter he unloaded the contents of the Dumper near 3 Pit fire area. On spot enquiry it was found that meddling weighing about 3 to 4 tonnes were unloaded there by the concerned workman from his dumper though he was not authorised lo carry meddling. He was actually entrusted to carry rejections. In course of domestic enquiry the concerned workman look the plea that the management has brought false charge against him. But during cross-examination of the witness Hie concerned workman lias failed to high light any material point relying on which there is scope to say that the chargeshcet which was given to him was false. No evidence is also forthcoming before the Tribunal that those witnesses made false evidence against him with some ulterior motive. There is no dispute to hold that on 24-5-70 he was on B shift duty from 11 P.M. The incident in question took place at 10.15 P.M. It is the specific allegation that the concerned workman handling over Key of the dumper to its khalasi left the place. The dumper was found lying at 3 Pit Creche House gate after unloading llic contents in the fire area rejection. No evidence is forthcoming before the Court that after B shift duty the concerned workman left handing over Uie said dumper to his inchargc. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming how that Dumper was found lying at a place which is not to be considered as the place for handling over the dumper. No explanation is also forthcoming why the concerned workman left the place after handling over key to the Khalasi of the said dumper. No explanation is also forthcoming how 3/4 tonnes of meddling were found lying near the 3 Pit Fire area after being unloaded from the said dumper. The witnesses examined during the domestic enquiry were the eye witnesses to the incident in question. There is no reason on the part of the concerned workman lo inovc with his dumper surreptitiously from gate to gate. No explanation is forthcoming why he did not stop his dumper receiving signal from Ihc watchman. Considering all aspects it is clear that instead of rejection concerned was carrying meddling outside Ihc gate. I have considered Ihc reports submitted by the E.O. and I did not find any illegality or discrepancy in the report submitted by the E.O. I find ihal reiving on the evidence the E.O. came to the :im

2, Thecaseof the concerned workmen as per W.S. New Delhi, the 4th My, 2001

in brief is as follows:—

S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 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 by the Central Government on2-7-2(X)l.

[No. L-20012/226/92-IR(C-I)]

S.S.GUPTA, UnderSecy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Sliri B.Biswas, Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 166 of 1993

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Kendwadih Colliery of M/s. BCCL andtheir workmen.

APPEARANCES:

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

On behalf of the employers : Shri Harihar Nath,

Advocate.

Slate: Jharkhand : Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st June, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Hie powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of ihe I.D. Acl. 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-20012/226/92-IR (Coal-I), dated, 1he21st September, 1993.

SCHEDULE

The concerned workmen submitted that they were workmen in Pit No, 2 and Incline Nos. 11 and 12 at Bansdeopur colliery under M/s. BCCL since 1997. After working there for some years they were directed to work in Pit No. 3 and 4 of Kendwadih Colliery. They worked till 1992 continuously. It has been submitted that the management in order to avoid regularisation of their services treated them as cooperative workers and used to pay wages and allowances through one of the concerned workmen i.e. Shri Nand Lai Yadav. The said Nand Lai Yadav one of the cooperative workers used to maintain their attendance and receive payment for and on behalf of them. The attendance register was duly checked by the Union representative by Mr. R.L. Singh. Thereafterthe union of the concerned workmen orally and also in writing made a representation to the colliery management to absorb the concerned workmen in regular services. The management though assured the union, did not fulfil their commitment. As a result, when they started agitating the management stopped them from their work in the y ear 1982 and for which they are sitting idle. The workmen submitted that while they worked under the sirdari system or cooperative system they were given the benefit of medical treatment in the hospital of the colliery for working underground their attendance was marked in Form C Register They were also provided with Cap Lamp before going to the underground work for duty and the same was, also duly noted in the Cap Lamp Issue register. The workmen submitted that in course of their employment they have completed more than 190 days as underground worker and even 240 days in every calendar year and in support of their claim they relied on the documents available to them. The management also in course of their service provided other facilities including supply of coal. The concerned workmen funher submitted that as they agitated over abolition of sirdari system and cooperative system, the management in consultation with the union decided to regularise their services under the management subject to their appearance before the Selection Committee for physical test and job lest. They further submitted that it was the moral duly of the management to respect that settlement entered into between die management and the different unions and to give chances to them for permanent service under the management but their claim was totally denied by the management. Accordingly, the concerned workmen raised this industrial dispute by way of reference with prayer for regulation of their services under the management.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S. cum-rejoinder denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workmen asserted in their W. S. Tt lias been

, submitted by the management that the Organising Secretary, Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union vide letter dt. 14-1 -92 to the ALC(C), Dhanbad raised industrial dispute " Whether the action of the management of P.B. Area of M/s. B C C L. in denying regularisation to Shri Idan Mian, Kudus Mia, Rameshwar Rajwar, Shyam Das Harijan, Nand Lai Yada v, Manohar Paswan, Sliri Bhagi Singh, Lokman Mian Kallimuddin Khan, Shri Dahu Mian, Ghanashyam Mian, Shoharab Mian and Abdul Mian is justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"

2204 GI/2001—16 s,WF:$- frjfjl IMtiViiiZlijTgqPfl!ipiA:JULy2g1200i/atAVANA6L19a3 {FAhrffi-^ci, 3^)] Tor regularisation of the services of the concerned workmen. In (lie said petition they did not give full particulars of the alleged concerned workmen and for which the management submitted that reference is not maintainable tn the eye of law. Apart from this fact the management submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workmen and the management at any point of lime. It has been further submitted thai the same dispute was earlier raised by the National Coal Workers Congress before the ALC(C), Dhanbad. The ALC(C). Dhanbad after going through the W.S. of the union and the management and after hearing both the parties came to Hie conclusion that the demand of tile union was fabricated and for which the case was closed. Inspitc of closing the case Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union has again by a pctititon dt. 14-1-92 raised Ihe same dispute which is not maintainable in the eye of law. The management submitted Unit the alleged concerned workmen were never employed by the management at any point of tllllC either through contractor or directly^ Accordingly the management have prayed for passing an Award to the effect that the action of the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL in denying the regularisation to the concerned workman \\ us justified and the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.

4. The points for decisions in this reference are as

follows:—

"Whether the action of the management of P.B, Area orM/s. B C C L. in denying rcgularisation to Shri IdanMian, Kudus Mia. Rameshwdr Raj war, Shyam Das Harijan. Nand Lai Yadav, MHitohar Paswan, Slui Bliagi Singh. LokmanMlan, kallimuddinKlian. Shri Dahu Mian, Ghanashyam Mian, Shoharab Mian and Abdul Mian is justified ? If not, to" wlwt relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"

Findings with Reasons

worker* of the management: They disclosed Unit during tile period of their services they regularly maintained their attendance and received payment on the basis of the said attendance. The said attendance register was checked and verified by the Union leader by Shri R. L. Singh. Even in course of their engagement they not only received wages from lite concerned management through Nand Lai Yadav as cooperative workers but also used to receive their other benefits for their wbHistciiee including medical facilities. WW'l whB was otto of the concerned Workman during his evidence admitted that though they used to work under the management at Kcndwadih Colliery. They did not receive any lettef of appointIHeili from the management. Tills withers also during his cross-examination admitted that he had no proof in writing to show that he had his service in the said eolllcry. This witness also during his crosg-e.\Hi"ii1atioli admitted that he had Ho paper to show that they were in continuous service in the said colliery. This witness during his evidence lias failed to produce the ID. Card and any dlhcr relevant papers to justify his claim ttboul his service in the colliery mentioned above under the management. He disclosed that they used to receive payment from Khajurichl Babu of (lie said colliery and the suld payiudlt wdS received by Nand Lai Yadav. This witness further disclosed that after a lapse of l() years they raised the dispute because of (lie fact that Nand Lai Yadav. their Munshi fled away with all connected papers relating to their service. WW-2 who¹ is Union leader of Jharkhand Ma/door Union during his evidence disclosed that the Concerned workman being employees of Hie management Used to Work in incline No. 1 land 12 ol"Basudcopur Colliery and thereafter they join at Kcndwadih colliery. All of them worked [here as Gcnl. Ma/door and in 1982 the mmmgement slopped Ihcln from work. This witness disclosed that the attendance of the concerned workman used to be maintained in the colliery and their number of attendance dliring one calendar year was more than 240 days. Inspilc of such continuous service this witness alleged that the management did not regularize their sen ices and for w liich they have iliadc the reference raising industrial dispute. Bolli WW-I and WW-2 asserted that they were the employees of the management at Kcndwadih Colliery but in support of (heir claim Ihcy have failed to produce a single scrap of papcrlo justify their claim. WW-2 during evidence submitted a list ofthc concerned workmen and thchphotograplis which during his evidence were marked as Exl.W-1 and W-2.1 have considered their list as well as the photograph but the said list docs not expose clearly if it was issued by the management or if by Ihc regular workmen iindcrlhc management concerned till 19X2. MW- 2 and MW-3 during their evidence supporting the case of the management submitted that they never saw (he concerned workmen to work under the management excepting one Nand Lai Yadav. Accordingly they denied the fact that the concerned workmen worked there for more than 240 days within one calendar year. During evidence 3. The management in order to reblllthe claim of the concerned workmen has examined three witnesses in all. On the contrary on behalf of the concerned workmen they examined two witnesses in orderto substantiate their claim. When it is the specific contention ofthc concerned wdrkltien Hint they initially were appointed as underground workmen in pit No. 2 und incline No 11 and 12 inBasudeopur Colliery in the year 1977 the management categorically denied oily employer and employee relationship in between them. It lias been categorically submitted by the concerned workmen that in die year 1977 Ihey were first engaged as underground workmen in Pit No. 2 and incline No. 11 and 12 of Basudeopur Colliery and thereafter they were asked to work at Pit No. 3 and 4 of Kcndwadih Colliery till 1982 when they were retrenched by the management. It has been further disclosed that actually they worked under the management as cooperative workers and payment was made through one Nand Lai Yadav who was one ofthc ft'SJU u'JffiPiWli.L "w..

facilities. The concerned workmen m course of hearing has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to this effect. As such just relying on oral submission 1 find it very difficult to accept the claim of the concerned workmen that they continuously worked at Kendwadih Colliery upto 1982 till the date when their services were ceased by the order of the management. No satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming on the part of the concerned workmen as to why they have made such long delay i.e. for apenod of 10 years to raise such industrial dispute. In the decision reported in 2000 Lab. I.C. page 703 their Lordships of the Hon'blc Apex Court in para-6 of the judgement held that Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Govt. to exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been sett] cd. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in rational ofMW"2 relied on certain documents were marked as Ext. M-1 to M-3. The document marked as ExL M-1 is a petition filed by the Jharkhand Colliery MawJppr Union addressed lo the ALC(C), Phflflbad, By that petition they have raised dispute about iho concerned workmen for its reconciliation. The document marked as Ext. M-2 is a notice issued by the ALC (C) for taking up hearing in the matter of reconciliation In view of the petition filed by the Union (Ext.M-1). The document marked as ExtM-3 U an Information submitted by the Kendwadih ColUcry where In it has clearly been reported that the concerned workmen have never worked at Kendwadih Colliery. Further it has been Informed that a similar case being Case No. l/.179/9l/E*3 dt, 23-8-91 was started bill the same has duly been closed. Considering Ilic submission of the. management it transpires that over selfsame issue Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union vide letter dt. 14-1-92 raised a dispute before the ALC(C), Dhanbad. The management further nubmlttcd that after hearing both side, and. sl"o considering the W.S. pf the union md UlC manasctnentthe ALC(C), Dhanbad came to |he conclusion that the demand of the union was a fabricated one and accordingly he closod the dispute. This contention which the management asserted in the W. S.-cuni-rejoinder was not at all denied by the concerned workmen cither by any documentary evidence or by oral evidence. On the contrary from the documents marked as Ext. M-3 I find support in respect of the claim of the management ova the dispute raisedprcviouily by National Coal Worker's Congress avfftho selfsame issue. Learned Advocate for the management further submitted that after a lapse of 10 years from the alleged year of retrenchment the concerned workmen raised this industrial dispute by way of making reference and for which the same is barred by the jaw pf limitations. In support of the claim learned Advocate for the management relied on the decision reported in 2000 Lab I,C, Page 703 Supreme Court and in f. JR. Vpl 7U page 438 of Kerala High Court. Considering Iho submission of the learned Advocate for the management it is seen that prior to raising this industrial dispute aver the self same issue another dispute was raised by another union and the said dispute was closed by the ALC(C) Dhwbad after hearing both sides. It is farther seen (hat the instant industrial dispute was raised by the union nfter a lapse of 10 years. It is the contention of the management that never there was any employer and employee relationship in between thomanagement and the concerned workmen I have carefully considered all relevant papers in the record and also the evidence adduced by both sides. The concerned workmen in course of their evidence have failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that they have worked at Kendwadih Colliery for a continuous period, and also worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It has been disclosed by the concerned workmen that they not only used to draw wages through Nand Lai Yadav as cooperative worker but also used to enjoy other benefits from the management including medical

manner In Para-7ofthe said decision their Lordships of the Apex Court held that the purpose of reference is to keep industrial peace in an establishment. The present reference is destructive to the industrial peace and defects the very object and purposes of the Act. Bank was justified in thus moving the High Court seeking an order to quash the reference in question. In the decision reported in F.J.R. 458 Vol. 79 his Lordship of Kerala High Court held that even though there is no period of limitation under Section 33C(2) the second respondent was justified in dismissing the stale claims of the petitions. If stale claims are allowed, it would lead to undesirable results including financial anarchy and chaose in the industrial field. Unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Labour Court is not expected to entertain petitions especially when it would have far reaching pecuniary consequences on the employers. In the present case the claims are made after a lapse of time. Whether a claim has become stale or not depends upon facts of each case and hard and fast rules cannot be laid down one way or the other. Therefore, considering the said two decisions it is clear that before making long delay in raising industrial dispute the workmen concerned cannot avoid responsibility to explain reason for such delay. Liberty cannot be given to raise industrial dispute in a whimisical manner according to the choice of the concerned workmen. Here in the instant case it is clear not only over the self same issue a previous industrial dispute was raised before the ALC(C) and disposed of but the concerned workmen waited for more than 10 years to raise further industrial dispute with a view to get their relief. Inspite of raising so the concerned workmen did not consider necessary to assign the causes of such long delay in this regard. Therefore by efflux of time I consider that the said industrial dispute which has been raised by the concerned workmen has lost its weight apart from the fact that they have failed to substantiate their claim that they worked at Kendwadili Colliery for a considerable period till they were asked to stop their work by the management.

-X&J* pm$ : „ ;^p2e?*w"ff>iK:Kns3i^ ft^fts^" APPEARANACES:

6. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the concerned workmen have tailed to substantiate their claim with reasonable certainty and for which in view of my discussions made above they arc not entitled to get any relief which they have prayed. Accordingly the following Award is rendered :—

On behalf of the workmen : Shri D. Mukherjee,

Advocate.

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate, State; Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st June. 2001.

AWARD

"The action of the management of P.B. Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. in denying regularisation to Shri IdanMia, Kudus Mian. Raincshwar Rajwar Shyam Das Harijan, Nand Lai Yadav, Manohar Paswan, Shri Bliagi Singh, LokmanMina, Kyllimuddin Klian, Shri Dahu Mian, Ghanashyam Mian, Shoharb Mian and Abdul Mian is justified, Consequently Ihc concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief." Tin; Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the ID. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide tlieir Order No. L-2OO12/(3O5)/ 92-IR(Coal-I), dated, the 5th/9th November, 1993.

SCHEDULE

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in flic Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workinan. which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-20012/305/92-IR(C-I)]

S.S.GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

* PRESENT

SliriB. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

, Reference No. 189 of 1993

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Teluria Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workmea "Whether the action of the General Manager, Govindpur Area of M/s. B.C.C.L.. P.O. Sonardih, Dt. Dhanbad in denying to accept the date of birth as recorded in Form B register of South Govindpur Colliery in respect of Shri Nand Lai Hazam. Ex-Attcndance Clerk is justified? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled to?" 2. The case of the woikmcn in brief is as follows:—

The concerned wbrkmen in his W.S. submitted that he was appointed In Jalgora Colliery in the year 1970 prior to the date of Nationalisation of the collieries and at the time of his appointment in the said colliery his date of birth in Form B Registerwas recorded as 21-11-1938. Thereafter the concerned workmen was transferred to South Govindpur Colliery and also his date of birth in the Form B Registerwas recorded as 21-11-1938. From South Govindpur Colliery subsequently he was transferred to Teturiya Colliery in the year 1973 but the management at that tune illegally and arbitrarily recorded his date of birth as 29T7-1 931. Accordingly he made representation before the management for correction of his date of birth in the Form B Register which was wrongly and illegally recorded but the management did not pay any heed to his appeal. The concerned workmen submitted that at the time he also submitted his School leaving Certificate before the management where in his date of birth was also recorded as 21-11-1938. As the appeal which the concerned workmen made before the management did not yield anyresult,finding no other alternative way he raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C), Dhanbad challenging the illegal and arbitrary recording of age and his premature superannuation. He submitted that the management instead of correcting his age according to the school leaving certificate referred him before the alleged medical board in violation of the direction of the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed his age in violation of the direction of Medical Jurisprudence. He submitted that the Medical Board had determined his ago without conducting any ossification test and for which it had no basis to accept.

3763

of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sonardih, Dt. Dhanbad in denying to accept the date ofbirth as recorded in Form 'B' Register of South Govindpur Colliery in respect of Shri Nand Lai Hazam, Ex. Attendance Clerk is justified? If not, what relief, the workman is entitled to?

Finding)* with Reasons

He submitted that his actual date of birth is 21-11-38 but ignoring his date of birth which he relied on the management superannuated him prematurely relying on the wrong report of the Medical Board. Accordingly the concerned workman lias prayed for passing an Award directing the management lo accept his date of birth as 21-11-38 and to reinstate him with full back wages.

3. Tlie management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum-rejoinder denied all claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been submitted by the management that the concerned workman Nand Lai Hajam was an Attendance Clerk at Teturiya Colliery. Inthe year 1986 he made a representation before ihc management to the effect that the age col. in the Form B register was kept blank as he failed to produce any document in proof of his age at the time of his employment. H c pray cd for assessment of his age by the Medical Board and (o get the same entered in the Form B Register. Accordingly the concerned workman was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board after examininghim assessed his age as 55 years on 29^7-86 i.e. on the date of his medical examination by the Medical Board. The concerned workman was duly informed about the position by the Medical Board and he accepted the same and put his signature in token of acceptance of the age 55 as on 27-7-X6, The concerned workman was superannuated with crrcct from 29-7-91 as on that he completed his age of 60 ycsirs. After retirement the concerned workman approached (his sponsoring union for raising industrial dispute over his age and as a result this reference has come into existence. The management submitted that the age column of the Form B Register of South Govindpur Colliery as well .is Teturiya Colliery were remained blank till his age was assessed by the Medical Board and was entered in the Form B Register of Teturiya Colliery. The concerned workman at the Teturiya Colliery worked from 1973 as Aitcndancc Clerk and he was very much aware that the age/dale oT birth in the age column of Form B Register is required to be filled up but knowing fully well of the fact ihc concerned workman remained silent. But subsequently lie submitted his application for assessment of his age with the help of Medical Board. It has been further submitted by the management that there was no scope on Ihc part of the concerned workman to submit School Leaving Certificate If he was in possession of the same but lie did not do so. There was no reason at all to ignore his prayer about recording liis date of birth as on 21-11-38 if he was able lo produce any cogent paper before the management. The management submitted that with some ullcrior molivc the concerned workman after getting his retirement has raised this dispute illegally. Accordingly ihc management has prayed for passing an Award holding lhal the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

The management in order to substantiate their claim has examined one witness. The concerned workman on the contrary did not examine any witness to substantiate his claim. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman before his superannuation from service was an employee of Teturiya Colliery. His designation was Attendance Clerk. According to the submission of the concerned workman prior to this transfer to Teturiya Colliery he was posted at South Govindpur Colliery and prior to that he was posted at Jealgora Colliery. His initial appointment at Jealgora Colliery was in the year 1970. His contention is that at the time of his initial appointment in the Form B Register his date ofbirth was recorded as 21-11-38 when he was transferred to South Govindpur Colliery in the Form B Register his date ofbirth was also recorded as 21-11-38 but while he was posted at Teturiya Colliery his date ofbirth was arbitrarily and illegally recorded as 29-7-31 instead of 21-11-3"8. In support of his claim the concerned workman , relied on Form A of the CM.P.F. which during evidence was marked as Ext. W-l. It has been submitted by the concerned workman that ignoring his claim the management referred him to the Medical Board and the Medical Board without making his ossification test arbitrarily assessed his age as 55 years on 29-7-86. Accordingly the concerned workman submitted that the Medical Board illegally assessed his age and it had no basis to assess his ago in that way. On the contrary the management during hearing submitted that neither at South Govindpur Colliery not at Teturiya Colliery where the concerned workman was posted his age Col. in Form B Register filled up. Accordingly the concerned workman submitted an application in the year 1986 with prayer for assessment of his age through Medical Board. On the basis of his representation the management referred him before flic Medical Board on 29-7-86 and on that day he was examined by the Mcdioal Board and after examination his age was assessed as 35 years on 29-7-86. Accordingly the concerned workman was informed about the position by the Medical Board itself and he accepting the same put his signature on the official paper. Thereafter the concerned workman did not raise any dispute over his age and accordingly as per assessment of the age of the concerned workman by the Medical Board he was superannuated on 29-7-91 at the age of 60 years. Learned Advocate for the management submitted that during that period till the date of his superannuation the concerned workman did not raise any dispute about his age assessed by the Medical Board. He raised the dispute only after his superannuation with some ulterior motive. During cross- examination of MW-l he admitted that in case of transfer 4. The points for consideration in this reference are whether (he action of the General Manager, Govindpur Area 37fe?' __ 1W"GAZEriE

Jurisprudence. No allegation is forthcoming before the Tribunal that the Medical Board assessed the age of the concerned workman without complying the provisions of the Medical Jurisprudence. As such relying on the decisions referred to above I hold that there is no reason to disbelieve the Medical Board in the matter of assessment of age of the concerned workman. Particular when it is seen that the concerned workman signed the required form issued by the Medical Board and accepted the assessment of his age. It is further seen that the concerned workman did not raise any dispute about assessment of age till the date of superannuation. He only raised the dispute after his superannuation. The decisions reported in S.C.L.J. page 1464 is clear on this point. In the said decision Their Lordships held that the workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical Board relating to the assessment of his age and he only raised dispute after retirement without any justification. The concerned workman submitted that in the Form B Register his date of birth was recorded as 29-7-31 wrongly and without any basis. I do not concede to the submission of the concerned workman because of the fact that the said date of birth was recorded as per report of the Medical Board and that has duly been noted in the appropriate Col. Therefore it is clear that column pf age hi Ihe Pontt B Register of the concerned workman before his medical test by Ita? Medical Board remained blank Accordingly there is no scope to say that the management committed any misdeed.

6. Onus lies on the concerned workman to establish that assessment of age by the Medical Board was done illegally and arbitrarily. He did not over this issue made any representation before the management immediately after his examination by the Medical Board. No explanation is forthcoming before the Tribunal from the side of the concerned workman and the concerned workman remained silent till the date of his retirement. The concerned workrnan also failed to produce any authentic paper to show that the assessment of die Medical Board relating to his age was absolutely wrong and cannot be relied on. As such after careful consideration of all facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman has failed to establish fyls claim beyond all reasonable doubt and for which I dp npf find any reason to consider that he is entitled to get any relief which he lias prayed for, Accordingly the following award is rendered,

'' The action of the General Manager, Gpvindpur Area of M/s. BCCL jn denying to accept the datp pf birth as recorded in Form B' Register of South Govindpur Colliery in respect of Sliri Nand Lai Hajani, Ext. Attd. Clerk is justified. The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.'' from one colliery to other colliery L.P.C. is issued wherein the date of birth of the concerned workman is recorded. Last Pay Certificate gives full service particulars of the concerned workman. MW-1 during his evidence admitted that he did not consult the L.P.C. of the concerned workman prior to his appearance before this Tribunal. This witness also during cross-examination admitted that Form A is required to be filled up for opening C.MP.F. account of a worker wherein particulars of the concerned workmen are inserted. Photo copy of the Form A during evidence was marked as Ext. W-l. His seen from the submission of the learned Advocate of the concerned workman that the concerned workman not only relied on Form A of the C.MP.F. but also relied on his School Leading Certificate. According to Form A of C.M.P.F. it transpires that his date of birth was 15-8-1940. This certificate was filled up by the concerned workman on 24-1-61. From the W.S. submitted by the concerned workman it transpires that he joined at Jealgora Colliery irt the year 1970, Therefore the concerned workman was very much aware about his age and inspitc of his personal knowledge he claimed that his date of birth in Form B Register was recorded as 21-11-1938. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming before the Tribunal why he concealed his exact date of birth which was recorded in Form A of CMPF. As such it is clear that the concerned workman did not come with clean hand. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman challenged the Medical Board report of the concerned workman. Medical Board's report relating to assessment of age of the concerned workman during evidence was marked as Ext. M-1. It has been submitted that illegally and arbitrarily the Medical Board assessed his age without his ossification test, Learned Advocate for the workman relied on a decision reported on 1996(2) BJLR1492 in this regard. In the said decision Their Lordships held that in absence of ossification lest date of birth in Medical Examination is not reliable. Referring this decision Learned Advocate submitted that assessment of age by the Medical Board in respect of the concerned workman without holding ossification test cannot be accepted <(at all, On the contrary learned Advocate for the management relying on the decisions reported in S.C.L.J. page 1464 and decisions reported in 2001 Lab l.C. page 28 Supreme Court, submitted that it is not at all necessary to make ossification test of the concerned workman for the assessment of his age. In the decision reported in S.C.L.J. page 1464 Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that medical opinion of the Medical Board cannot be brushed aside. In the decision reported in 2001 Lab l.C. page 28 Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that date of birth as determined by the Medical Board on considering evidence available with the management and in accordance with the requirement of Medical Jurisprudence are final. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above held that the Medical Examination of the concerned workman by the Medical Board should be held in compliance to Medical

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi die 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. No. 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 by the Central Government oil 2-7-01.

[No. L-2OO12/314/90-IR(C-I)]

S.S.GUPTA, Under Secy.

3761 Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/(314)/ 9O-IR(Coal-I), dated, the 19th March, 1991.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s. B C C L, in dismissing Shri Haradhan Singh Dumper KhaJasi w.e.f. 30-9-85 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"

2. The case ofthe concerned workmen inbriefisas follows:—

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, (NO. 2)ATDHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B.Biswas, Presiding Officer.

tn llie matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d)oftheI.D. Act 1947.

Reference No. 8" of 1991

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workmen : Shri S. Bose, Advocate. On behalf of the employers : ShriB, Joshi,

Advocate.

Slate: Jharkliand : Industry; Coal,

Dhanbad, the 19th June, 2001.

The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he was a Dumper Khalasi in North Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL Lodna Area. He submitted that over an allegation of meeting an accident in the said colliery the management issued a chargesheet against him on 25-5-85 on die ground of commission of misconduct under clause 18(i)(f)(I) and (q) of the Model Standing Order. He submitted that he made a reply to that chargeshcel but the management being dissatisfied with the reply started a domestic enquiry and after completing thai enquiry the E.O. found him guilty illegally and violating die principles of natural justice. The concerned workman further submitted that on Uic basis of diat enquiry report die management dismissed him from service on 30-9-85. It has been submitted categorically by die concerned workman that the order of dismissal was illegal, improper mid contrary to die principles of natural justice. Accordingly the concerned workman has prayed for passing necessary Award in his favour setting aside the order of dismissal passed by die management to reinstate him in his service with full back wages and other consequential benefits with retrospective effect.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of thcI.D. Act.. 1947 has referred the following dispute to liiis 3. The Management on die contrary alter filing W.S.- cum-rejoinder denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. ll has been submitted by the management that due lo unauthroriscd driving of Dumper No. BHG-3519 by the concerned workman during his second shift duty mcl with an accident at about 9.45 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving and as a rcsull of which one work woman Jilpi Bpurin sustained serious injuries to her person and ultimately succumbed to her injuries. It has been submitted by die management thai the concerned workman had no legal authority to drive the vehicle in question but inspile of knowing this fact he uiiauthoriscdly drove the vehicle and made accident in question for which a precious life was lost. Accordingly the management issued a chargcshccl dt. 25-5-85 and thereafter started domestic enquiry on the basis of chargesheet given lo the concerned workman in his presence. The E.O. after completing the enquiry found die concerned workman guilty and submitted his reply accordingly. The management thereafter dismissed the concerned workman from scrviccwith effect from 30-9-85. It has been submitted by the management dial the aclion 37W 1MB CiAZEnEOFIfffiHA.JULY28>300I/aiAVANA6,1923 ffJtktiP^fe^rtm

Accordingly the E.O. found him guilty and submitted his report. The E.O. during the preliminary hearing was examined as MW-1. The Enquiry Officer in course of his evidence disclosed in details how he toot up the enquiry in question and submitted his report. Vide Order No. 28 dL 2-9-93 my predecessor-in-office held that the enquiry done by the Enquiry Officer as per order of the management in view of the chargesheet given to the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

taken by them In dismissing the concerned workman was legal, bonaflde and justified, and also in accordance to the principle of natural justice. They further submitted that the concerned workman not only drove the vehicle without any authorisation received from the competent authority but also drove the vehicle rashly and negligently without due care and caution resulting cause of death of another work woman of their concern. Such callous and indifferent attitude on the part of the concerned workman could not be excused by the management and the management was compelled to take serious disciplinary action against him so as to deter other like-minded persons from imauthorisedly driving vehicle and causing accident to the persons working in the mine. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The points for decisions in this reference are whether (he action of the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Haradhan Singh, Dumper Khalasiw.c.f. 30-9-85 is justified and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

6.1 have carefully considered all the relevant papers of domestic enquiry in course of final hearing. It transpires clearly from the statement of witnesses that the concerned workman was guilty for causing the said accident. In course of hearing learned Advocate for the concerned workman has failed to give any satisfactory explanation to the effect that the concerned workman had valid authority to drive the Dumper in question before meeting the said accident. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman has also failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the said accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper in question by him. In the W.S. concerned workman denied the fact about his involvement to drive the Dumper in question and also to meet accident as a result of which a valuable life was lost. The facts disclosed in die W.S. T consider has gone a far away from the facts disclosed by the concerned workman will he gave his statement before the Enquiry Officer. It is not the case of the concerned workman that he did not give any statement before the Enquiry Officer or signed any paper. As such in absence of cogent evidence I consider that the statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer was the statement of the concerned workman and subsequently with a view to get rid of the charge he took his attempt to deny the incident in question. After careful consideration of all facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman as actually involved in meeting the accident for his rash and negligent driving. I am also satisfied that the concerned workman had no legal authority to drive the Dumber in question. Now let us consider if the dismissal passed by the management is against the priciples of natural justice and equity. The management in the W.S.-cum-rejoinderhas categorically explained under which circumstances they were compelled to take serious decision. They have categorically disclosed that such order of dismissal was very much required with a view to give a warning to others not to take any attempt to drive the vehicles of the management illegally and unauthorisedly. It is seen that for whimsical driving of heavy vehicle like Dumper a precious life was lost and that was so done carelessly as the concerned workman failed to control that vehicle due to his rash and negligible driving. Therefore, I consider that the order of dismissal passed by the management in no circumstances can be said to be against any natural justice and equity. I further consider that the management in passing the order of dismissal did 5. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was Dumper Khalasi under the management. The instant reference came into existence in view of the dismissal order passed by the management against the concerned workman and that was as a result of domestic enquiry held by them over an accident met by him in discharge of his official duty. It is seen that over meeting accident by the concerned workman a chargesheet was issued against him by the management. Thereafter on the basis of the chargesheet a domestic enquiry was held against him. During domestic enquiry the E.O. examined several witnesses including the concerned workman. All the witnesses during their examination categorically disclosed that on the relevant date and time due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper No. BHG 3519, co-workerwomannamed JilpiBourin was knocked down and for which she sustained serious injury' to her person and ultimately succumbed to her injury. Even the E.O. recorded the statement of the concerned workman and the concerned workman during giving the statement admitted the incident in question. He further disclosed in his statement that under which circumstances he was compelled to drive the Dumper in question but to substantiate that claim the concerned workman has failed to adduce any further evidence. It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman was not authorised to drive the Dumper and for which he was not also legally entitled to drive the vehicle in question but inspite of knowing his position the concerned workman did not hesitate to drive the vehicle and in course of driving the said Dumper knocked down on a lady worker. It is the specific allegation that due to rdsh and negligent driving of the vehicle in question the said accident took place.

•/•rtyvrv"

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal Dlianbad, the 14th June, 2001

AWARD

not commit any illegality. In the result, I do Hot find any justification to interfere with the decision taken by ihe management for dismissal of the concerned workman from his service. Accordingly the following Award is rendered:—

"The action of the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Haradhan Singh Dumper Khalasi w.c.f. 30-9-85 is justified, Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief."

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 1()( 1 )(d) of thel.D. Act, 1947 lias referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20O12 (324)/ 86-D. III(A). dated, the 14th April. 1987.

SCHEDULE

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S. O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman. Which was recciy ed by the Central Government on2-7-2

[No. L- 20012/324/86-D. IH (A)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

"Whether the action of the management of Nudkhurkee Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in denying employment to the dependent of Shri Narain Sao, Fitter as per Clause 10 4.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-Hi is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled'.'".

2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W.S. and documents. Subsequently at the stage of oral evidence, learned Advocate for the management was present but no one appeared on the side of the workman, It reveals from the records that this reference is pending since 1987. It is of no use to drag the same for years together. Under such circumstances a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute¹ Award presuming non- existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Sri. B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 118 of 1987.

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Nudkhurkee Colliery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : None appear-

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. 2204GI/2001—17

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S. O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Dlianbad 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 by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-20012/337/94-IR(C-I)l

S.S.GUPTA. Under Secy.

1> M ' THEGAZ&TTEOFINDIA JULY 28. XKWSRAVAMtfi, 1923 ifflfflWWffi-

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANB AD

PRESENT:

Sri, B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 110 of 1995

PARTIES. Employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bhowra Open Cast Project of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. and their workmen.

APPEARANCES: ,

On behalf of the workman : Shri B. N. Singh Secretary

National Coal Workers Congress. ,

On behalf of the employers : ShriHariharNath,

Advocate,

State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th June, 2001

AWARD

The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunalfor adjudication vide their Order No. L-2OO12(337y 94-f. R.(Coal-I), dated, the 30th August, 1995.

SCHEDULE

'• Whethcrthe action of the management of Bhowra(S) Colliery of Bhowra Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the serviops of Sri Anand Prasad Baidyakar w.c.f. 8-11-93 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled T. 2. The case of the concerned workman in brief is as follows;— v

The concerned workman Anand Prasad Baidyakar had been working as Register Keeper till 7-1) -83 although he was designated as permanent General Mazdcnr under the management. The concerned workman submitted that as he approached the management lor his regularisation as Register Keeper, it created anguish in the management and for which relation in between the management and Win became strain. In themidst of such development suddenly the concerned workman was issued with a chargesheet dt. 8-11 -93 with the allegation that he tore the page of Form C Register in ' A' shift on 24-10-93 and this was seen by the G M (O) :"iJ due \o SHC/'I actisMif i.v.'irdscf gr.-rs'w ptesjnf on time on the above date could not be available and that his such action was gross misconduct as per Certified Standing Order of the workmen of BCCL. Thereafter he was suspended from his service and a domestic enquiry was started. It hasbeen submitted that the Enquiry Officer after holding the said domestic enquiry illegally found him guilty and thereafter on the basis of such observation of the Enquiry Officer he was dismissed from service by the management on and from 8-11 -93. It has been submitted by the concerned workman that the management illegally and arbitrarily relying on the enquiry report of domestic enquiry dismissed him from service. Accordingly the concerned workman has prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and arrears of wages and other consequential benefits for the period of idleness on account of his dismissal.

3. The management on the contrary afterfilingW.S.- cum-rejoinder lias denied all the claims and the allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been disclosed by the management that on 24-10-93 the concerned workman was deployed in the colliery of the management as Attendance Clerk hi 'A' shift duty. In course of inspection by G.M.(0) Bhowra Area on the above date and shift he put his remark on the attendance register of the employees and again after sometimes he asked the concerned workman to produce the said register. At that time he found that the original page in which Attandance was marked are not available in the said Register and it was torn off by the concerned workman with ill motive to hide his deeds in the register. Accordingly a chargeshect was given to the concerned workman under Section clauses 26:1:11 and 26:1:29 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the concerned workman for the charge of fraud, dishonesty in connection with Company's business, wilful falsification, destruction of the company's record. Subsequently departmental enquiry was held wherin the concerned workman was found guilty and accordingly he was dismissed from his service with effect from 8-11-93. The management submitted the dismissal of the concerned workman was fully justified in view of the gravity of offence and any order sort of dismissal would have been encouragement to other workman to do such acts in future, which would have greatly jeopardised the safe working of the mines. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award to the effect that the action of the management of Bhowra Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Anand Prasad Baidyakar with effect from 8-11 -93 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

POINTS FOR DECISIONS

4. The points for decision in this reference are :—

"Whethcrthe action of the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of Bhowra Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the services of Sri Anand Prasad Baidyakar w.e.f. 8-11-93 Is justified ? If not, to wlrt relief the concerned workman is entitled T' 5771 DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Dhoopchand, Register Clerk of the Night shift of 23-10-93 was present there at that time and in his presence the Attendance Register of 24-10-93 ' A' shift was checked and marked/encircled by the GM(0).

4. Necessary instructions were passed by ihe G.M.(O) to the Register Clerk of A' shift in presence of the R/C of Night shift of 23-10-93 (who had to remain there due to .Late arrival of R/C of 'A' shift) (hat whosoever cpmes late their attendances may be booked/marked putting the time of arrival against each and the register should be closed.

5. It Is found that the checked and marked attendance register by the G.M.(O) was under the disposal of Sri Baldyakar, General Mazdoor working as Register Clerk on 24-10-93 in the • A' shift and was handed over to him by the Register i Clerk, Sri Dhoopchand while leaving the

Attendance Room.

5. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was appointed as General Mazdoor on 7-11-83. He was allowed to work as Register Keeper It is the allegation of the management that on 24.10*W the concerned woricman tore tbepage of Form-C Register in A shift while he was on duty and it was seen by tho QM (0) and due to such misdeed records of persons attended on that date could not be available. Over that issue not only chargesheet was given to the concerned workman but hewastiso suspended from his service. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was held and in course of departmental enquiry different witnesses of the management wore examined and after completion of departmental enquiry the concerned workman was found guilty of misconduct and accordingly he was dismissed, from his service. Being aggrieved by and tUsitSrtlsfied with the decision made by the management tiii concerned workman raised this industrial dispute by way of reference, Over tho fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry a preliminary hearing was taken up by the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order No. 43 dt. 17-8-99 held that the departmental enquiry was fair and proper. Now the point for consideration if the dismissal order passed by the management was in accordance with the law or not and also if it is in conformity with natural justice. There is no dispute to hold that at the relevant date i. e. on 2440-93 the concerned woricman was on ashiftduty. Itis the specific allegation that while the Attendance register was in his custody in A shift duty he tore the page of that attendance register and for which there was no scope to verify the records of the other workers present on duty on that relevant date and that misdeed was seen by theG.M(O). As auch the moot question is whether the concerned workman tore the page of the Attendance Register dt. 24-10-93. In course of domestic enquiry a number of witnesses including G.M. (O) were examined by the Enquiry Officer on the part of the management. I have considered the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer. From the statement I do not find any material relying on which it can bo said that the page of that Attendance Register was actually torn by the concerned workman. The witnesses in course of their examination actually did not disclose anything ralying on which there is scope to say that they saw the concerned workman to tear the page of the Attendance Register. The Enquiry Officer after going through the contents of the chargesheet and reply of the chargesheet statement of the management witnesses and the delinquent workman as well as cross-examination made the observation to the effect that :~

I That on 24-10-93 In the 'A' shift Sri Ananto Pd. Baidynkar General Mazdoor OCP was discharging his duty as Register Clerk at 3 Pit OCP.

Z Shri P. K. Roy, General Manager (Operation) inspected No, 3 Pit OCP in the UA' Shift on 24-1OJ93.

Therefore, considering the observations of the Enquiry Officer it is seen that the G.M.(O) checked the attendance register in presence of Dhoopchand. Register Clerk of the night shift of 23-10-93. From this observation it cannot be ascertained if at the relevant time and checking of the Attendance Register by the G.M.(O) the concerned workman was present. It is seen that afterwards the concerned workman joined his duties and remained inchurge of the Attendance Register. Thereafter the incident of tearing page of the Attendance Register came to the knowledge of the management. In course of hearing on preliminary point before this Tribunal WW-2 submitted categorically that he was on duty on 24-10-93 in General Shift at Bhowra (South) Open Cast Project The register of different shift used to be kept in his custody as Register Inchargc. No Attendance Register of shift A of 24-10-93 was seized on that date but it was seized on 28-10-93 and during this period he did not find any damage of any page of that register on that date. Prior to seizure of the Register on 28-10-93 the attendance of the worker was noted. One • H. Throt, Sr. P.O. seized that register on 28-10-93 If the observation made by the Enquiry Officer and if the evidence of WW-2 are taken into consideration it will expose a serious contradiction about the custody of the Attendance Register as well as of its seizure and also the allegation on the point of tearing of the page of the Attendance Register. During cross-examination the facts which WW-2 disclosed was not at all challenged and accordingly it stands. This WW-2 was also examined by the Enquiry Officer and the statement given by himbefore the Enquiry Officer is marked as Ext. M-3.1 have considered the statement which was given by him before the Enquiry Officer and I find that it goes far away from the evidence which he.gavc on oath before the Tribunal in course of preliminary .enquiry. Therefore, reliance of the statement given by the WW-2 before the Enquiry Officer before fixing responsibility upon 3. During the inspection of the Attendance room at 3 Pit OCP by the G.M.(0) at about 6.15 A.M. Sri JV/ff. IMKUAi&tn fEUFlWDIA: JULY2y, ZPPI/SRAVANA6,1923 'fPAfcfll^S^: 3

dismissal to the date of his reinstatement,''

The management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman to his original post widi payment of full back wages and odier consequential benefits as di rccted above within diree months from die date of publication of the Award.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, die 4lh July. 2001

S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the lndsustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in die Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Hie management oT BCCL and fheir workman, which was received by die Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-20012/41K/9K-(C.I.)| S.S.GUPTA. Under Scc\.

ANNHXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas. Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(lXd)

REFERENCE NO. 198 OF 1999

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Koyla Bhawan (IR&P) of M/s. B.C.C Ltd. and their workmen

APPEARENCES:

the concerned workman find no basis at all. The attendance register also was not produced in course of preliminary hearing by the management concerned. No evidence is forthcoming that the Attendance Register was seized on 24-10-93 by the management while Uie same was in custody of the concerned workman. I do not find, on perusal of the record and also the statement of the witnesses that the concerned workman tore the pages of the Attendance Register, It is true that the concerned workman was on A' Shift duty and he was in custody of Attendance Register for which he cannot exonerate his responsibility to explain how the pages of the Attendance Register was torn. Learned advdeate for the concerned workman during hearing argument submitted categorically that the story of tearing pages of Attendance Register isra false allegation brought against the concerned workman without any reason. Here the seizure of the Attendance Register in presence of the concerned workman has to be considered with vital importance. As all the Attendance Registers are kept under the custody of the Register mcharge he cannot also exonerate his responsibility to explain how the pages of the Attendance Register were torn. It is seen that the Register Inchargc. i.e. WW-2 did not disclose any tiling while he was examined at the time of preliminary enquiry. However, it is clear from the materials on record that the concerned workman was not the sole custodian of the Attendance Register, As such responsibility rests on the management to show that the pages of the Attendance were actually torn out while that Attendance Register was in custody of the concerned workman Until and unless it is so established there is little scope to draw a definite conclusion that the concerned workman while on duty tore the pages of the Attendance Register while it was in his custody. I have carefully considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer and I do not find any hesitation to say that the findings is full of discrepancies widi all perversity. From the report it is not clear how the Enquiry Officer came to final conclusion that it was die concerned workman who tore the pages of the Attendance Register. However, relying on this perverse report the management dismissed the concerned workman from his service which I think was done absolutely in a very illegal way and against all natural justice. As die management has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt diat it was the concerned workman who tore the pages of die Attendance Register while he was on duty in a shift on 24-10-93 he is entitled to get die benefit of doubt and when die benefit of doubt conies in it was not wise enough on the part of the management to pass the order of dismissal against die concerned workman. In the result, the following Award is rendered:—

On behalf of die workmen : None

On behalf of the employers : Sliri H. Nath.

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the 20th June, 2001.

AWARD

' "The action of the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of Bhowra Area Of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Anand Prasad Baidyakar w.e.f. 8-11-93 is not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled reinstatement if his original post widi full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of his

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 1 ()(1 )(d) of the I D. Act 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/418/98-C-I, dated the 4th June, 1999.

;•*•••"•*"•"'••••<' •yr.iJ'v- aggrieved persons w.e.f. 02-01-1991 in special grade, payment of arrear wages for the period 02-01-1991 to 19-11-1997 and allotment of " B" type quarters on out of turn basis.

SCHEDULE

After several rounds of discussion it was agreed by the Union, the Management and the concerned workmen to resolve the dispute on the following terms and conditions ;

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

L'Whether the action of the Management of B.C. Ltd., in placing S/Sh. K.P. Kar, B.P. Singh and 18 others clerks (as per list annexed with the schedule of reference) as juniors to Shri Seo Balak Sharma in the seniority list of the Special Gr. Clerk is justified ? If not so, to what relief S/Sh. M.P. Kar, B.P. Singh and 17 other clerks are entitled to ?"

2. hi this reference both are parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed their respective W.S. and documents. Subsequently at the stage of filing documents by the parties Shri Harihar Nath learned Advocate for the management filed a memorandum of settlement under signature of both parties. I have heard upon the said settlement and find that the terms of settlement are fair, proper and beneficial to both the parties. Accordingly, I accept the said settlement and pass an award in terms thereof which forms part of the award as annexure.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer (1) Management of BCCL agreed to grant Notional Seniority to the aggrieved workmen, S/Shri M.P. Kar, Bacha Pd. Singh, R.K. Chowda, Adbul Madud, Ranglal Mandal, Sheo Das Banerjee. N.R. Das, Manik Chakraborty, Balister Rai, S.N. Singh, Sukhdeo Ram, Basudeo Ghosh, R.K, Mishra, A.K. Jha, Wakil Singh, G.N. Prasad. Bachu Pd. Singh and R.N. Sharma in special grade cleric (NF) w.e.f. 02-01-1991, the date on which Shri Sheo Balak Sharma was promoted to the post of Special Grade Clerk.

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE

MANAGEMENT OF BCCL HEADQUARTERS AND

JANTA MAZDOOR SANGH KOYLA BHAWAN

BRANCH IN FORM-H OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

ACT, 1948

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Koyla Bhawan Branch had raised an Industrial Dispute ID No. l/(196)/96 E.2 dated 04-12-1996 before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad alleging illegal and unjustified suppression/ denial of promotion to Shri M.P. Kar and 18 other Grade-I clerks of Headquarters.

The Union claimed that one Shri Sheo Balak Sharma Grade-n Clerk, CCL was transferred to BCCL Headquarters on his own request in March, 1979. The said transfer order specified that Shri Sharma will not be entitled to protection of his seniority of CCL. However, in the year, 1986, Management of BCCL upgraded Shri Sharma in Clerical Grade-1 w.e.f. 31-12-1982 based on the length of his service in CCL. Later in 1991, the Management of BCCL promoted Shri Sheo Balak Sharma to the post of Special Grade Clerk w.e.f. 024)1-1991. Aggrieved Grade-I Clerks who were senior to Shri Sheo Balak Sharma as per BCCL seniority, first objected to his promotion and thereafter raised the instant Industrial Dispute through Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Management of BCCL took the stand that experience of Shri Sharma in CCL was considered for upgradation only. It was also stated that all the aggrieved Grade-I Clerks had been promoted to the post of Special Grade Clerk w.e.f. 19-11-1997. The Union insisted on their demands of seniority of the (2) It is also agreed the workmen named above will not be given back wages OR arrears due to their above notional seniority. They shall not also raise any claim of back wages OR arrears before any authority subsequent to this settlement. They will be given only the benefit of Notional Fixation in Special Grade w.e.f. 02-01-1991. Actual monetary benefit will be given to the above named workmen from the date of issue of administrative order in this regard. However, the above named workmen will be placed in the seniority list of SpL Grade Clerk (NF) above Shri Sheo Balak Sharma.

(3) Their entitlement of quarters will be as per prevailing House Allotment Rules. In the seniority list to the issued by Koyla Nagar Town Administration for the purpose of allotment of quarters, they will be appropriately placed in Special Grade w.e.f. 02-01-1991.

(4) This settlement will not be cited by any body in any other case as precedence, S/Shri M.P. Kar and 17other workmen named above have agreed not to raise any claim of monetary benefit whatsoever as a result of Notional Seniority granted to them. This settlement is purely for the purpose of their Notional Seniority only.

(5) Both the party agreed to file copy of this settlement through their Lawyers before the Presiding Officer, CGIT, Dhanbad with a request to issue a bi-partite Settlement Award.

(6) This settlement succcssfuly and finally concludes and resolve the dispute in full, MANAGEMENT SIDE:

UNION SIDE:

(1) Shri V.P. Gupta

(1) Shri Bachcha Singh General Manager I/C

General Secretary (P&IR)

JANTAMAZDOOR SANGH

(2) Shri D.B. Singh

(2) ShriPadmakarDutta General Manager

Jt. Secretary JMS, HQ (NEE) IMP

Branch,

(3) Shri W. Nasecm Haider (3) Shri MR Kar, Clerk Dy. Chief Personnel

Sales Deptt.

Manager (NEE)

(4) Shri Bacha Pd. Singli,

Clerk, Sales Dcptt.

(5) Shri RKChowda, Cleric HRD Deptt. Kalyan Bhawan.

(6) Shri Abdul Madud

Clerk Sales Deptt.

(7) Shri Ranglal Mandal, Clerk Sales Deptt.

(8) Shri Sheo Das Banerjee,

Clerk IR Deptt.

(9) Shri N.R. Das, Cleric GM

(Co-ordn.) Office

(lO)ShriManik

Chakraborty, Clerk Sales Deptt.

(11) ShriBalisterRai, Clerk

Safety Deptt.

(12) Shri S.N. Singh, Clerk MP & IR Deptt. Despatch,

(13)ShriSukhdeoRam, Clerk Legal Deptt.

(14) Shri Basudeo Ghosh, Clerk GM (P&IR) Sectt.

(15) Shri RKMishra, Cleric

M.M. Division.

(16) Shri A.K. Jha, Clerk

Koyla Nagar Hospital.

(17) Shri WakU Singh, Clak

MM Division.

(18) Shri GN Praised, Clerk

Sales Deptt.

(19) Shri BachuPd. Singh.

Clerk MM Division.

(20) Shri R.N. Sliarma. Clak

MM Division.

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indsutrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to ihe management of CCL and their ww&msci, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-24012/136/86-D.IV, (B)l S.S.GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE NO. 253 OF 1987

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Bokaro Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd. and their workmen.

APPEARENCES:

On behalf of the workmen ; None

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.

WXTW

REFERENCE NO. 20(Q OF 2000

Dated, Dhanbadthe 14th June, 2001.

Present : Shri K. Sanna, LL.B., Presiding Officer.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the ID. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to tills Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-24012/(136)/86-D-IV(B), dated, the 24th August, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial dispute between :

The Management of Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Shillong.

Vs.

TheirworkmenreprbyGeneralSecy.,Cantonment Board Employees Union, Shillong.

Date of Award: 5-6-2001

AWARD

"Whether the action of the Management of Bokaro Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd., PO Sunday Bazar (Bermo) Giridih in terminating the services of Sri Babib Mian on 7-3-1986 is legal and justified when his date of birth as per Fonn-B Register is 25-7-1934 ? If not, to what relief Hie concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. In this reference both are parties appeared and filed their respective W.S. and documents. Subsequently at the stage of oral evidence, learned Advocate for the management was present but no one appeared on the side of the workman. It reveals from the records that this reference is pending since 1987. It is of no use to drag the same for years together. Under such circumstances, a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any Industrial Dispute between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001 S.O. 1847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industtial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Executive Officer, Cantonment Board and theirworkmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-13O11A7/2O"MR/

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-1301 l/7/2OOO/lR(DU) dt. 28-9-2000 has made this reference to this tribunal to adjudicate the dispute arising between the management of the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Shillong and their workmen represented by General Se^y., Cantonment Board Employees Union, Shillong, claiming better housing accommodation from the management as the quarter provided by them are not safe for their staying. The appropriate Govt. has framed the following issue for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy between the parties :

"Whether the action of the management against 48 Nos. of quarters where workmen and their family members are staying in great danger is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

This reference is fixed for hearing today. Tho representative of the both the parties are present. Both of them have declined to adduce oral evidence and submit for deciding the reference on the basis of the documents filed by them.

The representative of the management is heard. The fact of the case is that 48 workmen of Cantonment Board, Shillong have raised this industrial dispute against the management claiming better housing accommodation from the management as die quarters provided them are not safe for their staying.

The management has plainly submitted that if the workmen are not willing to stay in the quarters provided to them, the management is ready to pay the house rent allowance (SjRs. 400 p.m. to each of the workman raising this industrial dispute and they may make alternative arrangement for their staying. The workmen appearing before this tribunal representing 48 workers raising the Industrial dispute has also conceded to the offer made by the management. As the offer of the management is accepted by the workmen, I have no difficulty in passing the award in terms of offer and acceptance made by the parties.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL:

GUWAHATI: ASSAM

Accodingly, it Is ordered that within a period of one month from the date of this award, the workmen shall vacate the quarter of the management and make private arrangement for their staying and management shall pay Rs. 400/-p.m. to every workmen as house rent allowance.

3T7&' TMEQAZmTBOFIPff"A:flJLy2^200I/aiAYANA6,1923 (PARTII—SEC. 3{ll)i With this award this reference is finally disposed.

Prepare an award accrodingly.

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001 S.O. 1848,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown hi the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L^"O025/5/2001-IR/(DU)] KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

PRESENT: THIRUB. GOKULDAS, BA,B.L., Presiding Officer.

Thursday the 31 st Day of May, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1997

Thiru K. Muthuveeran, S/oThiruA. Kasi,

2, Rajamuthiapuram, Chennai 28 ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Union of India, Rep. By the Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, No. 78, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai-10

...Respondent

AWARD

This is an industrial dispute under Section 2 A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to direct the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner in regular vacancy as he has completed the work in temporary capacity from 1985 to 1991 for more than the statutory period.

Z The respondent has filed counter-statement.

3. To-day the dispute is taken up for enquiry. Both sides absent. The petitioner has filed petition to permit him to withdraw the I.D. and allowed Hence, thepetitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to continue the LD. 490/2001 before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal upon the same cause of action. In the result this Industrial dispute is closed. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this the 31st day of May, 2001.

B. GOKULDAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S. O. 1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Palakkad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sub^Divisional Inspector of Post Offices and their workmen which was received by the Centra] Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-40012/290/99-IR pU)] KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

Friday, the 4th May, 2001

PRESENT:

Sri B. Rarijit Kumar Industrial Tribunal

Industrial Dispute No.: 6/20

Between

(1) Sub-Divisional Inspector Post Offices, Trichio- South Sub-Division, Trichur-680001.

(2) Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Trichur (South) Sub-Division, Trichur.

(By Adv. K. Bhavadasan, Government Pleader)

And

Shri M. G. Anilkumar, Kundamkulangara House, Kolazhy (PO),Trichur-680001.

(By Adv. P. C. Sebastian, C.S Ajith Prakash & T.K. Devarajan) AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per older No: L4O012/290/99/tRpU)dated21-12-1999,itferrcd the following issues for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices in terminating the sevices of Shri M. G. Anilkumar, Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent at Ayyappankavu w.e.f. 16-2-99 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2 The workman would submit in his claim statement dated 7-2-2000 and rejoinder dated 8-7-2000 that he had worked under the management as Extra Departmental Mail Carrier, Kodannur continuously during the period from 10-12-96 to 2-6-98 and on 3-6-98 he was appointed as Extara Departmental Delivery Agent at Ayyappankavu Post Office against a clear vacancy, and he continued in that post till 15-2-1999. his grievance is that his services were terminated on 16-2-1999 without notice or notice pay and without paying compensation or assigning any reason. It is submitted by the workman that the termination of his services is in gross violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the I. D. Act and he is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages.

3. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. • Thrissur (South) Sub Division. Thrissur filed a counter statement dated 5-6-2000 stating that he is the appointing authority of Extra Departmental Delivery Agents/Mail Carriers and there is no officer designated as the Sub Divisional Inspector in Thrissur (South) Sub Division. In view of this submission, the workman filed M. P. No.: 221/ 2000 with a prayer to implead the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Thrissur (South) Sub Division, Thrissur as an additional party in this dispute, This petition was allowed asper order dated 14-8-2(XK). Thereafter, the impleadcdparty filed a statement dated 6-11 -2(K)() stating that he is adopting the written statement dated 5-6-2000.

It is contended by the management that the department of post is not an industry within the meaning of I, D. Act and the workman is not entitled to the benefit of the said Act. On the merit of the dispute, the management would submit that the workman was provisionally engaged to work as the Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC in short) at Kodannur Post Office on 28-7-97 by the then Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tlirissur (South) Sub Division, for the period from 29-7-97 to 30-9-97 and later the workman was engaged to work as substitute in the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Ayyappankavu for theperiods from 3-6-98 to 30-6-98, 1-7-98 to 8-7-98, 17-7-98 to 31-7-98,1-8-98 to 30-9-98 and from 1-10-98 to 15-2-99 on purely adhoc basis as a slop- gap arrangement against the vacancy caused by the put off vacancy of Sri. T, K. Vareed, EDDA, Ayyappankavu. According to management, it was not an appointment by the Postal Department, but was only an engagement at the 2204 GI/2001—18

• 3777 responsibility of the Branch Postmaster, Ayyappankam It is further submitted by the management that provisional appointment was made to the said post with effect from 16-2-99 after observing the usual formalities by (lie Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tlirissur (South) Sub Division on 5-2-99 and the workman was also a candidate fortlie interview held on 5-2-99. The management would further submit that if the workman had been at any time engaged to work as EDDA or EDMLpriorto 28-7-97.il Kodannur or such other post offices in leave vacancy or otherwise, it is purely at the risk and responsibility of the EDDA of EDML concerned and the Department has no responsibility for such engagement. According lo management, the termination of the appointment of the workman on 15-2-99 is perfectly legal and valid and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. The contention of the management that the Post Office is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID. Act is found to be devoid of any merit. The management has raised this contention based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Office Vs. TlieyyammaJosep— 1996 (8) SCC 489 It is true that in this case a Two-Judge Bench of Ihc Supreme Court has held that the Postal Department is not an "Industry" within the tncaninng of Section 2(j) and EDEA who arc governed by EDA Conduct and Sen ice Rules do not belong to the category of "Workman" attracting the provisions of the I.D. Act. This decision has been overruled by a Three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vis A. Srihivasa Rao—(1997) 8 Sec. 767. In this case the Supreme Court has clearly held that the decision in Theyyamma Joseph '.v case cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. Therefore, the decision in Theyyamma Joseph's case (Supra) is no longer good law and cannot be relied upon.

6. The further contention of the management is that the Extra Departmental Delivery Agents liK 7 Ihc workman herein are governed by the Extra Department;)! Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules. 1964 and hence ihc\ will no( come under the purview of Ihc 1. D. Act is also based on the decision ofthc Supreme Court in Thewamma Joseph \ case (Supra) which has been overruled by a larger bench in Telecom Case (Supra). It is true that in Bangalore Water Supply Case—1978 SCC(L&S) 215. the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has made a suggestion that tlu employees whose service conditions arc governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India ma> be excluded from the purview of the ID Act. It isobscrved in die majority judgement as follows :—

" hi any case, il is open lo Parliament lo make law which governs the State's relations with iis employees, Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution of India, the enactments dealing with the Defence Forces and other legislation dealing with e m p l o y m e nt u n d er statutory b o d i es m a \.

expressly or by necessary implication, exclude the 377S 1HEOAZBTTEOFINDtA:JULY2IJ,")01/SRAVANA6ll923 (PARTtt—SEC. 3(11)1 operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047. That is a question of interpretation and statutory exclusion; but, in the absence of such provision of law, it may indubitably be assumed that the key aspects of public administration like public justice stand out of the circle of industry. Even here, as has been brought out from the excerpts of ILO documents, it is not every employee who is excluded but only certain categories primarily engaged and supportively employed in the discharge of the essential functions of constitutional government. In a limited way, this head of exclusion has been recognised throughout."

TheHon'ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has rendered a separate, but concurring judgement in Bangalore Water Supply Case has concluded the judgement as follows:—

"168. Hence, to artificially exclude State-run industries from the sphere of the Act, unless statutory provisions, expressly or by a necessary implicationhave that effect, would not be correct. The question is one which can only be solved by more satisfactory legislation on it. Otherwise, Judges could only speculate and formulate tests of 'industry' which cannot satisfy all. Perhaps to seek to satisfy all is to cry for the moon.'' 7. In the light of the above observations of Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that merely because certain categories of employees are governed by statutory rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution or otherwise, they will not automatically be taken out of the purview of the I. D. Art. The Parliament or State Legislature is competent to exclude certain category of employees from the purview of the I. D. Art by framing special statutory rules and by incorporating a specific provision therein to that effect. But even in that case, the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the I. D. Act will prevail over the special rules (see the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikramaditya Pandy Vs. Industrial Tribunal—AJ& 2001 SC 672). It is also possible to amend the provisions of the I. D. Act, excluding such category of employees from the purview of the said Art. A Full-Bench of the Kerala High Court lias re-affirmed this view at para 15 of its judgement in Umayammal Vs. State o/Kerala~-l9S2 KLT 829.

8. As long as Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act as it stands now, only the following categories of employees are excluded from the purview of the said Act.

A person (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), orthe Army Act, 1950(46of 1950), orthc Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in Ihe police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(jii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (rv) who, being employed in supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nautre.

9. A reading of Section 2(s) clearly indicates that all other employees who satisfy the main part of the said Section arc entitled to the benefit of the I. D. Act. In the case at hand, the management has no case that the workman concerned in the dispute is covered by any of the excluded categories coming under Clause 1 to IV of Section 2(s) or he does not satisfy the main part of that Section. Therefore, I hold that he is a' 'workman¹' as defined in Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act.

10. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any specific provisions in the I.D, Act, the ED AS cannot be excluded from the purview of that Act. There are a number of public sector employees who are governed by service rules similar to that of EDA's Conduct and Sen ice Rules (Eg. Employees of Food Corporation of India who are governed by Staff Regulations, 1971, Railway employees governed by Railways Establishment Manual, Municipal employees governed by concerned State Art/ Rule etc.). By anv stretch of imagination, it can be lield.lhat these categories of employees are excluded from the purview of the I.D. Act for the reason that their service conditions are governed by separate service rules. I am of the view that these service rules are just like standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

11. According to management, the workman concerned in this dispute is governed by EDA Conduct and Service Rules, 1964. There is no evidence to show that these Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. A Scrutiny of these rules reveals that this is only compilation of certain executive instructions/orders and not the Rules made under Article 309. It is now well settled that the government is not competent even to add or amend the Rules framed under Article 309 by issuing executive/administrative instructions. (See the decisions in State ofHariyana v/s Shamaher Jang Bahadur— AIR 1972 SC 1546 and O.P. Lather V/s Sathish Kumar Kakker— 2001 AIR SCW 619), Justice Talwar Committee which has set up by the Government of India to go into the service conditions of ED As has observed in its report that in view of the 1959 Statutory' Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the EDAs were treated on the same footing as Government Servants, but the position has changed consequent on the repealment of that Statutory Rules and promulgation of EDA conduct and Service Rules. 1964, Therefore, it cannot be held that EDAs arc now Government Servants or that they arc outside the purview WIWSflfH* ofthe ID, Act. Infant; there i* no provision in these Rules excluding EDAs from the purview of the ID. Act. This position has been clarified by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court as early as In 1982 In Umqyammal v/s State of Kerala—(19&2 KLT 329). In Vmayammalcase, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held as follows :—

*'prom the observations of Justice Krislina Iyer and Chief Justice Beg it will not follow that merely because there is-a provision in regard to temporary appointees as in Rule 9(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, such appointment wiu stand excluded from the purview of the Act. in this connection we might note here S. 25-J of the Act, occurring in Chapter V-A It reads as hereunder:

"25-J, Effect of laws inconsistent with this Chapter^ 1) The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding any thing inconsistent therewith contained in flny other law including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946);

Provided that where under the provision of any Act or rulos, orders or notifications issued thereunder or under any standing orders or under any award, contract of service or otherwise a workman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the workman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.

(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State in so far as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes, but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter,''

In spite of 5. 3-J it may be possible to exclude the operation of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act by a positive provision hi any new legislation. However one cannot say that Rule 9 of the K.S.S.R. is such apositive provision in any way repealing either expressly or by implication theprovisions in Chapter V-A of the Act as regards the temporary Government employees whp are workmen coming within the ambit of the Act. It could not also be said that there is any inconsistency between the provisions in Chapter V-A of the ActandRule 9 of the K.S.S.R, because of the time limit fixed for the period of continuance in service of a temporary appointee as per the said rule. Such time limit would certainly apply to a person who will not come within the ambit of the term 'workman as defined hi the Act.' *

12.1 am of the considered opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Telecom case and Vikramaditya case (Supra) and that of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Uniayanmial Case, the ED As like the workman herein cannot be held as non-workmen under the ID. Act.

13. It is also contended by the management that the reference order is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties as the Union of India is not made as a party. The second management himself has admitted that he is the appointing authority of the workman concerned in this dispute. Therefore, he can be very well treated as the employer for the purpose of the present adjudication proceedings and I am of the view that it is not necessary to implead Union of India as a party to this dispute.

14. The concerned workman has been examined as WW1 and he has asserted that he has worked under the second management continuously for the period from 10-12-96 to 16-2-99. Ext. Wl to W4 documents produced by the workman also support that he had worked under the management during this period. WW1 has further stated that the Attendance Register will reveal the number of days worked by him. The management has not produced the Attendance Register before this Tribunal The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices who has been examined as MW1 was not in a position to state whether the workman had worked continuously for the aforesaid period, The workman has succeeded to establish that he had worked •continuously under Management No. 2 during the period 10-12-% to 16-2-1999.

15. According to workman, his services were arbitrarily terminated on 16-2-99 without giving him any notice or assigning any reason. On the other hand, MW1 has stated that his services were not terminated. But he has admitted that as per Ext. W4, the workman was relieved of the duties, Therefore, there can be no doubt that his services were terminated on 16-2-1999.

16. Now, the point to be considered is whether the termination of the services of the workman with effect from 16-2-1999 is legal and valid.

17. As per Section 2(oo) of the I. D, Act, the termination of services for any reason whatsoever would amount to retrenchment, except the cases coming under Sub-Clauses (a) to (c) thereof. Though it is stated bj the management that the engagement ofthe workman was as a stop-gap arrangement, the management has not produced any document to show that his engagement after the period of Ext. W2 appointment letterwas fora specific period or for any specific purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the termination of his services is covered by any of the exemptions given under Sub-Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 2(oo) ofthe I.D, Act, . ^ t^

lfffl<3AZETT^Oim

18. According to workman, the termination of his services is in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act. In view of the findings of this Tribunal that the workman had rendered more than one year continuous service and the termination of his service would amount to retrenchment, it was incumbent upon the management to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. As per the provisions of this Section, it was mandatory to give one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or one month's wages in lieu of such notice, and also to give the workman at the time of termination, compensation @15 days wages for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. The management has not complied with the above pre-conditions at the time of termination of services of the workman on 16-2-99. Therefore, the said termination is clearly in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

19. The workman has not pointed out that any other persons who was junior to him was retained in service while his services were terminated. In the circumstance, it cannot be held that the management has violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act and the contention of the workman in this regard is found to be untenable.

20. The workman has not disputed the averment of the management that termination of his services was consequent on the regular appointment, for which he was also considered, but not succeeded in getting the appointment. The regular appointment is made in accordance with ihe provisions of Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Since the workman has no case that he was appointed against the regular vacancy by following the procedure envisaged under the said Rules, he cannot claim continuous employment. He has to be replaced by a regularly appointed person. Therefore, it cannot be said that his services were terminated for any extraneous or malafide reasons. I am of the view that in these circumstances, the workman is entitled to only retrenchment compensation and notice pay in terms of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and no other relief.

21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, an award is passed holding that the action of the management in terminating the services of Sri. M.G. Anilkumar, Extra- Departmental Delivery Agent at Ayyappakavu w.e.f. 16-2-1999 is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to the retrenchment compensation and one month's notice pay in terms of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2(K)1.

B. RANJIT KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses examined on the side of Management:

MW-1 Sri. P. K. Madliavan.

Witnesses examined on the side of Workman:

WW^l Sri. Anilkumar.

Documents marked on the side of Management:

NiL

Documents marked on the side of Workman:

Ext- Wl Charge Report of assumption of charge ofEDMQKodanur.dt. 10-12-96.

ExtW2 Memo dated 28-7-97 issued by Post Offices, Thrissur South Sub-Division.

Ext. W3 Charge Report of assumption of,charge of EDDA, Ayyappankavu, dt. 3-6-1998.

Ext W4 Charge Report showing the discharge of workman on 16-2-1999.

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S. O. 1850.—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 management of Superintendent of Post Offices and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L^OO 11/28/2000-IR (DU)1 KULDEEP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 8th June, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 84/2000

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of '^JTO- the Industrial Dilutes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri V. Arunachalam and the Management, Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam.)

BETWEEN

V. Arunachalam : I Party/Workman

AND

The Superintendent of : II Party/Management Post Offices, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : Ms. S. Jothivani &

R. Balagurusamy, Advocates

For the Management : ICSivajothi,

AdCGSC

The Government 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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No: L40011/2B/2OOO/IR (DU) dated 31-10-2000:—

' W h e h t er the action of the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam, in removing from the services of Shri V. Arunachalam Ex-Department Sub- Postmaster, Vlshnupuramfrom 26-11-1999 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?''

, This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 09-5-2001, uponperusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following:—

AWARD

On receipt of this reference from the Govt. this industrial dispute has been taken on file as I.D. No. 84/2000 and notices were sent to both the parties by Registered Post with acknowledge due to appear before this Tribunal for hearing on 5-5-2001 with a direction for the I Party/ Workman to file his Claim Statement with documents. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their counsel and filedthefrrespective Claim Statement and Counter Statement

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I

Thel Party/Workman, SilV. Anmachalam (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as Departmental Sub-Postmaster, Vishnupuramby the II Party/Management Superintendent of Post Offices (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) on 1 -4-1981. The respondent is the appointing authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority. The Respondent had issued a charge memo dated 21-3-87 alleging three articles of charges stating that the Petitioner had violated Rule 17 of P & T E.D. Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. The Petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him. The Respondent had appointed Sri M. Rathinam, Postmaster Kumbakonam as Enquiry Officer and Sri S. Gopalakrishnan, SDI (P) Kumbakonam North Sub-Division as Presenting Officer, t he Petitioner had nominated Shri Dilip retired P.R.I. (P) as his defence assistant. The Enquiry Officer finally concluded that the charges have been proved and submitted his report. The Respondent agreed with the Enquiry Officer's findings had imposed punishment of removal from service and tile Petitioner was terminated from service on 26-11-99. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the proceedings in contravention of rule and law. He denied reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, which is a violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the entire proceedings is vitiated. In Annexure 3 of the charge sheet, the Respondent had cited 32 documents by which the articles of charges framed ,are proposed to be sustained, hi the charge sheet, the Petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence within ten days of the receipt of the charge memo. The Department has given administrative instructions that the copies of documents relied by the Disciplinary Authority should be sent along with the charge sheet to the charge sheeted employee. The Procedure for holding a departmental enquiry was not followed by the Respondent The copies of documents and statements must be made available to the charge sheeted employee along with charge sheet for him to make his reply. The failure to furnish copies of documents along with charge sheet is denial of opportunity, hence the whole enquiry is vitiated. The Petitioner called for some documents, which are in the custody of the Respondent for perusal to have effective cross examination of witnesses and to prove his innocence. Though the Enquiry Offi cer had directed the Respondent to furnish copies of documents to the Petitioner, the Respondent had refused to supply the documents for the perusal of the Petitioner. It has been noted by the Enquiry Officer in the order sheet. The Respondent has acted contrary to Rule 14(13) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The documents called for canberejected only when itis against the public interest or security of the State. Hence, the Respondent's refusal to furnish the document amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity for the Petitioner to defend his case and that denial is in violation of principles Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—

• ' W B. ™

( P A R T O — S EC 3 r t i )l T H E < M Z E n B O F B " " AK: J U L Y 2 " , 2 a " / 8 R A V A N A 6t1 1 " 23

of natural justice and it vitiates the whole proceedings. The Petitioner was charged under three counts for the alleged misappropriation of certain sums. The charge was issued on the basis of a preliminary enquiry done by Sri V. Raman, SDI (P) Kumbakonam, North Sub-division. Therefore, the Petitioner called for the preliminary investigation report. But it was not furnished to the Petitioner. The denial of preliminary enquiry report amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, delinquent employee and it is violative of principles of natural justice. The investigating officer obtained statements from the witnesses in the absence of the Petitioner. Those statements were admitted by the Enquiry Officer as documents in the enquiry. Administrative instructions were given by the Ministry of Home Affairs to that effect that evidence of witnesses proposed to be used against the Oovt. servant in the departmental proceedings should be recorded in his presence. The evidence recorded in the fact finding enquiry in the absence of Govt. servant should not be brought in the proceedings. Therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated due to this illegality committed by the Enquiry Officer. This is a case of no evidence. The Petitioner had kept the cash outside the office as per the enabling rule and he had produced the same within a reasonable time as per mat enabling provision. So, the first charge cannot be said to be proved. The witnesses in respect of R.D. Accounts and the S B. Accounts have not been produced as prosecution witnesses during enquiry. Hence, there is no evidence for the charges alleged against him Further, before the Enquiry Officer the witnesses Sri G. Amutha and R. Chandresekaran have also not appeared and gave evidence. The Respondent had indulged in unfair labour practice and imposed an excessive punishment to the petitioner. Hence an award may be passed setting aside the impugned order dated 26-11-99 passed by the Respondent/Management and by directing the Respondent/Management to reinstate the Petitioner in the same post with all attendant and monetary benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II

Party/Management are briefly as follows :—

and connected accounts, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam removed the Petitioner from service by his order dated 26-7-99, The charge memo dated 21 -3 -97 was served on the Petitioner and he received the same without any objection. All the relevant documents were supplied to him. He was allowed to nominate his defence assistance as per his choice. The documents which were not relevant to case and personal in nature were not supplied to the Petitioner. He was allowed lo cross examine all the withnesses. He was not denied resonable opportunity in defending his case. There is no mention in the charge sheet regarding preliminary investigation report The chaiges framed against the Petitioner is based on the documents and statements given by the depositors and independent witnesses. Hence, there was no need to supply preliminary investigation report. There is no illegality committed by the Enquiry Officer in this case. The Rule allowing the ED agents to keep cash and stamp balances is meant only for safe custody of valuables during the off hours. Normally he is excepted to keep in the office during working hours. The Petitjoncnnerely kept the cash balance in his persona] custody. He should have sought permission from the investigating officer to leave the office and produce them within reasonable time. In his statement dated 9-1-97, he has stated ttha{ he used the office cash balance for his personal expenses. Now,ftis his contention that he was not allowed to produce the cash balance is only an after thought. On verification with the depositors to ascertain the balances shown in the passbook, it vvas revealed that Rs. 50/- and Rs. 10/- given by the depositors on 6-1-97 were not credit into the account and the depositors were given statements to that effect. The Petitioner has also accepted the version of the depositor as (rue and voluntarily credited theamount subsequently into the Govl. account. The witnesses had not appeared before the investigating officer. The charge vvas proved based on the statements and voluntary credit made by the Petitioner and other documents. The Petitioner in his statement submitted that he did not entrust the money order for payment to EDDA as there were shortage of office cash. As per the rule in force intimation has lo be served through EDDA only in respect of money orders exceeding the value of Rs. 750/-, EDDA has stated that money order lo the value of Rs. 100/ was not enturstcd to liim for payment and payee Shri Mahalingam also staled that he did not received intimation of receipt of money order through EDDA. Similarly Smt. K. Saraswathi did not receive the payment of money order or intimation through EDDA on the date of receipt. This money order was not entrusted to EDDA for payment. No fair attempt has been made to clTccl the payment of money order. As a Govt. servant the Petitioner should maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duly as required by rales, the punishment is awarded after taking The Petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 21-3-97 for keeping shortage of cash of Rs. 3,747.35, committing frauds in R.D. accounts and non-entrustment of money orders to the EDD A received for payment on 9-1-97. Thus he violated thcRule of 17 of P& TEDA's (C & S) Rules, 1964. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner in addition to adopting the principles of natural justice. He conducted the proceedings in accordance with the rales in force. He submitted his report dated 17-7-99 stating that three charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. Tanking into account the report of the Enquiry Officer Fr^-^p'.-¹ into consideration the financial irregularities and other

lapses committed by the Petitioner as detailed in the charge

sheet. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner in this industrial

dispute has to be dismissed.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry exhibits

were marked by the consent as Ex. Ml to M4 and Ex. Wl series. The arguments advanced by learned counsel on other side were heard.

5. Hie Point for my consideration is—

"Whether the action of the Management of

Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam in removing from services of Sri V. Arunachalamt Ex-department Sub Postmaster, Vishnupuram from 26-11-1999 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Point;—

The Petitioner was working as ED Sub-Postmaster, Vishnupuram, was issued a charge memo dated 21-3-97 containing three articles of charges, a xerox copy of the same is Ex. Ml. Under those charges, the Petitioner was said to have committed acts of misconduct in violation of Rule 17 of P & T EDA's (C & S) Rules, 1964. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the Petitioner was found keeping shortage of cash of Rs. 3747.35 committed acts of fraud in R.D. accounts and non-cntrustment of money orders to EDDA received for payment on 9-1-97. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the daily order sheet maintained by the Enquiry Officer for the enquiry is Ex. M4/W1 series. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report Ex. M2 (xerox copy) giving a finding that the charges are stand proved. Based on the report and finding of the Enquiry Officer under original of Ex.M2, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order dated 26-7-99 imposing punishment against the Petitioner of removal from service.

6. Aggrieved by that order passed by the

been stated. The Petitioner who was in serve at the time of verification as EDSBA, Vishnupuram had admitted the shortage at the time of verification. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would argue that the verification was done at the close of office hours at 14.30 hrs and as per the Rule, the Petitioner is permitted to keep the cash in a safe place and he can produce the same for inspection within the time required to going to and coming back to the place where the cash is kept for safe custody. So the non- availability of the cash at the time of verification by the verifying officer cannot by itself be considered as the misconduct committed by the Petitioner. It is seen from records that copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure III to the charge sheet have not been furnished to the Petitioner, delinquent employee. The Enquiry Officer in the daily order sheet dated 14-7-97 has stated that since the charge sheeted official has denied all the three charges levelled against him in total the enquiry in this case would pass on to next stage for perusal of documents which will be intimated in due course. This shows copies of the documents relied upon by the Management to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent official were not furnished to him along with the charge sheet, hi the charge sheet Ex. Ml it is stated that the delinquent official is directed to submit within ten days of that memorandum his written statement of defence. This reveals that the delinquent official, the petitioner herein was directed to submit his reply without even furnishing the copies of the documents mentioned in the Annexure III of the Charge Sheet. So as it is put forth by the learned counsel for I Party/Petitioner, the non-furnishing of copies of documents relied upon by the Respondent/management even to frame the charges against the Petitioner and to direct him to submit his written explanation for the charge memo amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to put forth the petitioner's defence effectively. Since the domestic enquiry is started with the issuance of charge memo, this action of the management amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In the daily order sheet maintained by the Enquiry Officer for the dated 19-8-97, it is stated that the xerox copy of certain documents as statements of wiuiesses were handed over to the charge sheeted official and out of total number of 32 documents mentioned in Annexure fl to the Charge sheet, .\erox copies of 15 documents were furnished to the Petitioner on that day. It is also stated in that daily order sheet that Presenting Officer has been directed to obtain serial number 18 of Annexure 11 in the charge sheet and keep ready. So it is seen from the particulars available in records that before ever the enquin has begun the copies of documents relied upon by the Respondent/Management were not furnished to the charge sheeted official. Under Miscellaneous Rule 11 a Note has been given as follows:—

Disciplinary Authority by removing from service, the Petitioner has raised this industrial dispute alleging that the domestic enquiry was conducted in contravention Of rules and law and the Petitioner as a charge sheeted employee was denied reasonable opportunity which is a violation of principles of natural justice and hence the entire enquiry proceedings is vitiated. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the first charge is with regard to shortage of cash and stamp balances by Rs. 3747.35 found by the verify ing officer on 9-1 -97. In that charge out of the total shortage amount of Rs. 3747.35 what was that cash shortage and what was the stamp shortage has not ;'" y ^ "rl WBmmrmammMV2k,mimwMx6M! • 'Fmti^*&Wffl ' 'All EDDPMs whether theirofflces arc provided with iron safes or not should make their own arrangements for the safe custody of cash and valuables on their own responsibility. They are at liberty to keep the cash and valuables wherever they like, provided that they are available when required and that when called for. They can be produced for inspection within the time required for going to and coming back when the place where the cash is kept for safe custody.'

substantive, acceptable evidence. There is no evidence that this Petitioner, charged official has failed in his duty. So, the finding of the Enquiry Officer in his report that all the three charges have been proved is incorrect. Consequently, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer is unjustified. It is not the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner ever maintained false record orfabricated the documents or misappropriated any amount. Under such circumstances, it can be held that the action of the management, the Respondent, Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam Division, Kmnbakonam, in removing from the services of Sliri V. Arunachalmn Ex. Department Sub Postmaster, VLshnupuram from 26-11-99 is unjustified, hence, the concerned workman is entitled to the relief, he prayed for in this Claim Statement. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.

8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management in removing Shri V. Arunachalam, Ex. Department Sub Postmaster, Vishnupuram from sen ice on 26-11-99 is unjustified. The II Party/management is directed to reinstate the I Party /Workman Concerned Sri V. Arunachalam in service as before with all attendant wages and monetary benefits. No, Cost.

In this case, the charge sheeted official had admitted the shortage before the verifying officer and the verification has been done after the close of the office hours and the shortage amount has been remitted back. From the enabling provision, it is seen that the charge sheeted official was at liberty to keep the cash for safe custody at the place he likes. It is not in record that the said charge sheeted official was given reasonable time forproduction of that shortage of cash and in spite of that charge sheeted official was not able to produce the same before the verifying officer. So under such circumstances, in the absence of any clinching evidence it cannot be said that the charge no. 1 has been proved to conclude that the charged official has contravened the provision of Rule 17 of ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.

(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. KARTHIKEY AN, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined:—

On either side : NONE

Documents Marked:—

For I Party/Claimant:

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl series 26-05-98 Xerox copy of Daily Order to Sheet 12 in numbers.

22-05-99

For II Party/Management:

Ml 21-03-97 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet.

M2 17-07-99 Xerox copy of the'Enquiry

Officer's report

M3 26-11-99 Xerox copy of the proceedings

of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam Division.

M4 Series 14-07-97 Xerox copy of Daily Order to Sheets 32 in Numbers (pages

22-05-99 1 to 77)

7. It is seen from the records that with regard to charge no. 2, the concerned depositors Vimala and Sakila were not examined before the Enquiry Officer though their statements were obtained in the absence of the charged official, the Petitioner herein and used in the enquiry by the management to prove the said charge. The deponents had not been subjected to cross examination by the charged official. But the Enquiry Officer relied upon those statements to conclude that the said charge has been proved. From this, it is seen the charged official, the petitioner herein, was denied an opportunity to cross examine those persons. It is also seen from the materials available in this case that the preliminary enquiry report has not been furnished to the delinquent charged official. With regard to the next charge, the EDDA Sri Swaminathan, who had given a statement has not been examined before the Enquiry Officer. It is also seen from the Enquiry Officer's proceedings that the payees have stated before the Enquiry Officer that they are informed about the arrival of Money Orders. If the M.O. amount is more than Rs, 500 the Branch Postmaster should not serve it through EDDA. Intimation can be given to the payees about the arrival of the M,0s. through EDDA. It is available in evidence that one such intimation was given and the payee had taken the amounts on 10-1 -87. So under sach circumstances, it is not correct to conclude that article No. 3 mentioned in the charge sheet has been proved. So from the available records, it is seen that all the three articles of charges were not proved with • j;aj

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 Disputes Act., 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40011/6/2000-IR (DU), dated 07-07-2000:—

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

"Whether the action of the Management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad City Division, Hyderabad and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Trichy Division, Tiruchirapally in removing services of Shri P. Duraisamy from the Ex-BPM is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled'" S.O. 1851.—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-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Aimexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Senior Superintendent of Post. Offices and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-40011/6/2000-fR (DU)J

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 6th June, 2001

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 375/2001

[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 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri P. Duraisamy and the Management, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchirapally Division]

BETWEEN

P. Duraisamy

I Party/Workman

AND

The Senior Superintendent of, II Party/ Post Offices, Tiruchirapally . Management Division

APPEARANCE:

Forthe Workman : M/s. S. Jyothivani

andR. Balagurusamy, Advocates

Forthe Management : Mr. M.K. Jayakaran

This order of reference was originally made to CGIT, Bangalore for adjudication, Subsequently, by order dated 7-12-2000, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to withdraw this case from the file of CGIT, Bangalore and transfer Ihis industrial dispute to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal the case was taken on file as I.D. No. 375/ 2001 on 24-1-2001 and notices were sent to both the parlies by Registered Post informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of CGIT, Bangalore to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 19-2-2( )01. On 19-2-2001, though the notice sent by Registered Post was served on the I Party/Workman, he was not appeared. His counsel filed vakalat and prayed time for filing Claim Statement with documents. The 11 Party was represented by the Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel Shri M.K. Jayakaran by filing memo of appearance The case was adjourned to 13-3-2001 forthe I Party to file Claim Statement. Then on the request of the counsel forthe I Party, the case was adjourned to 26-3-2001 and then to 18-4-2001 forfiling Claim Statement. On 18-4-2001, the I Parry/Workman filed his Claim Statement and the case was adjourned to 03-05-2001 forthe II Party to file the Counter Statement. Though the case was adjourned to 21-05-2001, 31-5-2001 from 3-5-2001 extending the time for the II Party to file the Counter Statement, there was no representation at all for the II Party on those hearings. When the matter was taken up on 31-5-2001, the counsel forthe I Party and the 1 Party were 6nly present. The II Party and their counsel were not present and there was no representation on the side of the II Party. Counter Statement of the II Party has not been filed. So the II Party was said ex-parte and the case was adjourned to 1-6-2001, on the request of the counsel for the I Party for ex-parte evidence. On 1 -6-2001, the I Part) / Workman was examined as WW1 and Ex. WI lo W4 were marked. Then the case was adjourned to 6-6-2001 for this Tribunal to pass a considered order on the basis of the wrterials on record and the cx-parte evidence given by the f Party /Workman.

AdCGSC

2204 Gl/?nm—19 37m '"W THEGAZElTEOPttroiA:Jt]LYM,2001^RAVAl4A",iW3 |fc*tfMJfic>3tf81 2. The averments ofthc I PartyAVorkman in his Claim

Statement are briefly as follows:—

The I Party/Workman (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Pilimisai BO. in the year 1992 by the II Party/ Management (hereinafter referred to as Respondent). The Respondent is the appointing authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority, The Petitioner was rendering his services to the entire satisfaction of his superiors without any blemish and that at no point of time the Petitioner has come to the adverse notice of his superiors except the one against which the present glaim petition is filed. The Petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 3-7-91 containing three articles of charges, wherein it is alleged that the Petitioner failed to account for the deposit of Rs. 45/- on 17-3-90, Rs. 65/- on 27-3-90 and Rs. 140/- on 22-6-90 accepted from the depositor of SB. account No. 605048 and that he belatedly credited those deposited amounts into the BO. accounts and that he had failed to account for Rs. 100/- accepted from the depositor of S.B. Account No. 605775 during the first week of March, 1990 and also failed to account for the withdrawal of Rs. 100/- on 13-3-90 into B.O. accounts and that he had failed to account for the deposit of Rs. 25/- received from the depositor of S.B. account No. 6057 into accounts and on 28-4-90, he credited the amount into the accounts and thereby he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and failed to follow the provisions of Rule 17 of P & T, Extra Departmental Agent (C & S) Rules, 1964. The Respondent cited 27 documents in the annexure of Charge Sheet and cited 5 witnesses by whom the articles of charges framed are proposed to be sustained. The Petitioner denied the charges one Shri S. Sridharan, ASP was appointed as Enquiry Officer at the first instance. Subsequently, from time to time, the Enquiry Officer appointed was changed by the Respondent. The delay in appointment of Enquiry Officer resulted in delay in finalising the disciplinary proceedings for more than 8 years and the delay is fatal and made the proceedings vitiated as per the exhaustive guidelines and as per the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer conducted several sittings violating the principles of natural justice and liw procedure known to conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and gave aperverse finding holding that the charges against the Petitioner are proved. The ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad was without any application of mind and on illegal and arbitrary exercise of powers Jmposed the punishment of removal from service which is a major punishment. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings ended in a failure. On submission of the report of failure of conciliation by the conciliating authority to the Govt., the Govt. waspleased to refer diis matter as an

Industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Respondent have disregarded the proper procedure in conducting the enquiry proceedings, which resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case and it is a violation of principles of natural justice. The Respondent, though had cited 27 documents, the copies of the Said documents were not given to the Petitioner along with the charge sheet. Instructions were given by the department under letter dated 19-6-87 tluit copies of documents relied upon and the statements of witnesses cited, be supplied to the Govt, sen ant along with the charge sheet. ButtheRespondncnt had overlooked the instructions, which caused prejudice to the Petitioner in defending his case effectively find it is a violation of principles of natural justice. For the non-furnishing of documents relied upon by the Management for the charges. the Petitioner was not able to give his explanation to the charge sheet in an effective manner. So ii is a violation of principles of natural justice. The investigating officer had obtained statements from the witnesses during the fact finding enquiry behind the back of the I Party. The statements of witnesesof A, Chinnasamy, M. Ilanchezhian. Sml. Indirani and M. Tamilazahan dated 25-1-90 were marked as exhibits P4, P5, P6, P18, P20 and P25. In the enquiry the witness Mr. Ilanchezhian had not been examined, but his statement was produced and the Enquiry Officer relied on the statement also. Instructions were already given by the Ministry of Home Affaiis to the effect that evidence of witness which are going to be used against the Govt. servant in departmental proceedings should be recorded in his presence. The evidence recorded in the fact finding enquiry shall not be produced during the enquiry, since it was obtained behind the back of the Govt. servant. As such statements dated 25-4-90 obtained from the witnesses during the preliminary investigation in die absence of the Petitioner, ought not have been brought into the proceedings in the absence of the author of those documents. But the Enquiry Officer admitted those documents in the proceedings and based his reliance for giving his findings. It shows the illegal, arbitrary exercise of powers by the Enquriy Officer without application of mind with a motive to hold the charges as proved. The ad- hoc Disciplinary Authority without application of mind accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer as charges have been proved and had imposed the punishment of removing from service. This is a case of no evidence. The witnesses examined before the Enquiry Officer about their statements given before the preliminary investigation officer were disowned their statements. Those statements were obtained from them by persuasion and giving false promises. There was no complaint againt the petitioner. The material collected during the preliminary enquiry were not substantiated during the departmental proceedings. The charges levelled against the petitioner are baseless and without any evidence. The Disciplinary Authority based on his reliance on the enquiry report, held, that the . m?

evidence in the enquiry to prove the charges levelled against him and that the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charges are proved without any evidence of proof and that the Disciplinary Authority also relied upon the report of the Enquiry Officer and awarded the punishment of removing him from service and it is against the principles of natural justice and it is illegal.

applicant is guilty and Imposed punishment of removal from service without application of mind. It is illegal, arbitrary and colourful exercise of powers. Hence, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the Petitioner is to be set aside anfl the Respondent is to be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service in the post he was holding as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Pilimisai (B.Q.) TiruchjrappalU Division with all attendant and mpnetary benefits.

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 1-6-2001, subsequent to setting the respondent ex-parte in the previous hearing, the Petitioner was examined himself as WW1 and Ex. Wl to W4 were marked, On the representation of the counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has no more oral or documentary evidence and Closing his side, the argument advanced by learned emitted for th

4. Thepoint for my consideration is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad City pivlsjqn. Hyderabad and Senior Superintendent of Post Offlces.Trichy Division, Tiruchirapalli In removing (he from services of Shri P. Duraisamy from the Ex-rBPM is justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"'

Point:— It is admitted in evidence by the Petitioner as WW1 that he joined as Branch Postmaster at Pilimisai in Trichy Division in the year 19SK). It is his evidence thai when he was doing his service as such he was given a phargesheet dated 3.7,01 and the xerox copy of the same is EN-W1. Though he has stated that he has submitted explanation as a reply denying those charges, he has not chosen to file a copy of that reply here in Court. It is his admission that he had taken part In (he enquiry fully and he. was assisted by one Defence Assistant by name Shri NT. Rajan, It is also his evidence that the entire enquiry proceedings were recorded by ihe Enquiry Officer in his presence and that in the enquiry Mr. M.Paramasivam, who had conducted the preliminary enquiry was examined as PW1. The other witnesses examined on the side of the Management in the enquiry had deposed that they have not given statements before the investigating officer willingly and those statements were obtained from them under compulsion;.

The Petitioner further says that when he was

5. A perusal of the charge memo Ex. Wl clearly shows that specific acts of misconduct as receipt of deposits, from the Savings Bank account holders, on different dates and belated credit made by this Petitioner in those S.B. accounts. All the documents that were relied upon to prove this three articles of charges mentioned in the charge memo have been mentioned in the list of documents annexed to the charge sheet as Annexure 111. It is seen from the enquiry proceedings marked as Ex.W2, that sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner, the delinquent employee and he was taken part in the entire enquiry along with his defence assistant and has cross examined the witnesses examined on the side of the Management in detail. A perusal of the enquiry of such proceedings clearly show as and when some objection has been raised by the defence representative about the procedural aspect adopted by the Enquiry Officer rulings in respect of those objections were given by the Enquiry Officergivingacceptablereasonsforliisrulings. This clearly shows that the delinquent employee with liis defence representative were given sufficient and proper opportunity to effectively defend the charges levelled against/the Petitioner/delinquent employee. Though the witnesses examined on the side of Management have stated that they have not voluntarily given the statements before the investigating officer PW1 when questions were put to them about the deposits they made towards the respective Savings Bank Accounts to the delinquent employee. Ihe Branch Postmaster, they do accept (he same dial they have made such deposits with WW1 and he had failed to credited the same in their account then and there. There are documentary evidence available in this case which would clinchingly prove about the belated credit made by VV W1 for the deposit of amount made by the respective Sn\ ings Bank Account-holders, The Enquiry Officer in his report Ex.W3, after analyzing the evidence of oral and documentary in detail, had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. Ihe Petitioner herein have been proved. He has also given reasoning in his findings to conclude that the charges were proved. So, under such circumstances, it cannol be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer arc without any evidence or basis and it is perverse. So. Ihc argument advanced by the learned counsel for (he Petitioner lhal the Enquiry Officer has given his finding without any basis and evidence and it is perverse cannol be acccplcd as correct. A perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority Ex. W4, clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer's examined before UiO Enquiry Officer he denied the charges and he examined one Sri Kasi Rajan as his defence witness. The xerox copy of enquiry proceedings is Ex. W2 and the Enquiry Officer's report is Ex. W3. The order passed by Uic Disciplinary Authority dated 28,8,99 (Xerox copy) is exhibit W4. It is the further evidence of WW1 that the charges levelled against him arc false and there was no supportive '37**... TH&GAZOTrEtyffJBIA: JULY 28,20OT/HIAVANA6,192? . p^fftt^StsffiPPW report was dnly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and he has discussed about the same in detail and he had found that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in his report as charges have been proved are correct and accepted. So, under such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel forthe Petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order of penalty against the delinquent employee for removal from service is without application of mind, cannot be accepted as correct. In his order Ex. W4, the Disciplinary Authority has clearly stated that the penalty imposed against the delinquent employee as removal from service shall not be a disqua lification for future employment. From this, it is seen that the penalty imposed against the Petitioner is not in any way affecting his future in securing fresh employment as a disqualification. So under such circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the action of the Management, the II Party in this dispute against the I Party/Petitioner taken in the disciplinary proceedings by imposing the penalty is justified and the concerned workman, the Petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer, the point accordingly.

6. hi the result, it is held that the claim of the I Party is not proved to set aside the order of removal from service issued by the II Party/Management. Accordingly, an award is passed as a considered one holding that the I Party/ Petitioner's dismissal from service by the authorities is based on acceptable evidence and materials only as found out by the Enquiry Officer and hence, the I Party/Workman is not entitled to any relief, since the action of the Management concerned in removing the Petitioner Shri P. Duraisamy from the service of Ex.PBM is justified No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day die the 6th June, 2001.)

K. KARTHKEYAN. Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

Forthe I Party/Workman:

W.W.I : Shri P. Duraisamy

Forthe II Party /Management:

i-

None

Description

Ex. No. Date

W2

05-05-99 Xerox copy of brief of the defence submitted to the .Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings.

W3

11-05-99 Xerox copy of enquiry report of (he Enquiry Officer, W4

28-09-99 Xerox copy of Memo/Order No. SSP/HD city/CON/99 of 'the Disciplinary Authority.

Forthe II Party/Management: NIL

New Delhi, the 2nd July. 2001 S.O. 1852.—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-cum-Labour Court. Visakhapatnatn as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-14025/7/2001-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: VIS AKHAP ATNAM.

PRESENT: Sri K. Veerapu Naidu, B, Sc. B. L.. Chairman and Presiding Officer.

Dated: 1 st day of June. 2001 Documents Marked:—

For Uie I Party/Workman:

Description .

Ex. No. Date

03-07-91

Wl

Xerox copy of Memo No. F. IV/ l/Misc/90-91 from Shri Sivachandramoorthy, Sr. Superintendent, Trichy to Sri P. Duraisamy.

I.T.1.D(C) 55/99

BETWEEN

Madaka Srinivasa Rao. S/o Apparao, C/o S. Gangadhara Reddy. D. No. 9-1-75/1, New Resapuvanipalem. Opp; Indore Stadium Visakhapatnain-13 Workman 1/JIV

AND

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding in-chief for CSOC (P&A), Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Captain.

INS Virebahu, Samudrika, Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

.. Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. G. Reddy, Advocatefor workman and the Government Pleader for management. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following:

AWARD

1. This is an application filed under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back wages.

1 The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as safaiwala in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 28-3 -95 and he worked as such till 30-4-99, and he was paid Rs. 683/- per month, He was working for 8 hrs. for a day for 26 days in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence the workers union filed M.W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e. Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 questioning the said order and it i s pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.c.f. 30-4-99 without assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screening of Movies in the Samudrike Naval Auditorium and also the non-public fund.

3. It is the further case of the workman the Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is Vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and. continuity of service.

4, The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this application on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lecture cum assembly hall placed under the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lecturers by senior defence officer, dignitaries, VIP's for conducting symposium and cultural programmes by Naval personnel etc. and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who are working in a very stress atmosphre. To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioner and some others were engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers were made from the Non-Public Fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund. The service of these casual workers are only on need basis and it will not come under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the union filed M.W. 104/95 and it was allowed in favour of the workmen and against which the respondent have filed W.P. No. 15863/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and the Honourable court has granted stay orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129/- and the main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount of Rs. 36.129/-on 18-5-99.

5. It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailores for lecture cum assembly demonstration by senior defence officers, seminars, presentations and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel etc. Due to the advent of cable T, V. the samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses due to recurring of losses and the unavailability of the samudrika Non-Public Fund, the screening of movies for thp entertainment of troops has been stopped and the non- public fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's services were stopped by giving one month's notice and one month's honorarium in lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of the casual employees was only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, theprovisions ofl.D. Act has no application, The screening of the movies in samudrika has been completely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion of job. his services are to be discontinued and there was no need for his services. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The workman is examined as WWI and the General Secretary of the union is examined as W W2 and got marked Exs. Wl to W5. Onbehalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding officer, Naval Command, who was maintaining the auditorium from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M10 are marked.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point arises for consideration in this application is;

Where the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?

9. The counsel appearing for the workman contends that the petitioners was appointed as Safaiwala on 28-3-95 and he was paid Rs. 683/- per month and that he worked continuously till his services are terminated w.e.f. 30th April.

3790 v, mi4, 1"C

of the films on honorarium basis. No doubt, tlie petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 4 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the movies, The mam object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminar, etc. by the defence personnel and the screen of films is a part of activity in tlie auditorium for tlie entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors andtheirfamilies, Because of the incurring of losses in the non-public fund and the advent of cable T. Vs. the management was constrained to close the screening of tlie films in the auditorium. However, the workmen complained that it is a vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the minimum wages Act. The case of the management is that paucity of funds from the non-public fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under tlie circumtanccs, the claim of the petitioner that he shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered,

12. Under the circumstances stated above. I am inclined to take the aid of the decision rendered by his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs, LIC of India repotttpdin 1998(6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship wa"p]i£i]M*d to held that two conditions are co existantto grant the relief of rcgularisation or continuation of services (1) entry of tlie employee on temporary or adhoc basis should be against an existing vacancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliencc on 4 Supreme Court decisions which arc follows:

(1) 19%(XI) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs.

BisambarDult.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. Stale of Bihar 1997(2)

SCC1

(3) P. Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondichcri

1997(1) SCC 350

(4) P. Ramakrishiw Vs. StatcofKcnilal996(II) SCC

565.

10.The council appearing for the manegnient contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, seminars,tneeting to be organised by the defence personnel screening of films for the entertainment of the officers, sailors and children and their family members and the services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying same honorarium to the workers from the non public funds. Exs. M3 to M5 arc the balance sheets and the audit reports for the years ending 31 st July, 1998, 31 st June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997,The wages are being paid to the petitioner from the non-public fund and it has no connection with the Navy nor with the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 199*7 as per Ex. M5, The services of the workmen are terminated on the basis of the letter received from the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief which is marked as E\.M3 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 arc to be terminated. As per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium in charge terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing the termination orders to (he petitoner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted about the filing of the case under Minimum wages Act by the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a write petiton No. 15863/97 where in an interim direction was given to deposite Rs.34,729/- and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. M10 is the letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum Wages Act is admitted by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitioners sen ices are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal? •

13. Here in this case the appointment of tlie petitioner is not existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection proceedure liad down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on adlioc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground

itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief,

i

14. Thus, here this is a case, where tlie termination of the services of dismanagement of the petitioner is only on 11. The evidence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages arc being paid to the workman from non-public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officers, sailors etc. and the services of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening

I •?'™3W1- account of the closure of the according of films in the auditorium. No doubt MW1 has stated that after the termination of his services some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even other wise there is no material on record to establish the said fact Therefore, the evidence spoken to by lu's without any pleading has no basis.

15. That apart, the management Issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman. Therefore, the termination or disangagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus, in any view of the mai'er, I see no merits in the application.

16. In the result, the petition is dismissed and all award is passed. Ho wev cr, each party is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictccted to stano transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June, 2001.

K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence witnesses examined for Workmen Management WW1M Srinivasa Rao. MW1S. P. Mallick WWII S Srinivasa Roo.

Document marked for workman;

EvWl 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to Management by Sri S. GangadhamReddy, Advocate on behalf of the Union.

E\.W2 5-1999 letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam by the Union..

Ex.W3 22-6-1999 letter addressed to the Union by the ACL,

Ex. W4 20-4-1997 order in MW case No. 104/95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act 1948 Visakhapatnam.

Ex. W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WP/P No. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98. ~

Documents marked for Management:

Ev Ml 28-6-1 y86 Letter of appointment of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao (WW2).

EX.M2 3-12-1992 Visakha General OrdcrNo. 33/92 Command Lecture-cum-Assembh Hall- Samudrika.

Ex,M3 Balance sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July, 1998.

Ex.M4 Balance sheet and audit certificate for the quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex,M5 5-5-1997 Balance sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April. 1997.

Ex.M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex. M7 304-1999 Termination notice.

Ex. M8 29-4-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by R1.

Ex.M9 30-4-1999 Termination Order of the petitioner.

Ex-MlO 17-5-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Management.

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 1853—In pursuance of Section 17 of (he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby^publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Ministry of Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-14025/8/2(K)l-IR(DU)l

KULDJP RAJ VERMA. Desk Officer mm TTffiaMEnEOFWEaA.:JULY28,3Wl/SRAVANA6,l"3 fKi"§fl#$i&^fn'H

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIALTRffiUNAL

Dated: 1st Day of June, 2001

I.T.T.D.(C) 56/99

BETWEEN:

A. AnandaBabu.

S/o Narayan Murtliy

C/o S. Gangadharc Reddy

D. No. 9-1-75/1, NewResapuvanipalem,

Opp: Indore Stadium,

Visakhapatnam-13. Wotkman.

AND

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding in Chief for CSOC (P & A). Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnam.

1 The Captain,

INS Virabahu, Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnato. Menagemcnt.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.G. Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for management. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing Uie entire material on record, the court passed the following:

any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screening of Movies in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium and also the non-public fund-

(3) It is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and contiunily of service.

(4) The respondonls 1 and 2 opposed this application on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lecture-cum-asseinbly hall placed under the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer, dignitaries, VIP's, for conducting, symposiums and cultural programmes by Naval personnel etc. and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who arc working in very stress atmosphere, To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioner and sonic others were engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers were made from the non-public Fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund. The services of these casual workers are only on need basis and it will not conic under the puiview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the union filed M. W. 104/95 and it was allowed in 'favour of the workman and against which the respondent have filed W,P. No. 15863/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court has granted slay orders against the order of die Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129 and (he main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, the respondent have lo deposit an amount of Rs. 36.129 on 18-5-99

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Sec, 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back wages.

(2) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as safaiwala in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 4-1-92 and he worked as such till 30-4-99 and he was paid 683 per month. He was working for 8 hrs for a day for 26 days in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence the Workers, union filed M. W. 104.95 before the Authority i.e., Asst, Commissioner of Labour, Circlc-II, Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition No. 15863/97, questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim order not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-99, without assigning (5) It is further submitted thai Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant forofficcrs

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the union is examined as WW2 and got marked Exs. Wl to W5. On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commending officers, Naval command, who was maintaining the auditorium from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M10 are marked

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this

application is:

per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium incharge terminated the services of thepetitioner by issuing the termination orders to the petitioner, The counsel appearing for the management also admitted the filling of the case under Minimum Wages Act by the workers' union • and their success and against which, die management filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 wherein an interium direction was given to deposit Rs, 34,729 and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. M10 is die letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum wages Ad is admitted by both die parties. Now the short equcstion for the determination is as to whether the portitioncr's services are taken on casuel basis and if so whether to terminations of the petitioner's services is legal?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman contands that the petitioner was appointed as safaiwala on 4-1-92 and he was paid Rs. 683 per month and that he worked continuously till his services are terminted w.e.f. 30th April, 1999. He was serving as safaiwala in the Samudrika Auditorium maintained by Respondents 1 and 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the services of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workmen as well as the General Secretary of the workers' union as WWs 1 and 2. It is also contended by the workmen that the workers have raised a dispute before theAsst Commissioner of Labour (Central). Where efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal. It is also the admitted case of the workman that there is no appointment order in writing, the general secretary Srinivasa Rao has got on appointment order which is also marked as Ex, Ml. However, die petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M17.

(11) The evedence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages are being paid to the workmen from non-public fund which is being raised by die members of the Naval Officers, sailors etc., and the service of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of me films on honorarium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 7 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of die Auditorium for Uic purpose of screening of the movies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures fcand training programmes, seminars etc., by defence personnel and the screening of films is a part of activity in die auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and theirfamilies. Because of the incurring of losses in the non-public fund and the advent of cable. T.Vs. the mangemeiu was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. However, the workman complained diat it is a vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of the management is that paucity of funds from the non-public fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly, due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika. Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under the circumstances, the claim ofthe petitioner that he shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered,

(12) Under die circumstances staled above. 1 am inclined to take the aid of the decision rendered bv his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998(6) ALT 147=1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to held that two conditions arc co- existant to grant tliefelicfofregularisation or continuation of services : (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or ;id hoc basis should be against an existing vacancy. (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relev ant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered bv his Lordship bv placing reliance on 4 Supreme Couri decisions v\ Inch are as follows:

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, Seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screening of films for die enterta inment of the officers, sailors, and children and their family members and the services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the non-public funds, Exs. M3 to M5 are the balance sheets and the audit reports for the years ending 1 July, 1998, 31st June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997. The wages are being paid to the petitionor from the non-public fund and it has no connection with the Navy nor with the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6. The services of the workman are terminated on the basis of the letter received from die Flag Officer Commnding-in-Chlef which is marked as Ex. M8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 are to be terminated. As

;:204GI/2001—20 fssmj.

.-:~:fMWHTOamvwff"^^

• Affl$MtM0fflM?;

(1)1996(11) SCC 341 between Union of India, Vs. BisembcrDutt.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC 1 (3) P. Rcvindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondichcri 1997(1) SCC 350.

(4) P. Rumakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996(11) SCC 565.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of thepetitioner Is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment Is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioner was only on adhoc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules, On that ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of films in the auditorium. No dobut, WW1 has stated that after the termination of His services some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleeding has no basis.

(15) That aprt, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorcrium in liou of notice, to the workman. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25Fof the I.D. Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to beer its own cost.

Dictated to steno trancribed by hur given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June, 2001.

K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Offiter Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

Workman: Management:

WW1 A. AnandaBabu MW1 S.P.Mallick WW2 S. SrinivasaRao

Documents marked for workman:

Ex. Wl 30-4-99 Telegram adressed to Management by Sri S. Gangadhara Reddv, Advocate on behalf of the Union.

EvW2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissionei- of Labour, Visakhiipntnam by the Union.

Ex. W3 22-6-1999 Letter Addressed to the Union by the ACL.

Ev W4 204- 19V? Order in MW cas*No. \ 04/95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act 1948Visakhapatiuni

Ex. W3 Telegram addressed to management b\ the High CourtmWPMPNo. 118/98 in WP No 140/98.

Documents marked for MtUMgement:

Ex. Ml 28-6-1986 Lettetof appointment of Sri S. Sriniv;>s:i Rao (WW2).

Ex,M2 03-12-1992 Visakha Genera! Order No. 31/92 CcmmandLecuire-cuiu Assembly HaJl-Seinudrika Ex. Ml Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July 1998.

Ex. M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April. 1997.

Ex. Mfi 10-3*1999 Mcmurartduin of agreement for sccuriu cover

Ex.M7 KW-1999 Termination Onder.

Ex. MB 29-4-] W9 Letter addressed to R2 by Rl.

Ex.My 3

New DolhL the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 1854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribtinal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Defence and their workman, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-i40025/9/200I-IR(D-U)l KULDEEPRAIVERMA, DeskOfficer 3795

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURTOFINDUSTRIAL TRFBLJNAL-CUM- any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screening of Movies in the Snmudrika Naval Auditorium and also the non-public fund.

LABOURCOURT: V1SAKHAPATNAM

Present Sri K VeorapuNaidu, B-Sc.. B.L.. Chairman*.

Presidixig Officer

Dated: 1st Day or June. 2001

l.T.LD,(C) Sim

Between:

G. Srirumulu.

S/o Rama Murthy,

C/o GangadhaniReddy.

0. Ho. 9-1-75/1, Now Resapuvanipal em,

Opp; Indore Stadium,

Visakliapatiiani'13. Workman Arid

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding ChtofforCSQC(P&A), Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Vlsakhapatnam.

2. The Captain.

INS Vjrabahu, Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. ..Management This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.G. Roddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for management, Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following:

(3) H is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

(4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this

Award

(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back wages.

(2) The case of the petitioner Is that he was appointed as Ushorln the Samitdrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 1 -7-87 and he worked as such till 304- 99 and hewaspsI4735 per month. He was working for8 hrs for a day for 26 days in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence the workmens union filed M.W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e., Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Cjrcle-H, Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondent filed a writ petition No. 15863/97, questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he a p p r o a ch the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim order not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-99, without assigning application on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lecture cum assembly hull placed under the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of serening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer. dignitaries, VIP's, for conducting symposiume and cultural programmes by Nabal personnel etc. and the hall \\ as also used for screening of movies once in a while, for cntertaiincnt of officers, sailors and their families u ho are working in very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like thepetitioner and some others were engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation The wages to casual labourers were made from the Non-public Fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund. The services of these casual workers are only onneed basis and it will not come under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. It istnic thai tlie union filed M.W. 104/95 and it was allowed in favour of the workmen and against which the respondent have filed w.p. No, 15863/97 in Use Hon'ble High Court of A.P Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court has granted stay orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129/— and the main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount orRs. 36,129 on 18-5-99.

(5) ft is further submitted that Naba) Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailores for lcciurc-cum assembly demonstration' by senior defence officers. seminers, presentations and Cultural prograihes by Naval Personnel etc. Due to the advent of cable TV, the Samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses due to recurring of losses and the unavailability of the Samudrika Non-public fund the screening of movies for the entertainment of troops has been stopped and the non- public fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's sen-ices w ere stopped by giving one month's notice and one month's honorarium in lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of the casual employees was only dne lo unavailability of the work: Therefore, the provisions of ID. Act lias no application. The screening of the mov ics in Samudrika lias been completely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged on casual basis for a 3 7 9 6"

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: J U LY 2 8 , 2 O 0 1 / S R A V A N A 6 , 1 9 23

f • J p . u t ' r R - "S E C WW specific purpose and on completion of job, his sen-ices are to be discontinued and there was no need for his services. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the general secretary of the union is examined as WW2 and got worked Exs. Wl to W5. On behalf of the management, the legal offi cer for commanding officer. Naval command, who was maintaining the auditorium form March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M10 are marked

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this

application is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement

as Ex, M8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except \V W2 are to be terminated- As per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium incharge terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing the termination orders to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted the filing of the case under minimum wages Act by the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 wherein an interium direction was given to deposit Rs. 34.729/—and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. M10 is the leuci stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under minimum wages Act is admitted by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitioner's services are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal?

with back wages?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workmen contends that the petitioner was appointed as usher on 1-7-87 and he was paid Rs. 735/- per month and that he worked continuously tillhis services arc terminated w.e.f. 30th April, 1999. He was serving as usher in the Samudrika Auditorium maintained by Respondents 1 and 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the services of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workmen as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as WW 1 and 2. It is also contended by the workmen that the workers have raised a dispute before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Central) Whose efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribual. It is also the admitted case of the workman that there is no appointment order in writing, the general secretary Srinivasa has got an appointment order whi ch is also marked as ex. Ml. However, the petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7.

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages are being paid to the w orkmen from non public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officers, sailors etc.. and the services of the potitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of the films on honorarium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 12 years and the termination of his services resulted due to die closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of tire movies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by defence personnel and the screening of films is a part of activity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and their families. Because of the incurring of losses in the non public fund and the advent of the cable T.V.s the management was constrained to colse the sreening of the films in the auditorium. However, the workman complained mat it is a vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of the management is that paucity of funds from die non public fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel, screening of films for the entertainment of the officers, sailors, and children and their family members and the services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the nonpublic funds, Exs. M3 to M5 are thcbelance sheets and the audit reports for the year ending 31st July, 1998,31st June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997. The wages are being paid to the petitionor from the non public fund and it has no connection with the Navy now with the Government and the Auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contraect basis, from 1st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6. The services of the workman are terminated on the basis of the letter received from the flag officer Commanding-in-Chief which is marked

(12) Under the circumstances stated above. 1 am inclined to take the aid of-the decision rendered by his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others I \. LIC of India reported in 1998(6) ALT 147=1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to held that two conditions are co- existant to grant the relief of regularisation or continuation of services : (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or adhocbasis should be against an existing vacancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows:

(1) 1996(11) SCC 341 between Union of India, Vs. BisamberDutt.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC 1.

(3) P. Revindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherri 1997(1) SCC 350.

(4) P. Rainakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996(11) SCC 565.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, die appointments of the petitioner was only on adhoc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of films in the auditorium. No dobut. WW1 has stated that after the termination of liis services some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no metcrial on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

(15) That apart, the management issued one mouth's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of die services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25Fof the ID. Act, Thus, in any view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed, However, each party is directed to bear its own costs. Dictated to steno trancribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this die 1 st day of June, 2001.

K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For

Workman: Management:

WW 1 G. Sriramulu MW1 S.P. Malick.

WW 2 S. Srinivasa Rao.

Documents marked for workman:

Ex. Wl 30-4-99 Telegram adresscd to Management by sri S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate on behalf of the Union.

ExW2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam by the Union,

juur/Tjjui, i 7 j j. ni win, staving us oooKing LICTK mine SamudriJca Auditorium maintained by Respondents 1 and 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the. service* ofthe petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workmen as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as WW 1 and 2. It is also contended by the workmen diat ditworkers have raised a dispute before the Asst. Commissioner of Labour (Central) where efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal, It is alsd the admitted case of the workman that there is no: appointment oitfar in writing: the General Secretary Srinivasa Rao has got an appointment oitfer which "s also inaHced as Ex. Ml. However; thepetitkmer was served with a tarroinationordcrwhichis also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7.

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screening oF films for the entertainment of the officer, sailors, andchiWren andtiicirfamily members and the services of thepetitianer was engaged onlyforthe screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some homoGiriurn to the worktis from the Non-public Funds. Exs. M3 toM5 are the balance-sheets aad the audit jept"rts for the years ending 3,1st July, 1998; 31st tone, 2OOO.and 30th April 1997. Thcwflgeaatbeingpaldtothftpetitiojwr fitsm the Non-public Fund:and it has no connection with (the Navy now wnjt the Government aad the auditorium screening is BOW given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 1997 asper Ex. M6": The services of the Workman arc terminated oa the basisof the letter received

3797 Ex. W3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the Union by the ACL.

Ex.W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW case No. 104/95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act 1948Visakhapatnani.

Ex. W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High CourtinWPMPNo. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management:

Ex.Ml 28-6-1986 Letter of appointment of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao(WW2)

E\,M2 03-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 33/92 Command Lecture-cum Assembly Hull-S;imudrika Ex.M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for ihc quarter ending 31st July, 1998.

Ex.M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificaic for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex.M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April, 1997.

Ex. M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of agreement for seciirih cover,

Ex.M7 30-4-1999 Termination Onder

EvM8 294-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by Rl Ex.M9 304-1999 Termination Order of dicpclitioncr Ex-MU) 17-5-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by Hie management New Delhi, the 2nd July. 2001

S. O. 1855.—In pursuance or Section 17 of (lie Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Ccnlnil Government hereby publishes the award ofthc Induslrial Tribunal-cuin-labour Court Visakhapatnam as show n in the Anncxure in die Industrial Dispute between die employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

|No,L-14025/10/2(X)l-[R(DU)| KULDEEP RAIVERMA. Desk Officer ofthc films on honorarram basis. No doubt, thepetitioner has put in a continuous service of about 12 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the mo\ ies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by the defence personnal and the screening of films is a part of activiiy in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, saMorsand their families. Because of the incurring of kisses in the Non-public Fund and the advent of cable TVs. the management was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. However, the workmen complained that it is vindictive attitude of the management because they approached die authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of the management is that paneity of fvmdsfrointhe Non-public Fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening cf films in the Samudrika Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus under the circumstances, the daim of the petitioner that he shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

12^ Under the circumstances .stated above, I am in lined to take the aid of the decision rendered by his Lordship in G. Sudhakarand 98 others Vs. LIC af India reported in 1998(6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 327 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions are so existent to grant theretiefof regularisation or continuation of services: (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or adhoc basis should beagalnst on, existing vacancy. (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevant i"cfBJtai*iWf"i"s: "The above said 37W T|IB&&ZmGefcWfcJULY2Jfc2flMy^^

ANNEXURE

INTHE CXDURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: VISAKHAPATNAM Presents : Sri K. VeoaiiwNaidHvB.Sc., B.L., Chairman & Presiding Officer

Dated: 1 st Day of lune, 2001

I.T.lD.No. (C) 58/99

Between:

Karri AppalaRaju,

S/oLate Apparao

C/o S. GangadbareReddy

D. No. 9-1-75/1, NcwResopuvanipalom,

Opp: Indore Stadium,

Visakhapatnam-13.

; Workman.

And

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding in Chief for CSOC (P & A). Head Quarteres, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Vlsakhaptnam.

2. The Captain,

INS Virabahu, Samndrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. G. Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleaderfbf management Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire meterial on record, the court passed the following;

AWARD

assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screeniag of Movies in the Sainudrika Naval Auditorium aud also the Non-public Fend.

(3) It is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

(4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this appli- cation on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lecture cum assembly hall placed vnder the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of secreenmg of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer, dignitaries. VIP's, - for conducting symposium and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel etc and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who are working in very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements casual workers like the petitioner and some others were' engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation The wages to casual tafiourers were made from the Non- public Fund of the second respondent unit but not from the GovwwfflwsMfpvnd- The services of these casual workers are only ownfedbasis and it will not came under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the union filed M. W. 104/95 and it was allowed in favour to the workmanand aganist which the respondent have filed W.P. No, 15863/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court has granted Stay Orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129 and the main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, die respondent have to deposit „ _. ^ ^ f p. it. n o™ ltt.^.QQ

3800 THE GAZETTEOFTNDIA:JULY28,2001/SRAVANA6,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows:

(1) 1996 (II) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs. BisambarDutL

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997 (2) SCC1.

(3) P. Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pandicheri 1997(1) SCC 350.

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996 (II) SCC 565.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on ad-hoc basis, temperaruy without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, were the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of film in the auditorium. No doubt, WW1 has stated that after the termination of his services some arc employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

(15) That part, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workmen. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June. 2001.

K. VEERAPU NATDU, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Workman Management:

WWI K. Appala Raju MW1 S.P. MaUick WW2 S. Srinivasa Rao.

Documents marked for workman:

E\.W1 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to Management by Sri S. Gangadhara Reddy advocate on behalf of the Union.

EvW2 -05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam by the Union.

Ex.W3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the Union by the ACL.

Ex,W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW case No. 104/95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Visakhapatnam.

Ex.W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management:

Ex.Ml 28-6-1986Letterofappointmentof SriS.Srinivasa Rao(WW2)

Ex.M2 3-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 33/92 Command Lecturc-cum-Assembly Hall- Samudrikas.

ExM3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July, 1998.

E\.M4 Balance sheet and audit cortificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex. M5 5-5-1997 Balance sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April, 1997.

Ex. M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex.M7 30-4-1999 Termination Order.

Ex.M8 29-4-1999LetteraddressedtoR2byRl.

Ex.M9 304-1998 Termination Order of the petitioner.

Ex.M10 17-5-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Management.

New Delhi the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-14025/11/2001 -IR(DU)] KULDIPRA1VERMA, Desk Officer.

* *">>' ";i •fi,*..,,i,:$. ,r,,. , , , ,..,, - ,,i ••'tfiw-.wtim^mm^n?.

above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows:

( l; 1996(11) SCC 341 between Union of India, Vs. BisamberDutt.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC 1.

(3) P. Revindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherri 1997(1) SCC 350.

Ex. W3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the Union by the ACL.

Ex.W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW case No. 104/95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Aci 1948Visakhapamam.

Ex. W5 Telegram addressed to management by ihc High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management:

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996(11) SCC 565.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on adlioc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground itself tlie petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where die termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of films in the auditorium. No dobut, WW1 has stated mat after the termination of his services some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no meterial on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

(15) That apart, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman, Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25F of the I D. Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs. Dictated to stcno trancribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June, 2001.

K. VEERAPU N AIDU, Presiding Officer, Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

E.X.M1 28-6-1986 LettCrof appointment of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao(WW2)

Ex,M2 03-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 3.V92 CommandLccture-cum Assembly Hall-Samudriku.

Ex.M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending31stJulyJ998.

E\.M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31 st January, 2000.

Ex.M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audil report for ihe quarter ending 30th April. 1997,

Ex,M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex.M7 30-4-1999 Termination Order.

E\.M8 29-4-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by Rl

Ex.M9 30-4-1999 Termination Order of Ihepciilioner EN.M10 17-5-1999 Letter addressed lo Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the m;uiaycmcnl Workman: Management:

WW1 G. Sriramulu MW1 S.P. Malick.

WW2S. SrinivasaRao.

New Delhi, the 2nd July. 2001

Documents marked for workman:

Ex. Wl 30^1-99 Telegram adressedto Management by sri S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate on behalf of the Unioa

Ex.W2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam by the Union.

S. O. 1855.—In pursuance of Section I7oflhc Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 or 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-labourCourt Visakhapatnam as shown in iho Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Go\ cnimcni on 2-7-2001.

|No.L-14025/H)/2001-IR(DU)| KULDEEPRA1VERMA. Desk Officer 379$ . . m&mmm&m&^MxmwfaffiM&wA&Am 'WMffi&mw®;

ANNEXURE

INTHECXXJRTOTINDUSnrRIALTOIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT: VISAKHAPATNAM Presents : Sri K. VeaapuNaidu,B/Sc.,B.L., Chairman*:

Presiding Officer

Dated; 1st Day of June, 2001

IT.I.D:No. (C) 58/99

Between:

Karri AppalaRaju,

S/o Late Apparao

C/o S. GangadhareReddy

D. No, 9-1-75/1, New Rcsopuvanipalom,

Opp: Indore Stadium,

Visakhapatnam-13.

; Woriunan.

And

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding in Chief for CSOC (P & A), Head Quarteres, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Vlsakliaptnam.

2. The Captain.

INS Virabahu, Samndrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. G. Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for management Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire mcterial on record, the court passed the following:

assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screening of Movies in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium and also the Non-publk: Frnid.

(3) It is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the menagement is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back Wages.

(2) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Booking Clerk in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 1-8-1987 and he worked as such till 304-99 andhe was paid 735 per month, He was working for 7 hrs. for a day for 26 days in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence the workmen's union filed M. W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e., Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Clrcle-H, Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondencts filed a writ petition No. 15863/97, questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hpn'ble High Court; While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and be approached the Hon*ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services wereterminatedw.c.f, 304-99, withbut (4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this appli- cation on the ground that Samudrika Na val Auditorium is a lecture cum assembly hall placed vnder the Administration of the second respondent and it is u&ed for the purpose of sccreening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer, dignitaries, VIP's, for conducting symposium and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel etc. and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who are working in very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements casual workers like the petitioner and some others were' engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation The wages to casual labourers were made from the Non- public Fund of the second respondent unit but not from the GQv"M"**ff>wnd. TUe services of these casual workers are only oaneedbasis and it will not came under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the union filed M. W. 104/95 and it was allowed in favour to the workman and aganist which the respondent have filed W,P No. 15863/97 in the Honblc High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the Hon 'ble Court has granted Stay Orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129 and the main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount of Rs. 36,129 on 18-5-99.

. (5) It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailor for lecture cum assembly demonstration by senior defence officers, seminars, presentations and cultural programsmes by Naval Personnel etc. Due to the advent of cable TV. the Samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses due to recurring of lossscs and the unavailability of the Samudrika Non^Public Fund the screening of movies for the entertainment of troops has been stopped and the Non- Public Fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's sen ices were stopped by giving one month's notice and one month's honorarium in; lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of the casual employees was only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, theprovisions of ID. Act has no application. The screening of the movies in Samudrika has been completely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion of job, his services arc to be discontinued and there was no need^for his services. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the Union is examined as WW2 and got marked Exs, Wl to W5_ On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding officer, Naval Command, who was maintaining the auditorium, from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs Ml to M10 are marked.

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) Tlie point that arises for consideration in this application is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman contends diat the petitioner was appointed as Booking Clerk on 1-8-87 and he was paid Rs. 735 per month and that he worked continuously till his services are terminated we f. 30th April, J 999, He was staring as Booking Clerk in the Samudrika Auditorium msdntaint*J by Respondents 1 and 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terniinatedihe service* of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workmen as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as W W 1 and 2. It is also contended by the workmen that the workers have raised a dispute before the AssL Commissioner of Labour (Central) where efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal, It is alsti: the admitted case of the workman that there's no appointment order in writing, the General Secretary Srinivasa Rao has got an.appointment order which is also masked as Ex. Ml. However, thepetitioncr was served with a lamination orderwhich isalso marked as Ex. M9 andthelermination notice, is marked as Ex. M7.

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Audiloiium is mainly meant for the lectures, seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screening of films for the entertainment of die officer, sailors, and children aiidtheirfamily members and the services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some homorarium to the workus from the Non-public Funds. Exs. M3 to M5 are the balance- sheets and the audit reports for the years ending 31st July, 1998, 31st Jirae, 2O0U.and 30th April, 1997. The wages arebeingpaid to the petitioner from the Non,-public Fund and it has no connection with the Navy now with the Gyvemmentand the auditorium screening is now given lo Sai Agencies on cofttract basis from I st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6, The services of the > workman are terminated onthe basis of the letterreceived

3799 ftomUie Flag Officer Commnding-in-ChJef which is marked as Ex. M 8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 are to be terminated. As per that letter, the Administrative Officer of the Auditorium incharge terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing die termination orders to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted the filing of the case under Minimum Wages Act b> the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a Writ Petition No. 15863/97 wherein an interim direction was given to deposit Rs. 34,729 and the same was deposited by the Bank draft and Ex. M10 in the letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum Wages Act is admitteed by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitionrs services arc taken on casual basis and if so whether to termination of the petitioner's services legal ?

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages are being paid to the workmen from Non-public Fund which is beingraised by the members of the Naval Officers, Sailors etc., and the services of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of the films on honorarium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 12 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of Ihe Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the mo\ ics. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by the defence personnal and the screening of films is a part of activity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and theirfamilics. Because of the incurring of losses in the Non^public Fund and the advent of cable T.Vs. the management was-constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium, However, the workmen complained that it is vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of the management is that paucity of fundsfrom the Non-public Fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

12. Under the circumstances stated above, I am in lined to take the aid of the decisionrenderedby his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998(6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions are so existent to grant the relief of regularisation or continuation of services: (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or adhoc basis should beagainst on^xisting vacancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevantroCftjttw"eft{rjrttfs: The above said 3JMX) ' TMECiAZlinEO"rINLHA:JULY28,2001/5RAVANA6,1923 WXiltIF-SEC.3ffifl decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows:

(1) 1996 (II) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs. BisambarDotL

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997 (2) SCC1.

(3) P. Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pandicheri 1997(1) SCC 350.

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996 (II) SCC 565.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on ad-hoc basis, temperarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that, ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(L4) Thus, here this is a case, were the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of film in the auditorium. No doubt, W W1 has stated that after the termination of his services some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

(15) That part, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workmen. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June,2(X)l.

K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Workman Management:

WWl KAppalaRaju . MW1 S.P. Mallick WW2 S. Srinivasa Rao.

Documents marked for workman:

E\.W1 3IM-1999TclcgramaddressedtoManagemeniby Sri S. Gangadhnra Reddy advocate on behalf of the Union.

EtW2 -05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam by the Union. ;•

ExW3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the Union by the ACL,

Ex,W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW case No. 104/95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Visakhapatnam.

Ex.W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management:

EX.M1 28-6-1986 Letter of appointmentof Sri S. Srinivasa Rao(WW2)

Ex.M2 3-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 33/92 Command Lccture-cum-Assembly Hall- Samudrikas.

Ex.M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st Jury, 1998.

Ex.M4 Balance sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000,

Ex. M5 5-5-1997 Balance sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April, 1997.

Ex.M6 10-3-1999Memorandumofagreementforsecurity cover.

Ex.M7 30-4-1999 Termination Order.

Ex.M8 29^-1999LctteraddressedtoR2byRl.

Ex, M9 30-4-1998 Termination Order of the petitioner.

ExMlO 17-5-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Management.

New Delhi the 2nd July. 2001

S.Of 1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No, L-14025/11/2001-IR(DU)] KULDIPRAIVERMA, Desk Officer.

.MHH •

ANNEXURE

INTHE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT; VISAKHAPATNAM have stopped screening of Movies in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium and also the non-public fund.

PRESENT

Sri K. VeerapuNaidu, B.Sc. B.L., Chairman* Presiding Officer.

(3) It is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workman is entitled forreinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

Dated 1st day of June, 2001

(4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this

I.T.I.D.(C) 59/99

BETWEEN

Goddu Appanna, S/o Rama Murthy, C/o S. Gangadhara Reddy, D. No. 9-1-75/1, New Resapuvanipalem, Opp: Indore Stadium, Visakhapatnam-13.

. .. Workman

AND

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding-in-Chief for CSOC (P & A) Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Captain,

INS Virabahu, Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base,Visakhapatnam . .. Management This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.G. Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for management. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following;

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2 A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatment with back wages.

(2) Thecaseofmepetitioneristhathewasappointed as Usher in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 11-4-89 and he worked as such till 30-4-99 andhewaspaidRs. 735/-permonth. Hewasworking for 8 hrs. for a day for 26 days in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence the workers union filed M, W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e., Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition No. 15863/97, questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f, 30-4-99 without assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents 2204 GI/2001—21

application on the ground lhat Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lecture-cum-assembly hall placed under the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer, dignitaries, VIP's, for conducting symposiums and cultural programmes by Naval personnel etc. and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who are working in a very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioner and some others were engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers were made from the Non-public fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund. The services of these casual workers are only on need basis and it will not come under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the union filed M.W.I 04/95 and it was allowed in favour of the workmen and against which the respondent have filed W.P. No. 15863/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court has granted Stay Orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129/-and the main writ is pending. Asper the directions of the High Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount of Rs. 36,129/- on 18-5-99.

(5) It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailors lor Iccture-cum- assembly demonostration by senior defence officers, seminars, presentations and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel etc. Due to the advent of cable TV, the Samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses due to recurring of losses and the unavailability of the Samudrika Non-public fund, the screening of movies for the entertainment of troops has been stopped and the non- public fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's services were stopped by giving one month's notice and one months' honorarium in lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of the casual employees was only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, the provisions of ID. Act has no application. The screening of the movies in Samudrika has been completely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion of job, his services 3802 , THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1W3 (PART tl—Stsc. 3(11)] are to be discontinued and there was no need for his services. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the Union is examined as WW2 and got marked Exs. Wl to W5, On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding officer. Naval Command, who was maintaining the auditorium from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M10 arc marked

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this application is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages'?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman contends that the petitioner was appointed as Usher on 11-4-89 and he was paid Rs. 735/- per month and that he worked continuously till his services are tenrrinatedwc.f. 30th April, 1999. He was serving as Usher in the Samudrika Auditorium maintained by respondents 1 and 2 and his services were termined because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the Services of the petitioner, These facts are stated by both the workman as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as W Ws 1 and 2. It is also contended by the workman that the workers have raised a dispute before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Central) whose efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal. It is also the admitted case of the workman that there is no appointment order in writing, the general secretary Srinivasa Rao has got'an appointment order which is also marked as Ex. Ml. However, the petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7,

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screcing of films for the entertainment of the officers, sailors and children and their family members and tlie services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films'on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the non- public funds. Exs. Ml to M5 are the balance sheets and the audit reports for the years ending 31st July, 1998, 30th June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997. The wages are being paid to thcpctitloner from the non-public fund and it has no connection with the Navy now with the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6. The services of the workmen are terminated on the basis of the letter received from the Flag Officer Commanding- in-chief which is marked as Ex. M8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 are to be terminated. As per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium Incharge terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing the termination orders to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted the filing of the case under Minimum Wages Act by the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a writ petition No, 15863/97 wherein mi interim direction was given to deposit Rs. 34t729/-and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. M10 is the letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum Wages Act is admitted by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitioner's services are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of tile petitioner's services is legal?

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parlies discloses that the wages are being paid to the workman from non-public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officer. Sailors etc. and the services of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of the films oti honorarium basis. No doubt, thepctilioncr has put in a continuous service of about 10 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the movies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes. Seminars etc. by the defence personnel and die screening of films is a part of activity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and their families. Because of the incurring of losses in the non-public fund and the advent of cable TVs the management was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. However, (he workman complained that it is a vindictive altitude of the managment because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of management is that paucity of funds from the non-public fund for (lie maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due lo the advent of the cable TV. the screening of films in the Samudrika Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of tlie petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner thai he shall be Continued In tlie same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

(12) Under the circumstances staled above. I am inclined to lake the aid of the decision rendered by his Lordship in G. Sudliakarand 98 Others Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998 (6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions arc co-existent to grant the relief of regularisation or continuation of services : (1) Entry of an employee on temporary oradhoc basis should be against an existing 3803 Ex. W2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Visakhapatnam by the Union.

Ex. W3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the Union vacancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through tho selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The abovesaid decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which arc as follows:

by the ACL.

(1) 1996(11) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs.

BisamberDutt.

Ex. W4 20^-1997 Order in MW Case No. 104/95 (2) Ashwanl Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC1.

before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Visakhapatnam.

(3) P. Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pandichcri

1997(1) SSC 350.

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. Stateof Kerala 1996(11) SCC

Ex. W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WPNo. 140/98.

565.

Documents marked for Management:

Ex. Ml 28-6-1986 Letter of appointment of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao (WW2).

Ex.M2 3-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 33/92 Command Lecture cum Assembly Hall Samudrika.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the

petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his

appointment is after going through the selection procedure

laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case,

the appointments of the petitioner was only on ad hoc

basis, temporarily without following any statutory

recruitment rules. On that ground itself the petitioner is not

entitled to get any relief.

Ex. M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July. 1998 Ex. M4 Balance sheet and audit certificate lor quarter ending 31 st January. 2000.

Ex. M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April. 19^7, (14) Thus, here this is a-case, where the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of jheiscreening of 111ms in the auditorium. No doubt, WW1 ^s seated that after the termination of his services soirfe are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

Ex. M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex. M7 30-4-1999 Termination Order.

Ex. M8 29-4-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by R1.

(15) That apart, the management issued one

month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in

lieu of notice to the workman. Therefore, the termination

or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in

accordance with Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus, in any

view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

Ex. M9 30-4-1999 Termination order of the petitioner.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismised and Nil

Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear

its own costs. Dictated to steno transcribed by her given

under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of

June, 2001.

Ex. M10 17-5-1999 : Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Management.

K.VEERAPPUNAIDU,

Presiding Officer.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Workman Management

WW1G. Appanna MW1 S.P. Mallick

WW2S. SrinivasaRao.

Documents marked for workman:

EX.W1 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to

Management by Sri S. Gangadhara

Rcddy, Advocate on behalf of the Union.

3804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 1857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal~cum-Labour Court, Vlsakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-14025/12/2(K)l-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT

Sri K. VeerapuNaidu, B.Sc. a.u., Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam

Dated, 1 st day of June, 2001

I.T.IJXC) 60/99

BETWEEN

S. Govinda Rao, S/o Mahalakshami Naidu, C/o S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate, D. No. 9-1-75/1, New Rosapuvanipalam, Visakhapatnam-13

...Workmen.

AND

1. The Flag Officer,

Commanding-in-Chief for CSOC(P&A) Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Captain,

INS Virabahu, Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam .... Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.G. Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleaderfor management Uponhearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following:

30-4-99 and he was paid Rs. 735/- per month. He was working for 8 hrs. for a day for 26 days in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence workers union filed M.W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e., Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary' by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-99 without assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screening of Movies in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium and also the non-public fund.

(3) It is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workmen is entitled forreinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 forreinstatment with back wages.

(2) Thecaseofthepetitioneristhathewasappomted as Usher in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 1-8-86 and he worked as such till (4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed¹ this application on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lecture-cum-assembly hall placed under the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer, dignitaries, VTP's, for conducting symposiums and cultural programmes by Naval personnel etc. and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who are working in a very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioner and some others were engaged locally and they were paid honororium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers were made from the Non-public fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund. The services of these casual workers are only on need basis and it willnot come under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. it is true that the union filed M.W. 104/95 and it was allowed in favour of the workmen and against the respondent have filed W.P. No, 15863/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court has granted Stay Orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129/- and the main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount of Rs. 36,129/-on 18-5-99.

(5) It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailors for lecturc-cum- assembly demonostration by senior defence officers.

3805 seminars, presentations and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel etc. Duetoihe advent of cable TV, the Samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses due to recurring of losses and the unavailability of the Samudrika Non public fund, the screening of movies for the entertainment of troops has been stopped and the non public fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's services were stopped by giving one month's notice and one month's honorarium in lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of the casual employees was only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, the provisions of I.D, Act has no application. The screening of the movies in Samudrika has been completely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion of job, his services are to be discontinued and there was no need for his services. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the Union is examined as WW2 and got marked Exs. Wl to W5. On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding officer, Naval Command, who was maintaining the auditorium from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M10 are marked.

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this

application is:

the lectures, seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screeing of films for the entertainment of the officers, sailors and children and their family members and the services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the non public funds. Exs. Ml to M5 are the balance sheets and the audit reports for the years ending 31st July, 1998.31st June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997. The wages are being paid to the petitioner from the non public fund and it lias no connection with the Navy nor with the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 1997 asperEx. M6. The services of the workman arc terminated on the basis of the letter received from the Flag Officer Commanding in chief which is marked as Ex. M8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 arc to be terminated. As per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium incharge terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing the termination orders to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted the filing of the case under Minimum Wages Act by the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a writ petitioner No. 15863/97 wherein an interim direction was given to deposit Rs. 34,729/- and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. MIOis the letter stating the said f ad So far as the dispute under Minimum Wages Act is admitted by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitioner's services are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman contends

that the petitioner was appointed as Usher on 1-8-86 and he was paid Rs. 73 5J~ per month and that he worked continuously till his services are terminated w.e.f 30th April 1999. He was serving as Usher in the Samudrika Auditorium maintained by respondents 1 and 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindicitively terminated the services of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workman as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as W Ws 1 and 2. It is also contended by the workman that the workers have raised a dispute before the Asstt, Commissioner of Labour (Central) whose efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal. It is also the admitted case of the workman that there is no appointment order in writing, the general secretary Srinivasa Rao lias got an appointment order which is also marked as Ex. Ml. However, the petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7.

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages are being paid to the workman from non public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officer, Sailors etc. and the services of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of the films on honorarium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 13 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the movies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by the defence personnel and the screening of films is a part of activity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and their families. Because of the incurring of losses in the non public fund and the advent of cable TVs the management was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. However, the workman complained that it is a vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of management is that paucity of funds from the non public fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the (10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for 3806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Samudrika auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the service of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he shall be contained in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

(12) Under the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to take the aid of the decision rendered by his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998 (6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions are co-existent to grant the relief of regularisation or continuation of services : (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or ad hoc basis should be against an existing vacancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows:

(1) 1996(11) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs. BisambarDutt.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC1.

(3) P. Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondicheri 1997(1) SSC 350

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996 (II) SC565.

(13) Here in this pase the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on ad hoc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of films in the auditorium. No doubt, WW1 has stated that after the termination of his services some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

(15) That apart, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, I see no merits hi this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismiscd and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs. Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June, 2001.

K.VEERAPPUNAIDU,

Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Workman Management WW1 Govinda Rao MW1 S.P. Mallick WW2S.SrinivasaRao

Documents marked for workman:

Ex.Wl 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to Management by Sri S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate on behalf of the Union.

Ex. W2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam by the Union.

Ex. W3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the Union by the ACL.

Ex. W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW Case No. 104/ 95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Visakhapatnam

Ex. W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WPNo. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management:

Ex. Ml 28-6-1986 Lettcrof appointment or Sri.

S, Srinivasa Rao (WW2).

Ex. M2 3-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 33/92 Command Lecture cum Assembly Hall Samudrika.

Ex. M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July, 1998.

Ex.M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex. M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audit report forthe quarter ending 30th April 1997 Ex, M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex. M7 30-4-1999 Termination Order.

Ex. M8 29-4-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by R1.

Ex.M9 30-4-1999 Termination order of the petitioner,

ExMlO 17-5-1999: Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by Management.

3807 2. The Captain,

INS Virabahu, Samudrika Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam

. .. Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.G. Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for management. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the enure material on record, the court passed the following:

AWARD

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 1858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-I4O25/14/2OO1-IR(D1J)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA. Desk Officer (1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2A(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatment with back wages.

(2) The case of the petitioner is that he was

ANNEXURE

appointed as Safaiwala in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium NavalBasc, Visakhapatnam on 9-10-1991 and he worked as such till 30-4-99 and he was paid 683 per month. He was working for 8 hrs. for a day for 26 days in a month He was not paid minimum wages and hence workers union filed M. W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e.. Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapalnam and it was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so. they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioners services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-99 without assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have slopped screening of Movies in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium and also the non-public fund.

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-

LABOURCOURT: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT

SriK. VeerapuNaidu, B.Sc. B.L., Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated: 1st day of June, 2001

I.T.I.D.(Q 62/99

BETWEEN:

GattaEswarRao, S/o Late Somulu, C/o S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate, D. No. 9-1-75/1, NearRosapuvanipalam, Visakhapatnam-13

...Workmen.

AND

1. The Flag Officer,

• Commanding in Chief for CSOC(P&A)

Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnain.

(3) It is the further case of the workman that Samudrika Auditorium is nol closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the workmen is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

(4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this application on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium is a lccturc-cum-asscmbly hall placed under (he Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers and the sailors, giving lectures by seniordcfcncc officer, dignitaries. VIP's. for conducting symposiums and cultural programmes by Naval personnel etc. and the hall was also used for screening of movies once in a while, for entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who arc working in a very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioner and someothers were engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second 3 " B8

• T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: J U L Y 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 / S R A V A N A 6, 1 9 23

respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers were made from the non-public fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund. The services of these casual workers are only on need basis and itwill not come underihepurview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the union filed M. W. 104/95 and it was allowed in favour of the workmen and against which the respondent have filed W.P. No. 15863/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court has granted Stay Orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129 and the main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount of Rs. 36,129/-on 18-5-99.

(5) It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailors for lecture-cum- assembly demonstration by senior defence officers, seminars, presentations and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel etc. Due to the advent of cable TV, the Samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses due to recurring of losses and the unavailability of the Samudrika non-public fund, the screening of movies for the entertainment of troops has been stopped and the non -public fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's services were stopped by giving one month's notice and one month's honorarium in lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of the casual employees was only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, the provisions of I.D. Act has no application. The screening of the movies in Samudrika has been completely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion of job, his services are to be discontinued and there was no need for his services. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the Union is examined as W W2 and got marked Exs. W1 to W5. On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding officer. Naval Command, who was maintaining the auditorium from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs. Ml to M10 are marked.

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this application is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman contends that the petitioner was appointed as Safaiwala on 9-10-91 and he was paid 683 per month and that he worked continuously till his services are terminated w.e.f 30th April, 1999. He was serving as Safaiwala in the Samudrika Auditorium maintained by respondents 1 and

( F A RT I I - ^ S E C. 3 < i i )] 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the services of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workman as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as WWsl and 2. It is also contended by the workman that the workers have raised a dispute before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Central) whose efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal. It is also the admitted case of the workman that there is no appointment order in writing, the General Secretary Srinivasa Rao has got an appointment order which is also marked as Ex. Ml. However, the petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7.

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, seminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screening of films for the entertainment of the officers, sailors and children and their family members and the services of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the non public funds. Exs. Ml to M5 are the balance sheets and the audit reports forthe years ending 31 st July. 1998. 30th June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997, The wages are being paid to the petitioner from the non public fund and it has no connection with the Navy now with the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6. The services of the workmen are terminated on the basis of the letter received from the Flag Officer Commanding in Chief which is marked as Ex. M8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 are to be terminated. As per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium inchargc terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing the termination orders to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted the filing of the case under Minimum Wages Act by the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a writ petitioner No. 15863/97 wherein an interim direction was given to deposit Rs. 34.729 and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. M10 is the letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum Wages Act is admitted by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitioner's sen ices are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal ?

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages are being paid to the workman from non public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officer, Sailors etc. and the sen ices of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening 3809

on account of the closure of the screening of films in the auditorium. No doubt. WW1 has stated that after ihe termination of his service some are eniplo) cd. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the e\ idence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basis.

(15) That apart, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one months honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Tims, in am view of the matter, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under m\ hand and seal of the court this Ihe 1st day of June. 2001

K. VEERAPU NAIDU. Presiding Qfficer of the films on honororium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 8 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the movies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by the defence personnel and the screening of films is a part of activity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and their families. Because of the incurring of losses in the non public fund and the advent of cable TVs the management was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. How ever, the workman complained that it is a vindictive attitude of the managment because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of the management is that paucity of funds from the non public fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to Uie advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under the circumstances, the claim of thepetitonerthathe shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Workman: Management:

WWlG.EswerRao MW 1 S.P. Mullick

WW2 S. Srinivasa Rao

Documents marked for workman:

(12) Under the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to take the aid of the decision rendered by his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998 (6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions are coexistent to grant the relief of regularisation or continuation of services ; (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or adhoc basis should be against an existing vacancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows :

ExWl 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to Management by Sri S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate on behalf of the Union.

(1) 1996(11) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs.

BisamberDutt.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs, State of Bihar 1997(2)

Ex. W2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Visakhapatnam by the Union.

SCC1.

(3) P. Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondichcry Ex. W3 22-6-1999LetteraddresscdtotheUnion 1997(1) SSC 350.

by the ACL.

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. Stateof Kerala 1996(11) SCC

565,

Ex. W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW Case No. 104/ 95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Minimum Wages Act 1948 Visakhapatnam.

Ex. W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WPNo. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management:

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of thepetMonerwas only on adhoc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

Ex, Ml 28-6-1986 Letter of appointment ofSri

S. Srinivasa Rao (WW2).

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only

2204 GI/2001—22 3*10 , . . HffiGAZEmOFIl"HA:JULY2*(2("l/SIUVANA6) 192!* {PART H~SEC. 3

Ex. M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July, 1998, Ex. M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex. M5 5-5-1997: Balance Sheetand auditreport for the quarter ending 30th April, 1997.

Ex. M6 10-3-1999; Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex.M7 30-4-1999: Termination Oder.

Ex.M8 294-1999: Letter addressed to R2 by Rl.

Ex.M9 30-4-1999 : Termination order of the petitioner.

Ex. M10 17-5-1999 : Letter addrcsssed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Management.

New Delhi, (he 2nd July. 2001

S.O. 1859. — In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/o Defence and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001

[No. L-14O25/15/2001-IR(DU)l

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COU RT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT: V1SAKHAPATNAM PRESENT:

Sliri K. Vcerepu Naidu. B.Sc, B.L., Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated: 1st day of June, 2001

IT.ID.(C) 63/99

BETWEEN

Tekkam Raju S/o Atcha Rao

C/o S. Gangadhara Rcddy, Advocate, D.No. 9-1-75/1, New Resapuveniapalem, Visakhapatnam-13

...Workman.

AND

(1) The Flag Officer,

Commanding in chief for CSOC (P&A) Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnam

(2) The Captain

INS Vlrabahu, Samiidrika, Naval Auditorium Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

,. .Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. G.Reddy, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for Management. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the] court passed the following:

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2 A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back wages.

(2) Thecaseofthepetitioncristhathewasappointed as Safaiwala in the Samudrlka Naval Auditorium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam on 1 -10-91 and he worked as such till 30-4-99 and he was paid Rs. 683/- per month. He was working for 8 hrs for a day for 26 day s in a month. He was not paid minimum wages and hence workers union Tiled M.W. 104/95 before the Authority i.e., Asst. Commissioner of Labour Cirde-IL Visakhapatnam and it was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 questioning the said order and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the services of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders not to terminate his services. So he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-99 without assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have stopped screening of Movies in the Samudrika Naval Auditorium and also the Non-Public Fund.

(3) It is the further case of the workman the Scmudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management is vindictive because the union filed a case 3"lt under Minimum Wages Act Hence the wodooan is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

(4) The respondents 1 and 2 opposed this

got marked Exs.Wlto W5. On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding officer, Naval Command, who was maintaining the auditorium from March. 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs, MI to M10 are marked.

(7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this application is whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages ?

application on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditorium

is a lecture cum assembly hall placed under the

Administration of the second respondent and it is used

for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers

and the sailors, giving lectures by senior defence officer,

dignitaries, VIP's for conducting symposiums and cultural

programmes by Naval personnel etc. and the hall was also

used for screening of movies once in a while, for

entertainment of officers, sailors and their families who are

working in a very stress atmosphere. To meet certain

urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioners

and some others were engaged locally and they were paid

honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second

respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers

were made from the Non Public Fund of the second

respondent unit but not from the Government fund The

services of these casual workers are only on need basis

and it will not come under the purview of Minimum Wages

Act. It is true that the union filed M. W. 104/95 and It was

allowed in favour of the workmen and against which the

respondent have filed W.P.No. 15863/97 in the HonTrie

High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the Honourable court

has granted stay orders against the order of the Labour

Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36,129/- and the

main writ is pending. As per the directions of the High

Court, the respondent have to deposit an amount of

Rs. 36,129/-on 18-5-99.

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman contends that the petitioner was appointed as Safatwala on 1 -10-91 and he was paid Rs. 683/- per month and that he worked continuously till his services are terminatedw.e.f. 30th April. 1999. He was serving as Safaiwala in the Samudrika Auditorium mentioned by respondents 1 and 2 and his services were terminated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the service of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workmen as well as the General Secretary of the w orkers Union as WWI and 2. It is also contended by the workman that the workers have raised a dispute before the Asst. Commissioner of Labour (Central) whose efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal. It is also the admitted case of the workman thai there is no appointment order in writing, the general secretary Srinivasa Rao has got an appointment order which is also mariccd as Ex.Ml. However, the petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. M9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7.

(5) It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is

exclusively meant for officers and sailors for lecture cum

assembly demonstration by senior defence officers,

saminars, presentations and cultural programme by Naval

Personnel etc. Due to the advent of Cable TV the

Samudrika Naval Auditorium has been incurring losses

due to recurring of losses and the unavailability of the

Samudrika Non-Public Fund, the screening of movies for

the entertainment of troops has been stopped and the

non-public fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's

services were stopped by giving one month's notice and

one month's honorarium in lieu of the notice. The

termination or disagreement of the casual employees was

only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, the

provisions of ID, Act has no application. The screening

of the movies in Samudrika has been completely stopped

and there is no intention of restarting the screening of

movies in the auditorium. The workman was engaged

on casual basis for a specific purpose and on completion

of job, his services are to be discontinued and there was

no need for his services. Hence the petition is liable to

be dismissed.

(10) The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly present for the lectures, saminars, meeting to be organised by Ihc defence personnel screening of films for Uic entertainment of the officers, sailors and children and (heir family members and the service of the petitioner was engaged only for the screening of the films on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the non-public funds. Exs. M3 to M5*are the balance sheets and the audit reports for the years ending 31 st July, 1998,31 st June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997. The wages are being paid to the petitioner from the non-public fund and it has no connection with the Navy nor with the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract basis from 1st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6. The services of the workman are terminated on the basis of the letter received from the Flag Officer Commanding in Chief which is marked as Ex. M8 under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 arc to be terminated. As per that letter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium incharge terminated Uic services of the petitioner by issuing the termination order to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted about the filing of the case under Minimum Wages Act by (6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the union is examined as WW2 and 3812 ... T HE G A Z E T TE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001 /SRAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J the workers union and their success and against which, the management filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 wherein a inlcrium direction was given to deposit Rs, 34,729/- and the same was deposited by the bank draft and Ex. M10 is tlie letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum wages act is admitted by both the parties. Now the court question for the determination is as to whether [he petitioners services are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal¹.'

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parties disclosed that the wages are being paid to the workmen from non public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officers. Sailors etc. and the services of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of the films on honorarium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 8 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the movies. Hie main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by the defence personnel and the screening of films is a part of activity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and their families, because of the incurring of losses in the non public fund and the advent of cable I'.Vs the management was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. However, the workman complained that it is a vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. The case of the management is that paucity of funds from the non public fund for the maintenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika Auditorium is discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under ilie circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he shall be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC I.

(3) P, Ravindra Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherri 1997(1) SCC. 350.

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs. State of Kerala 1996(11) SCC. 565.

(13) Here in this case the appointment of the petitioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appointment is after going through the selection procedure laid down any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on adhoc basis, temporarily without following any statutory recruitment rules. On that ground itself the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where the termination of the services or disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the proceeding of films in the auditorium. No doubt, WWI has stated that after the termination of his service some are employed. But this fact was not pleaded and even otherwise there is no meteriat on record to establish the said fact. Thereforje, the evidence spoken to by him without any pleading has no basic.

(15) That apart, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman. Therefore, the termination or disengagement of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus, in any veiw of the master, I see no merits in this application.

(16) In the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs. Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 1st day of June. 2001.

K. VI-KRAPU NAIDU

Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Workman : Management :

WW. I T. Raju

WW. 2 S. Srinivasa Rao MWI S. P. Mallick Documents Marked for Workman :

(12) Under the circumstances, stated above, 1 am inclined to take the aid of the decision renderred by his . I ord.ship in U. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998(6) ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions are so existent to grant the relief of regularisation or continuation of services (1) Entry of an employee on temporary or adhoc basis should be against in existing vaceancy, (2) The appointment was made after going through the selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows :

(I) 19% (II) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs. Singabar Dutt.

Ex. Wl 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to Management by Sri S. Ciangadhra Reddy. Advocate on behalf of the Union.

Ex. W2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam by the Union.

Ex. W3 22-6-99 Letter addressed to the I Jnion by the ACL.

3813

ANNEXURE

Ex.W4 20-4.19970rderinMWcaseNo.104/95bcfore the authority U/Scc. 20 of Minimum Wages Act 1948, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.W5 Telegram addressed to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIA1 TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT' SHRAM SAD AN m MAIN, HI CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated: 14th June. 2001

Documents marked for Management:

PRESENT

Ex. Ml 28-6-1986 Letter of appointment of Sri S. SrinivasaRao(WW2)

Ex. M2 3-12-1992 Visakhe Generel Order No. 33/92 Command Lecture cum Assembly Hall- Samudrike.

Ex. M3 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 31st July, 1998.

HOKBLE SHRIV. N, KULKARNL B. Com. LLB PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R No. 51/89

IPARTY

IIPARTY

Ex, M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex. M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April, 1997.

Ex. M6 10-3-99 Memorandum of agreement for security cover.

Ex. M7 30-4-99 Termination Order,

Ex. M8 29-4-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by SI, Ex. M9 30-4-99 Termination Order of the petitioner, The President, Tungabhadra Board Factory Workers and Civil Employees

The Secretary, Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk,

Union, T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk,

Bellary District-583 101 (Advocate Shri A.K. Bhat)

, Bellary Dist.-583 101 (Advocate- ShriA.S. Malebennur)

AWARD

Ex. M10 17-5-99 Letter addressd to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Management.

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-420U/55/88-D. II(B) dated 1-8-1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001 S.O. 1860.—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-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T. B, Dam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001,

[No.L-42011/55/88-D.n(B)] K.ULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer.

"Whether the action of the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam. Hospet Tnluk. Bellary District in not allowing S/Shri K..P Pcriyappa, H.G. Gundachar, B.M. Mahanthaiaha,, R. Aligiri, H.M. Gangadharand A. Govindarajulu. to continue in sen ice upto 60 years of age. is justified ? If not. to what relief the workman concerned are entitled to"?

2. The first party Union Workmen were working with the Second party and action of the management in not allowing S/Shri K.P. Perivappa. H.G. Gundachar. B.M. Mahanthaiaha. R. Aligiri. H.M. Gangadhar and A. Govindarajulu, to continue in service upto 60 years of age is not justified so industrial dispute is raised.

3. The first party filed Claim Statement and has said that these workmen were appointed on workcharged establishment under paragraph 69 of the Madras Public Works Departmental Code which empowers the Executive Engineers. PWD to make such temoporary appointment 3814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6. 1923 [PART H—SEC-. 3{iifl

New Delhi, die 3rd July. 2(HH upto a monthly pay of Rs. 100 per month. The management took a hostile and unreasonable attitude.

S.O. 1861.—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-cum-Labour Court. Jaipur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Dcptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L-40012/66/98-IR (DU)] 4. The Second party issued orders to K.P. Pcriyappa and Mahanthaiah retiring them on 1-7-89 reckoning the age of superaimution at 56 years before the conciliation Officer. The action of the management is wrong. The six workmen were appointed as workcharged establishment prior to 1-11-56 when the T.B. Project was under the control of the State of Madras. This first party union has further stated that the action of the management in not continuing in service upto 60 years is not correct.

KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer 5. The Second party filed objection Statement. The case of the second party is that the dispute raised by the workmen under the Industrial Dispute Act is not valid as the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to T.B. Board. The Second party has prayed to reject the reference.

6. First party remained absent. I have heard the learned counsel for the second party. I have perused all the relevant documents. It was argued by the learned counsel for the second party that the workmen Were in Mysore State and the retirement age is 58 for the state of Mysore and Kamataka and therefore the action of the management in not contimraing these workman upto 60 years is valid and there is no merit in the contention of the first party. The first party has not proved as to how they are entitled to continue work in the state of Mysore and Kamataka upto the age of 60 years. There is no evidence on behalf of the first party. There is no merit in this reference because nothing is proved by the first party.

7. 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 Nth June 2001)

SHRI V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer.

3814 "Whether the action of the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Department, Alwar is legal & justified in terminating the services of the workman Sri Ramcsh Chand, Sweeper. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 3816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SRAVANA 6, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3817

"2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of ;i workman for an> reason whatcsocver, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. but does not incalude—

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the aye of superannuation if the contract of empkn nicnl between the dcmployer and Ihc workman concerned contains a stipulation in lliat behalf ; or

(bb) termination of the sen ice of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the coniract of employment between die employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained ihcrcin; or

(c) termination of the sen ice of a workman on llie ground of continued ill-health :" 2204 GI/2001—23 3818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2001/SKAVANA 6, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3rt"l

New Delhi the 3rd July. 2(H) 1

S.O. 1862—In pursuant of Section 17 of the Industrial Dlspnt Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Warangal as shown in the Annex-lire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deplt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on.3-7-2001.

[No. L4001V6/2001 -IR(DU)]

KULDlPRAlVERMA. Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN AL-CUM- LABOUR COURT: AT WARANGAL.

PRESENT

Sllri V. Appalanarasiniham. B.Sc. B.L. Judge

Thursday, the 6th day of January. 2000.

Industrial Dispute No. C 13 of 1948.

BETWEEN

S. Narsaiah S/o Venkataiah.

Ex-Casual Mazdoor. C/oP, Surender Kumar.

Advocate.

Padmakshi Colony. Manamkonda. •

...Petitioner

And

The Telecom District Manager. Telecom Department, Warangal, .., Respondent

Tin's Industrial Dispute coming on before me for final hearing on 17-12-1999 upon perusing the petition, counter and all other documents on record and upon hairing the arguments of Sri P. Surender Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and Sri M. Sada Sivudu. A.C.P.. for the respondent, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day the court passed the following :—

3819

AWARD

The petitioner filled this petition Under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act to set aside the oral termination order dt. 7-11-1998 passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Casual Mazdoor with continuity of service and all benefits.

2. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as fol lows:—

The petitioner was appointed as Casual Mazdoor in Telecom Department during 1986. He continuously worked as Casual Mazdoor without any break of service from 1986 to 7-11-1998. Suddenly the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner orally on 7-U-1998 without assigning any reasons. Petitioner completed 240 working daye prior to his termination. The respondent has not followed the procedure under Section 25-F of ID. Act and so, the termination is illegal. Juniors of the petitioner are retained and petitioner was terminated from service. Respondent has not followed the provisions of Section 25-GofI.D. Act. Thepetitioncr is now aged 35 years and he cannot secure another )ob at this age. So, tills petition if filed for reinstatement of the petitioner with all benefits by setting aside the termination order,

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the respondent are as follows:—

The petitioner worked as Casual Mazdoor from 1 -5-1995 and not from 1986. Petitioner was not terminated from service. As there is no necessity to engage Casual Mazdoor for want of any work, the services of the petitioner were kept out of duty, but he was not terminated. Petitioner never completed continuous service 240 days in any calendar year. As the Services of the petitioner arc casual in nature, the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act are not applicable. So also Section 25-G of I.D. Act is not applicable. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The petitioner is examined as W. W.-l and Exs. W-l to W-4 are marked. Sub-Divisional Engineer is examined as M. W.-l on behalf of the respondent.

5. Arguments of advocate for the petitioner and A. G.P., for the respondent are heard.

6. The point for consideration is whether termination of the petitioner orally on 7-11-1998 by the respondent is illegal and if so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled ?

7. POINTS:—The respondent admitted the fact that petitioner worked as Casual Mazdoor in Telecom Department from 1-5-1995 to September, 1998. M.W.-l deposed in his evidence that petitioner stopped coming for duty from 1 -11 -1998 on the ground that his salary was not paid on 31-10-1998 for October, 1998. M. W.-l clearly admitted in his evidence that petitioner worked for 240 daysinacalendaryearbctwccn 1-5-95to31-10-1998. W.W - 1 deposed in his evidence in support of the averments in the petition. The pay slips for the wages paid to the petitioner as Ex. W-2 and pay receipts under Ex. W-3 arc admitted by M.W.-l also. Ex. W-4 is the identity card of the petitioner issued by S.D.O.T., Warangal. Ex. W-l is the attendance book for the attendance of the petitioner on different dates duly signed by the officer of the Telecom Department. Petitioner failed to place any satisfactory material to show that,he worked from 1986 onwards. However it is clearly established that petitioner worked continuously from 1-5-1995 to 31-10-1998 by working 240 days in a calendar year prior to the termination on 7-11-1998. So respondent is bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of I.D. Act before terminating the services oflhc petitioner. Section 25-F of I.D. Act is mandatory. Respondent failed to follow the mandatory requirement under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. b\ giving one month notice or by paying wages for one month in lieu of notice. So, the termination is illegal The respondent stated in counter that petitioner was kepi out of the duty forlack of work. M, W.-l deposed in his evidence that petitioner voluntarily stopped attending for duly fro m 1-11-1998 on the ground that his salary was not paid for October, 1998 on 31-10-1998, The respondent has taken inconsistent pleas and so the stand taken by the respondent is nothing but false. This court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent terminated the sen ices of the petitioner illegally, even though he completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year prior to the dale of termination on 7-11-1998, and without following the mandatory requirement under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore, the termination order dt. 7-11-1998 against the petitioner passed by the respondent orally is liable to be set aside.

8. Tile petitioner is now aged 35 years He cannot secure job at this age. He has to maintain himself and his. dependents fora longperiod of more than 30 years. Simply because, there is no availablcpost in Telecom Department, rc-instatcment of the petitioner shall not be refused in the given circumstances of the matter. It would be un- reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled only for one months wages and compensation under Section 25-F. G. of I.D. Act. It is a fit case to order for reinstatement of the petitioner as Casual Mazdoor and the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner as Casual Mazdoor. as the respondent illegally terminated the services of the petitioner without following the Mandatory procedure under provisions of I.D. Act. However this court is not inclined to give continuity of service or backwages, as the post held by the petitioner is only contingent in nature. Point is answered accordingly.

9, In the result, an award is passed by setting aside the termination of the petitioner oral orders dt, 7-11-1998 passed by the respondent and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in Telecom Department as Casual 3820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28,2001/SRAV ANA 6,1923 [PART II—SEC.3(H)I Mazdoor as "FRESH RECRUIT". The petitioner is not entitled tor continuity of service or backwages. This award shall come into force within 30 days or from the date of its publication, whichever is earlier by virtue of the powers conferred to this court under Section 17-A of ID. Act. Dictated to stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me and given under my hand and seal of this court on this 6th day of January, 2000.

V. APPALANARASIMHAM, Judge APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PETITIONER/WORKMAN:

FOR RESPONDENT/MANAGEMENT W W.-1. S. Narsaiah. M.W-1. C.S.R.K. Shastri EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR Pl-ri T1ONER/WORKMAN:

l.v W-I.dl. M>-95. Days Book of Sri S. Narasaiah showing Ihc attendance and certified by the Department. I A. W-2. - Bunch off 10) pay slips. lx.W-3. - (15) Pay receipts of different months.

| A . W -4 4-7-1997. Indentity card issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warangal.

1 ()K RESPONDENT/MANAGEMENT: -Nil-

Sd./- Illigible New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1863.—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 Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[NO.L-I40I2/98/98-IR(DU)]

[NO.L-I40I2/133/98-IR(DU)]

^No. L-l4012/109/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-l40l2/106/98-IR(DU)l

[No. L-l4012/107/98-IR(DU)l

[No. L-14012/134/98-IR(DU)]

[No,L-14012/131/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/l25/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/l26/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14OI2/l24/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-l4012/l23/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-l4OI2/l27/98-IR(DU)] [No. L-14012/128/98-IR(DU)]

mn

C.R. NO. 33/99

Ilnd Party IParty

[No. L-14012/l 1 l/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/l 10/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/112/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/4/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/5/98-IR(DU)]

The Chairman, CommanderH.Q. KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-560001.

Sh. H.K. Nanjegowda, S/oKapanaiha, Andalagcre, Tavarekere PO, Kunigal Post, TUMKURDist-572123.

C.R, NO. 34/99

Ilnd Party IParty

[No. L-14012/6/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14O12/7/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14O12/8/98-IR(DU)}

[No. L-14012/2/98-IR(DU)]

[No. L-14012/3A>8-IR(DU)l

KULDIPRAIVERMA, Desk Officer.

The Chairman. CommanderH.Q. KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-560001.

Sh.M.Ravi, S/o Muniyappa, No. 142, Lalbagh, Siddapura, JayanagarlBlock, Behind Dr. Ambedkar Stores, BANGALORE-560011.

C.R NO. 35/99

Ilnd Party IParty

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTWALTIUBUNAL-CUM-LABOURCOURT, BANGA1X)RE

Dated: 14th June, 2001

The Chairman. CommandcrRQ KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-5"XX>1.

Sh. N. Narayana, S/oNagaraj,No.5, Vccrapali, Street Cross, BANGALORE-560042.

C.R. NO. 36/99

IParty

PRESENT: HON'BLE V. ft KULKARN1

PRESBMNGOFHCER

C.R NO. 30/99

UndPart}

TlicChainiian, CommanderH.Q. KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-56

Ilnd Party

I Party

The Chairman, CommanderH.Q. KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-560001.

Smt. M.D. Sarasu, No. 57/2, PravinNilaya, NAL Road, Munigeshpalaya, BANGALOR&-560017.

C.R NO. 31/99

Dnd Party I Party

TheChakman, CommanderH.Q. KKGSub^rea, BANGALORE-560001 Sh. Anthuraj T, S/o Thirisanthay, C/o Singraj, No. 7, RamakkaComp. I Main, K P Agrahara, Nr. MagadiRoad, BANGALORE-^60023.

C.R. NO. 38/99

UndPart> IParty

The Chairman. CommanderH.Q. KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-5"XX)l.

Sh-VChandrasekar, S/oVeeraiah,No.398/G, New No. 100/7,9th Main, 4th Cross, Vijayanagar. BANGALORE-560040.

C.R NO. 39/99

Hod Part>

IParty

Sri. M. Muniswamy, S/o Late Muniswamy, D. No. 220/8, Bazar Street, Cross Neelasandra, BANGALORE-5G0047.

C.R NO. 32/99

BtadParty

I Party

The Chairman. ConunanderH.Q. KKG Sub-areaf BANGALORE-5"XX)1.

Sh. P. Kumareshan, No. 878,80th Feet Road, II Phase, Girinagar, BANGALORE-560085.

C.R NO. 40/99

Dud Party IParty

ThcChakman, Commander H.Q. KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-560001 Sri Thibbe Gowda, S/o Sarnie Gowda, Sooiaruihalli Village, AttiKulliPost, SathunurHobli. Kanakpura Taluk, BANGALORE, Rural District.

The Chairman. CommanderH.Q. KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-5"XX)1.

Smt. Pramila Mary Joyce, C/o No. 87/8,80th Feet Road II Phase, Girinagar, BANGALORE-5")085.

3822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28,2001/SRAVAN A 6,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3{ii)]

C.R No. 42/99

I Party

nParty

The Chairman, ConunanderH.Q., KKG Sub-area,

, BANGALORE-560001.

Sh. R. Mani, S/oG.Raju,No.51/I, Motappa Street, Near Simdari Memorial School 4th Cross, Ejipura, Vivtknagai Post, B ANGALORE-560047.

C.R No. 45/99

I Party

DParty Stnt. T.R. VenkateshBabu. No. 2, West Road, Gangman Quarters, BANGALORE-560047.

The Cliairman, CommandcrH.Q., KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-560W1.

CR No. 46/99

11 Party I Party

t

Tlie Chairman, CommanderH.Q., KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-50(KX)1.

SmLHarrltVimala, W/oBosce.No.9, Tulsiraindas¹ Road, FrazerTown, BANGALORE-5"XX)5.

CR. No, 47/99

I Party

II Party

The Chairman, ConunanderH.Q., KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-560001.

Snrt. P.S. Ponnamma, W/o P. A. Uttappa, No. 1967, Sowbhagya Nilaya. Dr. Ambedkar College Road, Kavalbyrasandra, BANGALORE-560032.

C.R. No. 48/99

I Party

II Party

The Chairman, ConunanderH.Q., KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-5"XX)I.

Sh. K. Raghiiram, S/oKondaiah,No. 376. 3rd Cross, Viveknagar Further Extn., BANGALORE-560047.

C.R. No. 49/99

I Party

n Party

The Chairman, CommanderH.Q., KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-56UXH.

Smt Y. Anitha, D/o M, Ycsudas, No, 120, RBI Colony. H.A, Farm Port, Gangenahalli, BANGALORE-56(X)32.

C.R. No. 50/99

I Party

nP;irt>

Tlie Cluiirnvjn, CommanderH.Q.. KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-5"XX)1.

Sh, A. Suresh, S'/o Anbcn, D.No.572,BSARoad. PcriyarNagar, • BANGALORE-56(XXi5.

C.R No. 51/99

1 Party

TlPartj

ThcChainnan. Cummandcr H .Q.. KKG Sub-area. BANGALORE-560001.

Sml. K. T. Bharathi, D/o Thanunappa. C/o Appaiali. M/s Canara Sales Agencies. Pai Bazar. M.G. Road. CHICKMANLUR:5771() 1.

C.R No. 52/99

I Purtj

II Party

TlicChairmmi, CoiumandcrH.Q.. K.KG Sub-:irca. BANGALORE-5(i(XX)l.

Sh. A. S:it',,(\ ;iraj. S/o Anthony, D. No. 1040. Rathannmmal Compound, lrudhayapuram, Robert sonpcl, KGF-56312:!.

C.R No. 53/99

I Party

HPiim

Tlie Chairman, Commander H.Q. KKG Sub-:irciU BANGAL0RE-5f

Sh. K. Nataraj. S/o K. Krishna. ShampurMain Road, Muncswamagar. 8 th Cross, BANGALORE—56(XU5.

C.R No. 54/99

I Party

HPart>

T1ic Chairman. CommanderH Q.. KKG Sub-area. BANGALOREodOOOI.

Sml. Lakshmi Pnibha. W/o S. Sliiislii Kumar. No. 878 80th Feet Road, llnd Phase, Girinugar. BANGALORE-56(X)85.

C.R No. 56/99

1 Party

II Party

Tlie Chairman. CommanderH.Q.. KKG Sub-;irca. BANGALORE-MXX)!

Smt. ArokJamary. W/o John Bosc No. 30, 14lh Cross. 4ih Main Road, Chinnappa Garden Layout. Basen Town, BANGALORE-5"XW6.

C.R No. 57/99

3823

C.R No. 33/99

I Party

IlParty

(d) No. L44012/106/98/IR(DU) dated 22-04-1999

SCHEDULE

The Giairman. CommanderH.Q., KKG Sub-area, BANGALORE-560001.

Sh, Ramachandra, S/o Narayanappa, No. 2/122, Lingarajapuran, St. Thomas Town Post, BANGALORE-560084.

Appearances

"Whether activities of the Centeen run by HQ Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an the ID Act, 1947. If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the service of Sri H.K Nanjegowda is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?''

C.R No. 34/99

Advocate for I party : A. J. Srinivasan

Advocate for II party ; Col. Bhupinder Singh

(Retd.)

(c) No. L-14012/107/98/IR(DU) dated 22-04-1999

SCHEDULE

COMMONAWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Reference Numbers:

C.R No. 30/99

"Whether activities of the Centeen run by HQ Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the ID Act, 1947, If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the service of Sri M. Ravi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'

C.R No. 35/99

(a) No. L-14012/98/98/IR(DU) dated 16/20-04-1999 (f)No. L-14012/134/98/IR(DU) dated 22-04-1999

SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE

" Whether the Centeen run by HO Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the ID Act, 1947 and if so, whether the action of the Canteen Management run by the HQ Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore in terminating the service of Smt. M.D. Sarasu is legal and justified? If not. to what relief she is entitled?''

"Whether the Centeen run HQ Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. N. Narayan is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?''

C.R No. 36/99

C.R No. 31/99

(b) No. L-14012/133/98rtR(DU) dated 22-04-1999 (g) No. L-14012/131/98/IR(DU) dated 22-04-1999

SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Centeen iun by HQ Kamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management In terminating the services of Sh. M. Muniswamy is legal and justified? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled?"

C.R No. 32/99

(c)No. L-14012/109MX/IR(DU) dated 22-04-1999 " Whether the Centeen run by HQ Kamataka. Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management run by the HQ Kamataka. Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore in terminating the services of Sh. Anthuraj T. is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

C.R No. 38/99

(h) No. L-14012/125/98/lR(DU) dated 22-04-1999

SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE

'' Whether th e Centeen run by HQ Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the ID Act. 1947 and if so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sri Thibbegowda, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?''

"Whether the Centeen Run by HQ Kamataka. Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether die action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. V. Chandrasekar, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?-¹ 3824 THEGA2ETmOF)NDIA:JULY2",2001/SRAVANA6t 1923 [PART tl—SEC : 3(ii)]

C.R No. 39/99

(i) No. L-14012/I26/98/IR(DU) dated 22-04-1999 the services of Smt. Harrit Vimla is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Canteen run by HQ Kamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. P. Kumareshan, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

C.R No. 40/99

(j) No. L-14012/I24/9MRPU) dated 22-04-1999

SCHEDULE

¹' Whether the Centeen run by HQ Kamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Smt. Pramila Mary Joyce, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is entitled?''

CR No. 42/99

(k) No.L-14012/123/98/IR(DU)dated22-04-1999

CR No. 47/99

(n) No. L-14012/11 l/98/IR(DU) dated 26-04-1999

SCHEDULE

• "Whetherthe Canteen run by HQ Kamataka. Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whetherthe action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Smt. PS. Ponnamma. is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is entitled?"

C.R No. 48/99

(0) No. L-14012/110/98/IR(DU) dated 26-04-1999

SCHEDULE

"Whetherthe Canteen Run by HQ Kamataka. Kerala & Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sri K. Raghuram is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"'

CR No. 49/99

SCHEDULE

'' Whether the Canteen run by HQ Kamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. R. Mani is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

C.R No. 45/99

0) No. L-14012/127/98/IR(DU) dated 26-04-1999 (p)JMo. L-14012/112/98/IR(DU) dated 26-04-1999

SCHEDULE

• 'Whetherthe Canteen run by HQ Kamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Smt. Y. Anitha is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is entitled?''

C.R No. 50/99

SCHEDULE

"Whetherthe Canteennmby HQKamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of ShT.R. Venkatcsh Babu is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

CR No. 46/99

(m) No. L-l4012/128/98flR(DU) dated 26-04-1999 (q)No. L-14012/4/99/lR(DU) dated 04-05-1999

SCHEDULE

"Whetherthe Canteen runbyHQ Kamataka, Kerala . and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. A. Suresh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

CR No. 51/99

SCHEDULE

' 'Whether the Canteen run by HQ Kamataka, Kerala, and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whetherthe action of the Canteen Management in terminating (r)No. L-l4012/5/99/IR(DU) dated 04-05-1999

SCHEDULE

"WhcthcrthcCanteenrunbyHQKamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub-Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Smt. K,T. Bharathi is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief she is entitled ?''

C.R No. 52/99

(s)No. L-14012/6/99/IR (DU) dated 04-05-1999

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Canteen Run by HQKamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services, of Sh. A. Sagayaraj is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

C.R No. 53/99

(t)No. L-14012/7/99/IR (DU) dated 04-05-1999

3S25 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. J. Narayan is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7'n (2) All the above cases are clubbed together and they are disposed off by common award.

(3) From the claim statement by the I party workman in all the above disputes, it is their case that they were working with the II party which is an industry from different dates. They continued to work, but the services were terminated and therefore in all the above cases dispute is raised.

(4) The management is one and the same and has filed detailed counter contending that the action of Ihc management is correct. The main contention of the management is that the workmen arc not Central Government Employees. A very lengthy counter is filed and it is prayed to dismiss all the above references.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Canteen Run by HQKamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 7 If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sh. K.Nataraj is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

C.R No. 54/99

(u)No. L-14012/8/99/IR p U) dated 04-05-1999

SCHEDULE

(5) During the pendency of the proceedings the learned counsel forthe I party has filed memo in all these cases stating that he wants to withdraw all these cases with a prayer to approach competent authority regarding the grievances of the workman involved in these 23 cases, The cases are disposed off granting permission to withdraw the disputes with an opportunity to all the I part}' workman to approach competent authority in future if necessary as per law.

(6) The learned counsel Tor the II party is present and I have also heard him.

(7) Considering the memo on the above, the following order is passed.

ORDER

'Whctherthe Canteen Run by HQKamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ? If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Sint. Lakshmi Prabha is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief she is entitled 7"

C.R No. 56/99

(v) No. L-l 4012/2/99/1R (DU) dated 04-05-1999

SCHEDULE

'' Whether die Canteen Run by HQ Kamataka. Kerala and Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 7 If so, whether the action of the Canteen Management in terminating Smt. Arokiamary, is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief she is entitled 7"

C.R No. 57/99

(w)No. L-l 4012/3/99/lR(DU) dated 04-05-1999 Permission is granlcd to withdraw the cases and the cases are disposed off accordingly .

(Dictated to the L.D.C. in open court, transcribed b\ him, corrected and signed by me on 14th June 2001)

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding Officer

SCHEDULE

" Whether the Canteen Run by HQ Kamataka, Kerala and Goa Sub Area. Bangalore is an industry under 2204 GI/2001— 24 3826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY28,2001/SKAVANA6,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 3nl July, 2001

S.O. 1864.—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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001,

[No. L42012/46/97-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN', m MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHW ANTHPUR, BANGALORE Bangalore, the 18th June, 2001

PRESENT Hon'ble V. N. KuBtami, B. Com., LLB,

Presiding officer

C.R NO. 32/98

I Party nParty

ShriSwamy, The Director,

S/o Yadechegowda, Central Sericultural Kotehundi, Jayapura Hobli Research & Training RayanakerePost, Centre, Srirampuram, Mysore-570008 Mysore-570008 (Advocate: Shri Mohan Kumar) (Advocate: Sliri R. Guru

Rajan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2 A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/46-97-IR(DU) dated 1/16-M998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

" 'Whether the action of the management of Central Sericutural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is j ustificd hi terminating the services of Shri Krishna, Casual Labour, wx.f. 304-1990 ? If not, to whatrelief the workman is entitled to ?''

2. First party was working with the second party His services were terminated so this dispute is raised.

3. Firstparty filed Claim Statement.

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as stated in para 2 of the Claim Statement. The firstparty workman was employed by the secondparty management as casual labour from 1- 6-1987 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 304-1990. He worked continously for more that 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed Counter.

6. The case of the second party in beief is as follows:

7. There is no termination as alleged by die first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work during November 1987 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MWI and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other cases also

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have hcared second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case and some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana are before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined. I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW I and II it is clear that the workman has not worked for more that 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not enti ded according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their service were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not borned by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for w ork. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workman was casual labour and he was not terminated.

There is no merit in this dispute.

12. I have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled tor any work and he is terminated.

Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 18-6-2001)

V.N.KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1865.—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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training

3"27 Centre and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/47/97-lR(DU)J

KULDIP RA1VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THECENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SMARM SADAN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESH WANTHPUR, BANGALORE

PRESENT

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

Bangalore, the 18th June, 2001

CR.No.-31/98

II Party: The Director, Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre.

Srirampuram, Mysore-570008

(Advocate : Shri R. Guru 1 Party: Shri Krishna, C/o Ayyappa, Kote \ lundy, Rayanakerc Post Mysore-570008 (Advocate: Shri Mohan Kumar)

Rajan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorderNo. L-42012/47/97/1 R/(DU) dated I/I6-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Krishna, Casual Labour, we f. 30-4-1990? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated so this disputs is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement.

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial, Disputes Act, 1947 as stated in para 2 of the claim statement. The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from 1-5-1986 and he was 3828* THE GA2aSTffi

ORDER

working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 30-4-1990. He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:

7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 1-5-198(5 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MW1 and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case and some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Salhisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana are before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shivana arc cross examined, I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW I & II it is clear that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not borned by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange, Kalabcrraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they arc only casual labourers and this workman was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to P.A, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 18-6-2001)

V. N. KULKARNI. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1866.—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 Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/48/97-IR(DU)]

KULD1P RAIVERMA, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMiABOUR COURT, TUMKUR ROAD, YESH WANTHPUR.

BANGALORE

Dated: 18th June, 2001

PRESENT

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

CGrr-Cum-Labour Court.

Bangalore

C.R. No, 34/98-

I PARTY : Shri Chikkanna,

S/o Madaiah. Door No. 12. Manandavadi Road, Mysorc-570008

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) imv HParty : TheDlrector,

this first party workman of this case and some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkanna, Swamy. Kalabeeraiah, Siddalah and Shivana are before the court.

Central Sericultural Rcscardi & Training Centre, Srirampuram, Mysore-570008

(Advocate-Shri R. Guru Rajan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising 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 order No. L-42012/48/97/IR/(DU) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Chikkaima, Casual Labour, w.e.f 11-7-1992 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. First party was working with the second party. His

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy. Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined. I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW I & U it is clear that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order, They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not borned by Employment Exchange and their names were not spon sored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workman was casual labour and he was not terminated, There is no merit m this dispute.

services were terminated to this dispute is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as stated in para 2 of the daim statement The first party workman was employed by the secondparty management as casual labour from 15-3-1972 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 11-7-1992. He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

(Dictacted to P. A. transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 18-6-2001)

5. The second party filed counter.

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 6. The case of the secondparty in brief is as follows :

7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 17-6-1980 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and

similar other cases MWI and MW n arc examined.

9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other

New Demi, the 3rd July, 2001 cases also.

, S.O. 1867.—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, 10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the the evidence carefully. Against 3830 THEGAZETIECarINDIA:JULY28,a)01/IiRAVANA61,1923 [PARTII—SEC.3(ii)J Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-01.

[No. L-*2012/49/97-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer.

3. First party filed Claim Statement

ANNEXURE

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as stated in para 2 of the claim statement. The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from 1 -2 -1985 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 31-3-1990, He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filled counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

'SHARM SADAN1, m MAIN, m CROSS, U PHASE,

TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated :18th June, 2001

PRESENT

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

CGiT-Cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore

C.R. No. 29/98

IParty : Shri Siddaiah,

S/o Siddc Gowda, Kotehundi, Rayanakere Post, Mysore-570008

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) nParty : The Director,

Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre, Srirampurain, Mysore-570008

(Advocate-Shri R. GuruRajan) 7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on February, 1985 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MWI and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana are before the court.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2Aof the section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L^2012/49/97/IR/(DU) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Siddaiah, Casual Labour, w.e.f. 31-1-1990? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated to this dispute is raised.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined, I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW I & II it is clear that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not borned by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workmen was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

3831 nPARTY : The Director,

Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre, Srirampuram, Mysore-570008

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Advocate-Shri R. Guru Rajan)

AWARD

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed

by me on 18-6-200])

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2Aof the section 10 of the Industrrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/50/97/IR/pU) dated 1/16- 4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1868.—Jn 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-cuin-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central SericulturaJ Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L42012/50/97-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute. Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Puttabasava, Casual Labour ? If not, towhnt relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated so this dispute is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first parry, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as stated in para 2 of the Claim Statement. The first party workman was employed by the secondparty management as casual labour from 1 -5-1986 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 31-12-1990. He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed Counter.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CEIMTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRJALTRffilJNAIXlJM-LABOURCOURT 'SHARM SADAN', m MAIN, m CROSS, HPHASE, TUMKURROAD,YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGA1ORE

Dated: 18lh June, 2001

PRESENT Hon'ble Shri V. N Kulkami, B. Com, L.L.B. Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore

C.R. No. 33/98

IPARTY : Shri Pultabasava,

S/o Bundaiah, Dhangalli, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore-570008

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) 6. The case of the secondparty in brief is as follows:

7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 1-5-1986 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MWI and MWII are examined, 9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party counsel remained absent. I have heard secondparty. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case and some other cases have filed affidavits, In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, 3832 1HE:GA2ErmOFINraA:JLlLY28,200UaiAVANA6J1923 [PARTD—SBC.3(H)} Jayamma, Chikkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiahand Shivana arc before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined, 1 have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. WiththeevidenceofMWI&IIitisdcarthatthe workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for doty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not horned by Employment Exchange and theirnames were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workmen was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and 1 am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is refected

Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/51/97-IR(DU)l

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHECENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTOTOUNALrCUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', ffl MAIN, HI CROSS, HPHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated: 18th June. 2001

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

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore

C.R. No. 35/98

IPARTY : Shri Kalabccraiah,

S/o Kalbceraiah, Dhangali Post. Jayapura Hobli Mysorc-570(K)8

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) II PARTY : The Director,

Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre, Srinunpwam, Mysore-570008

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed

by me on 18-6-2001)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1869.—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 Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training

(Advocatc-Shri R Guru Rajan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2Aorthc section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lias referred this dispute vidcordcrNo. L-12O12/51AJ7/IR(DU) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management or Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute. Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Sliri Kalabeeraiah, Casual Labour, we. f. 31 -12-1990 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated so this dispute is raised 3. First part filed Claim Statement.

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispure Act, 1947 as stated in para 2 of the claim ••?" id Hii)

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to P A transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 18-6-2001)

statement. The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from M-1986 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on31-12-1990. He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:

7. There is not termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 14-6-1986T and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MWI and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that NfWI is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party counsel remained absent, I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shlvana are before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined, 1 have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MWI & Hit is clearthatthe workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not bomed by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange, Kalabeeraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workmen was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated, Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

:204 GI/2001— 25

V, N. KULKAKNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1870.—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 Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and tiieir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3 -7-2001.

[No. L-42012/52/97-IR(D.U,)] KULD1P RAL VERMA, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAMSADAN'.ffl MAIN,fflCROSS,H PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated: 18th June, 2001

PRESENT

Hon*ble Shri V, N. Kulkami, B. Com, LLB, Presiding Officer. CGIT-Cum-Labour Court. Bangalore C.R. No. 40/98

I PARTY : Shri Sathisha

S/o Chanankaiah. Changahelli, Dhanagalli Post, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore-570 008

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) II Party : The Director,

Central Sericultural Research and Training Centre, Srirampuram, Mysore-570008

(Advocate-Shri R. Gum Rajan) 3"""T ^a•' i w exmm r n iU T S TO IA : J U L Tm iwwmwyft"Aa, ivas IFAATii-^sfe?. stwi

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising 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 order No. L-42012/52/97/IR (Dtl) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Scricultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Sathisha, Casual Labour, w.e.f. 26-6-1997 ? If not, to what relief tlie workman is entitled to ?"

2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated so this dispute is raised.

3. Firstpart filed Claim Statement.

have rend the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. WJmtteeVidenceofMWI and II it is dear that the workman has not wotked for more than 240 days This workman wa* noi taken for duty because he was not entitled according to Olc seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise ttrt cfQsft exartilrtatlotKjf workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their sen ices were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not bomed by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberratah admits in his cross examination that after December. 1990 he did not go tor work. With the cross examination of some of the workman it is clear that they are only casual labourers "ftd this Workmen was casual lribour and he w"" not terminated. There k no merit in this dispute.

111 have considered the entire material carefully and 1 am of flie opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years In raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. AccoKtiagry there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

4. Accordmgto (he Claim Statement b>-the fkit party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of die industrial dispute Act, 1947asstatedmpara2ofthechUmitvbsment. The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from 1 -5-1989 aad he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 26-6-1991. He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

signed by me on W-&2001).

5. The second party filed Counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is asfollows;

7. There is not termination as alleged by tho first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and mere was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 20-6-1989 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MW1 and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MW1 is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, diikkanna, Swamy, Ka labeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivaoa arc before the court 11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, KaJabceraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined, I

V.K KULKARNI, PreskliiigOfficer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1871.—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 Bangalore as shown in the Anncxure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericnttaral Research andTraintag Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemmert o" 3-7-2001.

[No. L-42O12/53/97-4R(D.U.)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer.

MAS oontiouously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore, he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed Counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows :

BETOW1WCimBAL"3VIRNMrcNT

INDUSTRlALTBIBtNAL

*SHRAMSADAN',mMACS,HI<;WOSS,HrRASt

l\JlVBaiRROAn,YEStfWANTlB'Ua,"AI"GAljOR£

Dated: 18ft Jwre, 2601

IUBSEVT

Hon'HeSliii VRKuflwrn^S. O m l l f, Presiding Qffim,

COT-Cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore

CR.No.41/tt

!#ARTY : ShriVcnManmwwt,

S/oftasaiah, 00 Chamrflamma, Shivapura, Sreeramapura, Myson^57000",

(Advocate Shrl Mehaa Kumar) 7. There is no termination as alleged by the flrstparty. Thedi^utolsnot maintainable. There was aneed for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanentvacancics. Therefore, flrstparty was taken to work on 23-10-1986 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as allegedby him. There is a delay of more than 9 yours in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MW1 andMW n are examined.

9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read theevidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case some other cases have filed affidavits, hi all. the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkamia, Swatny, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana are before the court.

BPsrty : The Director,

Centra] Sworttural Research and Training Centre, Srinutipuprn, Mysore-370008,

(Advocate-Shri H, Gam i m w)

AWARD

1. The Ccotori Government by exercising the powere conferred by clause (d) of sub-set^qn ?A of tita traction 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hw referred this dispute vldcordcrNo. L42012/53/97/ffi/(DU),dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule;

SdffiWJLE

¹¹ Whether the action of the rnanagement of Central Scricultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating die services of Shri Venkataramana, Casual Labour, w.e.f. 26-6-1997 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. First party was working with the wcosd party. His services were terminated to this tfisput is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement,

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Katebecraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined. I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW1 & II it is clear that the workman has not worked mare than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not borned by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go fgr work, With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they arc only casual labourers and this workmen was casual labour and he was not terminated. There Is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years In raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 18-6-2001).

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, thisworiunan is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial dispute Act 1947 as staled in pa"" 2 of tHe Ctaim Statement. The first party workman was employed by tho second party management as casual labour from 1-1-1986 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 8-8-1987. He worked

V. N. KULKARN1, Presiding Officer 3"3ft IHg W a i l Hi UP 1NVJA \ JULY agfltjKH/SttftVANA 6-,-rW'v' IFAKT*-^ W$W&\

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-42012/54/97/IR/ (DU) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 3rd My, 200]

"Whether the action of the management of

Central Sericultural Research and Training

Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating the

services of Shri Shivana, Casual Labour, w.e.f.

30-4-1990 ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

S.O. 1872.—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-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on3-7-2001.

[No. L42012/54/97-IR(DU)]

KULDEP RAIVERMA, DeskOfflcer.

2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated to this dispute is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement.

ANNEXURE

BETORETHECENTRALGOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIALTRIBTJNAL-CUM- ,

LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN',

m MAIN, m CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKURROAD,YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated :18th June, 2001

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as stated in para 2 of the Claim Statement. The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from 1-5-1986 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 30-4-1990, He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed Counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows :

PRESENT

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

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore,

C.R. No. 30/98

f PARITY : Shri Shivana, S/o Mallappa, Srcerampura, N.H.PalyaPost, Mysorc-570008.

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) HParty : The Director,

Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre, Srirampuram, Mysore-570008. (Advocate-ShriR. GuruRajan) 7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 1-5-1986 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MW1 and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MWI is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case some other cases have 3837 filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Satbisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana are before the court.

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sen cultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/55/97-DKD.U.)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT

DSDUSTRIALTRIBUNALCUM-LABOURCOURT

'SHRAM SADAN\ ffl MAIN, HI CROSS, n PHASE,

TUMKURROAD,YESHWANTHPUR,BANGALORE

Dated: 18th June, 2001

PRESENT

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

CGIT-Cum-LabourCouTt Bangalore.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalebeeraiah, Sathisha and Shivana are cross examined, I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW1 & II it is clear that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have rio document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not bouned by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalabeeraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workman was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

C.R. No. 27/98

IPARTY : ShriBasavaraju, 12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

S/o Kunnamadegowda, Kotchundi. Rayanakere Post, Mysorc-570008.

ORDER

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) The reference is rejected.

D Party : The Director,

{Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

.signed by me on 18-6-2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

Central Sericultunil Research & Training Centre, Srirampuram, Mysorc-570008.

(Advocate Shri R. Guru Rnjan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputc Act. 1947 referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/55/97/IR/(DU) dated 1-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

"Whetherthe action of the management orCcntnil Sericultural Research and Training Institute. Mysore, is justified in terminating the service of Shri Basavaraju, Casual Labour, vv.c.f. 31-12-1988 7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. First party was working with the second parly.

His services were terminated to this dispute is raised.

S.O. 1873.—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-cum-Labour Court, 3S38 THE GAZETTE OP B*MA: JULY 2L ttftl/SRAVANA ". 1923 (PART S ^ S E S. 3tfi)l 3. First party filed Claim Statement

4. Accordmgto the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as stated in para 2 of the claim statement Hie first party workman was employed by the secondparty management as casual labourfrom 8-12-1986 and he was working ia Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 3I-12-19S8, He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed topass award in his favour.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of 10 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly mere is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 18-6-2001)

5. The second party filed Counter.

6. The case ofthesecondpartytebricfisas follows;

7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 8-12-1986 awl he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a delay of 10 yearsinralsingthcdispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MW1 and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MW1 is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case and some other cases have filed affidavits. Fn all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Vcnkataratnana, Jayamma, Chrkkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiali and Shfvarta are before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Satish and Shtvana are cross examined, I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW 1 & II it is clear that the workman has not worked for roo/e than 240 days, This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled' according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, alt of them categorically stated that they have no docometr *o show that they were given appointment order. They hav no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated mat tney were not bomed by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in bis crass examination that after December, 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of tile workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workmen wan casual labour and he was not terminated: There is no merit in this dispute.

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. MT74— 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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3 -7-2001.

[No. L-t2012/56/97-IR

KULDIP RAIVERMA Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUimOAXTIOBWAL-ClJM-LABOlJRCOtJRT 'SHRAM SADAN', in MAIN, ffl CROSS, HPHASE, TUMKIIR ROAD, YESBWANTHPUR,BANGALORE Bated: 18th June, 2061

PRESENT

Hon'bleShri V. N. Kulkami, B. Coin., LLB., Presiding Officer. CGIT-Cum-Labour Court Bangalore C.R No. 39/98

IPARTV ; ShriJayamma,

D. No. 83, Dcvayyana Huitdi, Nachanahalli Palya Post, Mysore-570 008

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) DPARTY . .The Director,

Central ScriculUiral Research & Training Centre, Srirampwram, Mysorc-570008

(Advocate Shri R. Gwu Rajan)

AWARD

1. The Centra) 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 d i l u te vide order No. L-42012/56/97/m (DU) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEIWL£

' 'Whether tbe action of the management of Central Sericutturai Research and Training uutftole, Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Smt. Jayamma, Casual Labour, w.e.f. 26-8-1987 ? Km*, to what relief &c workman is entitled to 7" 2. First party was working with the second party.

His services "were terminated so this dispute is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement.

3839 9. It is seen that MW I is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against this first party workman of this case and some other cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkanna. Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana arc before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swamy. Kalcbeeraiah, Satlsh and Shivana are cross examined. I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidenceof MW I & II it is dearthat the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duty because he was not entitled accenting to the senirioty list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workman referred earlier, all of them categorically stated Hurt they have no document to show tint they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not corned by Employment Exchange and their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December, 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the workmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workman was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the foDowiog order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed byher, corrected and

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman sader Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as stated in para 2 of the Claim Statement The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from 1-1-1986 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 26-8-87. H" worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

signed by me on J8-6-2001)

5. The second party filed Counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:

7. There is not termination as alleged by die first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to weak on 25-6-1986 and he was provided die work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him. There is a defey of more than 9 years fci raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It Is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MWI and MWII are examined.

V. N. KTJLKARNI, Presiding Officer 3840 THE QAZETTEOFINEaAtJULYMJOOiySRAVANAe, 1923 TPARTD-feaMf New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1875.—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, ' Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Sericultural Research & Training Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-01.

[No. L-42012/57/97-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CfcJNlKAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRmUNALCUMLABOURCOlJBT, 'SHRAM SADAN', ffl MAIN, ra CROSS, HPHASE, TUMKURROAD,YESHWANTHPUR,BANGALORE Dated: 18th June, 2001

PRESENT

HonTile Shri V. N. Kulkami, B. Com, LLB, Presiding Officer

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore

C.R. No. 28/98

IPARTY : Shri Arshad Ahmed,

No. 1145/2,7th Main, I cross, S.H.Road, Vidyarairyapuram, Mysore-570008

(Advocate Shri Mohan Kumar) n Party The Director,

Central Sen cultural Research & Training Centre, Srirampuram, Mysore-570008

(Advocate-Shri R. GuruRajan)

AWARD

1. flie Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of the section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ha$ referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/57/97/IR/(DU) dated 1/16-4-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Arshad, Casual Labour, w.e.f. 31-1-1997 ?If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. First party was working with the second party. His services were terminated to this dispute is raised.

3. First party filed Claim Statement.

4. According to the Claim Statement by the first party, this workman is workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as stated in para 2 of the Claim Statement. The first party workman was employed by the second party management as casual labour from 1-7-1986 and he was working in Seed Technology. His services were terminated on 31-1-1990. He worked continuously for more than 240 days and termination is illegal. Therefore he has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The second party filed counter.

6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:

7. There is no termination as alleged by the first party. The dispute is not maintainable. There was a need for engaging certain casual labourers and there was no permanent vacancies. Therefore, first party was taken to work on 19-1 -1987 and he was provided the work on daily wages. He has not worked continuously as alleged by him, There is a delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that in this case and similar other cases MWI and MWII are examined.

9. It is seen that MW 1 is examined as witness in other cases also.

10. First party and counsel remained absent. I have heard second party. I have gone through the relevant documents and read the evidence carefully. Against tins first party workman of this case and some otiier cases have filed affidavits. In all, the affidavits of Sathisha, Venkataramana, Jayamma, Chikkkanna, Swamy, Kalabeeraiah, Siddaiah and Shivana are before the court.

11. It is seen from the records that Siddaiah, Swa my, Kalbeeraiah, Satish and Shivana are cross examined. I have read the evidence and scrutinised the entire material carefully. With the evidence of MW I & II it is clear that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. This workman was not taken for duly because he was not entitled according to the seniority list. If we strictly scrutinise the cross examination of workmen referred earlier, all of them categorically stated that they have no document to show that they were given appointment order. They have no document to show that their services were terminated. Some of them have stated that they were not bomed by Employment Exchange find their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Kalaberraiah admits in his cross examination that after December 1990 he did not go for work. With the cross examination of some of the woikmen it is clear that they are only casual labourers and this workman was casual labour and he was not terminated. There is no merit in this dispute.

12.1 have considered the entire material carefully and I am of the opinion that there is a delay of more than 9 years in raising this dispute and the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled for any work and he is terminated. Accordingly there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

3"41 Between:

A. Samba Murthy, 7 Maghna, (Servant Quarters), Naval Park, Visakhapatnam (AP.)-53O 014. ...Workman. AND

The Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam-14.

..Management.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and

signed by me on 18-6-2001.)

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th July, 2001 S.O. 1876.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Navel Dock Yard and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.

[No. L-14O12/18/99-IR(D-U)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT VISAKHAPATNAM PRESENT: SRI K.VEERAPU NAIDU, B.Sc, BJL, CHAIRMAN & PRESIDINGOFFICER Dated: 8th day of June, 2001.

I.T.ID. (Q 18/99

REFERENCE No. L-14012/18/99/IR(DU) Dated: 22-7-99

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.V. Sambasiva Rao and Sri A. S. Rama Sarma, advocates for workman and Sri D. Ramesh, Government Pleader for management. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following :

AWARD

(1) This is a reference made by the Central Government U/Sec. 10( l)(d) of the I.D. Act, for adjudication of the dispute and it is as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri A. Samba Murthy, Welder, HSK- I, T. No. 4076 (FabricationDepartment) is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman is that he joined as casual labour in the management in the year i 969 and promoted as Welder-Il and continuously served as such, since 14-8-93. the date of termination. The workman was not served with any domestic enquiry and there is no opportunity to defend his case. No. copy of the enquiry report was furnished lo him. The final orders of removal is invalid and the same is liable to be set aside and the workman is to be reinstated with back wages.

3. On the other hand, it is the case of the management that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and he was absent for 1490 days during the period from 13-11-84 to 14-8-93 on 12 occasions as mentioned in the counter. The workman was imposed several punishments such as warning, censure, withholding of increment and reduction in rank from Welder HSK-I to Welder HSK-II forihe alleged misconducts and all these punishments have not effect on the workman and again he was unauthorised!)' absent from 4th June, 1990 to 1 HI) March. 1991 and chargememo was issued and it was sent to his house address and it was returned by die postal authorities as the 'Addressee absent returned to sender'. Therefore, a regular enquiry officer was appointed and several notices were sent by the enquiry officer to the workman which }.MM^' --^ n g "2 1* fT"T Tm<3MZETmOPM?IA:JULY2*,2001"RXVANA6,I9l3 [PART-H-SBC.^] were retained with the remarks 'addressee avoiding to take delivery, addressee left e t c' An exparte enquiry was conducted and charges were held proved. On considering the report, the final orders removing the petitioner was passed on 14th August, 1993 by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dock Yard, for the unauthorised absence from 4-6-90 to 11-3-91 i.e. for a period of 9 months and odd. It Is also the further case of the management that all the communications addressed to the workman are returned undelivered with the remarks such as 'addressee left', 'avoiding to take delivery' and 'not claimed'. The workman has got an opportunity to prefer appeal within 45 days from the date of receipt of the orders of removal but he preferred appeal after a lapse of 3 years period and it was not considered. The action taken by the management is correct and it needs no interference.

(4) The management examined MW1 and got marked Ex.Ml to M16. On behalf of the workman, the workman is examined as W W1 and no documents are marked.

(5) Heard both sides.

(6) The point that arises for consideration in tills case is;

Whether the petitioner/workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages as prayed for?

(7) The petitioner was removed from service for the unauthorised absence from 4-6-90 to 11-3-91. Ex.Ml is the charge memo and the same was not served on the workman. Hence Ex. M2 xerox copy of the returned postal card with endorsement is marked. Ex. M2 is xerox copy of the appointment of enquiry Officer, Exs. M4 to M7 are the enquiry notices which were returned Ex. M8 are the xerox copies of the returned endorsements of the copies of notices. Ex. M9 is the xerox copy of the exparte proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer. Ex. M10 is the xerox copy of the returned postal acknowledgement. Ex. M il is the final orderremoving the workman. Ex. M12 is the xerox copy of the enquiry report. Ex. M13 is the xerox copy of the orders and appeal petition filed by the workman and Ex. M14 is the leave application submitted by the workman onl2-3-91 for 9 months 7 days from 4-6-90 to 11-3-91, the charge period and he also filed a sick certificate and fit certificate along with Ex. M14. Ex. M15 is the inter departmental correspondence.

(8) It is an admitted fact that the workman was unauthorisedly absent for 1490 days during the period from 13-11-84 to 13-11-93. The period of charge of the unauthorised absence of the workman is from 4-6-90 to 11-3-91. In the counter it is stated that the workman was absent unauthorisedly for 1490 days for 12 times during the period from 13-11-84 to 14-8-93 and the details are as follows as mentioned in the counter:

S.No.

Duration Period of absence

1. 13-11-84 to 17-01-83

2 months & 4 days 2. 04-02-83 to 10-04-85

2 months & 6 days 3. 15-04-85 to 26-04^5

12 days 4. 07-04-86 to 12-04-86

6 days 5. 23-04-86 to 20-05-86

27 days 6. 304)6-86 to 23-07-86

24 days 7. 14-10-86 to 12-01-87

3 months 8. 11-05-87 to 14-07-87

2 months 9. 14-12-87 to 03-06-88

3 months 10.

9 njonths 04-06-90 to 11-03-91

11. 16-08-91 to 04-01-92

5 months 12. 25-02-92 to 14-08-93

17 months<& 21 days

(till the date of removal from service) (9) On the other hand, the workman as VVWI admitted his cross-examination that he remained absent for 1490 days in different spells. The above said periods of absence clearly goes to show that he was not only absent prior to charge period but also after (lie charge period for a period Of 5 months from 16-8-91 to 4-1-92 and 17 months 21 days from 25-2-92 to 14-8-93. the date of removal from service.

(10) Thus, the charge framed against the workman in even admitted in the evidence by WWI2. Therefore, the contention that no opportunity was given to (lie workman in the enquiry has no legs to stand. Even otherwise, the Exs. M4 to M7 return endorsement clearly goes to show that the workman was cither evading or absenting in the address given by him. Further, the workman stated in his cross-examination tliat he shifted his residence from Maikapurm to China Waltairand he intimated the said fact to die management but he did not file any office cop> of the same. He admitted that he received the termination orders i.e. original of Ex. M i l. Further it is suggested lo him that he did not inform the change of (lie address lo the management. When he received the termination orders. the original of Ex. Mil, it bears the address o f the workman at Malkapuram and Ex. M8 copies of enquiry notice were also sent to the same address through registered post with acknowledgement due. Therefore, the workman seems lo have been avoided to receivcthe enquiry notices. Whatever it may be, there is ample evidence lo the management lo show that the workman is habitually unauthorised absentee and even for the charge period also he was unauthorisedly absented. However, it is elicited in the cross-examination of MW1 that the workman reported duty on 12th March. 1991 and submitted sick and fit certificates along with his 384J leave application and it is Ex.M 14. It is also admitted by MW1 that the workman submitted sick certificate and the leave letter informing sick due to mental inability. Here Ex. M 14, leave letter contains the sick certificate of the workman shown that the workman was suffering from Rhoumatic Pains. There is no material on record, to show that the workman have been suffering with any mental disability. Whatever it may be this leave application was also submitted after the period of unauthorised absence.

(11) Therefore, the material adduced by both the parties would clearly establishes the fact that the workman is a habitual unauthorised absentee for long periods at different spells and he was absent for 1490 days in a span of 9 years from 1984 to 1993 and it is also brought on record that the workman was not only absent for only 9 months 7 days the charge period and he was also absent cnifveral occasions prior to the charge period and on two occasions even after the charge period. Therefore, the learned councel appearing for the management contends that the punishment of removal is neither harsh nor disproportionate and it is just and proper.

(12) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman contends that mere unauthorised absence does not amount to misconduct and the capital punishment of removal Is too harsh. The absence for the charge period, according to the workman, Is on account of his Illness as he was suffering from Rheumatic pains and it is evidenced by a certificate namely a sick certificate issued by a private medical practitioner Dr. D.S.N. Murthy. The petitioner did not choose to obtain treatment in any Government hospital and the workman also did not assign any reason for not applying leave even after he fell sick or evai during his sickness. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is a clear case of unauthorised absence of the workman for the period from 4-6-90 to 11-3-91 besides that the workman in the present case is a habitual unauthorised absentee. Therefore, the punishment of removal of the workman imposed in this case is neither harsh nor disproportionate and there are no other extenuating or any mitigating circumstances, even to impose a lesser punishment Hence I answer the reference in favour of the management and against the workman.

(13) In the result, nil award is passed and each part>' is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 8th day of June, 2001.

K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer APPENDK OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR WORKMAN; FOR MANAGEMENT:

W W 1: A. Samba Murthy MW1 :S.Seetha Rama Rao DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FORWORKMAN:NIL

FOR MANAGEMENT:

Ex. Ml 3-7- 91: Xerox copy of charge memo.

Ex. M2 : Xerox copy of returned postal endorsement Ex. M 3 :12-2-92: Xerox copy of o/derreg.

appointment of EO.

Ex.M4:15-11-91: Xerox copy of notice of enquiry.

Ex. M 5:11-12-91: Xerox copy of notice of enquiry.

Ex. M 6:18-2-92: Xerox copy of notice of enquiry⁷.

Ex. M 7:13-3-92: Xerox copy of notice of enquiry'.

Ex. M 8: Xerox copy of undelivered letter with Postal Endorsement

Ex. M 9:30-4-92: Xerox copy of exparte enquiry proceeding.

Ex. M10: Xerox copy of postal acknowledgement.

Ex. M11:14-8-93 : Xerox copy of final order passed

by Vicc*Admiral Admiral, Supdt.

Ex. M 1 2: Xerox copy of enquiry report.

Ex. M13:6-12-96: Xerox copy of letter to workman by management.

Ex, M14: Leave letter/application with medical certificates.

Ex. M15 :12-3-2001: Inter-departmental covering letter with regard to leave applications.

New Delhi the 5th July, 2001

S.O. 1877.—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 No-11.

3f44 ,. THEOAZBTmOT INDIA :JUIY 28,2001/SRAVANA 6,1923 [PARTlI-^SEt;3

[No. L-42012/182/99-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

S.N. SAUNDANKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/22 of2000.

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENTOF DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA INSTT. OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION Director, All India Instt. of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Haji AM Park, K. Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034.

AND

their workmen

Sh. Mohan P. Gore, C.G.S. Colony, Sector No. 6, Bldg. No. 202, Room No. 2429, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400 037.

APPEARANCES :

Gore appeared vide acknowledgmenr(Exhibit-4.) However, the management of All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mubmai though served vide acknowledgment (Exhibit-3), none appeared on its behalf. Workman put his Statement of Claim on 15-1-2001 at Exhibit-7, contending therein that he was employed as semi-skilled worker since August 1994 and that he was abruptly removed from the service on 30-11 -98. He further contended that he had moved the management, but in vain and thereafter he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai, however the Conciliate finally failed on 31-8-99.

3. Matter was fixed for appearance and filing of Written Statement oh behalf of the management. However till today, none appeared on their behalf nor put Written Statement though sufficient time given as clearly depicted from the Rojnama. Since the management though served did not appear, the workman was directed to file affidavit in support of his claim to decide the reference Ex-parte and consequently he has filed his affidavit at Exhibit-9.

4. Mr. Gore affirmed that he was a permanant semi- skilled employee since last five to six years on the pay roll of All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and that he has been abruptly discontinued from service w.e.f. 30-11-98. He stated that his last drawn wages were Rs, 3,997/- per month. He has been dismissed illegally and therefore he be reinstated with fiill back wages and continuity of service. This testimony has gone unchallenged. It is clearly seen from the above said unchallenged testimony that action of the management in terminating the services of Mr. M, P. Gore is not legal and proper. Therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. Hence the order:

ORDER

FOR THE EMPLOYER : No Apperance.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. R. B. Vaidya, Advocate. Mumbai, dated 20th June, 2001.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-42012/182/99/1R (DU), dtd. 27-1 -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 Disputes Act, 1947.

"Whether the action of the management of All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Mumbai by terminating the services of the workman Mr. Mohan P. Gore w.e.f. 29-11-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference notices were sent to the parties concerned. Pursuant to that workman Mr. M. P. The action of the management of All india Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mumbai in terminating the services of Mr. Mohan P. Gore is not just and proper.

The management to reinstate the workman in service and pay him full back wages with continuity in service.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 3845 New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001

S.O. 1878.—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 Jabalpur as shown in the Aimexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Malaria Research Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-7-2001.

[No. L-t2012/131/90-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer that he held a permanent post. The performance of the applicant/workman had always been to the satisfaction of the management/non-applicant. There had been no complaint or adverse communication against his performance.

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUMLABOUR COURT

JABALPUR

CASE NO. CG1T/LC/R/22/91

PRESIDING OFFICER; SHRIK. M. RAI

Shri Chandra ShekharTiwari,

Erstwhile Field Lab/Attendant Resident of Kali Math, Amanpur, Jabalpur Applicant

Versus

The Director, Malaria Research Centre, 22, Sham Nath Marg, New Delhi. Non-applicant 3. The workman further alleges that he was elected the president of All India Malaria Reseach Centre Employees Association, a registered body, branch at Jabalpur and affiliated to INTUC. In this capacity he was always representing the grievances of the employees for their redressal and therefore the managemant was annoyed with him. The non-applicant no. 2 & 3 used to practice unfair labour practice which was always objected by the workman. Therefore with malafide intention, the non- applicants no. 2 & 3 arbitrarily terminated his services w.e.f. 23-1-90 vide order Annexure A-6. Prior to termination of service neither any enquiry was conducted against him nor any notice or retrenchment compensation was given to him. He had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The non-applicants have made several allegations against him in their written statement which amounts to misconduct and therefore prior to termination of service, the DE is mandatory which was not done by the non-applicants. He filed a complaint before the ALC(C) challenging the validity of the termination order. Therefore the dispute has been referred to this tribunal for adjudication. The termination order is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and therefore deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

AWARD

Delivered on this 16th day of April, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-42012/131/90-IR DU dated 13-2-91 has referred Uie following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of Malaria Research Centre, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Chandra Shakhar Tiwari, Field/ Lab attendant vide dieir order dated 23-1-90 is justified? If not, what relief has is entitled to?

2. The case for the workman/applicant is that he was appointed as field/lab attendent w.e.f. 20-4-87 by the management/non applicant vide appointment order Annexurc-I. As per the terms and conditions of appointment order, the appointment to the said post was temporary and co terminable with the project or as long as his services were required in connection with this scheme. The scheme/project for which the applicant was appointed still continues. The other persons who were appointed with die applicant or thereafter are still serving with die existing project. The applicant was treated and promised 4. The case for the non-applicants/managements is that the workman/applicant was never treated by the management as holder of permanent post nor any assurance in this connection was given to him, The petitioner was employed for the scheme of integrated disease vector control programme" only. As soon as the work of the scheme is over, it will be wound up and put to an end. In view of this fact, the staff is temporarily employed only for the performance of the scheme and the services of the staff are co-terminus with the cessation of the scheme. The scheme is still continuing and some persons, who were employed by the non-applicants are still continuing with the scheme. On this basis only the applicant cannot claim any advantage of continuing in the employment. The performance of the applicant lud never been satisfactory. All India Malaria Research Centre employees Association, Branch, Jabalpur has not been recognised by the non- applicants and therefore the applicant cannot get any advantage being office bearer of die said Union. The non- applicants/managemant further alleges that the non- applicants No. 2 & 3 had never resorted to unfair labour practice as alleged by the applicant. The applicant's termination order is perfectly legal and proper. The services of the applicant were not terminatde due to any malafide intention or revengeful attitude of the mm- 3846 THE GAZETTEOF INDIA: JULY28,2001/SRAVANA6,1923 [PARfU—SEC. 3(ii)]

' 'Industry'' means any business trade, undertaking manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman.

"Industry" has to satisfy triple test to become an

' 'Industry'' as under:—

1. Systematic activity,

2. Cooperation between employer and employee.

3. Production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and services. If these tests arc satisfied prima face there is an "Industry " he absence of profit motive is irrelevant wherever the undertaking is public joint, private or other sectors.

9, As far as the research Institutions are concerned the Supreme Court has held in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. and A. Rajappa and others cic. as under:—

applicants. The performance of the applicant had never been satisfactory. The applicant was not attending his duties properly and he was neverpunctual to his job. Inspite of several intimation given by the non-applicants in this respect, he never mended his habbit. He had been defaulting in attending his duty right from 1988. In this connection, memo dated 16-8-88 and 27-9-88 were issued to him. The applicant submitted his reply on 22-8-88. Thereafter some more memos were issued to him on 27-3-89,1-3-89,2-8-89 and on21-7-89. The applicant was always negligent to his duties and was not available with the full team to start for the destination. Such a worker was not useful to the scheme and therefore his services were terminated as not required. His efforts were to frustrate the scheme rather than woiking devotedly with the same. The termination order dated 23 -1 -90 is not in violation of natural justice. The Malaria Research Centre is not an industry and the applicant is not a workman, hi view of this fact, the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act had no application in the instant case. The reference is accordingly illegal and deserves to be answered in negative. The termination order passed by the non-applicants against the applicant is perfectly legal and does not require any interference. The applicant is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages or any relief as prayed by him.

5. On the conclusion of the case, my learned prcdcccssorpasscd award on 1-12-99 which was challenged before the Honourable High Court of MP vide WP No. 1783/90. On 1-11-2000, the High Court passed the order seting aside the award passed by this tribunal on 1-12-99 and directed to decide the case afresh and to give a clear finding whether ornot the non-applicant, Malaria Research Centre is an industry within the meaning of Sec-2(a) of I.D. Act, 1947 as this Issue was not clearly decided by this tribunal. In view of this direction of the Honourable High Court, the matter is being final by disposed of.

6. The following issues arise for determination in

this case:—

L Whether the non-applicant No. 1 Malaria Research Centre is an industry or not under Sec- 2(j)ofI.D. Act, 1947?

2. Whether the services of applicant were terminated

by the non-applicants on 23 -1 -90 ill egally ?

3. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement

with back wages?

"Docs Research involve collaboration between employer and employee? It does. The employer is the institution, the employees are the scientists, para scientists and other personnel. Is scientific research service? Undoubtedly it is its discoveries are valuable contributions to the wealm u* JiC nation. Such discoveries may be sold for a heavy price in the industrial or other markets. Technology has to be paid for and technological inventions and innovations may be patented and sold. In our scientific and technological age, nothing has more cash value as intangible goods and invaluable services, than discoveries. For instance the discoveries of Thomas Alva Edison made him fabulously rich, it has been said that his brain had the highest reach value in history for he made the world vibrate with the miraculous discovery of recorded sound. Unlike most inventors he did not have to wait to get his reward in heaven he received it munificently on this gratified and grateful earth, thanks to conversion of his inventions into money aplanty. Research benefits industry. Even though a research institute may be a separate entity disconnected from the many industries which founded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organisation propelled by systematic activity, modelled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth. It follows that research institutes, albeit run without profit motive, arc industries.'' 4. Relief and costs?

7. Issue No. 1:

The main contraversy in this case is as to whether

the Malaria Research Centre is an industry ornot?

"Industry" has been defined under Sec-2(j) of I.D.

10. Taking the above said pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court, we have to look into the evidence of the parties in the instant case. The additional affidavit of Dr. Neeru Singh, Dy. Director and incharge. Malaria Research Centre, Jabalpur is relevant for the decision of the issue as to whether the Malaria Research Act, 1947 as under:

•-.';' .W 'j-i '•

Research Centre is a part of the business and trade. It means the Malaria Research Centre is systematically engaged in carrying out the research work to make inventions/discoveries for helping the manufacture of new medicines to check the malaria like business and trade, It cannot be said that the centre carries on only research work and nothing else.

12. The discoveries is Malaria Research Centre are being sold for consideration in the industrial markets as has been established by the statement of Dr. Neeru Singh documents and circular of Indian Council of Medical Research Ex. W-10, Such discoveries are patented and sold to the pharmaceutical company for manufacturing medicines and selling the same in the market for human service. The centre is benefited by the systematic activity modelled on cooperation between employer and employees and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit industrial relations and nations in terms of goods and services and wealth. There might not be profit motive behind such discoveries but the activities carried on by it comes under the definition of "Industry". The pronouncement of Supreme Court in Bangalore water supply and sewerage case is fully applicable in the present case.

Centre is an industry or not? Her statement goes to show that the Research work in Malaria Research Centre is being systematically carried out to control the Malaria and to discover the new formula to eradicate the same. For this purpose the samples of blood from different persons are taken by the Lab Assistant of the Centre and those samples are scientifically analysed in the laboratories to find out the Cause of Malaria and to cure the same by introducing medicines in this respect after discovering new formula. The regular experiments are being done in the laboratories In the Lab Assistants and the scientists. After making the scientific analysis they introduce new medicines to control and eradicate the Malaria. The reports in this connection are annually published to acquaint the Head Office regarding the research work done by the centre. Dr. Neeru Singh has clearly admitted in para-8 of her statement on 16-2-2001 that phizer pharmaceutical company had made some payments to the Director Malaria Research Centre. Delhi on different dates. The said company manufactures medicine for Malaria and sell the same in the market. From the statement of Dr. Neeru Singh it appears that the formula discovered by the Malaria Research Centre, are sold to the pharmaceuticals.Company to manufcture medicine to control and eradicate Malaria from the different parts of the country. For his purpose, the pharmaceutical company makes payment to the Malaria Research Centre as they are bencfitted by the discovories made known to them for manufacturing medicines to control malaria. This is nothing but activities like business and trade. This view is being supported by circular Ex W-10. The clause V of the circular is regarding the terms and conditions of the amount paid to the Malaria Research Centre reads as under:

'' Receipts realised by the Project Officer and the sale proceeds if any, will be remitted to the counsel as miscellaneous receipts and should not be utilised for meeting expenditure in the scheme. This citation makes it abandontly clear that the Malaria Research Centre definitely sells the research formula to a respective pharmaceuticals company to manufacture the medicines of Malaria etc. It means this activity is being carried like business and trade by the co-operation of the employer and employees of the centre.

13. From the Material on record it becomes amply clear that the Malaria Research Centre is carrying on systematic Research activity organised by the cooperation between the employer and employee. The direct and substantial element is commercial for the production and/ or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes on a large scale. The discoveries/ inventions are sold to the pharmaceutical concerns to manufacture the medicines to control malaria on a large scale to serve the human wants. Without the systematic activity and cooperation of the employees, this work cannot be carried out. It is done on the basis of tradeand business as they are patenting the formula also. In this way the Malaria Research Centre is carrying on activity by cooperation between the employees and employer to provide the community with the use of its discoveries/ inventions for giving material service to the human needs and this material service is of a commercial character in which something is brought into distance quite apart from the benefit to particular individuals and it is the production of this something which is prescribed as production of material services. In providing these services the Malaria Research Centre has employed trained Lab Asstt. and scientists to make discoveries/inventions for the productivity of service organised as an industry and commercially valuable.

14. In view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that the Malaria Research Centre is an industry. Issue No, I is answered accordingly.

11. There is another important citation on page-3 of the circular Ex W-10 as quoted in verbatim. "The counsel shall have the right to take out patents in respect of inventions/discoveries made under the scheme/project financed by the counsel. The officer incharge of the staff employed on 1MRC scheme shall not apply or obtain patents for any invention/discovery made by them without prior approval of the council." The Malaria Research Centre carries on its research activities under the contol of Indian Council of Medical Research which pays the grant to the same. The aforesaid condition for taking out patents in respect of any inventions/discoveries done by the Malaria 3WW ^ . ^ IMitKMZglliEUFBfflMA: JULYZS,20PftSKAVANA6,1923 {PAKrBs-Ster.3^ 15. Issue No. 2 : The Malaria Research Centre has emphatically argued that the workman Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari was employed on temporary basis and his appointment was coterminable with the scheme/project. As per appointment order dated 20-4-87, his services could be terminated as no longer required. The workman services were terminated w.e.f. 23-1-90 vide order atmexure A-6, as no longer required. Eh*. Neeru Singh has admitted in the statement that the scheme is still continuing. If we go through the statement of claim filed by the Malaria Research Centre it will be clear that the centre has made some allegations against the conduct of Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari. It has been stated in para 6 of the statement of claim that the performance of the workman had not been to the satisfaction of the management. He had not been attending his duties often on certain occasion. He was given an intimation of the same and an explanation was also called from him. It has been also alleged that Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari had been defaulting hi attending his duty from 1988. He did not work devotedly in the scheme. Such a worker was not useful to this scheme and therefore the services were terminated as not required.

16. The aforesaid facts goes to show that the management has made allegations of misconduct against the workmen in then* statement of the claim submitted before this Tribunal. They have tried to cover up this facts by taking shelter of condition of appointment order as the services of the workman can be dispensed with as no longer required It appears that the alleged misconduct as stated in the statement of claim by the Malaria Research Centre had promoted mainly to terminate the services of Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari w.e.f, 23-1-90 as the management was not satisfied with his performance. In such a condition the DE should have been conducted by the competent authority of Malaria Research Centre for removing the workman from his service. No such steps were taken by the Centre in terminating the services of the workmen. Such action is in clear disregard of provisions of law and natural justice. Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari should have been given the proper opportunity to explain his conduct as alleged in the statement of claim filed by the management.

17. The management has failed to prove that the workman Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari was ever punished for his alleged misconduct. Such imputations are nothing but stigma on conduct and character of workman. Without giving any opportunity to explain his conduct no person can be punished in the eye of law. The project is still in continuous and is likely to be continued in future also as the Malaria has not been eradicated. No notice was also served on the workman before terminating his services. In view of all these facts the order of termination passed by the management against the workman is absolutely Illegal which cannot be substained. Issue No. 2, is answered accordingly.

18. Issue No. 3 :m view of my finding given on issue Nos. 1 & 2, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits. This issue is decided accordingly.

19. Issue No. 4 :On the reasons stated above, it is held that the Malaria Research Centre is an industry and the termination order passed by the management against the workman Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari on 23-1-90 is illegal and therefore it is quashed. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the workman and against the management.

20. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. N. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001

S.O. 1879.—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 Tribuijal-cuni-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/120/95-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRBUNAL-CUM-L ABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 18th June, 2001

Present: K. KARTHKEY AN,

PRESIDING OFFICER 3549

The I Party/Workman Shri R, Sadasivam (hereinafter INDUSnUALOlSPUTENO, 404/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal LD. No. 71/%)

[m 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 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri R. Sadasivam and the Management of C.P.W.D., Madras.].

BETWEEN

R. Sadasivam, : I Party/Workman

AND

The Executive Engineer, : II party/Management CPWD, Madras

Apperance:

For the Workman : Shri R. Ganesan &

V.Gangadharan Advocates

For the Management : Shri R. Kanmakaran,

Ad. CGSC

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 the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-42012/ 121/95-IR (DU), dated, 26-08-% :—

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I D. No. 71/96. Whenrthc matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from mat Tribunal the case has been taken on file as I D. No. 404/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side informing them about the transfer of this case to nils Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 22-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present and prosecuted this case further.

2. The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication of this Tribunal is as follows:—

"Whether the Management of CPWD, Madras is justified in retiring Shri R. Sadasivam on 31-5-1992 at the age of 58 years? If not to what relief the employee is entitled to?"

3. The industrial dispute referred to between the

referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as a Mate in the work charged establishment of Central Public Works Department w.e.f. 02-01-1957. Subsequently, he was appointed as Work Assistant in the regular classified establishment of CPWD w.e.f. 13-2-73 against the 50% direct recruitment quota. The Work Assistants are engaged as minor supervisors/non-industrial supervisors to assist Section Officers/Junior Engineers. The Petitioner received a communication dated 10-1-92 that his age of superannuation is 58 years and therefore he would be retiring on 31-5-1992 (AN). His representation dated 26-3-92 has no effect. Therefore he filed O. A. No. 508 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that he will be entitled to continue in service till 31 -5-94 on reaching sixty years of age. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench set aside the communication dated 10-1-92 and the Petitioner was directed to make a detailed representation to the authority and a direction was given to the II Party/Management (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) to consider the representation and pass orders within a prescribed time. The petitioner accordingly made a representation on 14-10-1992. Since no orders was passed, a contempt application was filed. While so, the order was passed by the director General, CPWD New Delhi dated 15-4-95 rejecting the Petitioner's representation. Thereafter, the Petitioner raised this industrial dispute questioning his prematiired retirement The Petitioner was engaged in construction and maintenance. The work of the work Assistant is to help the Junior Engineer in his work and the predominant work of the Work Assistant is manual (highly skilled). He was helping the Junior Engineer, who was earlier designated as Overseer in survey, layout, execution road-work, building work etc. The Petitioner has to hold the chain, running of chain, making offset holding levelling staff, alignment of base line in the case of survey work. All the work done by the Petitioner as the Work Assistant to Hie Junior Engineer in the execution of road work and building work are predominantly Highly skilled manual work. Hence he has to be classified as Highly Skilled manual. The board of arbitrators to whom the dispute relating to categorization/ re-classiflcation of work charged staff and regular classified categories of CPWD was raised has passed an award dt. 31-01-1988 classifying the work assistant as highly skilled Grade-IV. It was upheld by the Delhi High Court. As such the award of the board of arbitrators lias become final. The Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal also held that the age of superannuation of a work assistant is sixty years. The Contention of the management that the categroy of work assistant is governed by FR 56a and not FR 56b is not correct. The date of birth of the Petitioner is 28-5-1934. He is therefore entitilcd to continue in service till 31-5-1994 A. N. and his.age of superannuation is sixty years. Therefore the management of CPWD is not at all justified in retiring the Petitioner with effect form 31-5-1992. He is therefore parties is briefly as follows:— .

3HH6aUoif-^3 3850 1HBQAZEriEOFINDIA:JULY28.2001/aRAVANA6,l923 H"AKTH-"EC.3(M)1 entitled to wages for2 yeans firon 1-6-1992 to 31-5-1994. Hence the Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the action of the management of CPWD, Madias in retiring Sh. R. Sadasivam, the Petitioner on 31-5-92 on the ground that his age of superannuation is 58 years is unjustified and the Petitioner Is entitled to continue his service till his sixty years ot age i.e. 31-5-1994 A.N. and for the consequential benefits.

yean. The caw of the Petitioner is totally different from

the case of Sh.Benne Prasad who was promoted as work

assistant from the post of mason in the work charge

establishment and transferred to regular classified

establishment at the fan* end of his service. The Petitioner

placed under Group 'C Class-Ill category is fully aware

that the date of mpvannuation is 31.5.92 and had all along

kept quite, enjoying all the benefits available to him in a

Gro"p 'C pott. The Petitioner had also submitted his

pension papers and got all the pensionary benefits.

Therefore the Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss this

petition as devoid of merits.

J. Whenthematterwastakenupfinallyforenquiry

on 31.5.2001 and informed this Court they have no oral or

documentary evidence to let in on the respective side. The

counsel on either side advanced their arguments.

Point:

6. In the present Industrial Dispute, the I Party

Workman/Petitioner Sh. R. Sadasivam disputes that the

action of the management of CPWD, Madras in retiring

him from service on 31.5.92 fixing his age of

ttuperannuatlon as 58 years. It is admitted that the Petitioner

originally appointed as a mate was subsequently appointed

as work assistant against 50% direct recruitment quota. It

is not disputed that the post of work assistant is a regular

classified establishment of CPWD. It Is the contention of

the Petitioner that he received a communication dt. 10.1.92

stating that the age of superannuation Is 58 years and

therefore he would be retiring on 31.5.1992 AN. As per

the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Madras Bench while disposing of the O.A. No. 508/92

filed by the Petitioner, he made a representation to the

authOritiesandtheDirectorateGeneral, CPWD, New Delhi

passed an order dt. 15.4,95 rejecting the Petitioner's

representation. That order copy has not been filed by the

Petitioner in this case. Against that decision of the

Directorate General, CPWD, New Delhi, the Petitioner has

raised this Industrial Dispute. It is the contention of the

Petitioner that the Board of arbitrators had passed an award

dt 31.1.1988 classifying the work assistant has highly

skilled Grade-IV and it was upheld by Delhi High Court

and the SLP filed by the CPWD was dismissed. As such,

the award of the board of arbitrators has become final.

Therefore the Petitioner is entitled to continue in service

in the category of work assistant till 31.5.94 AN. as his

age of superannuation is 60 years under FR 56b.

4. The second party management of CPWD, Madias

(hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) has stated in

the counter statement that the Petitioner is not entitled to

get the relief under the Industrial Dispute Act. The

Respondent would further content that consequent upon

appointment of the Petitioner as work assistant against 50%

direct recruitment quota, he automatically seized to be in

the work charge establishment except counting of the past

services for pensionary benefits and carry over of leaves.

He seized to be a workman within the ambit of FR 56b,

when he was appointed as work assistant. As defined hi

the categorization comnutteo reports, the Petitioner cannot

be categorized as technical or industrial worker of highly

skilled or semi skilled or unskilled artisans employed within

the meaning of FR 56b. Hence, the reckoned age of

superannuation of the work assistant is only 58 years. The

appointment was borne on the regular classified

establishment under Group 'C category for which the age

of retirement fixed according to para 16 of Sec. 9 of Chapter

VI of CPWD manual Vol-I and Rule 58 CCS Pension, Rules,

1972 Is 58 years and not 60 years. The benefit of 60 years

allowed hi the case of a mason who was promoted as work

assistant In the classified category by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bonchin O.A. No. 399/80

dt. 29-5-91 cannot be cited as a precedent and comparable

in this case. Because the applicant in that case was a

promotee work assistant, whereas In the present case the

Petitioner was appointed as work assistant on direct

recruitment quota. The order pronounced by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 508/

92 can be denied to the Petitioner's contontiolt The

Petitioner's retirement on attaining 58 years cannot be held

as promatured. The Director General of Works, CPWD

after perusing the orders passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 508/

92 decided that the Petitioner being a minor supervisor by

the nature of his duties could not be considered as a

workman and therefore it was not to be governed by FR

56b and his age of retirement would bo 58 years. The

Arbitration Award refers to wherein the work assistant

categorized as highly skilled Grade-IV does not refer to

the retirement age of work assistant which continues to be

53 years as it is applicable to all Group 'C employees hi

CPWD. The position regarding the retirement age has been

finally settled by the Central Administrative Tribunal of

Gauwhati Bench in O.A. No. 160/94 where it has been

laid down that the retirement age for work assistant is 58

7. The Respondent management has opposed his

contention has stated in the counter statement that the

Petitioner consequent upon his appointment as work

assistant against 50% direct recruitment quota

automatically seized to be in the work charge establishment

of CPWD and he is the workman provided appointment

on the regular classified establishment under Groups" C

category. The Petitioner has not denied about his

appointment as work assistant agtlnit 50% direct recruitment quota. That being the case, his appointment can only be a regular classified establishment in the Group *C' category for which the age of retirement fixed under Section 9 of Chapter VI of CPWD manual Vol,*I and Rule 58 CCS Pension Rules, 1972 is 58 years and not 60 years.

circumstances, 1 find nt> reason tt> disagree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent. On the basis of the material available in this case, the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief of retaining in service upto his age of 60 is acceptable. Hence it is concluded that the action of the management of CPWD, Madras is justified in retiring Sh. R. Sadasivam, the Petitioner Workman on 31 -5-92 at the age of 58 years. Hence the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief.

In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the management of CPWD, Madras is justified in retiring Sh.R.Sadasivam on 31.5.92 at the age of 58 years 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 18th June, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

On either side ; None

Documents Marked

On either side: Nil

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001

S.O. 1880.—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-ium-Labour Court, Banglore, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-7-200 \, 8, The Petitioner is relying upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench in O.A. No. 399/80 dt- 29.5.91 wherein it was held that the work, assistant even after transfer to the regular establishment virtually continue to remain part of the work charge establishment and the age of retirement he would be entitled is under FR 56b as 60. In that case, the Petitioner Sh. Benne Prasad joined CPWD as a mason In the year 1947 and has promoted as work assistant on 29,5.85, A" his date of birth was 1.7.1928, he would Attain the age of superannuation on 30.6.1986 based on FR 56a. His contention that has a workman in an Industrial or work charge establishment is governed by FR 56b and his super- annuation is 60. That was accepted by the Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal while passing orders in his application O.A. No. 399/86. The learned counsel for the Respondent would content that the cited case decided by the Delhi Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of this case. Because the present Petitioner Sh. R. Sadasivam was appointed as work assistant against 50% direct recruitment quota and he is not a promotive from the post of the mason to work assistant as the Petitioner Sh. Benne Prasad in the cited case. Since the. Petitioner has been appointed as a direct recruit, he automatically seized to be in the work charge establishment. Under such circumstances he would come under the regular classified establishment under Group 'C category for which the age of retirement is 58 years as fixed under Section 9 of Chapter VI of CPWD Manual Volume-I under Rule 58 CCS Pension Rules, 1972. This is not disputed by the Petitioner, The learned counsel for the Respondent is relied upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 160/ 94 dt. 12-6-96, a later decision on this point by on equal forum after the decision dt. 29-5-91 in O.A, No. 399/86 by CAT, New Delhi. In that Ouwahati Bench decision it is held that the retirement age of work assistant is 58 years as is applicable to all Group 'C employees in CPWD. The Supreme Court in a case reported as 1995 (2) SLJ (SC) page 199, State pf Orissa and Others Vs, Adaait Charan Mohanty has held in the age of retirement Is 58 years. Taking into consideration of Quwahati Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal decision in O.A. No. 160/94. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner placed under the Group 'C Class HI category had all along kept quite enjoying all the benefits available to him in the Group 'C post and had submitted his pension papers and got all the pensionary benefits. This has not been disputed by the Petitioner Workman. Under such

[No.L-42011/5/85-D.II(B)] KULD1PRAIVERMA, Desk Officer tt ^.-M^v,,,,,, „ , . . , ,• I-... . * . . " " >* , . .•,.. .^i>';;V\T;-:;::|BwaM

ANNEXCte

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TR1 BUNA L-HJ M-i ABOUR COURT

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2Aof the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-42011/.V85-D.II dated 24.03.1986 for adjudication on the following schedule.

"Shram Sadan"

G. G. Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560022

SCHEDULE

DATED: 20th JUNE, 2001

PRESENT : HON'BLE V. N. KULK ARNl

PRESIDING OFFICER

C. R. No. 45/87

I Party

1. A. M. Durairaju,

S/o Late Marathamuthy Residing at Thalli Village and Post, Dankanikote Taluk, Dharampuii district, Tamilnadu—635118.

2. Madhu Rao,

S/oKrishnojiRao, r/o Gadipalyan, Hosur Cattle Fanri Post, Hosur Taluk, Dharamapure Post.

"Whether the management of Central Silk Board Bangalore is justified in not regularising the services of 66 (list enclosed) Field-Cum- La'uoratory Assistants who have been working for more than 4 to 7 years as temporary employees? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

2.1 party workmen are working with the II party. The grievance of the I party union workmen is that the services of the 66 workmen are not regularised who are field-cum-laboratory assistants, and therefore the dispute is raised.

3. Workmen are represented by Union. The case of the I party Union workmen is as follows.

II Party

1. The Director

Central Silk Board, United Mansions, 2nd Floor 39, M. G. Road, BANGALORE—560001.

2. Central Silk Board, Employees Union, by its President, 17/1, 13th Cross Road, Mahalakshmipuram, (Bhovipalya), BANGALORE—86.

3. B. N. Vijakumar,

S/o K. M, Narasimhaiah, C/oN. 17/13, 13th Cross road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bhovipalya, BANGALORE—86.

Appearances

I Party : K. V. Sathyaoarayana

Advocate

4. Names of the 66 workmen is given in para 3 of the statement. It is the further case of the workmen that (hey are initially appointed as casual workers on daily wages. The activities of the management is stated in para 5 of the statement. The workmen submitted application for the post of Fleld-cum-Laboratory Assistants and they were appointed to the said post. They are in continuous appointment from the date of their appointment in 1977 onwards. They have completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The workmen are given benefits of annual Increments, etc. A lengthy statement is (lied and it is said that Juniors to these workmen arc promoted and their names are given in para 10 and they arc 148 workmen. The said 148 workmen were appointed subsequent to 2()lh March, 1978 and 66 workmen arc appointed as Fiefd-cum- Laboratory Assistants from 1977 onwards and the said 148 workmen are Juniors to these workmen. Many representations were made for promotion and other benefits. It is the further case of the I party (hat sonic of (lie workmen were directly appointed as stated in pan) 12 of the Claim Statement, As per the contentions in para 13 some of the Workmen arc appointed on adhoc biisis and they are placed according to seniority list and their names are given in para 13 of the Claim Statement.The action of the management is not proper, inspitc of the facts that all the employees are board employees distinct seniority rules arc maintained. But these workmen are not regularised from the date of their adhoc appointment. These workmen have prayed to regularise their services, as per the prayer in para 20 of the Statement.

n Party : N.S.Narasimha Swamy,

Advocate

5. It is seen from the records that in the year 1987 that tliis tribunal passed a consent Award.

.-SisS'

6. According to consent award tbc management was directed to regularise workmen on ad hoc basis and also there was direction to regularise irregular appointments of the eligible Field-Cum-Laboratory Assistants w.c.f. 9 9.87 and there was direction that the management should given protection of pay to the eligible Field-cum-Laboratory Assistants as on 9-9-87 without stopping out and seniority of eligibility from the date of regularisation i.e., 9.9.87 is to be paid. It is the further case of the I party woifcmen that the regularisation will flow to the eligible Field-cum-Laboratory Assistants from the date of regularisation i.e. 9-9-87. This contention was taken by all the 66 workmen.

New Demi, the 6th July, 2001 7. It appears that only 2 workmen A.Madhu Rao and Dorai Raju are not satisfied with the consent award saying that they are not parties to the said award. These two workmen have contended that they may be regularised from the date of adhoc appointment.

S.O. 1881.—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 Tribunat-cum-Labour Court, Jabatyur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Ordnance Depot and their workman, which was received by the Central Govetnment on 6-7-2001.

8. It is seen from the records that they also went to the High Court. These two workmen are contending that they may be regularised from the year 1980.

|No.L-14Oll/7/874>.lI(B)}

KULDEEPRAIVERMA. Desk Officer

AWffiXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/30/89

PRESIDING OFFICER.: SHRI K_ M. RAI

ShriD.P. VaktyaA

ShriJ. P. Agarwal

C/b Shri J. K. Bhattacharya Secretary Depot Kamgar Union,

9. It is clear from the records that these two workmen are also appointed on adhoc basis and they are working as Senior Field Laboratory Assistants. These two workmen have not filed any document to prove that they are entitled to regularise from the date of adhoc appointment except Ex W-l which is an Office Memorandum and according to this Senior Field-cum-Laboratory Assistant one M. L. Mahadeva was regularised ftrnn 16-7-78 who was appointed on adhoc basis and is promoted and regularised from 23- 5-78. We do not have any record to know the service conditions of said M. L. Mahadeva. The promotion is also given to Mahadeva only on adhoc basis and therefore this document will not help anything to these two woikmen. It is clear that consent award is passed. It is also clear from the records that appointments of these two workmen were also on adhoc basis. Any how the management has agreed to regularise adhoc appointment from 9-9-87 and in my opinion this will serve the purpose of regularisation.

COD, Jabahnir.

...Applicant 10. Absolutely there is no material before us to say that these two workmen are entitled for regularisation from the year 1980 and there is no merit in this reference.

VERSUS

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

order.

The Commandant,

. ..Non- Applicant

COD, Jabatpur

ORDER

AWARD

Reference is rejected

P m ed cm this 30th day of January, 2001 (Dictated to the L D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 20th June, 2001)

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-140I l/7/87-D-2(B) dated 23-1-89 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

V.N.KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

'Whether the action of ihe Management of Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur in imposing SftW

•nffiQAZ"PltieOFIM)IA:JULY28,2001/SRAVANA6,1923 ' ftirflMSfc. 3IS|" pradahtnent on Shri D. P. Vaidya and Shri J. P. Agarwal vide their oidcr dated 29-1-87 and 28-11- 86 respectively and making recovery of LTC advance granted to them by the management is justified?

2. The case for the workmen is that during the year 1983-84, the management of COD Jabalpur had started recovery of LTC Advance from their wages without conducting any enquiry and assigning any reasons in respect thereof. Their claim for LTC was rejected by the management without any reason. They had undertaken their legitimate journey and, therefore, they had submitted the bill of final payment to the management. The managements order dated 14-4-84 was challenged by the workmen before the Labour Court, Jabalpur under the Payment of Wages Act. During the pendency of the case, the management issued chargesheet to the workman and started Disciplinary Proceedings against them. On the workmen's application, the labour court permitted the management to continue with the enquiry proceedings but they were directed not to disclose the decision taken into the enquiry. The management was further directed that if the workman could not succeed in their case then the management would be free to take action as per the decision in the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings. Ultimately the Labour Court held the LTC claim of the workmen as genuine and accordingly the management's order dated 14-4-84 for the recovery of advance from the workmen's wages was declared null and void vide its order dated 17-12-85.

3. The workmen further allege that after the judgement of Labour Court the management did not pay the LTC claim and the deducted amount from their wages to them. The workman filed an application before the Labour Court, Jabalpur to prosecute the management for not compling with the order passed on 17-12-85. To escape from prosecution the management immediately deposited the lumpsum amount as directed by the court After the deposit of the amount, the management saved themselves from prosecution. In pcrsuance of the order of the Labour Court dated 17-12-85, the management cannot take any disciplinary action against the workman in respect to the recovery of LTC amount from their wages as the said order has become final.. The punishment order passed by the management in this respect is absolutely illegal.

4. The workman further contend that the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the management is in contravention of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 17-12-85. The management exceeded its jurisdiction in by passing the order of the said court. The order of the Disciplinary Authority in punishing the workmen Is nothing but the colourable exercise of power. During the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the workman Shri D. P. Vaidya of the charges. The action of the management is full of malaflde. The workmen had not been given reasonable opportunity to defend their case. The workman Shri J.P. Agarwal was not given opportunity to defend his case and the order of punishment was passed behind his back in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. The order of Disciplinary Authority is absolutely perverse. The .enquiry conducted against the workman is not just and proper. In view of all these facts, the punishment order passed by the management in recovering the LTC Advance from their wages and reducing their salary deserve to be set aside. They are entitled to the payment of all the amount due to them.

5. The management's case is that the workmen applied for LTC. Shri D. P. Vaidya drew Rs. 4040 as LTC Advance on 15-5-82 for himself and members of his family to visit Kanyakumari and preferred fraudulent LTC adjustment claim for Rs. 5500 on 20-6-82. The cash receipt from Sangam Travel, Ranjhi was filed by him. It was revealed on enquiry that no Sangam Travel Agency existed in Jabalpur town. For this fraudulent act. the Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the workman Shri D. P. Vaidya. Similarly other workman Shri J. P. Agarwal also applied for and drew Rs. 840 as LTC Advance on 15-5-82. He had also applied for LTC Advance for himself and 5 members of Ms family for visiting Kanyakumari and back by Ilnd class rail accommodation. On 19th Jar.. ?"> "•" preferred a claim of Rs, 1800. He claimed to have travelled by motorvehicle No, NLK-7641 registered in the State of Nagaland and owned by Sardar Surjeet Singh. He also filed the receipt from Sangam Travels. Ranjhi which was found to be fraudulent as no such travel agency existed at Jabalpur, For this fraudulent act, the Departmental Enquiry was also intimated against the said workman.

6. The management further alleges that during the enquiry, it was found that the workman had never undertaken any journey as claimed by them. During the Departmental Enquiry, the workman were found guilty for the misconduct of committing fraud with the management and, therefore, minor punishments of reduction of pay for 2 stages for a period of 2 years was imposed and the amount obtained fraudulently was ordered to be recovered from them. The Departmental Enquiry was conducted properly and sufficient opportunity was given to the workmen to defend their case. The punishment awarded to the workmen is perfectly legal. The authority under Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to direct payment of LTC Advance to the workmen. The order passed by the Labour Court In this connection is without jurisdiction and, therefore, it has no force of law. In view of all these facts, the workmen are no entitled to any relief as claimed by them.

7. Following issues have been framed in this case and my findings thereon are noted as under:—

1. Wheiner the Departmental/Domestic enquiry is proper and legal?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribunal?

3. Whether the charges of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case?

4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?

5. Relief and costs?

8. Issues No. 1 & 2 :

From the order sheet dated 4-1 -96, it becomes amply clear that the workmen had not disputed the legality of the Departmental Enquiry conducted against them. They have simply challenged the finding of Enquiry Officer and the quantum of punishment on the basis of perversity. In view of this fact, it is held that the enquiry was just and proper and, therefore, the management is not required to led any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct against the workmen. Issues No. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

9. IssueNoT3:

It is an admitted fact that on 15th May, 1982 (lie workmen received advance from the management for LTC. They claimed to have travelled from Jabalpur to Kanyakumari by bus of Sangam Travel Agency, Jabalpur. After return from Kanyakumari they submitted their claim which was cleared by the management. Subsequently the management alleged to have found the claim of the workmen false as they had not travelled from Jabalpur to Kanyakumari by bus of Sangam Travel Agency. According to the management no such travel agency ever existed at Jabalpur. Thereafter the management started recovering the LTC Advance from the salary of the workmen. Being aggrieved by this order, the workmen filed an application before the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Labour Court) Jabalpur for passing appropriate order and restrained the management from recovering the said amount. Theworkmens' application were registered as case No. 14/PWA/84 and 15/PWA/84 by the said court. Both die parties were given ample opportunity to led evidence in support of their case. They led evidence to prove their claim before the said court. Ultimately on 17- 12-85, the Labour Court, Jabalpur held the order of recovery of LTC amount from the workmen as illegal. It was also further held that the workman had undertaken the journey from Jabalpur to Kanyakumari by road as claimed by them. It was also further held that the Sangam Travel Agency was registered body and, therefore, the claim of the management was found to be wrong as no such travel agencey ever existed at Jabalpur. This order

3855 Annexure A was never challenged before the proper form by the management and, therefore, it attained the status of finality as held by the High Court of MP in WP No. 3928/ 87 on 17-11-97 the copy of which has been filed in this case. The High Court too has upheld order of the Labour Court passed on 17-12-85, In such a circumstance, the validity of order of Labour Court cannot be assailed at this stage in the present case.

10. The management, in utter disregard of the order passed by the Competent Authority (Labour Court). Jabalpur on 17-12-85 in case No. 14/84 and 15/84 conducted the Departmental Enquiry against the workman regarding the alleged misconduct of fraudulent claim of LTC. The Labour Court has specifically held the claim of the workman perfectly legal and proper and. therefore, the management was not justified in conducting die DE and holding the workman guilty of fraudulent claim of LTC. The order passed by the Competent Authority had attained finality and, therefore, its correctness cannot be challenged by the management by conducting the Departmental Enquiry and giving the finding contrary to it. It is against the judicial ethics. In view of this fact, the punishment awarded to the workman vide order dated 28-11-Xf> nnd 29-1-87 is absolutely illegal which cannot be subsmincd in the eye of law. The charges of misconduct remains not proved against the workman as held by the Competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act on 17-12-85. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

11. Issue No. 4 :

In view of my finding given on issue No. 3, the award of punishment given by the management against the workman on 28-11-86 and 29-1 -87 making recovery of LTC Advance and thereby reducing their pay by 2 stages for a period of 2 years is held illegal. This order deserves to be set aside, Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.

12. Issue No. 5 :

On the reasons stated above, the award of punishment dated 28-12-86 and 29-1-87 given by the management against the workmen making recovery of LTC Advance and reducing their pay by two stages is hereby set aside. The workmen should be given all the deducted amount as well as (he reduced salary be restored to its original stage within the period of 3 tnontlis from the date of award, they should also be given all consequential benefits attaching to their post. In this way, (he reference is answared in the favour of the workmen and against the management.

13. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAJ, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, OovL of India Preim, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Dclhi-110004 and Published by the Controller of Publication*, Dclhi-110054,