4650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[TART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY

FINANCE

(Department

Revenue)

Central

Board

Direct

Taxes

New Delhi, the 30th

May, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S. O. 1956.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by the sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10

of the Income-tax Act, 19*61 (43 of 1<)61), the Central

Government hereby notifies

the

"Shri Gajanan

Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon" for the purpose of

the said sab-clause for the assessment years 1997-

98 to 1999-2000 subject to the following condi-

tions, namely

: —

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or

accumulate

for application,

wholly

and

exclusively to the objects for which it is

established ;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its

funds

(other than

voluntary contributions

received

and

maintained in the form of

jewellery,

furniture

etc.) for any period

during the previous years relevant to the

assessment

years

mentioned

above

other wise than in any one or more of

the forms or modes specified in sub-section

(5) of Section 11 ;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation

to any income being profits and gains of

business, unless the business is incidental

\o the attainment of the objectives of

the

as?essee and

separate

hooks of

accounts are maintained in respect of such

business .

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return

of income before the Tneome-tax authority

in accordance with the provisions of the

Income-tax Act, 1961.

tv) that in tne event of 'dissolution, its surplus

and the assets will be given to a chari-

table organisation with similar objectivts.

[Notification No. 137/2001/F. No. 197/27/2001

LTA-l]

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

(INCOME

TAX)

S. O. 1957.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by the sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section

of the lncforne-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central

Government hereby notifies the "Institution

4°

Dharamsthala,

Karnataka"

for the

purpose

the said sub-clause for the assessment years 2000-

2001 t o

2002-2003 subject

to the

following

conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will

apply

its income,

accumulate

for

application,

wholly

and.

exclusively -o thj objects for which it is

established ;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its

funds (other than voluntary contributions

received and maintained in the form of

jewellery,

furniture

etc.)

for any period

during the previous yv,ars relevant to the

assessment years mentioned

above other-

wise than in any one or more of the forms

modes specified in

sub-section (5) of

Section 11 ;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation

to any income being profits and gains of

business, unless the business is incidental

to the attainment of the objectives of the

assessee and separate

books of acounts

are

maintained

respect

such

business.

(iv) the asses^e will regularly file its return

of income before the Tncome-tax authority

in accordance with the provisions of the

Income-tax

Act,

1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus

and the asse$ts will be given to a chari-

table organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 197/200I/F. No. 197/106/

2Q00-ITA-1]

MRS. PROM1LA BHARDWAJ, Director (TTA-1)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

(INCOME

TAX)

J>. O. 1958.—In partial modification of noti-

fication No. 220? dated 1st March," i,9,7#' issued,

from

File

Mo. 176/129/77-ITA-I in the

words

'Margao, Goa' be rcpajced wil,h

words 'Veling

Mardol, Goa-403404' and the words 'Union Territory,

of Gca' be repalced by the words 'State of Goa'.

Other contents of the notification shall remain

unchanged.

[Notification No. 212/2Q0L/F. No. 17)5/11/

£2001-if A-1]

MRS. PROMILA BHARDWAJ,Dirccior HTA-1]

(Narcotics Control Division)

(Legal Cell)

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2001

S.O. 1959.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) ot section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), read with section 36C

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrdpic Substances

Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Cerrtral Government

hereby appoints Shri A. P. Desai, Advocate,

Special Public F'rosecutor for purpose' of conducting

cases of Narcotics Control Bureau 01 behalf of the

Central Government under the Narcotic Drugs

and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the counts ' at

Ahmedabad, for a period of three years or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

•

[

—

(

)

Povided that Sbri A. P. Desai shall not appear as

ai defence counsel an behalf of any accused booked

by the Central or a State Government, for any offence

under the Narcotic Drugs and¹ Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985, during the said period of three years.

[F. No. IV|2j200l-NCD(Legal)l

S. KUMAR, Dy. Legal Adviser

New Delhi, the 3U July, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S. O. J960.—In exercise of

the powers con-

ferred by clause (23) of section 10 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Govern-

ment hereby notifies

the

"Chandigarli

Lawn

Tennis Association, Chandigarh" for tho purpose

of the said clause Tor assessment years 1994-95

1996-97 subject to the following conditions

namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its income,

accumulate it for application, in conso-

nance with the provisions of sub-stction (2)

and (3) of Section 11 as modified by the

said

clause

(23) for such accumulation

wholly and exclusively to the objects for

which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit

its funds (other than voluntary contri-

butions received and maintainod in the

form of jewellery, furniture or any other

article as may be notified by the Board

under the third provision to the aforesaid

clause (23) for any period during the previous

years relevant to the assessnerat years

mentioned above otherwise than in any

one or more of the forms or

modes)

specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assossee will not distribute any part

of its income in any manner to its members

except as grants to any association or

institution affiliated to it; and

(iv) this notification will not apply in rolation

to any income, being profits and

gains

of business, unless the business is inci-

dcntial

tho

attainments

the

objectives of the assessee and separate

books of accounts

are

maintained in

respect of such business.

[Notification No. 223/2001/F. No. 196/2/2000-

ITA-1

MRS. PROMILA BHARDWAJ, Director (TTA-T)

4053

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

(Rural Planning and Credit Department)

(Central Office)

Mumbai, the 14th July, 2001

S.O. 1961.—In eexercisc of the powers conferred by sub-

section (7) of Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934 (2 of 1934), the Reserve Bank of India hereby exempts

nil Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional

Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976} from the provisions of

the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Reserve

flank of India Act, 1934 for a further period of one ycai

from 01 January, 2001 to 31st December. 2001 only.

[RPCD No. RF-03/07.02.05/2001-20021

MOHAMMAD TAHIR, Executive Director

Mumbai, the 14th July, 2001

SO. 1962.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (7) of Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

(Act No. 2 of 1934), the Reserve Bank of India hereby exempts

all Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional

Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976) from trie provisions of

sub-section (1A) of Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India

Act 1934 foi a period of one year from 01 January, 2001 to

31st December, 2001 only.

[RPCD No. RF-04/07.02.05/2001-20021

MOHAMMAD TAIIIR, Executive Director

Mumbai, the 14th July, 2001

S.O. 1963.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

jection (7) of Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

(2 of 1934) the Reserve Bank of, India

heieby

exempts

all State Co-operative Banks which are included in the Second

Schedule to the Act from the proviso to sub-section (1) of

Section 42 of the

Recsrve Bank of Tndia Act, 1934 for a

further

period

one year

from Ot January,

2001 to

31st December, 2001 only.

[RPCD No. RF-06/07.02.05/2001-20021

MOHAMMAD TAHIR, Executive Director

Mumbai, the 14th July, 2001

S.O. 1964.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (7) oE Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

(2 of 1934),

tlie

Reserve Bank of India

hereby exempts

all State Co-operative Banks which are included in the Second

Schedule to the Act from the provisions of sub-section (1A)

of Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. 1934 for n

further period of one year from

January,

2001

31st December, 2001 only.

[RPCD No. RF-07/O7.O2.05/20O1-20021

MOHAMMAD TAHIR, Executive Director

4054

Ttffi GAZETTE OF INDtA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART ll—SEC. 3(ii)]

Qipartmen¹ of Economic Affairs

(Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2001

S.O-1965.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (e) of sub-section 1 of Section 6 of the

National Pausing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the

Central ^Qovarninent hereby appoints the following

persons as directors of National Housing Bank

with immediate effect and until further orders :—

(i) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay,

Secretary to the Government of Tndia,

Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty

Aljeviation,

New Delhi.

(ii) Shri Satish Chandra,

Joint Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Rural Development,

Department of Rural Development,

Now Delhi.

(iii) Shri Shskhar Agarwal,

Joint Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs.

(Banking Division),

New Delhi.

[F. No. 7/15/2000-B.O.-1.]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD

AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2001

S.0.1966.-In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule

10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose

of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government

hereby notifies the following office of Food Corpora-

tion of India under the administrative control of the

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distri-

bution (Deptt.

of Food & Public Distribution),

where of more than 80% of staff have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi :

Food Corporation of India,

District Office,

Mandr" (Himachal Pradesh).

[No.E-11011/l/200l-Hindi]

RAJNI RAZDAN, Jt. Secy.

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 301h July, 2001

S.O. 1907.—Jr. exercise of the powers conferred by «ub-

secuon (1) of Section 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Act, 1986 (63 of 1986), the Central Government hereby

appoints Shri K. M. Sahni, IAS (AGMUT:69), as Director-

Geneial, Bureau of Jndmn Standards in the pay scale of

Rs. 22,400-525-24,500, wilh immediate effect for a period of

three yeru.s or until further orders, whichever event occurs

earlier.

[F. No. 2/3/20Q0-BIS1

DJESH BANDHU, Under Secy.

4055

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2001

S. O. 1968.—Whereas on the publication of

the notification of the Government of India in the

Ministry of Coal number S. O, 375, dated the 12th

February, 2001 ih Part II, Section 3, Sub-section

(ii) of the Gazette of

Tndia,

dated the 2'4th

February, 2001, issued under Su(?-<fcct1on (I) of

Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition

and Development) Act,

1957

(20

1957)

(hereinafter referred to as tho said Act), the rights

in or over the land described in tho Schedule

appended to the said notification vested absolutely

in the

Central

Government

freo

from

all

encumbrances under Sub-section (I) of Section 10

of the said Act ;

And • whereas the

Central

Government is

satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), a Government Company,

(hereinafter

referred

to as the Company), is

willing to comply with such terms and conditions

as the Central Government thinks fit to impose

in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exorcise of tho powers con-

ferred by Sub-section (I) of Section II of the said

Act, the Central Government hereby directs that

the rights in or over the land, so vested, shall, with

cficct from the 24th February,

2001 instead

of continuing to so vest in the Central Government,

vest in the said Company, subject to the following

terms and conditions namely :—

(1) the sard Company shall reimburse

the

Central Government all payments made

in respect

compensation,

interest,

damzges and the like, as determined under

the provisions of the said Act ;

4056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) a tribunal shall

be constituted for the

purpose

determining

the

amounts

payable to the Central Government by the

said Company under condition (1), and all

expenditure incurred in connection with

any such tiibunal and persons appointed

to assist the tribunal shall be borno by

the said

Company

and

similarly,

all

expenditure incurred in

respect

all

legal proceedings like appeals etc., for or

in over the said lands so vesting shall also

bo borne by the said Company ;

(3) the said Company shall indemnify the Central

Government

' its

official

against

any other

expenditure

that

may

nocessary in connection with any pro-

ceedings by or

against

the

Central

Government or its official regarding the

rights in or

over the

said lands

vesting ;

(4) the said Company shall have no power to

transfer the said lands to any other person

without the previous approval

of the

Central Government; and

(5) the said Company shall abide

by such

directions and

rond'tiens as

may bo

given or Imposed by the Central Govern-

ment for particular areas of the said lands

as and when necossary.

[NO.43015/13/98-PRIW

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

40#^A

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2001

S.O. 1969.—Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of

Mines and

Minerals, Department of Coal number S.O. 3557 dated 29th November, 1999, published in the Gazette of India

dated 11th December, 1999 under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Develop,

ment) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands in the locality

specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the

Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Govern-

ment of Madhya Pradesh is satisfied that :

(a) the lands measuring 64.073 hectares (approximately) or 158.32 acres

(approximately) as described In

the Schedtile 'A' appended hereto; and

(b) the rights to mine quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands

measuring 1074.436 hectares (approximately) or 2654.93 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule

'B' appended hereto should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that—

(a) the lands measuring 64.073 hectares (approximately) or 158.32

acres (approximately) as described in

the Schedule 'A' and

(b) the rights to mine quarry, bore, dig ami ^earch-for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands

measuring 1074.436 hectares (approximately) or 2654.93 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule

'B' are hereby acquired.

The Plan bearing No. SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/Land/246 dated the 28th February, 2001"of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Shahdol (Madhya Pradejh) or in the Office of

the Coal. Controller 1,

Council House Street, Calcutta or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Section) Seepat Road Bilaspur—495 006 (Chhattisgarh).

SCHEDULE 'A'

AM AD AND BLOCK-I

SOHAGPUR COALFIELDS -

DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

ALL RIGHTS.

No.

Name of Village

Majhauli

Patwari Halka

Number

Tahsil

Kbtma

District

Shahdol'

Area in

hectares

64 .'©7-3

Rematks'

PaVt -

TOTAL : 64.073 Hectares (approximately) OR 158.32 Acres (Approximately)

Khasra numbers acquired in village Majhauli (Part) :

158 (Part), 159, 160, 163, 181 to 194, 195 (Part), 200 (Part), 201 to 229, 230 (Part),

231 to 248, 250 (Paft), 251

(Part) 252 to 258, 262 (Part) 287 (Part), 296 (Part) 297 to 344, 348 (Part) 349,350, 351, 352 (Part), 354 (Part).

4060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1523

[PART II~$£c. 3(n)j

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

I —J

J —K

K —Kl

Kl—I

Lines starts from point 'I' on the common boundary for villages Majhauli—Kubaka

and passes in village Majhauli through Khasra Numbers 200, 195, then western boun-

dary of khasra numbers 181, 182, 186, 163, 160 through khasra numbers 158, 230,

western boundary of khasra number 248, through khasra numbers 250, 262, 251,

along the western boundary of khasra numbers 256, 257, 258, 298, through khasra

numbers 296, 287, 352, 354 and meets at point 'J'.

Line passes in village Majhauli through Khasra numbers 354, 348, along the southern

boundary of khasra numbers 339 341, 342, 343, 344 and meet at point'K .

Line passes along the common boundary of villages Majhauli—Nimha and mee'.s at

point'KT.

Line passes along the common boundary of village Majhauli—Kuhaka and meets at the

starting point T.

SCHEDULE 'B'

AMADAND BLOCK-I

SOHAGPUR COALFIELDS

DISTRICT—SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

MINING RIGHTS :

SI.

No.

Name of Village

Oora

Payari

Sohibelha

Majhauli

Dhanauli

Patwari Halka

Number

Tahsil

Kotma

District

Shahdol

Area in

Hectares

33.868

114.969

291.361

269.364

364.874

Remarks

Part

Full

TOTAL : 1074,436 hectares (approximately) OR 2654.93 acres approximately.

Khasra numbers acquired in Village Oora (Part) :

975 (Part), 980 (Part), 981, 982 (Part), 983 to 992, 993 (Part), 994 (Part), 995 (Part), 996, 997, 998 (Part), 999,

1000 (Part), 1001 (Part), 1002 (Part), 1003 (Part), 1005 (Part), 1011 (Part), 1031 (Part), 1032 (Part), 1033, 1034 (Part),

1035 to 1043,1044 (Part), 1051 (Part), 1052 (Part), 1053 (Part), 1054.

Khasra numbers acquired in village Payari (Part) :

1076 (Part), 1077 (Part), 1078 (Part), 1079 (Part), 1080,1081, 1082 (Part), 1083 (Part), 1084 (Part), 1105 (Part),

1143 (Part), 1144, 1145 (Part), 1146 to 1158, 1159 (Part), 1160 (Part), 1161 (Part), 1178 (Part), 1179 to 1192, 1193

(Part), 1194 to 1199, 1200 (Part), 1201 (Part), 1207 (Parr), 1243 (Part), 1244 (Part),!245 to 1250, 1251 (Part), 1407

(Part), 1408 (Part), 1409 (Part), 1410 (Part), 1411 (Part), 1515 (Part), 1518 (Part), 1519 (Part), 1520 to 1530, 1531

(Part), 1532 (Part), 1540 (Part), 1541 (Part), 1542 (Part), 1543 (Part), 1544 to 1556, 1557 (Part), 1558 to 1581, 1582

(Part), 1587 (Part), 1588 (Part), 1589 (Part), 1590 to 1613, 1614 (Part), 1615 to 1632, 1633 (Part), 2010 (Part), 2011

(Part), 2012 to 2038, 1150/2092, 1181/2093, 1184/2094, 1250/2096, 1251/2098, 1251/2099 (Part), 1251/2100 (Part).

Khasra numbers acquired in village Sohibelha (Part) :

40 (Part), 41, 42 (Part), 43 (Part), 44 (Part), 52 (Part), 53 to 69, 70 (Part), 71 to 76, 77 (Part), 78 (Part), 84

(Part), 145 (Part), 146 (Part), 149 (Part), 150 to 168, 169 (Part), 170 (Part), 171 (Part), 179 (Part), 562 (Part), 563

(Part), 566(Par), 567 to 570, 571 (Part), 572 (Part), 573 to 618, 619 (Part), 620 to 622, 623 (Part), 624 (Part), 625

(Part), 647 (Part), 654 (Part), 655 to 662, 663 (Part), 664 (Part), 667 (Part), 668 (Part), 669 (Part), 670 (Part), 671

(Part), 672 (Part), 673 to 711, 712 (Part), 713 (Part), 714 to 890, 891 (Part), 892 (Part), 893 (Part), 894 to 900, 901

ftPart), 902 (Part), 903 to 1038.

406 i

Khasra numbers acquired in village Majhauli (Part) :

1 to 157, 158 (Part), 161, 162, 164 to 180, 195 (Part), 196 to 199, 200 (Part), 230 (Part), 249, 250 (Part), 251

(Part), 259 to 261, 262 (Part), 263 to 286, 287 (Part), 288 to 295, 296 (Part), 345 to 347, 348 (Part), 352 (Part), 353,

354 (Part), 355 to 424.

Khasra numbers acquired in village Dhauauli (Full)

1 to 285, 148/286, 106/287, 15/2SS.

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

A —B

• • -

•

B —C

C —D

D —E

E — F — G — H—I

I —J

J —K

K—L —M—N

N — O ^ A

Line starts from point 'A' in village Sohibelha through khasra numbers 562, 563, 566

619, 625, 624, 623, 647, 902, 901, 893, 892, 891, 654, 663, 664, 663, 668, 667, 669, 670

671,672,712, 713,179,171,170,169,145,146, 149,77, 78,70,84,40 and meets at

point 'B'.

Line passes through khasra numbers 44, 43, 42, 52 of village Sohibelha and meets at

point 'C\

Line passes along the northern boundary of village Dhanauli and meets at point 'D'.

Line passes in village Oora through khasra numbers 980, 982, 975, 1005, 1003 1002

1001, 1000, 995, 994, 993, 1011, 1034, 1032, 1031, 1044, 1052, 1053, 1051 and meet at'

point 'E'.

Line passes along the common boundary of "villages Oora—Khodri, Oora—Kuhaka,

Dhanauli-—Kuhaka, Majhauli—Kuhaka and meets at point 'I'.

Line passes as described in All Rights boundary and meets at point T.

Line passes as described in All rights boundary and meets at point 'K\

Line passes along the common boundary of villages Majhauli—Nimha, Payari—Nimha,

Payari—Bhad and meets at point 'N'.

Line passes in village Payari through Khasra numbers 2011, 2010, 1633, 1687, 1588 1589

1582, 1557, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1551, 1532, 1515, 1519, 1518, 1411, 1410*1409'

1408, 1407, 1614,2100,2099, 1251, 1244, 1243, 1207, 1201, 1200, 1178, 1159, 1160

1161, 1143, 1145, 1105, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1079, 1078, 1077, 1076, then enter in 'village

Sohibelha and passes through Khasra numbers 572, 571, 562 and meets at the starting

point 'A'.

[No. 43015/15/98-PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

4063

„,——'

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other docu-

ments referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Hcad of the Department

(Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, SeepatRoad, Bilaspur—495 006 (Chhattisgarh), within ninety c|f\s

from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

KHAIRAHA BLOCK

SOHAGPUR AREA

DTSTRICT-SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

Plan No. SECL/BSP/GM(Plg)/Land 249

Dated 23rd April, 2001 (showing the land for

prospecting)

SI,

~f<

, Name of Village

Khairaha

Kbannatb

Kandoha

Bodri

Antariya

Chhirihiti

Pipariya

Patwari

Halka

Number

Tahsil

Sohagpur

Sobagpur

DTAL : 2364.718 hectares (approximately) OR 5843.:

Distiict

Shahdol

Shabdol

Shahdol

Area in hectares

370.000

423.683

125.125

960.135

185.000

220.775

80.000

12 acres (approximately)

Remarks

Part

Full

Part

Boundary Description

A—B

B—C

C—D

D—A

Lino starts from point 'A' in village Bodri and passes along the partly Western Bounday,

then Northern boundary of villages Bodri, Khannath and meets at point 'B\

Lines passes through villages Khannath, Chhirihiti and meets at ["point *C\

Line passes partly along the Eastern boundary of village Chhirihiti and meets at point

'D'.

Lines passes along the Southern boundary of village Chhirihiti then through villages Kan-

doha, Khairaha, Piparia, Antariya, then along the Southern boundary of village'Bodri

and meets at the starting point 'A',

[NO.43015/8/2001/PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy, Secy.

4066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST l l . 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And whereas the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Govern-

ment of Madhya Pradesh is satisfied that;

(a) the lands measuring 61.428 hectares (approximately) or 151.78 acres (approximately) as described in

the schedule 'A' appended hereto, and

(b) the rights in the lands measuring 42.178 hectares (approximately) or 104.22 acres (approximately) des-

cribed in the schedule 'B' appended hereto should be acquired;

Now, thercforcv in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that—

(a) the lands measuring 61.428 hectares (approximately) or 151.78 acres (approximately) as described in the

Schedule 'A', and

(b) the right in the lands measuring 42.178 hectares (approximately) or 104.22 acres (approximately) as

described in the Schedule 'B' are hereby acquired

The Plan bearing No:SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/Land/245 dated the 11th January, 2001 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) or in the Office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue

Section) Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh). ,

SCHEDULE-'A'

BAKHI PROJECT

SOHAGPUR AREA

DISTRICT

SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

ALL RIGHTS

SI.

No.

Name of Village

Bakhi

Patwari

Halka

Number

Tahsil

Anuppur

District

Shahdol

Area in hectares

61.428

Rerrtarks

Part

TOTAL : 61.428 Hectares (appioximately) OR 151.78 Acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers acquired in village Bakhi (Part)

1560, 1561, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566 (Part), 1568, 1574 (Part), 1575 to 1594, 1621 to 1631, 1632 (Part), 1641 (Part).

1662 to 1711, 1590/1724.

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

A—B

B—C

C—D—E

E—F—A

Line start from point 'A' in village Bakhi and passes along the northern boundary of plot

numbers- 1663, Western boundary of plot numbers 1664, 1665, through plot number 1641,

Western boundary of plot number 1641, then through plot number 1632 Western bound-

ary of plot numbers 1632, 1621, 1623, 1589, 1592, 1593, 1594, through plot number 1574,

Western boundary of plot number 1568 and meet at point 'B'.

Line passes along northern boundaiy of plot numbers 1568, 1574, through plot number

1566, then northern boundary of plot number 1564 and meet at point 'C\

Line passes along the eastern boundary of plot numbers 1564, 1563, northern boundary

of plot numbers 1561, 1560, 1585 and Eastern boundary of plot number 1585 and meet

at point 'E'.

Line passes along the Southern boundary of plot numbers 1585, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704,

1705, ,1711, Eastern boundary of plot numbers 1710, 1679, Southern boundary of plot

number 1679, Western boundary of plot number 1679, Southern boundary of plot numbers

1663, 1662, 1663, Western boundry of plot number 1663 of village Bakhi and meetatthc

starting point 'A'.

4067

SCHEDULE—'B'

BAKHI PROJECT

SOHAGPUR AREA

DISTRICT—SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

MINING RIGHTS

SI.

Name of Village

Bakhi

Patwari

Halka

Number

Tahsil

Anuppur

District

Shahdol

Area in Hectares

42.178

Remarks

Part

TOTAL : 42.178 Hectres (approximately) OR 104.22 Acres (approximately)

1 Plot numbers acquired in Village Bakhi (Part)

1179to 1181, 1184 to 1187, 1190, 1191(Part), 1192(Part), 1193(Part), 1194, 1195 (Part), 1199(Part), 1201/(Parl),

1202 to 1207, 1208 (Part), 1209 (Part), 1210 (Part), 1295 (Part), 1296 (Part), 1297 (Part), 1298, 1299 (Part), 1300

(Part), 1302 (Part), 1303 (Part), 1305 (Part), 1308 (Part), 1321 (Part), 1322, 1444 (Part), 1445 to 1467, 1468 (Pan),

1469, 1470, 1471 (Part), 1473 (Part), 1474 to 1537, 1566 (Part), 1567, 1569 to 1573, 1574 (Part), 1595 to 1620,

1632 (Part), 1633 to 1637, 1639, 1640, 1641 (Part), 1445/1722, 1530/1723, 1605/1730

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

A—B

B—C

C—Cl

Cl—C2

C2—A

Line start from point 'A' in village Bakhi and passes as described in AH right area boundary

and meets at point 'B'

Line passes along as described in a," right area boundary and meets at point 'C'~

Line passes ajong the eastern boundary of plot numbers 1535, 1536; 1357, 1528, 1526,

1525, 1524, 1179, 1181, 1184, 1187, 1190, 119] and meets at poir.t 'Cl'

Line passes through plot numbers 1191, 1192, 1193, 1195, 1199, 120], 1209, 1208, 1210,

1296, 1295. 1297, 1299. 1300, 1302, 1303, 1305, 1308, 1321, 1473, 1471, 1468, 1444, and

meets at point 'C2\

Lines passes along the Western boundary of plot numbeis 1444, 1446, 1570, 1571, 1730,

1637, 1610, 1636, 1635, 1634, 1633, 1641, then Southern Boundary of plot number 1641,

and meet at the starting point 'A',

[No,43015/l1/98-PRIWJ

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

•

[

—

(

)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2001

S. O. 197?.—Whereas

on the publication of

the notification of the Government of India in

the Ministry of Energy, (Department of Coal)

number S. O. 222 dated the 14th January 1986,

for an area of 1350.00 acres (approx.) or 546.32

hectares (approx.),

issued under

Sub-section (i)

of Section 9 of the Coal Beating Areas (Acquisition

and Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) and

published in the Gazette of India dated the

25th January, 1986, the land described in the said

schedule

appended to the

notification

vested

absolutely in the Central Government free from

all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section

10 of ihe said Act.

And

whereas

the Central

Government is

satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi,

a Government Company, (hereinafter referred io

as the said company is willing to comply with such

terms and conditions as the Central Government

thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the poewers con-

ferred by sub-section (i) of Section 11 of the said

Act, the Central Government hereby directs that

the lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from

the 25th January, 1986 instead of continuing to

so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in

the said company, subject io the following term

and conditions namely :—

(1) The said Company, shall

reimburse the

Central Government all payments made in

respect of compensation, interest, damages

etc., as determined under the provisions

of the said Act.

(2) A tribunal shall be constituted for the

purpose

determining

the

amounts

payable to the Central Government by

the said company under conditions (1)

and all persons appointed to assist the

Tribunal shall be borne by the

said

company, and, similarly, all expenditure

incurred in respect of all legal proceed-

ings like appeals, etc., for or in connection

with the rights in or over the lands, so

vesting, shall also be borne by the said

Company.

(3) The

said Company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its ofiicials against

^any other

expenditure

that

may be

necessary in connection with any proceed-

ings by or rights or in over the lands so

vesting.

(4) The said Company, shall have no powers

to transfer

the lands specified

in the

schedule to the said notifications to any

other

person

without

the

approval of the Central Government.

(5) The said Company shall abide by such

directions and conditions, as may be given

or imposed ,by the Central Government

for particular areas, as and when necessary.

[ No. 19/33/83/CL/CA/PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

40^70

J H E GAZETTE OF INDIA. AUGUST li, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

tPAiu ft—SFC 3(ii)]

ment hereby nwkcs the following amendment in

the notification of Go\ eminent of India in the then

Ministry of Health number SO. 138, dated the 9th

January, 1960, namely —

In the said Notification, under tbc heading, 'Elect-

ed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3',

the following serial njmbers and the names of the

Universities shall be omitted : —

'8. Andhra University

12. Osmama University

20. Mysore University

28. Punjabi Univeisity

41. Bangalore University

45 Guru Nanak Dev University

57 Nagarajuna University

60. Mangalore University

62. Bharthidasan UniversitV

[No. V-llon/l/2000-ME(UG)]

P.G. KALADHARAN, Under Sscy.

Note :—The Principal notification was published

in the Gazette of India vide S.O. mimoer 138, dated

9th January, 1960.

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2001

S.O.I975—Tn exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (b) sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Den-

tists Act 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government,

after consulting the Dental Council of India, hereby

makes the following further amendment in Part-Ill

of the Schedule to tht said Act namely • —

In Part-ITI of the said Schedule after serial number

79 and the entries relating thereto, the following

serial number and entries will be added namely •—

80. Smolensk

State Medical

Academy, Russia

Five > cars dip-

loma in Medi-

cine (Stomato-

logy)

The aoove qua-

lified ion will be

A recognized

dental qualifica-

tion when grant-

ed on or after

26-6-97.

Diploma in Me-

dicine (Stoma-

tology),

Smolensk State

Medical

Aca-

demy, Russia.

[No.V-12018/2/2000-PMS]

S. K. RAO, Director (ME)

4071

MTTSfTSTRY OF CTVTL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2001

S.O.I976.—Tn supersession of Notification No.

E-11011/8/96-Hindi dated 6-12-1997 under which

offices of Corporate & Operation of Alliance Air

had been notified.

Further, it is intimated that

Corporate office and Operational office of Alliance

Air are clubbed as Alliance Air Head Quarter. Ac-

cordingly, in pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use fo.r the Official Pur-

poses of the Union) Rule, 1976 the Central Govern-

ment, hereby notifies Alliance Air, Domestic Arrival

Hall, 1st Floor, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi of Ministry of Civil Aviation, where of,

more than 80% staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E.-llOli/Ol/2000-Hindi]

C. B. NARNAULI, Director (OL)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2001

S.O-1977.—In

pursuance of sub-section

1 of

section 36 of the Indian ElectriciLy Act, 1910 (9 of

1910), the Central Government is pleased to nominate

Shri A. Vfrfgbese, Chief Engineer, Central Electricity

Authority (CEA) as Electrical Inspector (CEA w.e.f.

11-6-2001 vice Shrj S. Santhanam who has since

retired on superannuation as Cbier Engineer and

Electrical Inspector, CEA.

[F. No. 42/4/200l-R&R]

AJAY SHANKAR, Jt. Secy.

MINISTRY OF STEEt

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2001

S.O. 1978.--In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for official puroose of the Union)

Rules, 1976 (as emended, 1987) the Central Government

hereby notifies the Steel Authority of India Limited, Raw

Materinl Division, Industry

House,

10,

Camac

Street,

Kolkata-7.00017 under the administrative control of Ministry

of Steel, where more than 80 per cent staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-I1011/6/20O1-HINDI]

ANITA PARVEEN, Dy. Secy.

4072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST ]1, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY

ALLEVIATION

(Delhi Division)

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2001

S.O. 1979.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (1), read with clause (g) of sub-section (3), of Section 3

of thp Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957), the Cen-

tral Government hereby nominates Shri K. T. Gurumukhi,

Additional Chief Planner who is holding the charge of the

post of Chief Planner in the Town & Country PlanninR

Organisation, as Member of Delhi Development Authority

vice D. S. Mcshram and makes the following amendments

in the notification of the Government of India, Ministry

of Health No. 12-173/57-LSG dated 30-12-1957. namely:—

"Tn item No. 10(A), for the entry "Shri D. S. Meshram,

Chief Planner, Town & Country Planninfl Organi-

zation", the following entry

shall be substituted,

namely, "Shri K. T. Gurumukhi. Additional Chief

Planner, Town & Country Planninfi Organization."

[No. K-l 1011/20'/97-DDIA1

V. K. MTSRA. Under Secy.

(Directorate

Estates)

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2001

S. O. 19S0.—in exercise

of the

powers con-

ferred by section 3 of the Public

Premises (Eviction

of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of

1971), the Central

Government hereby appoints

the officers mentioned in

column (1) of the Table

below, being Gazetted officers

Government,

to be estate officers

for the purposes of the said

Act, who shall exercise

the powers conferred,

and perform the duties

imposed on the estate

officers by or under the said Act

within the local

limits of their respective

jurisdiction in respect

of the public premises specified

in column (2) of

the said Table.

TABLE

Designation of the officers

(1)

1. Executive Engineer,

Kanpur Central Divi-

sion, Central Public

Works Department,

Kanpur

2. Assistant Engineer,

Kanpur Central Sub-

Division 11, Kanpur

Category of Public Pre-

mises and local limits

of jurisdiction

(2)

All General Pool accom-

modation owned

controlled by

Control

Government at Kanpur

All General Pool accom-

modation owned

controlled

Central

Government at Kanpur

[File No. 21012/2/99-Pol. I]

DARSHAN LAL, Deputy Director of Estate

4076

THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:AUGUST11,2001SARVANA20,1923

[PART II—SEC, 3(ii)]

Schedule-

District: Surat

Name of Taluka

Name of Village

Survey/Block

No.

Chourasi

Suvali

498

446

Mora

230

233

231

148

263

150

151

157

158

163

174

171

170

169

168

174

Sub-Division

no.

A/P

-A

A/P

State : Gujarat

Area

Are

31 .

Centiare

[File No. L, 14014/4/99 GP (Part-m)]

SWAMI SINGH, Director

till

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001

S.O. 1982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra] Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Calcutta as shown in the

Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of National Insurance Co, Ltd.

kind their workman, which was reccired by the Central

Government on 12-7-2001.

[No. L-17012|36|95-IR(B-n)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 10 of 1W7

PARTIES:

Employers In relation to the management of National

Insurance Company Limited.

AND

Their workman

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Bharat Proud Shnraa. Preiidlng Officer. '

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management: Mr. D. K Ghosh, Advocate

with Mr. R. Do, Advocate.

On behalf of Workman: Mr, R. K. De, Advocate with

Mi. M. Sarkar, Advocate.

STATE: West Bengal

INDUSTRY: Insurance

AWARD

BY Order No. L-I70I2/36/95-IR(B-ID dated 04-03-1997

the Centra] Government in exercise of its powors under

•cction 10(l)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of

Sh, Prabir Kr, Dhar. Ex-pump operator on and

from 20-8-1992 without following the provisions of

Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 1947 is justified ? If

not, to what relief is the said workman entitled ?"

2. The present reference has been initiated on the dispute

raised by the workman. Shri Prabir Kumar Dhar r<5<?ardinn

his termination of service by tht National Insurance Co. Ltd.

fin short the Company) )n improper and illegal manner with-

out following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 on 20th August, 1992. According to the

caw of the workman he wa» engaged alongwith five others

2347_GI[2001— 5.

by the Company for supplying water by running the pumps

at the building'known as Royal Insurance Building at Netaii

Subhas Road, Calcutta. There are several Offices in the build-

ing and huge number of employees work in the building.

Because of shortage of,water fp the building, the said work-

man alongwith five others were engaged to operate the pumps.

The workmen were required to maintain the pumps by check-

ing it from time to time and the electrical Installations were

checked by one Ranjit Kr. Dey, Electrician or temporary

electrician Sanjay Kr. Dey. He also named the other five

operators, including one Supervisor cum Assistant. According

to him salaries were beinij paid to these workmen by the

Company on monthly basis through one Pranab Kr. Dhar

who used to draw lumpsum amount from the Company by

A/c Payee cheques and disbursed the cash to these workmen.

The workman concerned and others also used to sign the

in token of receipt of the

salaries.

Attendance

Dhar. It is stated that the Company did not engage any

contractor in terms of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, but Pranab Kr. Dhar was engaged ,as middle-

man for recruit and appoint workmen to avoid various pro-

visions of laws, rules and regulations, which according to

the workman was unconstitutional and an instance of unfair

labour practice. No tender was invited for engaging any

contractor, nor the contractor was appointed, but the work-

man concerned and the others were engaged for doing th«

work for the Company and therefore they should have been

Heated as direct employees of the Company. Accordingly, it

has been asserted on behalf of the workman that he happens

to be a workman under the definition of Section 2 of the

Industrial Disputes Act and he also claimed that he should

be treated as a workman in terms of Section 25B of the

said Act. According" to him some permanent employees were

also engaged temporarily in similar manner but their services

were later regularised, but so far as the case of the con-

cerned workman was concerned, it was not regularised by

the Company inspite of prayers According to him the work

was of perennial nature and he had worked for a pretty long

time, therefore, his sudden removal was illegal and it should

be struck down and the workman should be ordered to be

reinstated with consequential benefits.

3, The Company also filed written statement stating therein

that first of all the reference itself is not maintainable for

the reason that there does not v exist any relationship of em-

ployer and employee between ttie Company and the concerned

workman. It has further been itated that the statements made

by the workman in his statement of claims are all incorrect

and concocted. It has been denied that the said workman

was ever engaged by the Company for operatinR water

electric pump and other related jobs. It has been stated that

so far as the water supply and related jobs are concerned,

t h e are" personnel employed by the Company and so far

u the requirements qf checking of motors and pumps are

concerned, there are specified personnel to look after the

same. Similarly, the checking of electrical installations and

supply lines aie nlso done by the personnel of the Company.

It has further

been itated that the workman concerned

happened to be an employee of M/s. Pranab Kr. Dhar who

w«? an agent and the workman has incorrectly claimed htm-

Bctf nr, errmlovpe of the Company. Therefore, it h»« Vm^n

Mtegorlcally denied that he was ever engaged by the National

Insurance Co Ltd. It has been denied that the Company

either appointed the said workman or controlled and super-

vised his work and the Company also did not make any pay-

ment to him and no attendance register was ever maintained

by the Company in so far as the concerned workman and

other persons are concerned. Accordingly, all the allegations

mads in the statement of claims have been denied narawlse

and it has been stated that the workman concerned is not

entitled to any relief claimed by him.

4, However, both the parries have filed some documents

and examined witnesses

also Two

witnesses have

been

exnmined on behalf of the workman WW-1, Prabir Kr Dhar

happens to be the workman concerned. He has stated that

he was appointed as Pumn Operator in the Comironv and

had worked continuously from 17-05-1991 to 19-08-1992, the

W"! nprVifJ, (yp °rrvicr h^Ttf 460 firv* H"W"vc'- ha v o , ^AA"\

that he was appointed by Pranab Kr. Dhar who happen* to

be his elder brother. According to him Pranab Kr

DJiar

was not r|i employee of the Company and he used to do

pump repairine works of the Company as and when required.

He nlso riii'mcd rHt he med to aim attendance renter. He

flNo Htrted that Prannb Kr Dhar never supervised his work,

but he njed to pay hit salary. According to him one Anra

4O7S

THE GAZETTE QF INDIA: AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PAIT U—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dutta taied to supervise Us work on behalf of the manage-

ment and he used to wort in two shifts. According to him

he used to get Rs. 350 per month as salary and Pranab Kr.

Dhar used to disburse the amount after receiving the same

from the management. According to him the work was of

permanent nature. He also further stated that he applied for

Tcgulariiation of his service in the Company and he has

priiyed for his reinstatement with consequential benefits. In

hii cross-examination, he has stated that he did not receive

any appointment letter and trie attendance register used to

be maintained ly one Indrajit Chnttopadhyay, who was also

appointed by Pranab Kr, Dhar like him. According to him

his salary register was also maintained by thif very person.

He has also stated that he has no knowledge as to what was

the relationship between Pranab Kr. Dhar and the Company.

In his cross-examination he has clearly admitted that the

tegiaters produced by him in no way suggest that he had

worked for the Company. Accordingly, it is suggested to him

that lie was neither ever appointed by the Company, nor

there was any relationship of employer and employee between

the Company and him. it has also been suggested that his

work was never supervised by Arun Kr. Dutta.

The second witness WW-2 is Arun Kr. Dutta whose name

transpired in the evidence of WW-1. He has stated that he

happens to be an ex-employe* of the Company and he has

since retired where he was an Administrative Officer.

Muted that in 1991-1992 he was working as Administrative

Officer in the Comoany and according to him the concerned

workman was workin* under him in Division-IV as Pump

Operator from May. f991 fo August. 1992 and that he had

forked for more than 400 days. He also stated that Mr.

P. K. Shaw, Senior Divisional Manager of the Company

appointed him fla Pump Operator. He has also stated that

due to certain exigencies rhr Company had appointed th^e

l*nmD Operators and had also appointed one Prannb Kr.

Dhar as contractor to restore water supply which was fn very

bad shape at that time. Accordlne to him Pump Operators

worklnn in two shift., grid the work was of perennial nature.

He further stated that these six persons including the con-

cerned workman wrre brought bv Pranab Kr. Dhar who

u«ed to nerform sundry work* of the Company at the behanf

of th* Cnrnpanv *nd thut he had not licence *' a contractor.

He further Mated that the management used to pnv salarv

to the sir Piimo Operator* hy is<niin« cheques in favour of

Pranah Kr n W who «c#d to d^J«bnrw th<i sumo amon?

the** workers. He also further stated that the «larv rerister

»nri tt>" attendant*? renter were maintained by Indraiit

Chattcriee one of the Piiirm Operators who was BNO

»nr><-M"nV(i m •wOTvfcnr of the Piimrt Onerator«, H» Tin* rt»tM

»»,„« th^f. nrrton* w d t» work for th<- ComniTw In hi* TOSS

pxamJnutlofl he

has Mated that

no appointment

letter

w«» tended over fo any of these perions and he has rather

no Mrr a* to whfther any nurtointment 1«tt»r was ever issued

•t «!'. He has «1FO eTt>re«srd his iftiomnce about the ComttanT

•Ksuine anv letter to Pranab Kr. Dhar directing him to

nnpoint «ix persons as Pump Operators. He ha* stated that

Pranab Kr. Dhar had worked as a Middleman. He has further

ndmitted that the said Pranab Kr. Dhar had no authority to

«nporit any person for the management and therefore it hai

ncert sneRcted to him that actually there was no relationship

of master and servant between the management and the

concerned workman.

"> An jrtterestint aspect of the matter u that after the

\TnrIctrnn rTns^d h'< cs'e irtrt th"* manntrrinent wi« culled unon

to examine its witnesses, a witness was produced on 16-02-2001,

hut no one apneared on behalf of the workman on that

date and the witness was discharged without cross-examina-

tion. This witness, MW-1, Pahari Chand Shaw happens to

•be -an employee of the Company who happened to be the

Senior Divisional Manager of the Company at Calcutta from

14-10-1991 to 25-06-1995. He has denied that Prabir Kr.

Dhar was ever employed as Pump Operator by the Company

during that period, So, there was no relationship of employer

and employee between the Company and Prabir Kr. Dhar.

He stated that Prabir Kr. Dhar never did anything for the

r^{'Gomp&ny as clafmed by him. He also stated that the said}

workman never signed any attendance register and also denied

that his work was ever supervised on behalf of the Company.

He has clearly stated that it is incorrect that he had employed

Prabir Kr. Dhar as Pump Operator as a Divisional Manager

and he has denied that the Company had encaged any

per&on. including Prabir Kr. Dhar as Pump Operators. He

has stated that Pranab Kr. Dhar actually happened to be a

petty contractor undar the Company and h« sever Mgaged

more than 10 persons it any point of ttme. He has also

further stated that the method of recrultmer.t of Class! V

employee* in the Company is that the posts are notified to

the Employment Exchange. He also stated that the salaries

of the employees of the Company arc paid by the Accounts

Department. Accounts Department receives information from

the Personnel Department and accordingly bills arc prepared

and the salaries are paid. He has denied that any salary was

paid to the concerned workman and others by the Company

nnd has also denied that these persons ever worked for the

Compnny. He has stated that in fact Pranab Kr. Dhar was

entrusted to operate the pumps and it was his duty to get

it operated and he actually made payments also. So, no

direct payment was made by the Company to any such

workman. He has also denied that Pranab Kr, Dhar was a

middleman between the Company and the concerned persons

and has also denied that the concerned workman was paid

Rs. 350 per month as salary by the Company, He also

produced and proved some papers, marked Exts. M-l and

M-2.

6. So far as the documents are concerned, Ext. W-l is the

attendance register. But, so far as this register is concerned,

it has been admitted by the workman himself that it was

not maintained by any officer or staff of the Company.

Rather, it was maintained by one of the persons employed

by Pranab Kr. Dhar like the concerned workman. So far as

the Ext, W-2 is concerned, it is the salary register which

was also admittedly being maintained by one of the persons

engaged bv Pranab Kr. Dhar brother of the concerned

workman. Though the workman concerned has claimed that

he alongwith five other persons were appointed by Pranab

Kr. Dhar on behalf of the Company, he could not produce

the said Pranab Kr. Dhar for evidence though he happened

to be a brother of this workman.

7. On the other hand, some papers have been produced

on behalf of the management. Ext. M-l series ftre the copies

of the bills presented by Pranab Kr. Dhar on a letterhead

describing him

as Electrical

and Mechanical

Engineer"),

Repairers of fans, motors, house wiring and water pump. The

bilh were presented before the National Insurance Company

Ltd, and the bills described .the charges as hiring charges of

submersible pump motor sets and operating charges. Different

charges have been made for different periods and from these

bills it does not appear that it had any concern with the

payment ot aalary to any worker engaged on behalf of the

Company. Another document which happend to be a letter

addressed to the General Manager of the National Insurance

Co, Ltd. by the said Pranab Kr. Dhftr is Ext. M-2. From

thl« letter it appears that he was given contract of lifting

water to the overhead tanks of the Companv and he has

engaged some workmen for the purpose.

He comrdained

through

this

letter

that

his

contract

was

cancelled

unceremoniously. However, he also stated in this letter that

lince some of the persons engaged by him had prayed for

regularisatjon, his contract was terminated.

8. Considering all these facts including oral evidence of

the parties and the documents, it becomes abundantly clear

that the Company had no direct concern with the workman

concerned or any other person and it appears that the

Company had enrusted the work of lifting water through

pump sets to the overhead tanks in the building to Pranab

Kr. Dhar and that the payments were being made to Pranab

Kr. Dhar for the services. Neither any appointment letter was

issued to this workman by the Company, nor his work was

ever controlled and supervised by the Company. Therefore,

it is difficult to say that any nexus existed between the Com-

pany and the workman concerned as employer and employee.

It cannot be said that the workman concerned had ever worked

on behalf of or for the Company entitling him to regularisa-

tion. So far as the allegation regarding the perennial nature

Of the work is concerned, there is no material to support it

On the other hand, there has been categorical denial of all

the allegations by MW-1 on behalf of the Companv in this

regard and the witness has not even cross-exaxmined and so

the entire evidence of MW-1 remains unrebutted. However,

jt was sought to be contended that therc has been violation

of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970, but it has been clearly stated by MW-1

that this Pranab Kr. Dhar who used to render services to the

Company from time to time had never engaged more than

10 person* «t any point ^ of time. Taking such work from a

person also cannot be said to be a contract in real sense and

therefore there i* no appllcati6n

of the Contract

Labour

(Regulation tnd Abolition) Act, 1970 In thla cue The claim

407*

of tho workman that he was illegally removed from service

or retrenched does not find support from any material what-

soovcr on the tecord. If he was engaged for some work.

entrusted to his brother, Pranab Kr. Dhar and if the Company

d'd not continue to take the work from Pranab Kr. Dhar,

the question of workman concerned continuing to work under

the Company did not arise. The Company neither appointed

him, nor controlled cr supervised his work at any point of

tmii: and it is obvious that the Company also did not remove

him from service or retrenched him in terms of Section 2(oo)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. In the circumstances, there does not appear to be any

reason to entertain the clans of the workman for grant of

relief to him-

10 Accordingly, this reference ii disposed of.

B. P. SHARMA. Prcfidinj Officer

Dated :

Kolkata,

the 27th June. 2001.

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001

S O 1983 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-

dustrial Tnbunal|Labour Court, Calcutta as shown in the

annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of United Bank of India and

their workman, which was received by the Central Govern-

ment on 12-7-2001.

j*No. L-12011|85|98-IR(B-II)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURB

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 18 of 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of United

Bank of India

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT .

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE .

On behalf of Management.—Mr. A. Moitra,

Deputy

Chief Officer (Law) of the Bank.

On behalf of Workmen.—Mr. R.G. Chatterjee. Execu-

tive Committee Member of the Bank Employees'

Federation, West Bengal.

STATE : West Bengal.

INDUSTRY ; Banking.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12O11|85|98|IR(B-II) dated 12-5-1999 the

Central Government in exercise of iti powers under lection

10(1) (d) nnd (2A) of the Industrial Dispute* Act, 1947

referred tht followlna dispute to this Tribunal for •djudic*-

"Whether the acnon of the management of United M«nit

of lndim in withdrawing the scheme for providing

special medical aid and leayo continuing since 1979

is iuttlfled? If not, whM relief are the eburfoyew

entitled?"

2. Earlier this reference was disposed of om, account Of

the absence of the parties inipite ot notice by order dated

16-9-1999. But. subsequently the union appeared (•ad filed

a petition for recalling the said order of the Award of No

Dispute on 22-9-1999. The Tribunal heard the partiei in this

regard and by order dated 5-11-1999 set aside the said

order and matter was restored in its file and number.

3. This dispute ha« been raised on behalf of the Unit»d

Bank of India. Employees Union on account of the fact that

the management of the United Bank of India, hereinafter

to be referred as the Bank, decided to withdraw some faci-

lities and benefits, like special medical aid and special leave

available to the employees of the Bank on the basis of the

order of the year 1979. It appears that the Bank issued a

notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

on 6-9-1996 expressing its intention to withdraw the facilities

granted to the employees as referred to above. It is stated

that the Bank had introduced a scheme in 1979 after due

consideration of the humanitarian ground as

a welfare

measure while the provisions of the bipartite

settlement

agreed upon between the unions with the I.B.A. were in

vogue. The management at the time of introducing the

scheme did not contradict or violate any of the provisions

of the bipartite settlement, because the said scheme was en-

visaged to give some benefits to its employees. Apart from

the other provisions of the bipartite settlement governing the

service conditions of the Award Staff in general, there were

schemes in different banks which were formulated as

•

result of bilateral discussions between the unions and the

management in the individual bank. These scheme* were not

contrary to the provisions

and spirit

of the

bipartite

settlement and were inter bank administrative circulars. The

said benefits were also being provided to the eligible emp-

loyees as a welfare measure within the Banks administrative

jurisdiction and it could not be termed as demand raised

in between the pendency of the bipartite settlement. It has

also been stated that actually the benefits or the scheme In

question introduced in 1979 were available only to a few

employees and only a few employees have alia enjoyed Ihe

benefits under this scheme. It appears that under this scheme

only n person suffering from a serious disease mentioned

in the scheme who has/have no leave of any kind left to

his credit was entitled to receive the benefits. So, it Is obvi-

ous that an employee could not pray for benefit of the said

scheme unless he became a victim of a very dangerous and

fatal disease. It is also further stated that after the notice

under section 9A was issued the union wrote to the Bank

on 25-9-1996 raising objection to the aforesaid notice, but

the union did not receive any reply. Therefore, the union

treated it to be arbitrary and

negation o(

humanitarian

scheme introduced by the management of the Bank. In this

view of the matter, it has been prayed on behalf of the

union that tho said act of the management in

deciding to

withdraw the facilitv available to the emplovees of the Bank

be termed as unjustified and be struck down.

4. The

management

also filed a written

statement to

contest the claim of the union The management stated in its

written statement that actually the Bank had formulated a

scheme in the year 1979 wherein the following provisions

were made :—

(a) The Bank may grant special leave for • maximum

period of 360 days to the members of staff who have

rendered 15 years' of continuous service, nnd who

may be suffering from any of the following diseases

and when leave of all descriptions have been ex-

haunted by such employee:

1. Cancer

2. Tuberculosis

3. Leprosy

4. Coronary attack

5. Onbrel attack

4080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUG\)3T 11, 30G1/9RAVANA 20, 1W3

[PART H~$»c. J0HJ

6. Brain Tumour

7. Diebatic Gangrin

8. Paralysis

9. Orrobosis of Live

10. Major accident requiring hospitalisation.

(b) IH addition to the leave, such employees may also

be granted an additional sum ot Rs. 250, to meet

the medical expenses when the usual medical aid

is exhausted.

with the Chairman or at least 3 Dy. General Mana-

gers, subject to review by the Board every year.

It is further stated in the bipartite settlement governing

the service conditions of the bank employees theie was no

mention of any such benefit.

It is further stated that the

Oovt. of India from time to time instructed the banks that

no additional benefit should be granted to the officerslawaid

staff employees which are outside the purview of the officers

•ervice regulations|bipartite

settlement without

obtaining

prior permission of the Government.

It is also further stated

that paragraph 26(3) of the memorandum of

settlement

dated 14-2-15J95 between tho management of A Class Banks,

Including the United Bank of India and their workmen rep-

resented by All India Bank Employees Association, National

Confederation o:

Bank Employees, Bank Employees Fede-

ration of India and

Indian

National

Bant

Employees

Federation it wa» mentioned that the unions on behalf of their

workmen had agreed that during the operation of the settle-

ment the workmen would not raise any demand of any nature

ivhat-so-ever on any of the banks in respect of matters

covered by the memorandum of settlement. It is also further

•tated that the United Bank of India Employees Union

which has rained this dispute was also a signatory to the

aforesaid memorandum of settlement. It is also further stated

that there is no provision whatso-ever in the bipartite settle-

ment for sanction of 360 days special leave to any employee

who had rendered 15 years of continuous service and has

exhausted all types of leave and is suffering from the diseases

listed above. In this view of the matter, the Bank thought

it prudent after discussions with the representative* of the

Unfoni operating in the Bank to withdraw the scheme and

accordingly the notice under sectfon 9A of the I.D, Act was

Issued. It has been stated on behalf of the management

that It denies the contention of the union that the Bank had

unilaterally withdrawn the benefits as mentioned

the

scheme. It has aluo been

further

stated that

the

alle-

gation of the union is ineorrect that the letter of the union

dated 25-9-1996 remained

unreplied and it has been stated

that actually the reply was sent by a letter dated 3-10-1996.

Therefore, it has been submitted on behalf of the Bank that

the action of the managrment should not be held to be arbit-

rary and improper and it should be held to be justified and

the employees be held not entitled to any relief.

5. When the hearing commenced it was agreed upon by

both the parties that so far as the facts of the ca»e are con-

cerned, there is no dispute at all because the facts are all

admitted. Therefore, the parties decided not to adduce evi-

dence and only arguments were heard on behalf of both

the parties.

6. So far as the contention of the management Is con-

cerned, it has been stated that because the scheme in ques-

tion was not covered by the bipartite settlement and because

notice has been given under section 9A of the I.D. Act, tho

action of the management cannot be treated as illegal, im-

proper or arbitrary. However, it has been submitted on be-

half of the union that It is true that the scheme under con-

sideration was not covered by the bipartite settlement, but at

the same time it also cannot be said that some demand was

raised by the union which was outside the subjects covered

by the bipartite settlement. It has been contended that the

scheme in question was formulated only as a welfare measure

to some most deserving employees in dire necessity and it is

obvious that the benefits of the scheme have been withdrawn

by the management unilaterally only on account of the fact

that some instructions were issued by the Govt. of India

Ministry of Finance. Therefore, it has been contended that

because the benefits under tbe scheme were available t* tho

employe* linoe 1979, It had become part of thdr lervlce

condition and since tbe monetary implication of the scheme

wa§ also not very heavy, there was no justification for with-

drawing this scheme which wfli a welfare measure

of the

deserving employees.

7. Because all the facts are admitted and since there it no

material to show that either the scheme was introduced at

the instance of the union or that it w»» covered by the bipar-

tite settlement of 1975, it cannot be said that it had not

become part of the gervice condition of the employee* of the

Bank.

8. So far as the two letters said to have been issued by

the Government of India are concerned, the same have

been filed on behalf of the Bank. One letter i» dated 31«t

May. 1994 and another is dated 7th October, 1996. In both

the letters it has been stated that it has been discovered by

the Govt. of India that some banks have introduced some

schemes for the benefit of the employees outside the purview

of the bipartite settlement which effects the revenue and it has

been viewed seriously, In the first letter it has been stated

that if the bank decides to introduce some scheme it should

not be done without the approval of the I.B.A., because it

has an implication that similar demands are made by the

employees of the other banks also, giving rise to complica-

tion. In the second letter it has been stated that the banks

are advised to issue standing instruction to all concerned

officers that the officers submitting any note, modification or

improvement for any of the facilities without intimating tho

board about tho existing guidelines!instructions of the I.B.A.

would be held personally accountable and requisite adminlst-

rative|disciplinary action will be taken against him, It is ob-

vious that because of the two letters the management of the

Bank was under pressure to continue with the scheme and

accordingly they decided to do away with the icheme and

issued the notice under section 9A.

9. On behalf of the Bank it has been submitted that the

decision has not been taken in arbitrary manner and the

requisite notice under section 9A of the I.D. Act had been

given and therefore the action of the Bank cannot be termed

as illegal. But, il has been submitted on behalf of the union

that though the notice under lection 9A of the Act had been

given, the very action of withdrawing the facilities available

to the deserving employees appears to be unjust, improper

and arbitrarv. It has been contended that the benefit which

accrued to the deserving employee* in tho year 1979 could

not have been withdrawn in this manner in 1996 without

discussing the matter with the employee*'

unions because

it amounts to withdrawing the facility which had become

vested and curbing the service condition of the bank emp-

loyees. Tn this regard it may be noted that tho provision

under section 9A of the Act has been made in order t»

safeguard the interest of the employees regarding bringing

about any change and curbing the facility and changing the

•ervice condition of the employees in arbitrary manner by

the management. In this case tbe notice under section 9A

of the Act has been given no doubt, but is It sufficient that

a notice under section 9A is given and the facilities betas

availed by tho emplovees are withdrawn? The purpose of

the provision of the notice is that the unions should be given

Opportunity to raise their objection* and to discuss the matter

with the management. The

union has alleged in this con-

nection that though they wrote a letter to the management

raising objection against the decision, thev did not receive

any replv.

It has been denied on behalf of the manage-

ment and It has been stated that actually the

letter was

replied, but no inch letter has been produced. There is nn

material to show, nor it has been asserted on behalf of the

Bank that thwe was any discussion between the management

and the union regarding the withdrawal of the facilities of

tho scheme referred to earlier.

10. Therefore, the action of the management in withdraw-

ing the facility which had become vested in the employees

only on nccount of the fact that the Oovt. of India havs

issurd some itroncly worded letters in this connection doei

not nnpcnr to be Justified. Taking into account the two letteis

referred to enriW it apDear-i

that the Oovt. of India has

riffhtlv warned the mnnneethent of hte Banks not to be voiv

liberal in Krantimr focflitien to the emplovees

outside the

purview of the bipartite settlement and euldelines have been

i^iiM ta *hh remrd tfiat If any such scheme in formulated

or proposal Is made, the matter miM b» thoroughly dfeicuwed

fa the Board and th* prior approval of the IB.A. 1* obtained,

4031

•

question wa8 formulated in 1979 no such approval was

taken because at that time the instruction of the Govern-

ment of India wa* not thefe. But, after tb« issuance of the

letter in 1996 the management btcome very shaky and ner-

vous and without properly considering the pros and com deci-

ded to withdraw the scheme which was made available to

tb* employees as back as in the year 1979. The proper course

in this case for the management should have been to explain

the circumstance and necessity of introduction of this welfare

scheme to the IB A. and the Government of India and If

necessary to seek Es-post-facto approval. Because,

the

scheme was based on humanetarian ground and was to be

made available only to a few most deserving person*, it was

not going to have great implication on the financial aspect

theBani, It is clear that the facilities could be available to some

unfortunate persons suffering from serious kind of disease

and to the persons who had no leave due to his credit.

Withdrawal of such scheme does not appear to be proper

and reasonable. The action of the management, as

such,

appears to be compelled by the fear psychosis of the Bank

created by the instruction of the Govt of India Rs referred

to above it had no rationale and therefore it must be termed

os arbitrary.

11. Accordingly, the action of the management is held to

be arbitrary and improper and it is accordingly struck down.

The scheme if already withdrawn should be reintroduced in

consultation with the I.B.A. in proper way.

12. The reference is accordingly answered and diipoted

of.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkatta,

The 28th June, 2001.

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

SO, 1984—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus-

trial

Dispute

Act,

1947

(14

of 1947),

the

Central

Govrnment hereby

publisher

the award of the

Centra]

Government Industrial

Tribunal|Labour

Court, Jaipur as

shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between

toe employers in relation to the

management of Western

Railway, Kota and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

(No. L^1012|232|99-IR(B-I)]

C GANGADHARAN. Under Secy

"Whether the claimant Shri Ratan S|o Shri Nath

Ram Meena is legal and justified in raising

an Industrial Dispute after a period of 13

years for th© termination of hi* services by

Railway Administration Kota, on 21-5-85

if yes, to what relief Shri Ratan is entitled

and from which date ?"

40«3 .

Now Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

S.O. 1985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

the Central Government

hereby publisher the

award of the Central

Government

Industrial TribunallLabour Court, Bangalore as shown in the

anncxu.c

in the Industrial Dispute between the employer*

in relation tr> the management of South Central Railway and

their workman, which wn» received by the Central Govern-

mrm on 16-7-2001

[No.

IM1012'|224|95>-m(B-D]

' C G A N O A D H A R A N . Under. i£cy.

ANNEXUBJE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 2nd July. 2001

PRESENT:

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNT, B.Cora. LLB,

PRESIDING OPFTCER

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C.R. NO. 12S\99

X PARTY

Sri Hyiensab Nawabub Shekh,

South Central Railway,

Madagon Station,

Hubll Division,

R|o Chadachon, Ittdi,

Bijapur.

TI PARTY

1. The Sr Div. Personnel Ofllcer, SCR,

Hubli Division,

Hubli-580020.

2. The Div. Operating Supdt,

SCR,

Hubli-580020.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by cxerciifng the powert con-

ferred by clause (d) of iub-»cction 2A of the Section 10 of

the Industrial Deputes Act, 1947

hai referred thii dispute

vide order No. L-41012|224|99-IR(B-I) dated 29-11-99 for

adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of South Cen-

tral Railway, Hubli Division is justified in terminat-

ing the services of Shri Husen«ab Nawabaab Shekh,

Ex<asual Iabourer|Khalasi

w.e.f. 29-3-19B9 «fter

•vailinp his sendees intermittently from 10-7-1979

I* leftal and justified.

If not, to what relief the

workman u entitled to ?"

2. First party union worknwm

were working with the

•econd party management.

Services were terminated and

therefore dispute h raised. When the notice! were lent to

parties, the Partiei remained absent.

3. In view of thi*. ro nuroone will be «erved if the mtter

is (tdjourned,

Acconiingly I proceed to p«M rhe following

order.

ORDER

The reference it rejected

(Dictated to PA tratucribed by her corrected and lijtned by

me on 2nd July, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

466*^r~

THE OAXBTTE Of IKDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAV^fIA JOL 1»23

[PAXT II—SEC. 3(11)]

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

S.O. 1986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-

dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the

annexurt in the Industrial Dispute between the employe™

in relation to the management of United India Insurance Co.

Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 16-7-2001,

fNo. L-l70l2|21|89-IR(B-n)]

C. OANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST-

RIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 29th June, 2001

PRESENT :

Hootle Shri V N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Pre«ldina

Officer¹.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C. R. N. 54(90

I party

All India Insurance Employee* CD

Association,

Bharat Insurance Building Annexe 93.

Mount Road,

Madrai.-60OOO-

TheGemeral Secretary (2)

Andhra Pradesh General Insurance,

Employees Association,

313, 3rd Floor, Satgwhi Commercial

Complex, Basher Bagh,

Hyderabad-500025

(Advocate-Shri Ganapathj HBgde).

II Party

The Chairman and (1)

Managing Director, United Indie

Insurance Company Ltd.,

24, Whites Road,

Madras 600014.

The Rejrlonal Manager (2)

United India Insurance Company

limited. United Tndia Building

Baiheer Buirh.

Hvdcrnbad 500029

(\(Tvocnte-Shri Pradeep Snufcar).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con-

ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of

th« Industrial Ditoute* Act. 19^7 h"< referred fhin dlsoute

vWe order No. L-17012|21|89|IR-BI|BTI dated 3rd AugiiM

1989 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the United India Insurance Com-

pany Limited Madras in :—

(a) terminating the workmen mentioned in Annexure-1.

(b) non regularising the workmen mentioned fn an-

nexure-II.

(c) RlVing its normal typing work to typing institutes at

Muvattupusha, Hotpet and Dhavangarrc there by

depriving.

(I) Mrs. Prasanr* (Muvattupoana)

(ii) Mr* Pidms»r»» 0Hopp«)

(iii) Mr. Venlratesh

Murthy ( Dhavnagare) of

their

due wages and other benefits for work done in

company'* office.

(d) employing watchmen on fixed salary at a rate of

lower than what is paid by the company to its re-

gular employees; and

(e) employing the workmen ai electricians, plumbers,

gardeners, caretakers, etc. on the basis of indivi-

dual contracts.

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

men entitled?"

2. First party Union workmen were working with the

Second Party management. They were terminated, not regu-

larised and proper duties were not given and they had other

reasons to Industrial Dispute was raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim

Statement

and

Counter respectively.

4. The first party Union Workmen is All India Insurance

Employees Association. Following are the point* of disputes:

(a) terminating the workmen mentioned in Annexure-1:

(b) non-regulftrlwnj the workmen mentioned in Annex-

ure-II.

(c) giving its normal typing work to typing instites at

Muvsttupusha, Hospet ao4 Davangere thereby dep-

riving.

(i) Mrs. Prasanna (Muvattupuzha)

(li) Mrs. Padmasree (Hospct)

(iii) Mr. Venkatesh Murthy (Dhavnagare) of their due

wages and other benefits for work done in Com-

pany's Office;

(d) employing watchmen on fixed galary at 6 rate lower

than what is paid by the company to its regular

employees; and

(e) employing the workmen as electrician, plumbers,

gardners, caretakers etc., on the tmsis of individual

contracts; is legal and Justified? If not to

what

relief are the workmen entitled?'¹

5. It is the further case of the flnt party union workmen

that the management has illegally terminated 78 workmen

thouph they have completed one year continuous service.

Detail* are riven along with the Claim Statement, The pro-

visions of Section 25—F(a) and (b) are not complied

the management and therefore, th« termination is illegal,

6. It is the further case of the Union that subsequent to

tfais termination order about 22 workmen out of 78 work-

men were again recruited and 56 workmen were not called

for interview and the provisions of Section 25-H of the

Industrial Dispute Act are not complied. The Second party

had sufficient work to provide them but has not regularised

these workmen. The Second Party recruited more than 1100

sub rtafl w.e.f. July 1983.

Similarly 5700

Typists

and

Assistants have been recruited w.e.f. lulv 1984 as stated hi

Para 2(v). The management paid wages m different means.

7. Regarding refiularisatlon it is said that the management

has not considered the claim of these workmen for rejnilari-

sation and the

actkw of the management is illegal. The

details of the date of joining and age etc. is given in Appen-

dix—B.

8. It is th» further case of the firit party that Mrj. Prasanna

was appointed in 19B4 as Temporary Assistant and Mrs.

Padmasree was appointed on 28-3-1985 as Temporary Assist-

ant and Shri Venkate^h Murthv wa» appointed on 1-1-1984

as temporary Awistarit|TypiBt. The second party wan extract-

ing typing work from them but they were not paid wages.

9. Tt is the further ca«e of the union that the manaaement

employed the watchman on fixed salary what it paid by the

•onrpaay to Us rvgwW employ*** and datafls art gtam hi

4085

tho Claim Statement and it h, iuid that the action of the

rnanagement is not correct.

10 It fs the further case of the union that workmen en-

caged on individual contracts such as Electricians, Plumbers,

Carpenters etc. have been regularised w.e.f. 22-8-1999 but

their past wages are not considered. It is the case of the

union that they may be regularised w.e.f. the date of their

initial appointment and they may be given consequential

benefit. Many oilier allegations are made and contended

that the principle of equal pay for equal work, is not followed

and the union has prayed to pass award in its favour.

11. The case of the management in. brief is as under :

12. It is conteded that this tribunal had jurisdiction to

adjudicate dispute pertaining to employment|non employment

withm the state of Karnataka and not outside. R is said that

the Central Government has not applied its mind in order

to find out the nature of dispute. It is the further case of the

management

that 49 workmen out of 58 have already been

absorbed in to the permanent service of thfe second party

and they have accepted the terms and conditions of the ap-

pointment.

13. Similarly Shri Venkatesh Murthy and Padmasree are

also been appointed. The case of the union is not correct.

All these persons were engagd on temporary basis. The

recruitment of regular staff depends on various factors like

rules of recruitment prescribed by Government and

the

(general Insurance Corporation of India,

availability

vacancy, suitability and eligibility etc. The workmen who are

not regularised are engaged on temporary basis or on daily

Wages do not possess the ligibility criteria. Therefore,

the

action of the management is correct. The workmen who have

completed 240 days continuous work and fulfilled the quali-

fications, they are regularised and the remaining workmen

have no case at all.

14. It is the further case of the management that except 29

persons all other persons have not put any continuous service

of 240 days and therefore they are not entitled for any relief.

15. It is the further case of the management that the work-

mbn who have not completed 240 days service are not en-

titled for any benefit and all the allegations are not correct.

It, is tho furher case of the management that none of the

persons shown in the order of reference; namely Mrs. Pia-

sqnna, Mr. PHdmasree and Mr. Venkatesh Murthy have either

been appointed on regular basis or on temporary basis for f-ny

work of the establishment. Merely because the typing instir

tufes entrusted the work of the second party to the above

persons and they will no right at all.

16. Tt is the further case of the management that prior

to 1987, the company did not have any cadre pertaining to

Security Staff)Watchman. There was no provision under the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition.) Act. 1970 and

security work was entrusted to several organisations[individu-

ali on contract basis and in the year 1987 these contract

arrangements were dispensed with. There was no discrimi-

nation at all and

the allegations are incorrect.

17. It is true that the Electricians, Plumbers, Gardners,

Caretakers etc. were employed and regularised w.e.f. 22-8-90'.

Bijt they are not entitled for baekwages. The maflaeeraent

for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

18. This is a case of 11 years old. Tn my opinion parties

have unnecessary spent so much time in ncttinc disposed

of this dispute.

19. ft is seen from the records that MW1 is examined for

the management. Against this WW1 and II are examined for

the^ workmen.

20. At vary late stage the application was filed by the

fir* Party cawed to recall MW1. We should know here that

in Ju v 1999, MWt was examined and there are no grounds

to allow the application so that

application was rejected

Arguments were heard.

$1. We have the evidence of MW1 and he says that sorao

Committees were constituted for regularises the workmen

and. he was one of the member to the committee constituted.

J-J47 t i l [ 2001—'Q,

They received representation from the union and the work-

men and who have completed continuous work for more than

240 days their cases were considered for regularisation. They

have verified the records pertaining to all the branches in

Karnataka. They have considered the documents. They hava

also indicated how they calculated 240 days. He has aiven

detailed report. He says that they have regularised some work-

men who have completed 240 days and more and Ex. M3

is the file containing all the details. I have carefully perused

all the documents.

It is clear from the evidence of MW1

that workmen who have completed 240 d< ys continuous

service and fulfilled other qualifications have been regularis-

ed.

22. We have the evidence of MW1 and H, WW1 isthe Joint

Secretary of South Zone, He says in his cross examination

that he has not filed any document to show that the affected

workmen are the members of the AH India Union. He was

in his cross examination that it is correct to say that the

second narty hod followed thr following procedure for regu-

larisalioji to recruit permanent employees.

(1) Availability of vacancy.

(2) Educational qualification.

(3) Sponsoiint from the Employment Exchange.

23. He says in his cross examination that he does not know

whether workman Shri Raghavendra is working with Kama*

taka Power Corporation at Ralchur.

24. We have the evidence of WW2 and his cross examina«

(ion is very material. To appreciate the same I would like to

quote his cross examination." I am aware of the fact that

investigation was conducted with the assistance of the union

to find out which of the employees completed 240 days and

above and the regularisation was made in respect of the

candidates who have completed 240 days and not considered

the employees who have not put in 240 days''. He furthei

says "It is true that there was no attendance register to mark

the attendance but the payment used to be made". With the

above cross examination it is abuduntly clear that the mana-

gement has regularised and conducted investigation with tho

assistance of the union to regularise the workmen who had

completed 240 days.

25. Therefore in the instant case the first party union hat

not filed any documents to say that the

workmen

have

completed 240 days of continuous woik,

26. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first party

that the union has no documents and all the documuents are

with the management and therefore, the first party union

could not produce any document.

27. It was further argued that the evidence of MW1 will

not help regarding other workmen and therfbre, that evidence

is not helpful to the management.

28. It is seen from the records that WW1, II and JTT are

from different states. We have the evidence of W.W, III

and according to W.W.HI he worked as Assistant Cum Typist

at Hindupur from 15-6-1983 to 14-8-84. He also says in his

cross examination that he was not aware that the committee

was formed by the Second party and with the assistance of

Union investigation was made for the purpose of regularisa-

tion and temporary employees who have been put in 240

days above were regularised and other were not considered.

29. He categorically says In his cross examination that ft

is true that his employment was not regularised because hff

was not working regularly for 240 days. With this material

I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the first party.

30. In view of the evidence of WW.IIT it is clear that tho

workmen who have not completed 240 days are not regu^.

larised.

31. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion

that the present reference has no merit and all the disputes

referred are not proved, Acordingly I r—)ceed to pass the

following order.

4086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART TI—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The reference is rejected,

(Dictated to PA transcribed by hci coirected and signed

by me on 29th June 2001).

V. N, KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

S.O. 1987.—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, Jaipur as shown in the

annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Tndjan Overseas Bank and

their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-12012/209y99-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No. CG1T-4/20O0

Reference No. L-12012/99/IR(B-II)

dated : 23-12-1999

Shri Vijay Kumar Valmiki,

S/o Shri Shivnarayan Valmiki,

Balanandil Ka Rasta,

Hanian BastI,

Chandpole,

Jaipur,

. . . .

Applicant

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank,

Regional Office,

D-23 A, Prithviraj Road,

C-Scheme,

laipnr (Rajasthan).

Indian Overseas Bank,

Sr. Regional Manager,

A.C. 2. Jaisjngh Circle,

Bani Park,

Jaipur.

. . . .

Non-applicants

ATTENDANCE :

For the applicant: Shri J. L. Shah, Advocate.

For *he non-applicants ; Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate.

Date of Award: 20-6-2001

_ ^

AWARD

The Central Government vide order mentioned above has

referred the following dispute under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10

of the

Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947)

for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the fiction of the management of Indian Over-

sea* Bank, Jaipur is justified in terminating the

services of Shri Vija.y Kumar Valmiki S/o Shri

Shiv^arayan Valmiki in violation of S-25-f

and

S-25-H of the l.D. Act, 1947 ? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled and from what date ?"

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he

was appointed in the Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter

i eferred as the Lank) on the post of temporary sweeper on

2511-94. He continued to work on that post till 31-10-95.

The details of which are given below :—

Month/Year

November—94

.December—-94

January—95

February—95

March—95

April—95

May—95

June—95

July-95

August—95

September—95

October—95

No. of days

—

Thus he woiked in the Bank for a total period of 287 days.

He was etf'en certain appointment orders for a period of 44

days but he continued to work even in the period during

which the- appointment order were not issued. The work,

which he was doing, was of permanent nature and the post

was nlso vacant. In the month of September 95 he came to

know that the Bank was going to terminate his services:,

therefore, be filed a suit in the court of Additional Civil Judtje

(West) Jairtir and pxayed for grant of stay order for not

terminating his services. The Civil Judge on 30-10-95 rejected

his application for stay. Thereafter on 31-10-95 his services

were terminated vide verbal order w e.f. 1-11-95. Later on

he withdrew the suit filed by him. He made a request to

the non-applicants for taking him back in service vide letter

dt, 5-11-98 but the non-applicants did not respond to the,

same. Thereafter, he raised the dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. On failure of the conciliation proceed-

ings thr dispute has been referred to the Tribunal. It has

been pleaded that he had worked for 287 days prior to the

date of teimination, but was not given prior one month'a

notice or pay in lieu of notice or compensation as required

under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. His services were termi-

nated on the ground that he h over qualified which falls

within the definition of 'retrenchment'. To treat over-qualifi-

cation as inelicibilitv in service is unjustified. After termination

of services Shri Kanhaivalal was called for interview for

temporary appointment vide letter dt. 7-8-96 but he wns not

called for interview Hnd thus the non-applicants violated

Section 25 H of (he Act, 1947. It was prayed that the ordsr

or lirminntion of his services mav be declared as uniust and

illcgnl and he may be reinstated in service with back wages

and continuity in service.

In the roply to the claim it was admitted that the applicant

was civon temporary appointment on the post of sweeper but

It was st-ifed that the appointment was for a fixed term for a

period of 44 days and sb the same came to an end on th>-

fTtiiry of trip term. The appointment was given on 25-11-94

after requisitioning names from the Employment Rxchanqc

Later on the applicant was niven temporarv appointment for

^4 dHvs from time to t'me pnd lastly he was piven anpoint-

ment for lbs fixed period from 18-9-95 to 31-10-95. Thr

t'Tm of tiie .innointrnent of the anoiicnnt came to an mri on

11-10-95 ?s «er tt"- contractual neriod. Tt was also --tated that

as per pnifWini"- for the nost of sweeper the candidate should

not have studied beyond 5th standard and thus the applicarri

wiis not erciblr for the post of sweener.

The nnn'innt filed rcininder to the replv. Tt was stated that

d'lrinw tb" intr->-w,v hr bud aiven the information about his

educational qualification a,nd also reiterated the facts mentioned

in the claim.

40S7

In suppoit of the claim the applicant filed his own affidavit.

The leaintd counsel for the non-applicaut was given opportu-

nity to cross-examine him. In the torm of documentary evi-

dence the applicant filed the copy of the appointment letter

dt. 25-11-94 marked W-l the statement about arear paid

to the applicant marked W-2, copy of the vouchers marked

W-3 to \V S, copy of the letter marked W-9, copy of ihe

postal receipt marked W-10, copy of the application marked

W-ll, copy of the reply marked W-12, copy of the rejoinder

marked W-14 copy of the failure report marked W-15, copy

of the letter for interview marked W-16, copy of the vouchers

marked W-l 7 and 18, and copy of the letter of the Bank

marked W-l9. On behalf of the non-applicant Shri A. K.

Biswas, Deputy Chief Officer of iho Bank was examined, lu

the form oi documentary evidence copy of the appointment

letter dt. 25-11-94 and 16-9-95

maftcd

R-l

and

R-2

respectively and guidelines for the appointment to the post

of sweepor were filed,

Heard arguments of the learned representative of

the

applicant and learned counsel for the non-applicant and

perused the record.

The following points require consideration:—•

Whether the applicant had worked in establishment

of the Bank for a period of 240 days during the

period preceding to the date of termination of his

seivicc i.e. 1-11-95 7

Whether the termination of service of the applicant

falls under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, 1947 7

Whether the non-applicant has violated Section 25F

and H of the Act, 1947 ?

To what relief the applicant is entitled ?

Point No. 1 :—It is not disputed that the applicant was

giveu temporary appointment on the post of sweeper initially

for a period of 44 days vide order dated 25-11-94.

Iho

vouchers through the payment was made to the applicant

marked W-3 to W-8 and the statement of arrear paid to the

applicant .marked

W-2 have

been admitted

by the

non-

applicant. As per the vouchers and the statement of flrrear

lh" applicant had worked for 287 days during the period from

November 94 to 31-10-95. It is thus proved that the applicant

had worked for moie than 240 days during the year preceding

to the date of termination.

Point No. 2:-—The applicant was initially appointed vide

order dated 25-11-1994 marked W-l for a period of 44 days.

He however continued to work thereafter. Lastly he was

given appointment on the same post for the period from

18-9-1995 to 31-10-1995 vide letter dated 16-9-1995 marked

R-2. Thus as per the last appointment letter he was given

temporary appointment for the fixed period upto 31-10-1995.

The learned counsel for the non-applicant has contended

that as the applicant was appointed for fixed tenn his ser-

vices stood terminated itself on cxpiiy of the term and

termination falls under Section 2(oo)fbb) of the Act, 1947

and docs not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, ques-

tion of violation of Section 25 F and H of the Act, 1947

does not arise. In support of his contention he has cited

1992 Lab. IC 1208 K. Rajan v|s. Kerala State Electricity

Board and 1995 Lab. IC 37 P.S. Anitha V|s. Asstt. Director

of Tea Development, Tea Board, Kottayam.

On the other

hand (he learned counsel for the applicant has contended

that the work which the applicant was doing was of perma-

nent nature as it has been admitted that after termination

of service of applicant other persons were given temporal y

appointment and therefore, clause (oo)(bb) of section 2 of

the Act. 1947 is not applicable in the cr.se. He has also

contended that higher qualification is no ground for ineligi-

bihty to the upponiiment to the post. Tn support of his con-

tention he has cited the following auhorities: .

1. Writ Petition No, 532(87 Smt. Santosh Kumar

and

others v|s. State of Punjab.

2. 1990 LLR 513 Bnibir Sin«h v[s. Kurukshetra Central

Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

3. 1986 LLJfl) 127 H. D. Singh v|s. Reserve Bank of

India (SC).

4 1994 (2) WLC 227 (RH) State Insurance and Pro-

vident Fund Deptt, Rajasthan Jaipur v|s. Ramesh-

war Prasad.

5. 1980 LLN (II) 170

(SC) Santosh Gupta v|s. State

Bank of Patiala.

6. RLR 1991 (2) 691 Suiya Prakash Sharma v|s, Rajas-

than Text Book Board Jaipur.

7. 1998 (II) LLJ 112 (Alld) Oriental Bank of Com-

merce v[s. Union of India.

8. 1987 Lab. IC 1361 ("Gujarat HC) Gujarat Machine

Tools Ltd.. v|s. Deepak J. Desai.

In case reported m 1992 Lab. IC 1208 it hat been held

that under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) 'retrenchment' does

not include termination of service of the workman as a result

of the rron renewal of the contract concerned on its expiry

or of such contract being terminated under the stipulation on

that behalf contained therein. It hag also been hold that

Section 25 H is not applicable to the workmen who are not

the retrenched workman.

In case of writ petition No. 532(87 the appointment of

the petitioucr of fixed period of 89 days was challenged.

Vacancies weie there which fact was not disputed. It was

directed by the Apex court that appointment should be made

on regular or temporary basis and petitioner's services not

to be terminated on the basis that they have served already

89 days. In case reported in 1990 RLR 513 it has been held

by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that Section 2(oo)

(bb) requires to be interpreted as to restrict it to caiaes where

work has been accomplished and agreement of hiring for

specific period was genuine. In case reported in 1986 (I)

LLJ 127 the name of the employee was struck off on the

ground that he was betor qualified. The employee was not

told that his name will be struck off if he passed matricula-

tion examination.

The Apex Court directed to treat the

employee as regular employee. In 1994 (II) WLC 227 the

contention that termination does not fall under Section 2(oo)

was not accpted on the ground that no specific order of

extension was given after expiry of the 3 month's term con-

templated in the term of order. In case reported in LLN(H)

1980 170 termination on failure to pass the test was held

to be retrenchment. In case reported in RLR

(11) 691 it

was held that Section 25 H is applicable Irrespective of the

fact whether the workman has completed 240 days service

or not. In case reported in 1998 (II) LLJ 112 the dispute

about termination of service related to the year 1981 while

clause (bb) in Section 2(oo) came into force on 17-8-84.

Clause (bb) was held not to be applicable. In the case report-

ed in 1987 Lab. IC 1361 it was held that as per rule 82(2)

(b) of Gujarat Industrial Dispute Rules, 1966

retrenched

employee must be given opportunity for employment.

In the case reported in 1996 (I) ADSC(L) 110 State "of

Rajasthan v|s. Remshwarlal Gahlot it has been held by the

Apex Court that when the appointment is for a fixed period,

unless there is finding that power under clause (bb) of Sec-

tion 2Coo) was misused or vitiated by it is rnalafide exer-

cise, it cannot be held that the termination is illegal. In Us

absence, the employer could terminate the services in terms

of the letter of jirmoinirnent unless it is a colourable exercise

of power. It must be established in each case that the power

was misused by the management or the appointment for

fixed period wai colourable exercise of power.

In case reported in 1996 (I) ADSC (L) 262 State of

HImachal Pradesh v|s. Suresh Kumar Verma it has

been

held that if appointment is not made according to rules the

same cannot be used as conduit pipe for regular appointment.

In the case reported in 1994 (II) LLJ 888 Kerala Solvent

Ex, Ltd. V|s. A. Unnikrishnan, the facts were that the »er-

vice of Badli worker was terminated on the ground that he

suppressed the fact that he had passed 10th standard. While

condition for eligibility for appointment to the post was that

candidate should not be more than 8th standard Labour

Court set aside in the order of termination. In writ petition

single judge disapproved the view of Labour Court but ord-

ered reinstatement. The writ was dismissed by Divisional

Bench. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the

order of SB and DB and rejected the industrial dispute,

4688

THE GAZETTE OF INttfA: AtftitfST II, 2601/&ftAVANA 26, 1$23

PART tL-Asc. 4$)]

As per the last appointment letter the applicant

was

appointed for a fixed teim, The applicant on having come

lo know that his services were going to be terminated filed

civil suiL in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Jaipur (West)

and prayed tar stay, which was refused on 30-10-95.

The

contractual term of appointment expired on 31-10-95, which

was not lenewed. There were directions from the Regional

Ofllcc that services of the applicant may be dispensed with

as he is overqualifled and he is not eligible. The appointment

was not given as per the guidelines provided for the post of

sweepei in which it was laid down that the candidate should

not have studied beyond 5lh Std. The applicant was admittedly

over qualified. In these circumstances when the applicant was

over qualified and his prayer for stay for not terminating his

sei vices was rejected by civil court and the contractual tcim

having expired on 31-10-95 on account of non-renewal of the

contract the power to terminate services of the applicant

cannot be said to have been misused or vitiated by its malafide

exercise. Jt may also be stated that the applicant was not

communicated that his services were terminated on the ground

of being overqualified. The contractual term was not renewed.

The termination Of seivice of the applicant, therefore, falls

under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act, 1947. which is

an exception to the 'retrenchment", In writ petition No. 532/JJ7

appointment for fixed term was challenged and not termina-

tion. Jn case reported in 1986 (1) LLJ 127, the service was

terminated on ground of over qualification. While in the

present case, contractual appointment was not renewed. The

facts of the above cases, therefore differ from the present case.

Point No. 3 :•—As the termination of the services of Hie

applicant doesn't fall in the category of 'retrenchment¹ as

defined under Section 2(oo) provision of Section 25F of the

Act, 1947 are not attracted. In spite of the admission on

behalf qf non-applicant that Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri

Prabhu Meena were given contractual appointment after termi-

nating the services of the applicant the provisions of Section

25H are not attracted as the applicant was not retrenched

workman. It may also be stated that there is nothing on

record to suggest that they were given contractual appoint-

ment in spite of their ineligibility to the post.

Point No. 4 :—For the reasons stated above (he termination

of the services of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal

or unjustified and the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Gov-

ernment under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

SdA

Illegible

Presiding Officer

20-6-2001

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

SO 1988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, T947 (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 State Bank of India and their

workman which was received by the Central Government an

16>2001.

[No. L-12012/187/99-IR(B-J)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

"Whether the action of the

management

State Bank of

India in

terminating the

service of Shri Srichand w.e.f. 3-12-97

legal and justified ?

If not to what relief

the said workman is entitled?"

4093

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001

SO. 1989.—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

Tribualj Labour

Court-II, Mumbai as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Dcna Bank and their

work-

man, which was received by the Central Government

on 16-7-2001.

[No. l-12012|176|98-TR(B-II)li

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CG1T-2|65 of 1999

Employers in

lelation to the management

Dena Bank.

23-17 GII2001—7.

Die Asstt. Gen. Manager(P),

DB, 7th Floor,

Maker Towers,,'E' Wing,

P. B No. 6058, Cufte Parade,

Mumbai-400 005.

AND

Their Workmen.

The General Secretary,

Dcna Bank Employees Union,

17, Horniman Circle, Fort,

Mutnbai-23.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer —S|*»hri S. K. Talsania

and

J. K. Mistry Advocates.

For the Workmen.—Mr. M B, Anchan Advo-

cate.

Mumbai, dated 22nd June, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of

Labour,

by its Order

No L 12012ll'76|98|IR(B-II), dated

25-2-1999|8-3-1999, have leferred the following dis-

pute 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 In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947.

"Whether the

action

of the

management of

Dena Bank, Mumbai in superannuating the

workman, Shri C R. Tiwari by treating his

date of Birth as 15-3-1937 is justified? If

not, then what relief the workman is

en-

titled to 7"

2. The facts of the pu'seut case in short

are as

under ,

The workman

Shri C R Tiwaii had

entered

into service of the Dana Bank, as a watchman

9-10^62.

He had then aiven his age roughly as 25

years. He was not asked to submit his School Leav-

ing Certificate in proof of his age. He applied for

promotion to the post of clerk in the year 1979. At

that time the bank asked

him to submit proof re-

garding his age and qualification and accordingly he

had submitted the School Leaving Certificate issued

by the Board of High School and Intermediate Edu-

cation, UP. showing his date of birth as 15-9-1943

and qualification

The hank accepted the said cer-

tificate and promoted him to the post of clerk

the year 1980 and recorded his date of birth

15-9-1943 m his service

records.

It is contended

according to this

certificate his date of

retirement

would be 30-9-2003, however the bank vide its tetter

Ref. No 172|97 dated 6-2-1997 informed him that

he would be completing 60 years of age on 31-3-97,

and as such he would be letired from 31-3-97

is contended on making complaint by the workman

regarding his premature letirement the bank rectifi-

ed its mistake vide letter dated 27-3-1997 informing

him as per the School Leaving Certificate submitted

by him his date of birth was recorded as 15-9-1943

and

accordingly his date of retirement

would

30-9-2003.

However it is contended, subsequently

4094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the General Manag^rr

issued him a notice

dated

21-6-1997

mentioning

therein that the workman's

date of birth in the Service

Record has not been

changed and that his date of birth is 15-3-1937 and

not 15-9-1943, as (here is no written representation,

from the workmon for change of his date of

birth

and by that letter, he cancelled the letter of the Dy.

Gen. Manager(P) dated 6-2-1997, issued

to him.

It is contended workman approached the appropriate

authority, however they did not take decision and

asked him to give explanation as to why he should

not be retired w.e.f. 31-3-1997.

Accordingly work-

man had given his explanation on 4-7-1997. How-

ever by an order daled

1-9-1997 the bank retired

him

from

service

with

retrospective

effect

from 31-3-1997, calling upon him to repay the salary

and allowances and surrender the benefits

if any

received by him, for his service beyond 31-3-97. It is

contended that, the bank did not ask about his age

at the time of his appointment and that in the year

1979 only, he was asked to produce the school leav-

ing certificate and accordingly he had produced and

consequently he was promoted.

In the year

1986

applied for

housing

loan

mentioning his

date of

birth

as 15-9-1943

and later

on,

in 1994 for additional Housing loan and on

that

basis he was granted loan, and this

date

of birth

mentions in the seniority list.

It is'contended

the

union had taken the matter 1o the appropriate autho-

rity and thereafter before the

Assistant

Labour

Commissioner(C), however, conciliation failed, and

therefore he had moved the Ministry.

3. The management, Dena Bank resisted the claim

of the workman by filing Written Statement (Exhi-

bit-7) contending that at the time of joining

the

service of the bank, workman had given his Bio-datai

under his own signature declaring his age as 25 years

and date of birth as 15-3-37, and since then in his

service record his date of birth was always 15-3-37

and it was never changed.

It is contended¹ workman

was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation

i.e. completion of sixty years on 31-3-1997 and ac-

cordingly he was given letter No. ESP : 172: 97 dt.

6-2-97 by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel)

informing him that he would be completing the age

of 60 years on 15-3-97 and would retire from service

of the bank w.e.f. 31-3-97, in terms of para Xtll(l)

of the Bipartite Settlement dtd. 17-9-1984.

It is

contended, through some office bearers of the Dena

Bank Employees Union, the workman otally repre-

sented to the said Deputy General Manager that the

date of birth of the workman was 15-9-43 and not

15-3-37, a& per the nassing certificate issued by the

Board of High School and Intermediate Education,

U.P., and, therefore, the workman was entitled to

continuous service upto 30th September, 2003. Tt is

contended the Deputy General Manager (P)

vide

his letter

No. EST

: 526 : 97 dtd. 27-3-1997

addressed to Chief Manager advised that as per the

Schdol Leaving Certificate submitted by the workman

his date of birth should te 15-9-43 and accordingly

his date of retirement would be 30-9-2003 and that

he advised to make necessary changes in the records

of the Provident Fund and that the letter dtd¹. 6-2-97

be treated ais conceited, which was without authority,

He was not competent authority to accept the change

in the date of birth of any emr>lovee and to change

the service record.

It is contended noticing

that

the workman was wrongly allowed to continue be-

yond 31-3-97 on account of unauthorised action on

the part of the Deputy 'General Manager (P), a show

cause notice dtd 21-6-97 was issued to the workman

by the General Manager calling upon him t o show

cuiuse why he should not be retired w.e.f.

31-3-97,

that is as per his original date of birth as recorded in

his service record.

On seeking explanation of the

workman dtd. 4th luly, 1997, the General Manager

by his order dtd. 1-9-97 cancelled the letter EST :

526 : 87 dtd. 27-3-97 of the Deputy General Manager

and¹ directed that the workman would retire from the

service of the bank w.e.f. 31-3-97 as per the retire-

ment notice dtd. 6-2-97. It is contended that the only

proof called for and submitted by the workman was

that of his additional qualification while he was being

considered for promotion to the post of clerk and

that he was never asked to submit any proof of his

age or date of birth.

It is contended that the work-

man and the union suppressed that the workman in

his own handwriting had specifically declared his date

of birth as 15-3-37 and accordingly service book waK

maintained which was never changed.

It is

con-

tended that application for housing loan was

not

checked¹ properly bv the person inchargu while sanc-

tioning the loatn.

The workman had never applied

for correcting his date of birth in his service record

and that the Deputy General Manager has no autho-

rity td change the record.

For till these reasons it is

contended that, as per the service record the work-

man retires on his superannuation i.e. after comple-

tion of 60 years on 31-3-97, and the action of the

bank is legal and proper.

The Union vide Rejoinder

CEx. 8) retire dated the recitals in the Statement of

Claim.

4. On the basis of the pleadings mv Learned Frc-

decessor framed issue at Exhibit-10. The

workman

Chandrabhushan Ramsinger Tiwari examined himself

alt (Exhibit-12)and closed evidence vide

purshis

(Exhibit-32). On

behalf of the management Dena

Bank,

Chief

Manager

(Personnel)

Mr. Daniel

Marandi was examined at (Rxhibi*-33) and evidence

was closed¹ vide purshis (Exhibit-34).

5. Heard

the Learned Counsels Shri

Talsania for the

management and Shri

M. B.

Anchan for the union.

I have gone through

the

written submissions filed by the union (Ex. 38|4O)

Perused record.

On croing through the record a<* a

whole and hearing the rounsels. I record my findings

on the issues, for the reasons as under :—

Issues

Findings

1. Whether the action of the

Action cf manage-

management of Dena

ment is not legal

Bank in superannuat-

and proper,

ing the workman C. R.

Tiwari by treating his

date of birth as 15-3-37

is justified ?

2. If not, what relief the

As per order below.

workman is entitled to ?

REASONS

6. Tt is admitted position that workman Mr. C. R.

Tiwari had entered into service of Dena Bank as

watchman on 9-10-62, and that as per the Bi-partite

Settlement dated 17-9-84 the age of superannuation

oi the workman is sixty years. According 10 workman

Mr. fiwan, he hau roughly given his uge 25 years

at the time of entering the service since he was not

having his School Leaving Certificate at that time,

and that when he applied tor promotion to the post

of clerk in the year 1979 the bank asked him to

submit proof regarding his age and qualification and

accordingly he had submitted the school leaving cer-

tificate issued by I he Board of High School and Inter-

mediate Education U.P. showing his date of birth as

15-9-1943 and qualification and that bank had accep-

ted the said certificate and promoted him in the post

of clerk in the year 1980 and since then the said

date of birth was continued and therefore his date of

retirement is 30-9-2003. The bank however contended

that while applying for the post of watchman he had

declared himself to be 25 >eats of age in an applica-

tion dated 9-10-62 and that in the Bio-data under his

own signature declared his date of birth as 15-3-37,

, and that since then in the service record his date

of birth was always 15-3-37 and was never changed,

and therefore he was to retire on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31-3-97 and accordingly he was

issued letter dated 6-2-1997.

7. It is in the evidence ot workman that he had

not given

any implication to the bank for

getting

employment. He however admits his signature on the

Bio-data (Exhibit 9|1). This no doubt mentions the

date of birth 15-3-37.

The Learned Counsel Mr.

S. K. Talsania for the bank at this juncture, submits

that the bank management obtained the necessary Bio-

data which admits clearly the signature of the work-

man. Under Sections 114(e) and (f) of the Indian

Evidence Act the court may piesume that the judicial

and official acts have been regularly performed and

the commoa course of business have been followed

in the particular case. He submits that when the said

workman declared his date of birth 15-3-37 in the

Bio-data it will be presumed thai his date of birth is

15-3-37. On the basis of this documents, the work-

man retires on 31-3-97.

Presumption is urged by

Mr. Talsania for the management is rebuttable. The

bank's witness does not speak that as to

how this

Bio-data has come on record. On plain reading of

the same, it docs not bear the signature of the bank

authority nor the date and does not show that it

was received by the bank and that it was part of

service record. This does not show that it was given

by workman at the time of joining the service. No-

thing on record to show that the bank recorded this

date of birth in the service record of the workman.

Bank's senior officer Mr. Marandi admits in cross-

examination para 8 that when the workman joined

the service he did not produce birth record. The Bio-

data, on which management heavily relies to show

the birth date of workman 15-3-37, does not speak

that it was received by the bank, and when, no proof

of age was produced at the time of entry into service,

hardly presumption as urged by Mr. Talsania, Learned

Counsel for the management, can be raised. The Bio-

data is not at all helpful to the bank and therefore

I find no substance in his submission.

8. The workman has filed School Leaving Certi-

ficate (Exhibit-11/2) to show his date of birth 15th

Scptcrnber, 1943. Admittedly workman was promoted

as clerk in the year 1980. The seniority list of the

clerical staff was admittedly prepared by the bank

vide £xhibit-37. This clearly shows the name of the

workman at serial No. 738 snd his date of birth

]5-9-43, The workman was sanctioned house loan in

the year 1986 and that the Senior Branch Manager

of the bank Mr. Marandi admits that, on the basis

of the application and the certificate of the officer, the

loan was sanctioned and that instalments of the loan

is fixed taking into consideration the age of the work-

man that is lemaming service period. Application for

housing loan (Ex. 11/11) of the year 1986 and (Ex.

11/12) of the year 1994 clearly show the date of

birth of workman i5-9-43 and the same was verified

by the bank officer and found correct. Admittedly

no action against, the ^officer vvho verified the appli-

cation forms was taken. When application for loan of

the year 1986 mentioning the date of birth of work-

man 15-9-43 on verification found correct by the

bank officer, in the year 19S6, it is surprising on what

strength the management say that Bio-data was fur-

nished in* 1962 wherein date of birth 15-3-37 men-

tioned and it was part of his service record and that

cannot be changed.

The Bank has admittedly pre-

pared the computer sheets on the details of the emp-

loyees including the workman. These sheets (Ex. 35,\

36) of the years 1992 and 1993 also show the date

of birth 15-9-43 and date of retirement 30-9-2003.

A feeablc attempt is made by the Senior Officer Mr.

Marandi saying that these computer sheets were not

issued by their department, however thatjiocs not

implicit reliance. In fact, record of the bank itself

shows that the workman would retire on 30-9-2003¹

on the basis of his birth date 15-9-43 and that they

have not acted upon at any time on the so-called

Bio-data (Ex. 9/1). Had really, workman given the

Bio-data at the time of entering the service, bank

officers would have taken note of that immediately

or at least at the time of verifying the application

for housing loan in the year 1986. This position goes

against the management.

9. The Learned Counsel Mr. S. K. Talsania for

the management submits th;tf as per the bank rules

service record does not change, and that service re-

cord only can be changed by the Chairman/Manag-

ing Director and that Deputy General Manager has no

authority. The Senior Manager Marandi said that he

would produce the necessary tules, however, no rules

to that effect are produced.

10. It is significant to note that as seen from the

letter of the Dena Bank dated 9-3-82 (Ex. 11/23)*

the Chief Oliiccr (Personnel) on the application of

its employee dated 4-3-82 (Ex. 11/22) Mr. Kashi

Prasad Tiwari of Goregaon Branch (West) recorded

at the verge of his retirement his date of birth 31-1-33,

changing the earlier date of birth of the basis of

School Leaving Certificate pioduced by him with his

application mentioned above.

If the Chief Officer

changed the birth date of said Kashi Prasad Tiwari

serving in Dena Bank only then Senior Officer i.e.

Dy General Manager how cannot change the record

of the workman. On this b?ck ground, the submis-

sion of the Learned Counsel that

Deputy General

Manager has no authority in the matter, is absolutely

of the record.

11. In fact, the submission of the management that

they cannot change the record of the workman itself

is erroneous as on the alleged Bio-data (Ex. 9/1)

4096

THE GAZETTE OF] INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923 flfaRT

If—SEC. 3tfi)1

iiothing on record to show tha', they have taken entry

to this effect in the service iecord and

therefore the

question of changing the date does not arise as the

bank has taken note of the buth 15-9-43 as apparently

seen from the bank iecord itself,

12. The date of birth of the employee is not only

important for the employee but for the employer also.

On the length of .service put by the employee depends

the quantum of retiral benelUs he would be entitled.

In this context the service record prepared by the

bank referred to abovo throws light.

13. The Learned Counsel Mr. S. K. Talsania, sub-

mits that the court/tribunal should be very cautious

in such matters because permitting the change in the

date of birth is likely to cause frustration down the

line resulting in causing an adverse effect on efficiency

in functioning. He relied on G.M., Bharat Coking

Coal Ltd. W.B. V. Shib Kumar Dyshad 2001 LAB

I.C. 28. I have gone through the said decision where-

in Their Lordships of the Apex Court pointed out

the consequences in change of birth at the belated

stage. In the case in hand, Kothingyjn record to show

that the bank acted upon the date of birth 15-3-37

mentioned in the Bio-data (Exhibit 9/1) alleged to

have been furnished by the workman at the time of

joining the service. In lact the bank shows that the

date of birth of workman in the service record is

15-9-43.

Therefore the question of change on the

birth date of workman dues not arise. Consequently

the said ruling is no avail for the management.

14. Mr. Talsania for the management submits that

workman Mr. Tiwari entered in the service on 9th

October, 1962 and that as per his admission in cross-

examination para 13 he passed S.S.C. in 1958 and

that School Leaving Certificate (Ex, 11/2) was pre-

pared on 17th June, 1958. If that is so, he could

have very well submitted the same to the bank at

the time of entering the service in the year 1962 and

that, act of filing this certificate is an after-thought

with mala fide intention, and that this supports the

contention that he had given birth date as 15-3-37

by way of Bio-data which was. correct. At this junc-

ture it is material to note that, prior to the nationali-

sation of the bank, no policy for recruitment of sub-

ordinate staff was framed. Therefore probably bank

might not have asked information on the date of birth

seriously, resulting in submitting then school leaving

certificate. On this back ground I find no substance

in the submission of Mr. Talsania

15. It is clearly seen fiom the record that at the

time of entering the service, workman Tiwari was of

19 years of age. Therefore hardly find force in the

submission of Mr. Talsania that the workman might

be under age and therefore not disclosed the true

birth date, with a view to get employment in 1962.

16. From the evidence on record it is clear that

the date of birth of the workman Mr. Tiwari as per

the bank record is 15-9-43 find not 15-3-37. There-

fore, treating his dale of birth 15-3-37 superannuat-

ing him on 30-3-97 is not legal and proper. There-

fore action of the management is not just and proper

and also not legal. Consequently Tiwari will have to

be treated in continuous service till his superannua-

tion i.e. 30-9-2003, resulting in getting consequential

monetary benefits. Issues are therefore answered ac-

cordingly and hence the order :

ORDER

The action of the management of Dena Blank,

Mumbai in

superannuating

the

workman

Shri C. R. livvari by treating his- date of"

birth as

15-3-37 is not just,

proper and

legal.

Mr. Tiwari would ictire as per his date of birth

in service record is 15ⁱ-9-43, on superannua-

tion on 30-9-2003.

He should be treated in continuous service, and

he is entitled to back wages and consequen-

tial monetary benefits.

S. N. SAUND>\NKAR, Presiding Officer

New} Delhi, the 17th July, 20O1

S.O. 1990.—In puisuance of Section 17 of

the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Batik of

Baroda

and their

workman, which was received by the Central Gov-

ernment on 16-7-2001.

[No.

L-12Oil/53/99-IR(B-Il)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURL

BEFORE THE CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT IN-

DUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUV1-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 3rd July, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble V. N. Kulkarni, Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 103/99

I Party :

The General Secretary,

BOB Employees Union,

C/o Bank of Baroda,

P.B. No. 2, K.G. Road,

Bangalore-560 009.

4GW'

Ilnd Party :

The Regional Manager,

BOB Registered Office,

No. 26, H. T. S. Chambers,

III Floor, Richmond Road

Bangalore.

APPEARANCES :

1st Party : None.

Ilnd Party ; None.

AWARD

1. The Central

Government

by exercising the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1)

and Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Indus-

trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide

Order No. L-120ll/53/99/IR(B-II) dated 31-8-1999

for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Bank of Baroda Employees Union

is justified in claiming the rate of wages as

per the hours of work shown in the Ap-

pointment

Order issued to

the part-time

sweepers ? Whether the part-time sweepers

have actually worked for the hours showh

in the Appointment Order, If so, whether

the management

of Bank of Baroila Is

justified in refusing to pay the higher rate

of wage to the sweepers. If not, what relief

the workmen are entitled to ?"

2. None is present. The Central Government has

raised the dispute.

3. When the Notices were issued, parties did not

turn up. Many adjournments were given.'It appears

that the parties are not interested in the dispute and

therefore, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to the L.D.C., transcribed by him, cor-

rected and signed by me on 3rd July, 2001 >.

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the- 17th July, 2001

S.O. 1991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award of

the Government Industrial Tribunal]Labour

Court,

Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial

Dispute beftflfecn the employers

in relation to the

management of Bank of Baroda and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

16-7-2001'.

[No. L-12012j43|95-IR(B-]l)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAT

Friday, the 15th June, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 3931200!

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 55|95)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and subjection 2(A) of

SecJtinn 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947), between the Workman Smt. S. Shanta and

the Management of Bank of Baroda, Coimbatore.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

1st Party|Claimant

Bairkr of Baroda

Employees Association,

Cbimbatore.

AND

The Regional Manager (TN II) . . Ilnd Party|Mana-

Bank of Buroda, Craimbatore

gement

APPEARANCES :

For the Claimant : M[s. Aayar & Dolia & C. R.

Chandrasekaran, Advocates.

For the Management : M|* K.S.V. Prasad & S.

Gunaseelam, Advocates.

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 Dis-

pute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the follow-

ing

dispute

for

adjudication

vide

Order No.

L-l'201.2|43|95-IR(B^II) dt. 25-8-1995 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank

of Baroda,

Coimbatore in

imposing the

penalty of stoppage of two increments with

commulative effect on Snvt. S.

Shanta,

Shroff-cum-Cterk vide their

order

dated

5-9-91 is legal nnd justified ? If not, to

what relief is the said workman entitled 7"

4698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II^-SEC. 3(ii)]

This dispute" on coming up before me

for final

hearing on 15-6-2001, the counsel tor the

1 Paity

Union as well as the II Party|Ma,nagement were pre-

sent. The learned counsel for the I Party,Claimant

Union represented that

the

concerned

workman

referred to in the industrial dispute under reference

Smt. S. Shantai has since been ldieved by the IT Party|

Management on voluntarily retirement

scheme re-

cently, So, the 1 Party | Claimant Union has decided to

withdraw this industrial dispute and

hence

the T

Party|Claimant Union may be permitted to withdraw

this claim made in this industrial dispute. The learned

counsel for the I Party]Claimant

Union

had also

made an endorsement to that effect today in the Clalim

Statement filed by the I PartyjClaimant

2. The learned counsel for the II Parly|Manage-

ment had expressed that the

II PaityfManagement

had no objection for the I ParlylClaimant Union to

withdraw this claim made in the present industrial

dispute as it is represented by the learned counsel

for the T Party'Claimant

Union and has staled

that

the management had incurred expenses in defending

this industrial dispute to the tune of Rs. 5,000

and

it may be considered and he made an endorsement

to that effect in the Claim Statement ot the I Party!

Claimant.

3. Since the I PartyjCIaimant Union winch espou-

sing the cause of the concerned workman

Smt, S.

Shanta had decided to withdraw this claim made in|

this industrial dispute and a request has been made

by the counsel on record for the I Party|Ciaiman' to

wihdraw this industrial dispute and had made an en-

dorsement to that effect in the

Claim

Statement,

I PartyJClaimant Union is permitted to withdraw this

industrial dispute. The learned counsel for the IF

Party|Management by his endorsement on the Claim

Statement requested this Tribunal to consider the ex-

penses of Rs. 5,000]- incurred

the

II Party)

Management in contesting the industrial dispute while

disposing of this case.

4 .From the endorsement made by the learned coun-

sel for the I Party [Claimant Union, it is seen that the

II PartyjManagement, Bank uf Baroda had relieved

the concerned workman on

voluntarily

retirement

scheme recently.

While doing so, the II Farty]Mana-

gement bank had not considered about the expenses

incurred by it in defending this industrial

dispute

before the Tribunal from 1995 on wards. So, under

such circumstances, I feel that the request made by

the learned counsel for the II Party'Management for

considering the expenses made by the Management in

defending this industrial dispute does not assume any

importance for consideration. Hence, it is concluded

that that the request made by the learned counsel for

the II PartylManagctnent on this aspect cannot be

considered.

5. In the result, an award is passed holding that

'no dispute' exists between the parties as referred to

in the Schedule, since the I Party¹ Claimant has with-

drawn the same. No Cost.

(Dictated

to the

Stenographer,

transcribed

and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this day the 15th June, 2001.

K. KARTHKEYAN, Fresiding Officer

Witnesses, Examined :

On cither side : None.

Documents Marked .

For the I Party|Chimant : Nil

For II Party [Management : Nil.

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2001

S.O. 1992.—In pursuance

of Section J7

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of

1947), the Central Government hereby publi-

shes the award of the Central

Government

industrial TribunaT|Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the annexure in

the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central

Bank

of India

and their workman, which was received b>

the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

(No. L-12012|417|96-TR(B-ll)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT|LClR|266|97

Presiding Officer : SHRI K. M. RAI

Shri Ramcsh Chandra Verma.

14-A, T

Ward,

Sainik colony, Bairagarh,

Bhopal.

•

Applicant.

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

E-3|5O, Area colbny.

Nonapplicant.

Bhopal.

AWARD

(Passed on this 6th day of July, 2001)

1. The Government of Tndia, Ministrv of

Labour vide order No. L-120J2|417|96|IR

4099

B- II dated 29-8-97 has reJerred the following

dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management

of Central Bank of India in termi-

nating instead of regularising

the

services of Shri Ramcsh Chandra

after facing an interview for regu-

larisation is justified or not ? If not,

to what, relief the

applicant

entitled ?"

2. The case for the workman is that in the

month of Dec. 1989,

he was

appointed as

peon on daily

wage basis by the

Central

Bank of India,

Bhopal.

He had regularly

performed his duty as peon and was transferr-

ed to the

Bank Branches

Immaigate

branch, Ibrahimpura

branch

and regional

office.

He was called for interview by

the

letter dated 12-3-91 for permanent appoint-

ment as peon

against the vacancy of General

candidate as he was eligible for the same. In

he interview, he was declared successful

and

even then, the appointment

order for

the

permanent post

of peon was not given

him. He has acquired the status of regular em-

ployee and therefore

he is enitlcd to get the

permanent appointment for the post of peon

in the Bank. The direction in this connection

is therefore solicited.

3. The case for the management is that

the workman was given temporary appoint-

ment on daily wages for a period commenc-

ing from 2-5-90

to 11-6-90

at lmamigate

Branch.

Thereafter his

services were discon-

tinued.

There was no vacancy in the bink.

After this period

the

workmen did not per-

form his duty in the Bank at all. On 14-3-93, '

the written test was conducted by the bank for

the appointment

of sub-ordinate staff

and

the applicant was intimated to apppor in the

tppl.

In that test, 23 other candidates

had

also participated.

This test was

conducted,

for the appointment of the peon

apainst the

vacancies for the candidates of SC nnd ST

only as per direction of Government of Tndia..

The workman was not SC and ST candidate

and therefore he was not entitled to get the

appointment for the post of peon m <hc B°nk

3. The management further

alleges 'hat

ih^ workman w^s not a candidate of ^C -md

ST cnte?orv and rhn-cforp be was not selected

fo-

trip onoointmen* n<* neon

At the WTHP-

ti<-"^ the

workman worked onlv for a limited

period of time in the Re^nonai office ?t Tmami-

gatr Branch in

the year

1983.

He never

continuously worked

for 180

days

in the

Bank.

He worked only for 30 days in

the

Bank. Tn view of this fact, he is not entitled

to get the required appointment as peon

the Bank,

4. In view of all these facts, the claim of

the workman deserves to be rejected.

5. The following issues arise for decision

in this case and my findings thereon are noted

hereinafter :—

1. Whether the workman is entitled to

the regularisation

service

claimed by him ?

2. Relied and costs.

7. Issue No. 1.—The claim of the work-

man is that he was appointed peon on daily

wage basis by the Bank in the month of Dec.

1989. He has not filed an order of appoint-

ment to

show that he had been

appointed

Jn the month of Dec. 1989 to perform the duty

of peon in the Bank. The Bank has admitted

that he was

appointed as peon for a fixed

period of time in the year 1990 only.

After

expiry of this period, the workman did not

(^charge his duty in the Bank at all.

The

workman had also

not filed any document

to show that he had continuously worked for

240 davs in a calendar year preceding the

date of his termination

from service.

The

burden was on the workman to prove that he

had

attained the status of regular employee

by discharging his duty in the Bank.

8. The claim of the workman is that

wi^c called for interview on 14-3-93 for ap-

pointment as permanent peon

in the Bank.

He was declared successful and even then the

appointment was not issued to him. The con-

tention of the bank is

that the

permanent

vacancy for the post of peon was for the can-

didate

of SC and ST only

and

therefore

the successful candidate of this category was

given the regular

appoinment as

per direc-

tion of

the Government of India.

There

was no vacancy for the general category candi-

date and therefore no appointment order was

issued to the workman as he did not belong

to the reserved category

The workman has

noi been ahle to establish by adducing cogent

evidence

that there was

clear vacancy for

the post of peon

in the Bank

for general

mteeorv also

Tn the absence of such

evi-

den^o ^^ is

not possible to hold

that

the

vncnnrv for peon was not reserved

for SC

and ST candidate only. The burden was on

4100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman to prove that the said vacancy

was for the General Candidate also. He has

failed to discharge his burden by not produc-

ing the cogent evidence in the case.

Merely

by appearing in the test for appointment to

a particular post,

will not create any right

for getting the

appointment from

the em-

ployer.

The workman does not belong to a

reserved category and therefore he is not en-

titled to get the appointment for the post re-

served for SC and ST candidaes. In view of

all these facts, the workman is not entitled to

the regaUrisation .as claimed by him.

Issue

No. 1 is answered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 2.—In view

of my finding

given on issue No. 1, the workman is not en-

titled to the regularisation as claimed by him.

The reference

is accordingly

answered

favour of the management and against

the

workman.

9. Copy of the award be

sent

to the

Ministry of Labour, Government of India as

per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 1993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 194^ (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Trihunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Resarch

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No. L-42012l62|92-TR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-L ABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 11 of 1994

Sh. Amar Singh S[d Sh. Thambu Ram,

H. No. 40, Near Hanuman Mandir,

Bhagat Nagar, Hissar.

. . .Petitioner.

Veisus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryam.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES.

For the workman—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management—-Shri

R. K.

Shanna,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-42012/162/92-T.R.(D.U.) dated 16-12-93 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of

Sh. Amar Singh, S/o Shri Thambu Ram

w.e.f. May, 1988 is justified ? If not, what

relief the workman concerned h entitled to

and from what date ?"

2, The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the

representative of the workman is accepted, and no

dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate

Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

4101

New Delhi, the J6th July, 2001

S.O. 1994.—In pursuance of Secton 17 of

the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 uf 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute betwfcen the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Resarch

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No. L-42012/174/94-TR(DU)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SKRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LADOUR CQURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 69/9*5

Sh. Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand,

C/o Sh. Darshan Singh, President,

District Agriculture Workers Union,

123/5, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar.

. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman— Shn Darslian. Singh.

For the management—Shri

R. K.

Sharma,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vkle Gazette Notification

No. L-42012/174/94-I.R.(D.U.) dated 4-8-05 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the

management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar

terminating

the

services

Shri Dharambir

Daily paid labour w.e.f,

1-11-87 is just, fair and legal ? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled and

from

which date ?"

2, The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. Tile representative of the management has no

objection. Tn view of the above, the request of the

representative of the workman is accepted, and no

dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate

Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

2347 GH2001—8.

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 1995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of

the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (U of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No. L-42012/175/94-IR(DU)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 71 of 1995

Smt. Kanta W/o Sh. Pal Singh,

C/o President,

District Agriculture Workers Union,

123/5, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar.

. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the manngsmem - -Shii

R. K.

Sharma,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 3th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vids Gazette Notification

'No. L-42012/175/94-I.R.(D.U.) dated 4-8-95 has re-

ferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for ad-

judication :

"Whether the

action of the

management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar

terminating

the

services of

4102

THE GAZETTE OP INDiA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shrimati' Kanta

W|o Shri

Pal Singh cx-

beldar w.e.f. 1-4-1990

is just, fair and

legal ? Tf not, what relief she is entitled and

from what date ?'"

2. The representative^r->f the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the c^ise against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the r-quest of the

representative of the workman is accepted, and no

dispute award is returned l\> the Ministry. Appropriate

Government be informed.

Chandiearh.

- • • , - - - •

8-6-2001.

B. L. TATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

H.O. 1996.—In pursuance of the Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Q4 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute betwteen the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No.

L-42012/l77/94-lR(DU)]

KULDIP RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV. PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CH\NDIGARH

I.D. No. 70 of 1995

Sh. Inder Singh S/o Sh. Chuni Lai,

C/o Sh. Darshan Singh, President,

Distt. Agriculture Workers Union,

Gali No. 5, H. No. 123, JaWahar Nagar,

Hissar.

.. .Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institut- for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar,

Haryana,

., . Management.

APPEARANCES ;

For the workman—Shri Darshan Singh,

For the management—Shri

R. K.

Shatma,

Advoc.ik'.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notifica|tion

No. L-420l2/177/94-T.R.(D.U.)

dated 4-8-95'has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of the

Director, Central Institute for Research dn

Buffaloes, Hissar in terminating the services

of Sh. Tnder Singh S/o Sh. Chunni Lai ex-

beldar is proper legal and justified ? Tf not,

to what relief he is entitled and from what

date ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the

representative of the workman is accepted, and no

dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate

Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 1997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of

the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tra] Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between tlw employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No. L-42O12|113|92-IR(DU)]

KULDTP RAI VERMA, Oe,k Officer

410$

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRT B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 134/93

Sh. Mahabir,

C/o President,

Distt. Agriculture Workers Union,

123/5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar-125 001.

. . .Petitioner,

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management—Shri

R. K.

Shnrma,

. . , . ,

Advocate

AWARD

(Passed on Sth Oi" June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification;

No. L-42012/113/92-l.R.(D.U.), dated 20-10-93 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of

Sh. Mahabir w.e.f. 31-3-89 is justified? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to and from what date ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. Tn view of the above, the request of the

representative of the workman is accepted, and no

dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate

Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officci

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 1998.—In pursuance of Section

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of

1947), the Central Government hereby pub-

lishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court

Chandigarh as shown in the Anncxure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Central Insti-

tute for Research

on Buffaloes,

and their

workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 16 July, 2001.

(No. L-42012|135|91-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUS-

TRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D.

No. 122192

Miss Banti D|o. Sh. Harsa Ram,

Tibba Danasher, Ward No. 11,

Bharat Nagar, Hissar-125002. .. Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

• •

Management.

APPEARANCES :,

For the workman.—Shri Darshan Singh

For the

management.—-Shri

R. K.

Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on Sth of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notifica-

tion No. L-42012lL35|91-I.R. (D.U.) dated

3-9-92 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the management

of Central Institute for Research on

Buffaloes, Hissar

terminating

the services of

Miss Banti w.e.f.

30-4-1991 is justified ? If not, what

relief the workman concerned

entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman ap-

peared.

He intends

to withdraw the

case

against the management.

The representative

ot the management has no objection. In view

4104

THE dAZfeTtE OF JN£>lA : AUGUST 11, 200i/£feAVANA 20, 1923

tt>ARi II—SEC. 3(11)]

the

above, the request

of the rep.

of the workman is accepted, and no dispute

award is returned to the Ministry.

Appro-

priate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 1999.—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-cum-Labour

Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexurc in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers

relation to the management of Central Insti-

tute for Research on Buffaloes and their work-

man, which

was received

by the Central

Government on 16 July, 2001.

(No. L-42012|136|91-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUS-

TRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 89)92

Sh. Nadan Singh S[o. Sh. Ram Chandcr,

Singh, H. No. 51, D.L.F. Colony, Near-

Barwala Chungi, Hissar-125001. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For

the

management.—Shri

Sharma Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette

notifica-

tion No. L-42012|136|91-I.R.(D.U.)

dated

14-8-1992 has referred the following dispute

to tliis Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the management

of Central Institute

for Research

on Buffaloes, Hissar in terminating

the services of

Sh.

Nadan Singh

w.e.f. March 86 is justified ? If not,

what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman ap-

peared.

He intends

to withdraw

the case

against the management.

The representative

of the management has no objection. In view

of the above, the request of the rep. ok the

workman is accepted,

and no dispute award

is returned

to the

Ministry.

Appropriate

Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2000.—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-cum-Labour

Court,

Chandigarh av rhown in the Annexurc in the

Industrial Dispute between the emploveis

4105

relation to the management of Central Insti-

tute ior Research on Buffaloes and their work-

man, which was

received by

the

Central

Government on 16 July, 2001.

[No. L-42O121137|91 IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUS-

TRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 98)92

Sh. Devindcr Slo. Sh. Chandgi Ram,

Clo. President, Distt.

Agriculture Workers

Union, 123|5, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar,

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

- -

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For

the

management.—Shri

Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette

notifica-

cation No. L-42012|137|91-I.R.(D.U.) dated

14-8-1992 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the management

of Central Institute for Research on

Buffaloes, Hissar

terminating

the services of Shri Devindcr vv.e.f.

October 90 is justified ?" If not, what

relief the workman

concerned

entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman ap-

peared.

He intends

to withdraw the

case

against the management.

The representative

of the management has no objection. In view

of the above, the request of the rep. of the

workman is accepted, and no dispute

award

is returned

to the

Ministry.

Appropriate

Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16di July, 2001

S.O. 2001.—In pursuance of Section

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of

1947), the Central Government hereby pub-

lishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers

relation to the management of Central Insti-

tute for Research on Buffaloes and their work-

man which

was received,

the Central

Government on 16 July, 2001.

j[No. L42012|138|91-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI. VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI ©. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDtJS^

TRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 97192

Sh. Indcr Singh Sjo Sh. Darya Singh,

Vill. & Post Peeranwali,

Distt. Hissar-125001.

Petitioner.

Versus

Dii ector,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes

Hissar, Haryana.

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For

the

management.—Shri

Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide

gazette

notifica-

tion No. L-42012|138|91-I.R.(D.U.)

dated

4106

THE GAZfiTTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14-8-92 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the management

of Central Institute

for Research

on Buffaloes, Hissar in terminating

the services of

Shri

Inder Singh

w.e.f. Feb. 1991 is justified ? If not,

what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman ap-

peared. He intends to withdraw the case

against the management.

The representative

of the management has no objection. In view

of the above, the request of the rep. of the

workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned

to the

Ministry.

Appropriate

Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2002.—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-cum-Labour

Court

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexurc in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Central Insti-

tute for Research on Buffaloes and their work-

man, which was received

the Central

Government on 16 July, 2001.

([No. L-42012ll39l9U.R.(DU)l

KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Offccr

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 96|92

Sh. Ram Dass S|o Sh. Roop Chand,

Vill. & Post Tandoor, Distt. Hissar,

12500J.

••

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar. Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Shri Da^shan Singh.

For

the

Management.—Shri

Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide

gazette

notifica-

tion No. L-42012|139|9M.R.(D.U.)

dated

14-8-1992 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication :•—-

"Whether the action of the management

of Centr'al Institute for* Research

on Buffaloes, Hissar in terminating

the services of Shri Ram Dass w.e.f.

March 1990 is justified ? If not,

what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman ap-

peared.

He intends

to withdraw

the case

against the management.

The representative

of the management has no objection. In view

of the above, the request of the rep. of the

workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the

Ministry.

#ipprbpria'e

Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

4107

New Delhi, Ihe 16ih July, 2001

S.O. 2003.—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 Chandigarh, af shown in the Annexurc

in the Industrial Dispute belween the employers

relation to the management of Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012| 140|91-TR(DU)]

KULDIP RAL VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORF SHRI B. L. JA7AV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CLJM-LABOUR

TOURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D No, U5 92

Sh. Diler Singh S'o Sh.^fih.mi,het Singh

Vill & Post Pteianwali, Dis!l.

Hissar-125002.

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For tht- Workman.—Shri Darshan Singli.

For the Management.—Shri

Sharma

Advoc3^fc.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of J>me, 2001)

The Central Government v de gazette notification

No.

L-42O12[14O!9M R.(D.U.) Dated

14-8-1992

has referred ibe following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication ;

"Whether the

jiclion of fhc

management

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hr.-,ar in terminating the services of

Shri

Diler Singh w.e.f. I ebruary, 1991 is justi-

fied ?

If not,

what relief the workman

concerned is pnli.ied to ?"

2 The representative of the workman appeared.

He intend-; to withdraw the ca^e against the mana-

gement.

The representative of the management has

no objection

Tn view of The above, the request of

fhe representative of the wcrkman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appro-

priate Gmernnient be iiJonned.

Chandigaih,

Dt, 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the J 6th July, 2001

S.O. 2004.—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 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

relation to the management of Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012]128|9MR(DU)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. !.. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

ID. No. '16 92

Sh Dinesh Kumar S[o lnder Sirigh

Vill. A Post Office, Bhugana,

Distt. Hissir-125002.

. .

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on BuA'aloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman,—-Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management.—Shri

Sharma

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide gazette notification

No. L-42012|128|91 IR.(D.Uj

Dated

20-8-1992

4108

THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA • AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART IT--SEC. 3(ii)]

Has referred the tullowing depute to this

Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the action of

the management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of

Sh.

Dincsh Kumar w.e.f. September, 1990

justified ? If not, v/hat relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement. The representative of the management has

no objection

In view of the above, the request of

the representative of the workman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appro-

pi rate Government be informed.

Chandigarh

Dt. 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 16lh July, 2001'

S.O. 2005.—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 Chandigarh, as shown in the Anncxure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the- management of Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7-20QJ.

[No. L-42012|129|91-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAF VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

T.D. No. 117,92

Sh. Charan Singh S[o Sh. Indcr Singh

Vill & P.O. Peeranwali, Teh. A Distt.

Hissar-125001

. .

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Btrfralocs,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management.—Shri

Sharma

Advocate.

AWARD

{Passed on 8th of Jure, 2001)

The Central Government vide gazette notification

N.i. L-42O12'129I9M.R.(D.U.)

Dated 20-8-1992

has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the management

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of

Shri

Charan Singh w.e.f. August, 1990 is justi-

fied ? If

not, what

relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?"

2, The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement.

The representative vt the management lias

no objection

Tn view of the above, the request of

the representative of the wcrlman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chandigarh

Dt. 8 6-2001

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O, 2006.—Tn 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 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management ol Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and theii workman, which wasi

received by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012|132|91-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer

4109

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JAIAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL f RIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 92J92

Sh. EhaJ Singh

C|o President, Distt. Agriculture Workers

Union, 123j5, Jawahar Nugar,

Hissar.

. .

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Reseairh

on Buft'aloeSj

Hissar, Havana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management.—Shri

Shanna

Advocate,

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Ccntial Government M6C gazette notification

No. L-42012[132[91-J.R (D.U.)

dated

14-8-1992

has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the management

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of Shri

Bhal Singh w.e.f. July, 1990 is justified?

Ti not, what relief the workman concerned

is entitled lo ?"

2. The representative of (Le workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the care against the mana-

gement.

Tlie representative of the management has

no objection

Tn view of the above, the request of

the representative of the wo krvmn is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned lo the Ministry. Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chan-'ii^arh.

Dt 8-6-2001

B. L. JVTAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 16i> Ju'y, 2001

S.O. 2007.—In pursuance ol 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 Chandig?rh, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Central Institute

for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7^2001.

[No.

i^2012|133|91-IR(DU)]

KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JAfAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 91 [92

Sh. Charanji Lai S|o Sh. MurJi

Tibba Dana Sher. Ward No. 11,

Bharat Nagar, Hissar-125001.

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management.—Shri

Shanm

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed rn 8th of lunc, 2001)

The Central Government vide gazette notification

No. L-42012|133i<_)l-I.P.(D.U,)

Dated

14-8-1992

has referred the following

cii'.putc to this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the management Gf

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of

Shri

Charanji La] w.c.f. 31-7-1988 is justified?

If not, what relief thi: workman concerned

is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of rhe workman appeare'l.

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement

The representative of the management has

no objection

In view of the above, the request of

the representative of the workman is accepted, and

no dispute award is ldurned :o th^ Ministry, Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chandigarh.

Dt. S-b-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Office.

21+7 GI[2001—9

4; 10

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PARF II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the !6lh July, 2001

S.O. 20O8\—In pursuance

of Section 17 of the

industrial Disputes

Act, 1047 (14 of 1947),

the

Central Government hereby publishes the award of

the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cuin-

Labour Court, Chandigarh, a; shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

relation to' the management cf Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-v2012|134|91-TR(DU)J

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRT B. L. JATAV, FRF-SIDiNG

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRJBl INAl.-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 90 92

Sh. Arjun Singh S|o Sh. Khushi Ram

C|o President, Distt. Agriculture Workers

Union, 123|5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

. .

Petitioner.

Versu;

director,

Central Institute for Rese.irc.Ii

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.--Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management.— Shri

Sharm.i

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2C0I)

The Central Government vide Gazette notification

No. L-420t2|134l9l-I.R.(D.U.) Dated

14-8-1992

has referr;d the following

dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the

management

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes

Hissar in terminating the services of Shri

Arjun Singh w.c.f. 30-S-88 is justified ? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to ?'•

2." the representative of the workman appear^).

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement.

The representative of the management h:is

no objection.

Tn view of the i-beve, the request nt

the representative of the workman is accepted, anJ

no dispute award is returned \o >'he Ministry. Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Ciiandigaih,

Dt 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding OfTicrr.

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2009.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

'Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tral Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between ihe employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman which was received

by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/l23/91-IR(DU)|

KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRT

L. JATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDTGARH

I.D. No. lll|92

Sh. Ram Baran S|o Sit. Bhuru Ram

C[o President Distt. Agricultural Workers

Union. 123|5, Jawahar Nagar. Hissar

.Petitioner

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana!

. . .Management

APPEARANCES •

Fdr the workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management : Shri

Sharma,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Parsed on Sth of .Tune 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-42012/123/91-IR(D.U.) dated 20-8-1992 has

41 ii

referred the following di&pute to this Tribunal for td-

judicatiaon:

"Whether the i.ction ,of the maneigemeni

•Ceatrjil Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hiss,ur in terminating the services of Shii

Ram Baran w.e.f, 31-3-91 is justified ? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?"

2. The representative of the worl.man appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In vie-j" of ,the above, the request of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the Ministry.

Appropriate Govt. be

informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New -Delhi, the 16lh July, 2001

S.O. 2010.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Governrneut Jjereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as .shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management ,of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was j-gcoived

by the Central Government on 16-7-2ft01.

[No. L-42012|126|91-I-R(DU)]

KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHUT

H. L. JATAV PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 114192

Sh. Sanjaiy Slo Sh. Harphool Singh.

Vill & Dhani, Kurnbpur, Hansi

...Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .Management.

APPEARANCES .

For the workman : Shii Darshan Singh.

For the management . Shri

R. K, Stjarma

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of J-yne 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette notih'ofttion No. L-

42012| 126|91-I.R. (D.U) Datfc? 20-8-1992 has te

ferred

the following dispute \Q this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tital Institute Car

Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar

in terminating

the services

Sh. Sanjay w.e.f. July 1990 is justified ? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends .to withdraw the .case against ^the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection.

In view of the above, ,the request of the

rep. of .the workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt. be

informed¹.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 201 l.^Jn pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Ace. 1947 (14 of 1947;, the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tral

Government

Industrial TribunaJ-cunj-Labour

Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012|119]91-IR(DU)J

KULDIP KA.T VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFiICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-OLABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

ID. Nc. 107|92

Sh. Kali Ram S|o Sh, Chhotu Ra>m

C|o President, IJistt, Aericulture Workers

Union, 123|5, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar.

. .Petitioner

4li2

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/$RAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(li)]

Versus

Director,

Central institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workina'i : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management : Shn R.

Sharma,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Parsed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette notification No. L-

42012|119|91-1.R.(O.U.) Dated 20-8-1992 has re-

ferred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management

Central Institute foi Resarch on Buffaloes,

Hissar m terminjting the services of Shri

Kali Ram w.c.f. 30-4-90 is justified?

not, whit relief the workman concerned is

entitled to⁹ '

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute awafrd

is returned to the Ministry

Appropriate Govt. be

informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2012.—Tn pursuance oi Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tral Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Centra] Institute for Research

"ii buffaloes and their workman, which wais received

by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012|12l|91JR(DU)]

KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L. JATAV,

PRESIDING)

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

U>. No. 109 92

Sh. Partap Singh S|o Sh. Sher Singh

C|o Fresident, llistt. Agriculture

Workers Union, 51123, Jawahar Nagai,

Hissar.

...Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute tot Research

on BufTajloes,,

Hissar, Haryapa.

...Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management ; Shri R. K. Sharma, Ad-

vocate.

AWARD

(Palssed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. ride gazette notification No. L-

42012| 121 |91-I.R. iD.U.) Dated 20-8-1992 has re-

ferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for ad¹-

judication :

"Whether the action of the management

Central Tmtitule for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissafr in terminating the services of Shri

Fartnp Singh w.c.f. 29-6-90 is justified ? If

not, what rehef the workman concerned is

entitled to ?"

2. The representative uf the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw tfie case against the manage-

ment. The re)piresenta,tive of the management has

no objection. In view of the above, the request of

the rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute

award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt.

be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV. Presiding Officer

Aiii

New Delhi, Ihe J6lh July, 2001

S.O. 2013.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Govrnment hereby publishes the award ot the Central

Government Industrial Tnbunal-cum-Larxnir

Court,

Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Indus-

trial Dispute between the employers^; I region to the

management of Central Institute for

Rc^aica on

Buffaloes and their workman, which was leceived by

the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012|113|91-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L. JA1AV, PRESIDING

OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 101|92

Sh. Munshi Ram S|o Sh. Bhagwan Dass

C|o President, Distt. Agriculture

Workers Union 123)5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Reseaich

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

...Management.

APFEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management : Shri

Sharma

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8lh of June 2001)

The Central Govl. vide

gazette

notification

No. L-42012|113|91-T.R. (0 U)

Dated

20-8-1992

has referred¹ the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Institute for Research on

Buffaloes,

Hissar

in terminating

the

seivices of

Shri Munshi Ram v.ci. 8-1-90 is justified?

Tf not, what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above¹,

the

lequcst of

the rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute

award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt,

be informed.

Chandigatrh.

8-6-2001.

B L. IATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2014.—In pursuance oi Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the ^ward of the Cental

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court

Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Central Institute for

Research on

Buffaloes and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42O12|114|91-1R(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 102192

Sh. Ashok Kumar S|o Sh. Mangat Ram

C|o President, Distt. Agriculture Worker

Union, 5[12J, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

.. .Mamagement.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh,

For the management

Shri

Sharma

Advocate.

WARD

(Passed on 8th of June 2001)

The Central

Govt. vide gazette

notification

No L-42012¹114[91-I.R. (DU.) Dated

20-8-1992

has referred¹ the following dispute to this Tiibunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Institute for Research on

Buffaloes,

Hissar

in terminating the

services of

Shri Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 7-7-90 is justi-

fied ? Tf not, what relief the workman con-

cerned is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request

the rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute

4H4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

award is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt.

be informed.

Chandigalrh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2015.—In. pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the awaid of the Cen-

tial

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between (.he employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42O12/116/91-1R(DU)1

KULD1P RAT VERMA, Desk OJTicer

ANNKX.URE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JA1AV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CRR, CENTRAL CiOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

1RIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDfGARH

I.D. No. 104|92

Shii Sher Singh S/o Shri Mohan Lai,

Quarter No. 12, Ward ND. 11, Bharat

Nagar, Hissar-125002.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Rtstyrch

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

.Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management : Shri R. K. Sharma. Advo-

cate.

AWARD

(Passed¹ on 8th of June 2001)

The Central Government viri- Gizcttc notification

No. L-42012/U6/91-1.R. fD.U.) dated 20-8-1992

lias refened the following t'isoule to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Institute for

Research on

Buffaloes,

Hissai in terminating the services of Shri Sher

Singh w.e.f. 30-5-1990 is justified? If not,

what itlicf the workman concerned is entitl-

ed to?"

2. The leprescntative <A the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The lcpresentative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and

dispute

award is returned to the Ministry. Apptopriate Gov-

ernment be iniormed

Chandigarh,

8-6-200 L

B. 1. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2016.—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,

Triunal-cum-Laour

Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers

relation to the management of B.B.M.B. and

their workman, whicli was received by

the

Central Government on 16 July, 2001.

[No. L-42012|U6]92-IR(DU)J

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUS-

TRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT. CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 42|93

Vakil Chand C]o.,

Shri Dhani Ram, General Secy..

RSL Project Mazdoor Ekta

Union, S-1'51, Sundernagar (H.P.)

Workman.

4115

Versus

The Lnicf Engineer

B.S.L, Project,

BBMB, Sundernagar (H.P.) . - Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman.—Sliri Dhani Ram.

For the

management.-—Shri

Sandccp

Chopra.

AWARD

(Passed on 19th June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette

notifica-

tion

No.

L-42OI2|]l6l92-IR(DU)

dated

18th of March 1993 has referred the follow-

ing dispute to

this Tribunal

for adjudica-

tion :—

"Whether the action of the management

of BBMB, Sundernagar in retiring

Shri Vakil Chand

31-3-1992

after considering his date of birth

to be 14-3-1932 is justified ? If not,

what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the workman in brief

that he was

appointed on 30-12-1963

carpenter grade-I in BSL Project.

Later on

he was transferred to BBMB and joined

his

services in hydel

channel

division BBMB

Sundernagar.

As per School leaving certifi-

cate his date of Birth is 15-6-1934.

On (he

baiss of his date of birth he should have been

retired on 30-6-1994 but the management had

reiired him on 31-3-1992 taking into consi-

deration his date of birth 14-3-1932.

Thus

he was retired prematurely.

He has

suffer-

ed loss of Rs. 170,000.

3. The management has recorded his date

of birth in

service record

erroneously

14 3-1932. Prior to submission of school leav-

ing certificate the workman

had

fi'ed

affidavit with intent to avoid de'ay in gating

his salary in which his date of birth has be^n

shown as 14-8-1932. He submitted represen-

tation to the

management for making cor-

rection in his date of birth

bi't the rmna fo-

ment did not consider his

representation nnd

tftired him on 31-3-1992 taking into consi

delation the date of birth

as 14-3-19^1. The

action

taken

by the

management

is not

justified so the workman

has nised indus-

trial dispute,

and

the reference

has bem

made bv Cen^fril Gov^. in this Tribunal '"or

adjudication.

has reauested

that

the

iTinnapement be directed

retire him on

30-6-1994 or 31-8-1992 after attaining

age

ol 60 years,

alongwith backwages and other

consequential benefits.

4. The management has filed its written

statement alleging that at the time of entering

into service by the workman, his date of birth

was recorded in service record

as 14-3-1932.

This date of birth was shown in seniority list

of carpenters which

was circulated among

the other

workers

BBMB.

The work-

man did not raise any objection regarding his

date of birth.

He filed an affidavit at later

stage for the correction

of his date of birth.

Thereafter he submitted school leaving certi-

ficate in which his date of birth has been shown

as 15-6-1934.

The Chief Engineer of

the

BBMB considered the case of the workman

and directed to Superintending Engineer

retire the applicant

workman on 31-3-1992

taking into consideration the

date

of birth

14-3-1 °32.

Thus the

management

has not

committed any error.

The action taken

the management is justified.

Therefore,

the

claim of the workman be dismissed without

any relief.

5. In this case all the

facts arc admitted

facts except date of birth of the workman.

6. The workman has filed his

affidavit

which is Ex. Wl.

He has also filed copy of

the retirement order Ex. W2, discharge certi-

ficate from BCB7 Ex. W3 and copy of school

leaving certificate Ex. W4.

The management

has filed the

affidavit of Executive Engineer

B. M. Salwon and the documents Ex. Ml,

M2, M4 and M5. The workman has deposed

in liis affidavit that his date

of birth

has

been recorded by the management in device

record as 14-3-1932 which is erroneous.

per his affidavit his date of birth is 14-8-1932.

THon^

into

consideration

this

date,

should have been retired on 31-8-1992

but

the management had retired him on 31-3-1992

forciblv.

He has also deposed that as

per

school leaving certificate Ex. W4 his date of

birth is

15-6-1^34,

on the basis of

which

he should have been

retired on 30-6-1994

But the management

has

retired

him en

31-3-92.

He submitted affidavit and school

levins certificate

for the correction of date

of birth but the management did not consi-

der his request *nd reiected his representation.

The date of birth 14-3-1993 has b^en enter-

ed erroneously in seniority list due to typing

mistake.

The management has acted illegally

4116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

by retiring him prior to two years of age of

superannuation. The witness of the manage-

ment has deposed that in discharge

certifi-

cate issued by Bhakra Dam Project, his age

was entered 33 years at the time of his dis-

charge.

In discharge certificate Ex. M4 the

date of birth has not been entered.

At the

lime of entering into

service by the work-

man, in BBMB

as carpenter, his date

birth as 14-3-1932 was entered in the service

record.

This date of birth was entered

column No. 6 of seniority list appended with

circular dated 6-4-1978 Ex. M5. The objec-

tions were invited regarding

any

errcnous

entries within a period of 30 days. The work-

man has admitted in

his cross-examination,

that he did not move any application to the

Chief Engineer BBMB for correction of

his

date of birth

during the

year 1979.

joined his services in BBMB during the year

1979 and worked

till 1992.

He submitted

an application Ex. M2 to Chief Engineer BSL,

Sundcrnagar for

correction of

his date of

birth during the year 1991. It clearly shows

that he submitted

application

for making

correction in date of birth prior to near about

one year of his retirement, which is apparently

belated.

7. In this case the main controversy relates

to the date of birth of the workman.

The

workman has stated in his

claim statement

his date of birth should be considered as it

has been shown in his affidavit Ex, Ml or th;

date of

birth given in school leaving certi-

ficate Ex. W4 should be considered.

A per-

son can not be born twicely. He pas prayed

in his claim statement for getting relief consi-

dering his

date of birth as 14-8-1932

15-6-1934. The management has referred the

case of Union

of India

Vs. Harnam Singh

(AIR 1993 S.C. 1367) in which the Hon'hlo

Supreme Court has

held that an entry

to date of birth of an employee recorded

the time of entry into service

continue 1^

exist for lon^ period without challenge

may

be considered the basis for retirement.

Re-

fusal to make correction at later statrc

can

not be considered unjustified.

The workrmn..

has not mnrte any efforts to cet the eritrv of

rht~ of birth corrected at earlv stp^ of

his

entering into the service of the BTtMR There

fore,

the management can not hr directed

to make anv change in his date of birih. The

action taken by the management is i'lstificH.

8. On considering the evidence n1n-v*r1 on

rpmrd bv bntri the mrties. the reference

answered that the action of the management of

BBMB at Sundcrnagar in retiring Shri Vakil

Chand on 31-3-1992

after

considering his

date of birth to be 14-3-1932 is justified.

is not entitled to get any relief. Both parties

shall bear their own costs. Appropriate Govt.

be informed.

Chandigarh.

19-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, Ihe 16th July, 2001'

S.O. 2017.—In pursuance of Section 17

of the

Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

(14 of 1947), the

Central Government heicby publishes the award of

the Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Central Institute for

Research on Bufta'oes and thcii workman, which was

received by the Central Governme'nt on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42O12|117|91-IR(DU]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRT B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

I.D, No, 105192

Sh, Ranjeet Singh Slo Sh. Jogjndcr Singh,

Vill. & Post Office Pecranwali

Distf. Hissar-125002,

..Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management-—Shri R, K. Sharma, Ad-

vocate.

4117

AWARD

(Passed on B*h of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-420l2/J17/9l-l.R.(D.U.) dt. 20-3-1992 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for

adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the

management

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of Shri

Ranject Singh w.e.f. 1-8-1990 is justified ?

If not, what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the

workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement.

The representative of the management has

no objection,

In view of the above, the request of

the representative of the woikman is accepted, and

no dispute award is relumed to the Ministry, Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chandigarh.

Dt. 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001'

S,O. 2018.—Tn

pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

( H of 1947), the

Tentral Government hereby publishes the award of

the Central

Government "Industrial

Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Chandigarh, as. shown in the Annexnre

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which w

received by the Cent ml Government on 16-7-20C

[No. L-42012|109|92-TR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CH VNDIGARH

T.D. No. 135193

Smt. Vidya C|o President, Distt, Agriculture

Workers Union 12315, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar,

• •

Petitioner.

2347 GII2001— 10.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

FOi the Workman,—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management—Shri

Sharma,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-42012/109/92-I.R.(D.U.) dated 20-10-1993,

has referred the following dispute to this

Triubnal

for adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the

management

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of Smt.

Vidhya w.e.f. 10-1-90 is legal and

justi-

fied 7 If not,

what

relief the workman

concerned

is entitled

and from what

date ?"

2. The representative of the

workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement.

The representative of the management has

no objection.

Tn view of the above, the request of

the representative of the workman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chandigarh

Dt. 8-6-2001.

B. T. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001¹

S.O. 2019.—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 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

Telation to the management in Central Institute for

Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012|109|93-I.R.(DU)]

KULDTP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

4118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT. CHANDIGARH

l.D. No. 112|94

Ms. Vecna Rani D|o Sh. Lekh Raj

Rjo 94-W, Model Town,

Hissar.

. .

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.— Shri Darshan Singh.

•For the Management—Shri R. K. Sharma.

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-420l2|109j93-I.R.(D.U.) Dated 25-8-94 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for

adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in not giving the opportunity of re

employment to Miss Veena Rani,

Ex-

cmployec, is justified ? If not, what relief

she is entitled to and from what date ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the cftse against the mana-

gement. The iepre^centaiive of the management has

no objection.

In view of Ihc above, the request of

the representative of the workman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry, Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chandigarh.

Dt, 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

(14 of 1947), the

Central Government heieby publishes the award of

the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management in Central Institute for

Research on Bulfaloes and their

workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 16th

July, 2001.

[No. L-42012[lll|91-IR(DU)]

KULD1P RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

T.D. No. 99|92

Sh. Balbir Singh S|o Sh. Banwari Lai

R|o Vill. & P.O. Mauja Matrayam

Distt. Hissar-125002.

. . Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management—Shri R.

Sharma,

Advocate,

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-42012|lll|91-I.R.(DU.)

Dated

20-8-1992

has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :

"Whether the

action of the management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of

Sh.

Balbir Singh-w.e.f. 30-11-1989 is justified?

If not, what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to ?''

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement. The representative of the management has

no objection

Jn view of the above, the request of

the representative of the workman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appro-

priate Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

Dt. 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

4119,

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award of

the Cen^fral Government Industrial

Tnbunal-cum-

Labour Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexurc

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management in Central Institute for

Research on Buftaloes and their workman, which

was received

by the Central Government on 16th

July, 2001.

[No. L-42012|lll|92-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR

COURT, CHANDIGARH

ID. No. 131J93

Smt. Bhago C|o President, Distt. Agriculture

Workers Union, 123|5, ,'awahar Nagar,

Kissar.

. .

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. .

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—^chri Darshan Singh.

For the Management—Shn R.

Sharma,

(

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification

No. L-42012/111/92-I.R.(D.U.) dated 20-10-93 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for

adjudication :

"Whether ihe

action of the management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of Smt.

Bhago w.c.f. March, 1990 is justified? If

not, what relief ?hc is entitled to and from

what date?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

Hs intends to withdraw the case against the mana-

gement. The leprcsentative of the management has

no objection.

In view of the above, the request of

the representative of the workman is accepted, and

no dispute award is returned to the Ministry. Appro-

priate Government be irlormed.

Chandigarh.

Dt. 8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes ths award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No. L-42012/112/92-IR(DU)J

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT.

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 132/93

Shri Rameshwar,

C/o President,

Distt, Agriculture Workers Union,

123/5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

.Petitioner

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryana.

. . , Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management—Shri R. K. Sharma,

Advocate.

41:0

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, zuUl/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide gazette notification

No L-42012/112/92-I.R.(D.U.) dated 20-10-93 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Institute for

Research on

Buffaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of Shri

Rameshwar w.e.f.

1-9-91 is justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled lo

and from what date ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the man-

agement. The representative of the management has

no objection. In view of the above, the request of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Government

be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of J947). the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tral Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute for Research

on Buflaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16-7-2001

[No. L-42012/94/94-IR(DU)]

KULD1P RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI-

CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 8/96

District President,

District Agriculture Workers Union,

193/5, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar,

Workman/

Union.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research on Buflaloes,

Hissar. Haryana.

. . .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman—Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management—Shn

R. K.

Sharma,

Advocate

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Government vide gazette notification

No. L-42012/94/94-IR(D.U.), dated 30-J-1996 has

referred the following dispute tc this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Institute for Research on

Buflaloes,

Hissar in terminating the services of Shri

Shamsher Singh son of Shri Matu Ram and

employing some other in his place is justified

and legal. If not, to what relief and fiom

what date the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of 'he management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request, of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Government

be- informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2024.—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-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure 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 Cen-

tral Government on 16-7-200 L.

[No. L-42O12/66/88-D.lI(B)J

KULDTP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

4121

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE

CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT IN-

DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 29th June, 200J

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni,

B.Com.,

LLB,

Presiding Officer.

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore

C.R. No. 53/R9

I PARTY:

Shri R. Alagiri,

Represented by the General Secretary,

Tungabhadra Board Drivers and

General Worker's Union, T.B. Dam,

Hospet Taluk,

Bellary District-583 101.

(Advocate Shri M. C. Narasimhan)

II PARTY:

The Secretary,

Tungabhadra Board,

T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk,

Bellary District-583101.

(Advocate—Shri B. G. Sndharan)

AWARD

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-42012/66/88-

D-TT(B) dated 1st August, 1989 on the following

schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Tungabhadra Board,

T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District is

justified in fixing Shri R. Alagiri, Driver >n

the scale of Rs. 280 to Rs. 500 instead of

Rs. 340 to Rs. 800 and deducting the ex-

cess payment ? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled to ?"

2. First party union workman is working with the

second party management. The management did not

justify in fixiug him in the scale of Rs. "280 to Rs. 500

instead of Rs, 340 to Rs. 800 and deducted excess

payment. Therefore, he raised the Industrial Dispute.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and

Objections.

4. The case of the first party in brief is as under :—

5. The first party joined as Driver with the Board

in the year 1952 in a work-charged establishment.

The board had been following the Government Order

issued time to time with regard to revision of pay

scales and the first party union Workman was getting

salary accordingly. From 1-1-76 the first party union

workman was given the time scale of Rs. 120

240

and his pay was fixed at Rs. 158.

6. It is the further case of the first party union work-

man that as per the revision of his pay scale was re-

vised to Rs. 340—800 and the pay of the first party

was fixed as Rs. 500 from 1-1-77. There was further

revision of pay from 1-1-82 and his pay was fixed

as Rs. 860. The next revision applicable from 1-1-87

at the scale of Rs. 870—1600 and the pay of the first

party fixed at Rs. 1600.

7. It is the further case of the first party workman

that he was receiving salary accordingly. The Second

Party in its office Memorandum dated 1-8-86 had re-

fixed and reduced the salary of the first party in the

scale of Rs. 280—500 from 1-1-77 and Rs. 300—700

from 22-1-80 and Rs. 450—860 from 1-1 -82 in super-

seeding the earlier orders of pay fixation of the salary

and the action of the management is not correct.

8. The salary of the Senior Driver is fixed at the

scale of Rs. 1360—2065 in the State Transport

Corporation. The recovery is illegal. First party union

workman has prayed that the action of the manage-

ment is not correct and prayed to pass order in its

favour.

9. The case of the management is that the dispute

raised is not maintainable. The workman has filed

Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 11112/88 and as per

the interim order of the said Writ petition recovery

has been stopped from May, 1990. It is said in an-

other case filed by Sri S. Mahaboob against second

party for reinstatement, it has been disposed of by

the High Court of Kamataka with the direction to

consider his case if he is eligible in the light of the

decision rendered

by the Supreme

Court in the

Dharwad District, PWD, Literate Daily Wages Em-

ployees Association and Ors Vs. State of Karnatuka

etc. (ATR 1990 SC 883). The management for these

reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

10. It is seen from the records that this dispute is

pending since 11 years and the parties have spent

more time without any good progress. In the instant

case workman got examined himself. On behalf of

the management MW1 is examined.

11. It is seen from the records that the advocates

on record went on changing. Parties have not adduc-

ed any further evidence. So the matter was closed.

The learned counsel for the first party has not advanc-

ed any document. T have heard the learned counsel

for the second party. T have closed the case because

this is one of the oldest matter before this court and

secondly we have the evidence of witnesses and all

the documents.

12. I have perused all the documents carefully. T

have read the evidence of workman and management

witnesses. MW1 has stated in his evidence that the

first party union workman was working as Driver

with the Second Party and his pay was fixed in the

year 1981 at Rs. 340—800.

13. He further states that the above scale was, fix-

ed for the first party workmau though eligibility was

in the pay scale of Rs. 300—700. His evidence is that

pay w<as fixed correctly and there is no mistake in

fixing the pay. He has been cross examined at length

but nothing is made out from his cross examination.

4122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART IT—SEC. 301)}

The evidence of MW1 is sufficient to prove that the

action of the management is correct

14. The learned counsel for the management has

filed copy of oTder of the High Court of Karnataka

in W.P. No, 11112/88 filed by the first party work-

man.

15. It is seen from the said order that the first party

has withdrawn the Writ Petition. We have the evi-

dence of WW1. This evidence is not sufficient to say

that the action of the management is illegal. The evi-

dence of first party workman will not help to prove

that the action of the management js not correct. WW1

says in his cross examination that it is correct to say

that he was fixed in the nay scale of Rs. 860 and it

is not correct to say that the board has reduced his

scale into Rs. 775. The evidence of first parly union

workman is not clear to substantiate this dispute.

16. Considering all this I am of the opinion that

there is, no merit in this reference. Accordingly I pro-

ceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and

signed by me on 29th June, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding

Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2025.—In

pursuance of

Section 17 of ihe

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publisher the award of the

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunul-cunvLabour Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Anntxure in the Indus-

trial Dispute between the employers in relation to

tbe management of Central Tnstitule for Research on

Buffaloes and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No. L-42012|63|93-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHR1 B. L. JATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT

INDUSTRIAL

TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I. D. No. 92|94

Smt. Deelo Devi

C|o Dharshan Singh,

Distt. Agriculture Workers Union,

123|5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

. .

Petitioner.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar. Haryana

. . Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshim Singh

For the management : Shri R. K. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

L-42012|63|93-T.R.(DU) Dated 11-8-94 has referred

the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudi-

cation :

"Whether the action of the

management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in

terminating

the

services of

Smt. Deelo Devi, Ex-Daily paid Labour

w.c.f. June,

1990 is

justified?

not,

what relief she is entitled

and from

what date ?"

2. The representative of

the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate

Govt. be

informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001

B. L. JATAV,

Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2026.—Tn

pursuance of Section 17

of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes tru award of the

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexur; in the Indus-

trial Dispute between the employers in relation to

4123

he management of Central Listitut¹: for Rcseaich on

Bull'aloes and their workman, which was received by

the- Cenral Government on JOth July, 2001.

[No. L-42012|51|96-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI B. L. JATAV

PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOLR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I. D. No. 131'97

Smt. Ora Pati, •

C|o Distt. Agriculture

Workers Union,

123|5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

• • Petitioner

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar. Haryana

. . Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh

For the management : Shri R. K. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

L-42012|5l|96-lR(DU) Dated 30-5-1997 lias referred

the follqWing dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudi-

cation :

"Whether the action of the

management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in

terminating

the

services of

Smt. Om Pati

and not giving

opportunity

for re-employmcnt is legal and justified ?

Tf not, to what

relief the

workman

entitled to ?"

2. The representative of

the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of tbe management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the

rep. of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award

is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt. be

informed,

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001

B. L. JATAV,

Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O, 2027.—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 Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus-

trial Dispute between the employers in relation to

Nthe management of Central Institute for Research on

Buffaloes and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16th July, 2001.

[No.

L-42012|5l|93-lR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXtIRE

BEFORE

SHRI

B. L. JATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL

GOVT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 89191

Sh. Ram Bhagat,

S|o Sh. Banarasi Dass

C|o President, Distt. Agriculture

Workers Union,

123|5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar.

Petitioner

Versus

Director,

Centra] Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar. Haryana

- Management

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh

For the management : Shri R. K. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

L-42012|51|93-TR(DU) Dated

11-8-94 has referred

the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudi-

cation :

"Whether the action of the

management of

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar in

terminating

the

services of

the workman Shri

Ram

Bha^at

w.e.f,

18-10-91 is legal and justified ?

If not,

4124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—Stc. 3(ii)]

what relief

the

vvoikman

concerned is

entitled to ?"

2. The representative of

ihe workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the casu against the manage-

ment. The representative o( the management has no

objection. In view or. the above, the request of the rep.

of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award is

returned to the Ministry.

Appropriate

Govt.

informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001

B. L. JATAV,

Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2028.—In

pursuance of Section 17

of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ot 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus-

trial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central Institute for Research on

Buffaloes and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 16th July, 2001,

[No. L-42O12|49|93-1R(DU)J

KULD1P RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. Noj 90 of 1994

Sh. Lakha Ram

S|o Sh. Gurbachan Singh,

H. No. 1408, 12 Quarter,

Hissar.

. • Petitioner

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar. Haryana

. . Management

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management : Shri R. K. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

L-42012|49|93-IR(DU) Dated 17-8-1994 has referred

the following dispute

to this

Tribunal for adjudi-

cation :

"Whether the action of this

management of

Central Institute for Research on Buflaloes,

Hissar in

terminating

the

services of

Shrj Lakha Ram w e.f. Dec. 1989 is legal

and justified ?

It not,

what

relief

the

workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The representative of

the workman appeared.

He intends to withdraw the case against the manage-

ment. The representative of the management has no

objection. In view of the above, the request of the rep.

of the workman is accepted, and no dispute award is

returned to the Ministry.

Appropriate

Govt.

informed.

Chandigarh,

8-6-2001

B. L. JATAV,

Piesiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tral

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Tungnbhadra Board, T. B. Dam

and their workman, which was received by the Cen-

tral Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42012/7/89-D-II(B)/IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated, 29 th June. 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkorni. B.Co., LLB.,

Presiding Officer,

CGTT-cum-Labour Court.

Bangalore.

C. R. No. 54/89

4i :s

I PARTY

S/Shri Mookanna and 21 others,

The General Secretaiy,

Tungabhadra Board Factory

Workers

and Civil Employees Union.

T.B. Pam-583225,

Bellary District,

(Advocate Shri A. S. Mellabennur)

II PARTY

1. The Secretary,

Tungabhadra Board,

T.B. Dam-583225.

Bellary District.

2. The Executive rngiiieei.

Low Level Canal Division.

Cantonment,

Bcliary-583104.

(Advocate Shri A. K. Ehat)

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

refened this dispute vide ordei No. L-42012/7/89-

D-H(B)/IR(DU) dated 2nd August, 1989 for adju-

dication on the following schedule :

SCI rCDULE

-'Whether the action of the Tungabhadra Board,

T. B. Darn. Rellaiy District in retrenching

S/Shri MooJcanna,

G Ravi K.

Vcnkappa

Setty,

Vonnapp:,, V. G. Yerrappa, D.

Nugabhuihanam,

Mallikarjuna,

Smt.

Laxmi, S/Shri Er.mna, Snryababu,

Fakir-

appa, M. Rajesekar, Vcerashan, Ismail, Nai-

la,nna, Rrmuilinga, (). Gangappa and Narasi-

mhulu is justified .'

If not, to what relief

are the workmen entitled to ?"

2. Twenty Two workmen of first party union were

wotting with the Second party management and diey

were terminated therefore their union have raised this

dispute.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and

, Counter respectively.

4. flu; case of these woikmen of the first part\

union is ;r. follows :

5 It is the case of the workmen that they were

working with the Second part) on maintenance of

Low Level Canal and they hrve put in continuous

service of more than 240 dnys and their services were

abruptly stopped frdm 27-7-1988 and 1-7-86 respec-

tively without following any procedure. The action of

the management is not correct.

f>. It is the further case of these workmen that many

«f his junior were taken on regular basis but without

following the. mandatory provision of Section 25F of

the Industrial Dispute Act these workers were tcrrai-

mAted The acrion of the maaagement is not correct

jand they have prayed to pass award in their favour.

3347 Gl]2mi—it.

1. The case of the management is as follows :

8. That the dispute laised by the Union is not main-

tainable. The main coiKeation of the management is

lhat it is not an industry and the status of the board

has been explained and it is clear that it is not an

industry.

9. It is the further case of the management thai

the allegations made by the first party are not correct

and this tiibunal has no jurisdiction.

10. It is seen from the tecoidf. that this is a matter

of 1J years old and the parties unnecessary spent

all these days without piopeily conducting the case.

Many adjournments vveie given to lead the evidence

but except the evidence of WW1 there is no other

evidence

I 1. First party union submitted that it has closed

its evidence. Date wns given for the Second party to

adduce evidence if any. There is no evidence on behalf

of the management. I have heard the learned counsel

for the second party T have perused all the documents

and read the evidence of WW1 carefully. According

to the evidence of WW1 he was working since 1984

as muster roll employee under the second party. He

has also stated that other workmen were working with

the second party. He has said that after July 1988

he was termianted along with others. No notice of

termination was given. Termination benefits were not

given. VVW1 in his cross examination says that they

were engaged on daily wages. But payment was made

once in a month. He also says in his cross examina-

tion that their services were temporary. Admittedly

there is nn

appointment order for these

workmen.

There is not an iota of evidence to establish that these

workmen have worked for more than 240 days.

12, It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

management that the workmen being the casual work-

ers are not entitled for any benefits. They have not

vorled foi more than 240 days. He relied the deci-

sions of ATR 1979 Supreme Court 1981 and AIR

1994 Supreme Court 163S. I have read the above

deu.iions. From the records it is clear that these work-

men wer^ only Casual Woiker

There is no evidence

that they have continuously worked for more than

240 days.

13. With this, and the principles held in the above

decisions I am of the opinion that there is no merit

in this reference. First partv has failed to prove that

they had worked continuously for more than 240 days.

Accordingly I piocecd to pass the following order :

ORDFR

The refei encc is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 29th June, ?001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

4126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the l<Mh July, 2001

S.O. 2030.—In pursuance ol Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tial

Government

ludusiml

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in tht Annexure in the In-

dustrial Dispute between ihe employee in relation to

the management of Wild Lil'c Institute of India and

(heir workman, which wai jeeeived by the Central

Government on 16-7-2001

|No. L-42011/59/99-lR(DU)J

KULDJP KAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE rue c I-:NI RAL GOVERNMEN r

JNDUSTRIAL I RIBIJNAL-CUM-L ABOUR

COURT, I.UCKNOW

Piesiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar,

AD INDICATION

l.D. No. 23/99

Ref. No.: L-42OI 1/5V>9/IR(DU)

d:\lcd 19th

November, 1999

BLTWhbN

Piesidtnt,

Wikl I ire Institute ol Irdia Employers L'nion.

P.D. No. IK. Cmndcifuini,

Dchu\,mn~24XO0l.

AND

1 he Duet-tor,

Wild Life Institute of Inukt,

Chnndrabaiv, Dehradun-24SOO 1.

AWARD

l)y lefcrcnct :,,\ L-420Jl/59/99/lR(DU)

dated

19-11-99, the Central Government in the Ministry ol

Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-sc^Uon (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 ID. Act, 1947 (34 of J947), made over this

industrial dispute between President, Wild Life Insti-

tute of India Fmployees Union, Dehradun and the

Director, Wild Life Institute or India, Dehradun foi

i 'judication.

The refcrcne • is rmiJui^d ti-s under : '

"Whether the action of th',> management of WuJ

Life Institute in denying the promoiion/s

selection from amongst class IV employee*

to the next higher cadre is legal and justi-

fied ?

If 'not, to what relief the workmen

are entitled ?"

2. By claim statement dated 11-1-2000, the Wild

Lite Institute of India

LmpJoyecs

Union

sought

J 00 per cent promotion to its class-IV employees in

class-III lowest post in the technical and administra-

tive cadre, by creating new posts in higher cadies,

by amending jc-cruilment rules or making any other

pioposal to the governing body ot Wild Life Institute

tor their promotion. The management filed written ob-

lection raising some preliminary issues; like 'wild Life

Institute' is purely a research and turning institute

and is not coveted within Xhz definition of 'industry'

as defined into Section 2(3) oi l.D. Act, 1947.

is also pleaded thai, the relief claimed relates to policy

matter which can not be adjudicated and is out side

the perview of Anncxures II and III of the Act.

3. Duung pendency of the ca^e, the workman filed

amendment application

before the

Government ot

India,

Ministry

Labour

for

amending

the

reference.

lhc

Government

India,

niMcud of amending the reference,

made a fresh

retetenec which has been legistered at case No, 56/

2001. The workman union filed an application on

27-6-2001, to return the present reference without

any award on merit, in view ol fresh reference,

4. In view ol the amendment ot the reference by

way of substituting a new one and the subject matter

n( case No 56/2001 Iving the same, it is no longer

necessary to discuss merit of various pleas advanced

b} the inanagement. All such jieas may be taken tit

;ippropn,itc stage in the new case. The workmen avc

no longer interested to pursue this case and have filed

jii application to return ihe jefernce.

5. Vcordingly, the reference is returned unanswer-

ed on merit,

Lucknow,

3-7-2001

RTIDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2001

SO. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cemia!

Government hereby publishes the award ot ihe Cen-

tral

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-cura-Laboui:

Couit, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the

IiuliLsrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the nrinagement ot Ruhbei Research Institute of

4117

liulij* and their woikman, which was itccived by the

Central Government on 1O-7-20O1.

[No. I,42011/51/99-lR(DU)]

KDLD1P RAX \ ERMA, Desk Ofllcer

ANNEXURE

[BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated, 2nd July, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'blc Shri V. N. Ku&arni. B.Com., LLB.,

Presiding Officer,

CGlT-cum-Labour Couit,

Bangaloic.

C.R. No. 121/99

I PARTY

I lie Hon. President,

The Genera! Fmployecs Union,

Sutiitkoppa,

Kodagu-571237.

II PARTY

1 lie Officci-m-Charge,

The Rubber Research Institute of India,

fFcvtid Breeding Sub Station,

Rubber Board,

Neltana-574230

AWARD

1. I he Cential Goveinm nt

exeicismg

the

powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of

Section Jl> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

lefcrred this dispute vide ordci No. L-42011/51/99-

TR(DU)

dated 27-10-99 fn adjudication on

the

following schedule •

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Hevea

Breeding Sub Station, Netanna jn not imple-

menting the wage sett'ements dated 6-1-99

•irrived at between th^ KFDC and ifs work-

men stating that they tire not parties to the

s ud settlement even though they were follow-

ing such settlement¹; entered into between

the KFDC und >ts woikraen in the years

1986, 1988. 1992 and J995 is (unified?

If not, to what relief the workmen rt HBSS

arc entitled ?"

2. First party union workmen were working with

the second party management. Dispute was raised and

the matter is leferred. When the notices were seat to

the parties, the parties remained absent. Since begin-

ning parties are absent.

3. In view of this, no purpose will be served if

the mattpr is adjourned. According I proceed to pass

the following order :

ORDER

j^lie reference is icjcctcd.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 2nd July, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI. Presiding Oflicer

New Delhi," the 16th July, 2001

S O. 2032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen-

tral

Government

Industrial

Tribuual-cum-Labour

Court Chandicaih as shovn in the Anneyure in

the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the

management of Central Institute

tor Re-

'scarch on Buffaloes and then wojkinan, •which was

received by the Central Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-42011|43|92-IR(DU)J

KULDIP RAI VFRMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B L. JATAV.

PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 24]94

President, Distt Acriculture

Workers Union, 123/5, Jawahar Nagar,

Hissar-125001.

Petitioner.

Versus

D^; rector,

Central InVjtufe for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hissar, Haryann

.Management

APPEARANCES :

For the woikraen :— Shri Darshan Singh

For

the

management '—Shri , R. K. Sharma,

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June, 2001)

The Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No.

E-42011/43/92-LR. (D.U.) dated, 31-1-1994-, has

4128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

/referred me following dispute to "this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Cen-

tral Institute

for Research on Buffaloes,

Hissar m not paying the wages to

S]Shri

Ranbir, Sadhu Ram, Suni, Ramesh

S'o

Shadi Ram, Hannman und Ramesh

S|o

Sh. Priitap, for the days they reported

their duties is justified? If not, what relief

the workmen concerned arc entitled to ?"

2. The repiesentativc of Ihe workman appeared

He intends to withdraw the case against the man^ige-

ment The representative df Ihe management has no

objection.

In view of the abo\e, the iequ£st of the

representative oi the woikman is accepted, and¹ no

dispute awaid is returned to the MiiiKelry. Appro

priate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh,

8-fi-2001

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 16th My, 2001

S.O. 2033.—In puihuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labonr

Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annfxurc in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the mana'^ment of Bhakra

Beas

Management

Board and their workman, which was received¹ by

the Central Government.

[No. L-420I1/28/88-D. 2 (B)]

KULDTP RAT VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

bHRl

IATAV.

PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT

INDUS-

TRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 188If"?

Geneial Secretary,

Bhakra Bean Management Board,

Nan?at To\rnshlr>.

4/D.D., Distt. Ropai, Pb.

..Workman.

Versu,

Chairman,

Bhakra Bcas Management Board,

Sector-19-B, Chandigarh.

., .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri S. P. Shah.

For the management ; Shri N. D. Kalra.

AWARD

(Passed on 20-6-2001)

iric Central Govl. vide gazcttec notification No. L-

42011 [28 |88-D-2(B) dated 2nd November 1989 has

referred the jY>lluv\ine dispute to this Tnbnual

for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the BBMB in dtnying

their

regular

field

staff (Irrigation Wing)

national ana

festival holidays as

are

allowed to the State Govl. employees

Punjab is justified ?

Tf not, to what relief

the workrrun concerned arc entitled

and

from what date ?"

2. The case ol tho

union]workman is that the

Bhtiikia J-teas management Board is following service

lules of Punjab State Govt. The work of construction

ot Bhakia Dam has been completed, therefore, BBMB

has adopted Civil Service Rule^ of Punjab. The Govt,

of Punjab declares annual hob'Jays which arc to be

observed and jvailed by alt its regular employees,

BBMB has given benefit of National

and festival

ho!,days to the regular cadre of the staff working

undvir the control of the BBMB but the staff vorking

in field has been deprived from the benefit of na-

tional and festival holidays Field staff has been com-

pensated by granting 8 days casual leave in addition

lo normal casual leav.

The working week of field

staff consists of six days whereas the vsorkjng week

of Punjab

State consists of five days

The BBMB

has notified 5ep.irate field holidays to its --taff mem-

bers working in the field including

regular staff,

These holidays in; allowed to the Workmen covered

under Certified Standing orders But the policy of

seperntf* field holidays has been appearing in

the

rase of regular employees, covered under CSR of

Punjab Govt. Those workmen wlvi have been taken

in regular cadre from work charged cadre arc en-

titled to avail the benefit of holind^ -,

declared by

Punjab Govt. for the staff members of regular eacfre

But the management h*w followed the discriminatory

policy which is unreasonable and unjustifiable. There-

fore, the claim of thft union

bo allowed nnd thf

management be directed to fiive national and festival

holidays to its, employees whetbei l^ev rrc working

in the office or in fields.

3. The management has filed its written statement

alleging that the .statement of clajim is misconceived.

The Govt. of Punnb is competent to fix holidays to

be observed bv iU cmpVycej of various cadre keeping

in view nature of duties, and the work, on which they

arc deployed. Similarly the management is competent

trj fix holidays for it* employees keeping in view the

mlurc of work and job requirement of its different

wings.

The

working

hours

various

estab-

lishments

hospital¹!,

schools,

public

estab-

lishment public works and field, establishments

ore

fiTed according to iob requirements

So. the demand

af the union feu observing the holidays in the fields

ui TK-T with office stuff is not justified. The ministerial

staff and the field staff cannot be eaunfed in

the

matter of holiday*.

The work charged cMflbilB&ureat

4129

forking

BBMB

arc

allowed

days

national

and

festival

holidays

consulta-

tion

with

the

recognised

union.

The same

holidays

aire

allowed

other

regular

staff

deployed in the field¹. They are uLo allowed addi-

tional 8 days special causal leave to regular staff in

lieu of their working for six days in a week.

The

pBMB has also allowed 14 field holidays at par with

tegular employeesc to the regular employees conver-

ted from work charged cadre.

The demand of the

Mnion is not lustided, keeping in view the nature and

job requirement of its employees working in regular

cadre and work charged cadre. Therefore, the claim

of the union deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4. The union has filed rejoinder

alleging that the

work charged employee': who have been converted

into regular cadre arc also governed by CSR.

Punjab Staite according to which their age of retire-

ment has been prescribed as 58 years whereas as per

certified standiiv: orders the age of superannuation is

60 years.

Therefore,

the workcharged¹

employees

faken in regular ca<Jrc are entitled to get the benefit

bf holi'dalys as declared l:v the P'unjab Oovt. other

averments made in claim statement have been

re-

asserted in rejoinder

5. The Union has filco the affidavit of an employee

named Sat Pal which has been exhibited as Ex. W1.

He has been cross-examined by the rep. of

the

management.

He has deposed in his affidavit 1hat

tie vias workinu ir workcharged cadre previously now

tic has been taken in regular cadje, therefore, he is

entitled to act the benefit of natural and festival

holidays on the pattern of Punjab State. The regular

staff working in BBMB is also spttinc the benefit of

tioliadys as declared bv BBMB on the pattern

Punjab State Govt. He has admitted in crrtss-cxamina-

fion that he is pettine holidays as r>er certified Standme

Orders of BBMB He has also admitted that the offi-

cers and other officials of BBMB pet the holidays as

aer certified Standing Orders when they work "in the

field.

6. The management has submitted the affidavit of

Snccial Seci-eiarv Shri N. C Singhai which is Ex. Ml.

The list of holicfavs Ex. Mi and thr

circular of

Punjab State Eleetricitv Board Ex M3 have also been

filed in thin case.

Ex M? relates to the declnni-

Kon nf holirbivs on the eve of festival^

The circular

tameri bv PSEB rdntps to holidivs to bo ovscrveel

bv technical staff working in thp fields The witness

of thfi rmnaeement hns nVnosrd in r-K nfMTV't t W

£>.«. fLirWion<; nf th" WPMB 'is ner <M=rtmn 79 ttrH SO

Hf •Rp-Orpfin;t;nt^;on Ar' 106fi the nidm'n'^rptioi ma'tv

finance and operation of the

work of Bhakra and

iBeas Proiect which inHudes the generation of power,

transmission and distribution of electricity among the

states of Puimb, Harvam Rajasthan and Himachal

Pradesh as well as opertion & maintainance of Bhakra

Pong.

Pandoh dam and regulation of water sunplv to

the nforcsaid partners states.

All these works ffiiis

within the definiton of 'Essential Services'.

Uninter-

'rupted supply

of power and water

to the northern

region of the country '^{s t n c} nrimarv functions of the

BBMB which requ^;res round the dork d^piovm^nt of

tmnloveps l*vVfcinp alftc- th^sc work¹?. Tn o^der to.

in"vfnrm its rnrrt'ons" <hn HrffifrT is emnlovin"

two

brmd rntftrnrics of evnpiovprs V'7. Trcinstrini. techni-

.ril fipVI ^iff whn are actually en^nced on r^c-Tn'ion

and maintainance of the power houses, transmission

lines, maintainance of Dams and

water regulation

machinery and (B) office admn. staff. These aire two

distinct and separate categories,

with its different

nature of duties.

7. On perusal

of the facts placed

before

this

Tribunal it is evident that the nature of duties shall

be the primary factors to decide the grant of na-

tional and festivals holidays to the employees working

in the Board.

IThe cadre of employees is not

the

deciding factor of the dispute under consideration

Transport Service, telecommunication, police services.

Military services and so many other services

are

essential services which are needed by the country

round the clock.

Therefore, in these department na-

tional and! festival holidays are

not obscived by the

field staff.

The employees working in these depart-

ments have been placed in legular cadre. Therefore,

the cadre is not tbs deciding factor for the obser-

vance of the holidays.

The management has allowed

eight special casual leave aditjonally to the field staff

in lieu of six days week.

The management has also

allowed to aet the benefit of field holidays which have

not been given to the employees working in regular

cadre.

If all the employees deployed in power plant

for the generation of electricity allowed id avail the

benefit of holidays, the power plant will ternain closed

and the whole norihern region of the country shall

plunp.e into darkness and wheels of the factories and

other establishment shall become motionless. There

fore, the demand of the union is not justified keeping

in view the functions nt the BBMB which are c=sen

tial to the countrv.

Consequently, the claim of the

union deserves to b ¹ dismissed.

8. The manacemciK has cited the case of Messer«

Scxby and Farmers (Tndia) 1. Ltd. Vs. Their work-

men AIR 1975 S. C. page 5"4 in which law

has

been laid down bv Hon'hle Supreme Court which

relates to paid and unpnicf holidays, in which it has

been held that if holidays are observed in industrial

establishment it will affec'_

the productivity of the

country, therefore, it cannot be allowed keeping in

view the economic welfare of the country.

Taking

into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court the claim cannot be allowed bemuse

the field staff whether it may be regular or wort-

chargccl, is not entitled to get the benefit of natural

and festival holidavs.

9. After apprccldtine the evidence adduced

both the parties, the reference is answered that the

action of the BBMB ir. denying their regular

field

staff (Trritration Wine), National and festival holidays

as arc allowed to the State

Oovt. employees of

Punjab State is justified. Consequently

the work-

men of the Union are not entitled to get any relief

in this respect.

Both parties shall bear their own¹

costs. Appropriate Govt be informed.

Chandigarh.

20-6-2001.

B. I.. JATAV. Presiding Officer

4130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

fPART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

New Delhi, the lfith July, 2001

S.O. 2034.—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

Industral Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in

the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Institute For Research

on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16th July 2001.

[No. L-42O11|3|95-1R(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

SHRI

B L. JATAV,

PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

I.D. No. 32|96

President,

District Agriculture Union,

123|S, Jawahar Nagar Hissar.

...Union|Workman.

Versus

Director,

Central Institute for Research

on Buffaloes,

Hi'ssar, Haryana.

. .Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the Management :

Shri

R. K.

Sfiarma

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on 8th of June 2001)

The Central Go'-t. vide cazette notification No. L-

42011 |3|95-TR(DU) Dated 27 3-1996 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribnual fo^r adjudication :

"Whether the action of the manacement of Cen-

tral Institute for

Research on Buffaloes,

Hissir in not regularising Ihe services of 22

workers ("Enclosed annexure) is legal

and

justified ? If not to what relief thp workers

are entitled and from what date ?"

2. The representative of the workman appeared. He

intends to withdrmv the case apainst the management.

The representative of the management has no object

lion.

In view of the above, the request of the iep. of

the workman is accepted¹, and no dispute award is

returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt.

be in-

formed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

S.O. 2035.—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-

Lubour 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 20-7-2001.

iNo. L-14025il6|2001-TR(DU)]

KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:

Sri K. Veerapu Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., Chairman and Pre-

siding Officer.

Dated : 19th day of March, 2001

I.T.I.D. No. (C) 16199

Petition filed

directly under Sec, 2A(2) of the I.D. Act

BETWEEN

Karri Panduranga Rao,

D. No. 7-328, Hanumantbavuka,

Visakhapatnarn-530040.

Workman.

AND

( 1) Eastern Naval Command,

Reg. by Chief Staff Officer (P4A)

Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

(2) Kastcrn Naval Command,

Rep. by Commanding Officer,

INS Circars, Naval Base,

Visakhapatnam.

Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearinn before me in the

presence of Sri B. V. Rao, authorised representative work-

man and the Government Pleader, for management. Upon

4i M

hearing the arguments of both sides and on pci using 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 r]w 12-A of the A.P.I.D. Rules.

(2) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed

as Auto Driver in the 2nd respondent establishment which

forms an integral part of the 1st respondent. He was ap-

pointed in the month of February, 1991 but he was given

appointment letter in the month of August, 1991 which was

taken back by the authorities subsequently. He worked conti-

nuously without any brteatk of service upto 25th. October, 1996.

He was abruptly removed from service without assigning

any reasons. He used to enjoy benefits like weekly day olt'

and statutory bonus. His duties are to carry Naval Offi-

cers from their Hostels to various duty area? and vice-versa,

besides carryinn material etc. belonging to the Naval Officers.

Thus, his duties ate continuous and perennial in nature. The

respondent employed several auto drivers like him both

seniors and juniors and suubsequenily all of them absorbed

into regular pay scale. One U. Appala Raju, an auto driver

who is junior to the petitioner have also been legularised.

In spite of repeated request made by the petitioner, his ser-

vices were not regularised. Hence this application,

(3) The case of the management is that they used to

engage the petitioner to drive an auto purchased out of (he

non-public funds, fiom Heb., 1991 to Aug., 1996 puiely on

temporary basis also paid the honorarium to him out of the

non-public funds. However, in 1996 the requirement of auto

ceased to exist and therefore, the said individual was inform-

ed about this and further engagement was discontinued The

auto was auctioned and was purchased by the petitioner who

was one of the bidder and the petitioner was specifically en-

gaged for Russian personnel who were here for specific

commitment which was over in 1996. Hence the services of

the petitioner were dismissed. It is false to allege that the peti-

tioner was appointed as Auto Driver after due process of

selection. The auto was procured from Non-public funds for

the purpose only and the driver was also engaged out of the

non-public funds and when the requirement ceased to exist

during August, 1996, the petitioner was informed well in time

of the fact. It is further pleaded that no driver was en-

gaged out of non-public funds have ever been absorbed into

regular cadre, as no such provision or rules exists. It is false

to allege that many drivers, both seniors and juniors have

been absorbed in regular pay scales and one U. Appala Raju

has been appointed through Civil Employment Exchange bv

the competent authority through proper selection process. The

specific requirement of the auto was over in the yeai 1996

and hence the petitioner driver was infoimed that the ser-

vices are not required. The petitione, engagd on 'emporary

busis and his services were being paid from non-public funds

account generated from by the sales of commodities

Russians. The piofit accumulated will be utilised for main-

tenance.

The officer-in-charje

of non-public fund account

will be nominated by the Commanding Officer, INS Circars

for smooth running of account. The public fund organisation

is not an industry within the meaning of Industrial Deputes

Act and the petitioner is not n workman at all. The petitioner

is neither reported from employment exchange nor appoint-

ed ngainst any vacancy, as such the petitioner can not claim

even temporary restoration. Hence the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

(4) On behalf of the workman, two witnesses are exa-

mined and F.xs. W1 to W9 are marked, On behalf of Ihe

management MWsl to 3 arc examined and Exs Ml to M14

are marked.

lJr^'

(5) Heard both sides.

(6) The points that arise for consideration in this case

are :

fl) Whether the petitioner is entitled foi reinstatement

with back wages as prayed for?

(2) Whether the retrenchment of the petitioner is not

in accordance with Sec. 25F of the T.D. Act?

(3) To what relief the workman is entitled to?

(7) The undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner

was appointed as Auto Dnver irom non-public fund in "the

month of teb., 1991 in the Russians Hostel'maintained by

Ihe respondents. While so. it is the case of the management

that there used to be one nuloman for the Russians who used

to stay in the Nava] Hostel, However, the requirement of the

auto ceased to exist, the petitioner was disengaged and the

services were discontinued and later the auto was sold to

the petitioner. The management also filed Ex Ml dated

18-9-96 by the staff officer stating that the auto bearing No.

AP31-B 4093 is handed over to the petitioner. Ex. M2 is the

certificate of sale of the auto the petitioner for a sum of

Rs. 20.000. Ex. M3 is no dues certificate issued to the peti-

tioner. Ex M4 is the receipt of a sum of Rs. 300 salary

for the month of September, iy96 for the final settlement

of service. Ex. M5 is the no objection certificate for the

transfer of the auto in the name of the petitioner. Ex. M6

is the undertaking certificate given by the petitioner for the

repairs etc. to the auto. Ex. M7 is the renewal of the tem-

porary passes of the petitioner. Ex. MS is the letter by the

petitioner requesting for issuance of temporary card. EM.

M9 and M10 are the xerox copies of the renewals of tem-

porary pass of the petitioner. Ex. Mil is the stamped receipt

for a sum of Rs. 770 towards the salary for the month of

August, 1996. Ex M12 is the page in cash book for Sept.,

1996 showing the payment made on 26-9-96. Ex. M13 is tbe

receipt of Rs, 850 towards the salary for the month of July,

1996. Ex. M14 is the copy of the extract from the cash book

showing the amount of Rs. 20,000 towards the sale of auto

and Rs. 300 towards the final recovery of festival advance

Ex. Wl is the gate pass issued to the petitioner by Lr, Com-

mander (SDS), Staff Officer (Soviet Estt), Ex, W2 is the

renewal of the gate pass, Ex. W3 is entry gate pass issued to

the workman. Ex. W4 is another pass issued by the respon-

dent to the petitioner. While in service, Exs. W5 and W6 warn-

ing letters are f;iven to the petitioner. Thus, the material and

the evidence of these facts are not very much in dispute. The

only thing is that because the services of the petitioner are

not required and as such, he was disengaged in August, 1996

by the respondent. While so, it is the case of the workman

that some of the juniors and seniors who are similarly placed

with that of the petitioner are absorbed and the petitioner

was not absorbed and his services were terminated without

issuing any notice or paying any retrenchment compensation

even though he served continuously for more than 5 years.

(8) The learned counsel appearing for the management

contends that the petitioner is not sponsored by the employ-

ment exchange nor he WHS appointed in any regular post And

that there is no Auto Drivers post so as to continue the

petitioner in service and the services of the petitioner are

no longer required

The management examined MW1 an

administrative officer-II, who deposed that the Eastern Naval

Command is a Central Government Organisation,

INS

Cirkar is under the control of Eastern Naval Command,

which do not have any control over the non-public funds

and the officer, who was in charge, will control over the

non-public fund and the petitioner was not employed by the

respondent at any point of

time and there h an employ-

ment Pattern to the employees of Eastern Naval Command

as it is Central Government Organisation and no employee

will be appointed without following the procedurue as laid

down. This witness admitted in the cross-examination that

he cannot say thru the petitioner was serving as an auto

driver in INS Cirkar as he came to Visakhapatnam on 31st

Tuly, 2000, prior to that he did not serve in the Eastern

Naval Command. He also admitted that INS Cirkar is a

part and parcel of Eastern Naval Command However, he

admitted that INS Cirkar will form an integral part of the

Eastern Naval Command. He also admitted that he does

not know the workman personally.

The Officer Incharge

Nava] Hostel is- examined as MW2 and he deposed that

he was entrusted with the naval hostel for naval

guest

senior officers and WIPs who stays in the Hostel and to

ensure the collection of the payment of their stay in Ihe

hostel,

He also deposed that there are 13 employees work-

in? m the hostel, thev are all eovernraent employees they

are having simiiarlv situated and has been working in the

hostel on pnrt time basis as wrll as reauirement basis He

further deposed that whenever thev require the extra service

thev used to enenpe some nnrt time employees. He admitted

that the hostel premises belongs to the Government nnd it

is beine m.iintainpd bv Military Enpinperini Service He

also ndmintd in his rrosc-^timiriation thnt the ho^el is rw

any vehicle and Nnvy Hostc] is- under the

administrative

4132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST ll, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II-,SEC. 3(ii)]

control of the commanding officers of INS Cucar prior to

1996 mostly Russians used to slay in their hostel and INS

was uho not providing sufficient transport and as such some

of them for peisonal transport of those Russians purchased

one auto Tor tianiiportation to

raatket

purpose then one

driver for that auto i.e. the petitioner was appointed by the

Officer in charge of non-public fund. He also deposeu that

they have not given any appointment order and he got the

intoimation

altei

verifying

the

non-public

fund cash

account.

Thus, the evidence of this witness sho\vs that the

petitioner was appointed as an auto driver maintained by the

hostel may be for the transpoitation of the Russians and

Or other inmates in the hostel.

(9) It is the case of the management, that no appointment

Older was given to the petitioner, whereas the case of the

workman is that he was given the appointment and the same

is taken back by the authorities. Whatever it may be there

is no wiitten appointment order. In the absence of which,

(he vcisiori given by the wotkman that he was appointed as

an auto driver, is to be accepted and there is no contra mate-

lial to show that the petitioner was appointed only for a

specific purpose and for a particular period. In the absence

of which the appointment of this pttitioner cannot be said

that it is ft co-terminus with that of the requirement by the

management nor for any specific period and it cannot also

be accepted that the appointment of the petitioner was only

on need basis as and when reciuiied

(10) Further, it is also admitted bv MW3 a bearer in

Nava] Hostel that in the yeai 1996 the services of auto lifted

prior to that some of them Russians used to stay in the

hostel and further the hostel is running 2 autos and the

petitioner worked as auto driver far 5 or 6 years and auto

^as sold to the petitioner, later the services of the petitioner

was terminated.

In the cross-exam inn tion he stated that his

services were regularised. He also belongs to the petitioner's

union. The people who have worked in the year 1991 in (he

hostel were regularisd aned one U. Appala Raju nnd B.

Raja Reddy are appointed bus drivers and their services are

regularised as per the orders of the Central Administrative

Tribunal. The petitioners in TTTD Nos. 16|99 and 21|99

and himself are bein<; paid same pay by the Officer of the

Easttrn Naval Command. He denied a suggestion put to him

that because

some other

emolovees like

petitioner have

approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for legulaii-

saticin of their services and hence the services of the peti-

tioner were terminated.

(11) Thus, here this is a case where the petitioner worked

continuously for a period of 6 years and odd as an auto

driver in the Naval Hostel being maintained bv the INS

Circar which forms an integral part of the Eastern Navil

Command, Tt is also admitted by the management that the

services of the petitioner was disengaged as fhe auto was

iold to him and his services were no longer required. But

in view of the evidence spoken to by MW3 that the hostel

is ruunning two autos and that some of the drivers who are

worked along with the petitioners were regularised. There-

fore, the termination of the services of the petitionr without

issuing any notice nor paying any retrenchment compen.si-

tion which certainly violates, the provisions under Sec. 25F

of the I.D. Act,

Theieforc, the termination of the peti-

tioner is liable to be setaside. Even

otherwise, the leason

for discharging the services of the petitioner is only due to

the absence of work or his services are no longer required

but theie is no material placed by the management that there

is no work for the petitioner nor the services of the peti-

tioner are no lancer requiicd, when they are running two

other autos, even if the auto was sold to the petitioner the

workman canno be thrown out of the job without following

the statutory requlrtment as provided under Sec. 25F of the

ID. Act.

(12) Thus, the termination of the petitioner is against the

statutory piovisions provided under Sec. 25F of the l.D. Act

and also the principles Of natural justice. Therefore, the

removal of the petitioner is aibitrary and liable to be set

aside.

(13) Of coui.se, there is a delay of about 3 years in this

case in approaching this Tribunal after the termination of

the workman but that by itself is not a ground to reject 'he

relief for which the petitioner is entitled and at the most the

relief can be granted by refusing or reducing the back wages

and directing the payment of a part of back wages as laid

down in the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1999

(SC) 1351 between Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-operative

Marketing'Cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. md another.

The workman's representative also cited another

decision

for the same proposition reporttd in 2000(84) FLR 20 SC

between Gurmail Singh Vs. Principal, Government College

of Education and Ors, wherein it is held

that the teimina-

tion of service took place m the year 1981 and the dispute

was raised in the year 1989. Their Loidships were pleased

to hold that notwithstanding the delay, the dispute would still

continue for adjudication, however he would be deprived

of back wages for period of delay.

(14) Tlie workman's representative also contends that ihe

Indian Naval Hostel is also an industry and that the peti-

tioner is a workman and the Tribunal is competent to ad-

judicate the industrial dispute between the workman and the

lespondent. In support of his contention he placed reliance

on a decision of Bombay High Court reported in 1986 (II)

LLJ 154 between Indian Navy Sailors' Home Vs. Bombay

Gymakhana Club

Caterers and

Allied Employees' Union

and another wherein it is held uundcr Sec. 2(a)(l), 2(j), 10

of the l.D. Act, 1947 at the Indian Navy Sailors' Home is

an industry within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the l.D, Act.

(15) As rightly contended by tho representative for the

workman that the Indian Navy Hostel is being maintained

by the INS Circar which is an integral part of Eastern Naval

Command in as much as it is an industry and the petitioner

is a workman in the said industry. Therefore, in the light

of my aforesaid discussion, I hold that the termination cf the

workman in this case is illegal and the same is liable to be

set aside. Hence both points 1 ^nd 2 a,rt accordingly

answered in favourt of the petitioner!woikman and against

the respondent|manngement.

(16) Point No. 3 : In the result, the petition is allowed and

an award is passed directing the respondents 1 and 2 to re-

instate the workman forthwith with 50 per eent of back

wages, and continuity of seivice. However, there is no order

as to costs and each party is diic-rted to bear its own costs.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand

and seal of the court this the 19th day of March, 2001.

K. VEERAPU NA1DU, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For Workman :

For Management:

WW1 : K. Paiidnranga Rao

MW1 : V. S. Tripathi,

WW2 : Ncclapu Ganalla Rao MW2: Kolschandra Benra

MW3 : K. Venkata Sastry.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

'For Workman :

Ex. Wl : Identity pass of woikmun.

Ex. W2 : 15-5-92 : Letter of management reg, renewal

of tern, pass of workman.

4133

Ex. W3 : Entry pass of workmarj.

Ex. W4 : Entry pa!>s of woikman.

Ex. W5 : 30-7-91 : Warning letter to workman reg.

frequent absent to duty.

Ex. VV6 : 2-3-95 : Warning letter to workman leg.

absence from duty.

Ex. W7 : Xerox copy of form of driving licence.

Ex. W8 : Copy of judgment in OA No. 525|93

Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bianch.

Iix. W9 : 13-10-95: Copy of order in OA 1390/94 of

CAT. Hyd.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR MANAGEMENT:

Ex. Ml : 18-9-96 : Letter to workman by management,

reg. handing over tne auto documents,

Ex. M2 : 24-9-96 : Certificate issued by management

rcg. sale of auto to workman.

Ex. M3 : No due certificate issued by management to

workman.

Ex. M4 : Receipt for Rs. 300 towards the salary for

Sept., 1996.

Ex. M5 : 17-9-96 ; No objection certificate issued by

management reg, transfer of the auto in the name

of woslcman.

Ex. M6 : Certificnte of undertaking /jiven by workman

refi. responsible for repairs of any defects.

Ex. M7 : 17-8-92 : Letter of management reg. ienew.il

of the temporary pass.

F,x,

M8:

25-4-91 :

Staff

minute

sheet

reti, issue-

of temporary pass.

Ex. M9 : 19-8-93 : Letter of management reg. renewal

of temporary pass,

Ex. M10 : 17-11-92 : Letter of management icg. lenew-

al of temporary pass.

Ex, Mil : Xerox copy of stamped receipt for Rs. 770

towards the salary of Ang, 1996.

Ex. MI2 : Extract cash bill for the month of Sept.,

1996 showing the payment of workman for the

month of Sept., 1996.

Ex, M13 : Xerox copy of receipt for Rs. 850 towards

the salary of July, 1996,

Ex. M14 : Extract of cash book showing the

receipt

amount of Rs. 20,000 from the petitioner towards

the cost of auto (xerox copy).

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001

S.Q 2036.—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-cum-Labour

Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Doordarshari, Prasar Bharati

and their workman, which was received by the Cen-

tral Government on 20-7-2001.

[No, L-42012|!35|2000-IR(DU)J

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI~

BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT:

BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri S. K, Dhal, OSJS (Sr. Branch),

Presiding Officer, C.G.l.T-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 28)2000

Dated, Bhubaneswar, tho 10th July, 2001

BETWEEN:

The Management of Asst. Engineer,

T.V. Relay Centre Broadcasting,

Corporation of India,

Berhampur.

. .

1st Party-Management.

(AND)

Their workman Shri Bhagwan Das, President,

SC Employees, Welfare Association,

Berhampur Sub-Divn. Br.

Berhampur.

. . 2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. K. Chahataray, Asst, Engineer,

T.V. Relay Centre

. . For the 1st Party-mgt

Shri Bhagwan Das. . , For Biniself-Wbrkman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

in exercise of Powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following

' 4�

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2001/SRAVANA 20, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute

for adjudication

vide

their Order No. L-

42012| 135|2000|IR(DU), dated 31-10-2000:—

"Whether the

action

of the

Management by

terminating the services

of Shri flhagwan

Das, Ex-Sweeper|Peon, who was engaged by

the Management

of Doordarsfun, Prasar

Bharati,

Berhampur for 12 years is jusfi-

fied ? If not, to what relief the disputant is

entitled" 7

2. While sending reference intimation was sent to

the Asst. Engineer, T.V. Relay Centre, Broadcasting

Corporation of India, Berhampur (here-in-after called

as the 1st Party-Management) and to Shri Bhawa,n

Das (hcre-in-after

called as the Second Party-Work-

man) to file their respective statements and domuments.

3. In pursuance to that direction the 2nd Party

has filed his claim statement where in he has pleaded

that he was engaged by the 1st Farty-Management as

a labour on contract on monthly wages of Rs. 250

from the month of August 1985 for sweeping

and

cleaning the T.V. rela|y centre.

He worked till April

2000 honestly but he was dis-engaged by the

1st

Party-Management with effect from 2-5-2000 without

assigning any reason.

brought the dispute

before the Labour Commissioner (Central). As

the

reconciliation failed the matter wals referred to the

Government of India vtho subsequently have made

reference to this Tribunal as stated above.

4. In the written statement the 1st Party-Manage-

ment has averred that, the wdrkman-2nd Party was

engaged on contract basis as no sweeper was recruited

for the Post because there was no sanctioned post.

It was further averred that the 2nd Party was engaged

for limited hours from August 1985 to April 2000.

As the service was not required he was served with

an order on 3-4-2000.

So according to the 1st Party-

Management as the 2nd Party was a casual labourer

and was engaged for limited hours with a consolida-

ted amount, his dis-engagement docs not amount re-

trenchment and so he is not entitled for any relief.

5. No oral evidence has been adduced by both the

parties.

Except order of dis-engagemcnt no docu-

ments have been filed on behalf of the 2nd Party. The

averments made by the 1st Fartj Management

that

there was no santcioned post for Sweeper and

the

services of the 2nd Party was utilised on casual basis

has not rebutted by the 2ⁿd Party either producing

any oral evidence or by documents.

When the post

is a temporary one and the 2nd Party has worked

on contract basis as admitted by him he cannot claim

for regularisation and his dis-engagement

does not

amount retrenchment.

As regards arrcar claims made

by the 2nd Party it is submitted on behalf of the 1st

Party-Management that the question of arrcar pay-

ment does not come into picture as the 2nd Farty

was working for limited hours with a consolidated

amount to which he Was agreed to.

I do not find

any reason to dis-believe this averments made by the

1 st Party-Management.

6. As per the above discussion this Tribunal is of

the opinion that the 2nd Party has failed to establish

that he has got a caiuse of aciion against the 1st P'arty

Management in the other words the action pf the

Management by terminating the services of the 2nd

Farty is not un-justificd and the 2nd Party also is not

entitled for any relief.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected¹ by me.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

4135

New Delhi, the 23rd Tuly, 200V

SO 2037—Whereas

the

Central

Government

having been

satisfied that the public interest

sd re-

quired had, in puisuance of the provisions of sub-

clause (vi) of the Clause (n) of

Section 2 of

the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared

by the Notification of the Government of India in the

Ministry of Labour S.O No 204 d<itcd 24-1-2001

the Copper Mining Industry to be a public utility

service for the purpose of the sjid Act, for a period¹

of six months from the 25lh Januaiy, 2001

And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion

tha(t 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 Dispute- Act, 1947,

the

Central Government hereby declares the said industry

to be a public utility service foi the purposes of the

said Act for a period of six nontns fiom the 25th

July, 2001

[No. S-11017|ll|97-I]UPL)1

H C GUPTA. Under Secy

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2001

S.O. 2038.—In exercise

the

powers

conferred by sub-section (3) of Section I of

the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34

of 1948) the Central Government hereby ap-

points the 1st September, 2001 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except

Section^ 44 and 45 which have already been

bior^ht into force)

arid Chapter V and VI

i[except sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sec-

tions 77, 78- 79 and 81 which have already

been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in

the State of Karnataka namely " -

"The areas

comprising

the

revenue

villages of Sinfiasjpcha and Chick-

kathoffur

in Hobli

Begur

falnk

Bangalore South in the District of

Bangalore"

i[No. S-380 H' 1512001-SS.n

M. C. MtTTAL, Dv. Secv.