This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

(i) 1995 (T) LXJ Kor P 233

(ii) 1095 (]) I.L.T DB Kir Page 1076 riii) 19Q4 LLR SC P 561.

(iv) AIR 2000 SC P 3129

(v) AIR 1997 SC P 2661

fvi) FLR 7.001 Knr P 2650 DB (v;n |Q96 fab TC Paw 26°3

fvir) 2000 (2) LTLJ Knr P H67 OR (\y) ATR 2000 SC P 3028.

17. K c c pw in mind the nrincinles h^ld in Jiie ;*hove decision and the fact that thr first4640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] party has not convinced that the enquiry re- port is perverse. I am of the opinion that this Tribunal has any discretion to say that the action of the management is illegal.

18. I have considered the entire material carefully and T 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 correct- ed and signed by me on 30th July. 2001).

V. N. KULKARNl. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 7th August, 2001

S.O. 2251.—In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tiibunal/Labour Court. Lucknow as shown in the annexiire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government en 0h-0S-2001.

[F. No. L-12012/173/99-IR(B-TI)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BFFORE THE CF.NTFAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. LUCKNOW Presidin;: Officer : Rudresh Kumar

ADJUDICATION

I D. No. 21/99

AWARD

By reference No. I.-12012/173/99-IR(B-II) dated 11-11-99, Hie Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause fd) of Sub-section (1) of Sectio.i I') ID. Act. 1<>47 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial 'livnute between Asslt. General Secretary, Central Bank of India Staff Association, Allahabad espousing cause of Jai Ram and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India. Varanasi for adjudication.

The reference is produced as under :

"Whether I he action cf the management of Central Bank of India in terminating/discontinuing the services of Jai Ram w.e.f. 6-2-98 is justified ? Tf not, what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. The representative union of the workman, Jai Ram. namely : Cential Bank of India Staff Association through its General Secretary has sought relief, reinstatement of the workman Jai Ram in the services of the bank with full back wages and other consequential benefits; and ordering for his regulari?a(ion in permanent service of the bank in terms of Government of India guidelines. The reference order, seeks adjudication on the legality of action of the management of the Central Bank of India in terminating/discontinuing the services of Jai Ram w.e.f. 6-2-98 and admissibility of relief to him. Thus the adiudication has to be confined within the scope of the reference and need not be enlarged as per prayer of the claim statement dated 29-12-99.

3. Jai Ram aged abcut 24 years, with educational qualifi- cation XII passed was encased as daily wager w.e.f. 20-1-97. His daily wage was Rs. 10 per day which increased m due course to Rs. 15. He was locally engaged by the Branch Manager. Gonal Nagar branch. Distt. Ballia. Admittedly, his services were terminated w.e.f. 6-2-98 without any notice, notice nay or tetenchment compensation. According to the workman, he had rendered more than 240 davs continuous service and his termination without compivinf with the pro- visions of Section 25-F is illegal and he is entitled to reinstate- ment with full back wages.

4. The management on the other hand has denied appoint- ment of lui Ram on the post of Peon (Sub staff) in regular¹ or permanent cadre, but admitted his engagement on day to dav basis. The management has not admitted that the work- man continuously worked for more than 240 davs in a cal-nder yp-ir on i* comnv'tfed breach of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the TO. Act. 1947. as alleged. The averment made in the chim statomen* that Jai Ram was anoointed ->s temnororv neon is aKo denied in the written statement. It is pleaded tW th" post of Peon ;s filled bv the management under a T.u'd down procedure. The branch manager neither is. the Rnno-'ntins' authori'v of the said oost nor has the authority to ;miT->int on the .v'd post temporarily or otherwise Tt is further r>lead~d that services of a daily waeer commence: in the mornino ~nd automatically ends at evening hours. It is also :ts"ertpd that the work done bv the workman was not of reaular n a tuff but of 'hort term and intermittent nature.

H. The authenticity und eonectness of this report is not disputed by the parties. The A/R management concedes that recitals in this repoit should be given weightafic over the facts given in the wiitten statement and oial evidence, since it is based on physical vi nlkation of the iccoids in niesence of the purttes and ulso as the pal ties did not question its correctness.

9. Accoidins to this report hx-1 the workman, Jai Ram hiid woiked i'oi 273 days. On sciutiny the said woikmp da^s v^re m a calcndei yeai It can he safely infened that the viorkmnn seived for moie than 240 d.'iys (273) n a calender ye.ir As such, llio workman was entitlcu to bciT.'lhs of section 2S i heloie his Ui minution.

10. It v.is emplusisul hi the management that the nature of work w.b not inuiiai. The woikmiin was enKafied' appu nt.d ;o diichviitit,¹ duhes of a peon of the said bianch f or a • ! • > ! • >! L p e r i od f r om t me to t i me as p er e x i g e n c i e s. It is admitted that no peon was posted to cater vaiious needs of the ofllce and the uistomeis. Even after his termination, other pei sons weie engaged and they used to discharge sajne duties which the woikman wa>- doing, The joml inspection repeat mentions that cue Jit.in Ram was engnged after teimi- natinn of MI vices of the workman. This fact remains un- conlioveiled. 1 he peni'al i.f the report in light of the evidence tcndeied by the p..ilirs it can be definitely said that the regular woil; was a\ailnblc at the blanch to justify engagement of a full day vvoikm.m. lai Ram performed duties like a pcin.

to the management of Canara Bank and their work- man, which was received by I he Central Government on 06-08-2001.

[F. No. L-12012|185|93-IR (B-Il)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMKN F INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

"SJIRAM SADAN'\

HI MAIN, III CROSS, IF PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 31st July, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'blc Shn V. N, Kulkaini, B.Com., LLB,, Presiding Officer.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C. R. NO. 11/94

I PARTY

11. A⁷R management submitted further, that the service, ol lai Rum W.MP nol le:jninated by the management at any invni of time, but he left the job voluntarily. Theic is no nviicri.d on lecoicl to w.inant such inference. After hi, termination in 19W, the wukmun started runninu fiom pMl.u to iiosl to obtam thr inh Then, is no direci ot c.rcumstanti.il evidenc on iccoid, to jf.ve conclusion that the woiknnn M.luntaiiK Ifft the job The submission of tin; management is devoid of truth and is unacceptable.

Sim Gopal V. Joshi, 17, Tndiia Colony, Hubli-580023 (Advocate—Shri N. G. Fhadke)

II PARTY

12. It is not disputed that the workman was not paid any jeirepchrrrnt coinncnsfitic n notice pay etc. as required under Tclion 23-F of th< I H. Act, His termination without provid- ins benefits tnvicH[.red under section 25-F wns unjustified and illegal. Thus, the workman, Tai Ram, is entitlement to continuity on the job he served prior to his teitnination w e.f 6-2-08 w'th full hfck wages, revised from time to time mid a cost of Rs. 1000 only."

13- Awaul accordingly.

Lucknow 1-8-2001,

RUDRKSII KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 7th August, 2001

S.O. 2252.—In pur<:j;in:e ef Seotion 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 ?.<50 GT/2001—8

The Deputy General Manager, M/s. Canara Bank, Circle Office, SS(W), Light House Hill, Mangalore-575001. rAdvdcatc—Shri T. R. K. Trasad).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred bv clause fd^ of sub section 7A. of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012|185| 93|IR(B-m dated 3rd February, 1994 for adjudica- tion on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

'"Whether the manar'ment of Canara Bank is justi- fied in d'smiss'ng Shri Gopal V, Joshi from- service with effect from 16-4 1990? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled 7" 2. The first party joined the services of the second partv HI :i Clerk on 7-10-1981. Charpc sheet was issued for misconduct. Fnquiry was held and on the basis of enquiry report he was dismissed. Therefore the dispute is raised,

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

4. I hc case of the liisl party in biiei is as follows :

5. First party joined Ihc services of the Second party as Clerk on 7-10-1981. Initially he was in Hearing Sjdion tit the sn-oud party ,i( Bombay and thereafter he was lutr^tcrud lo Ranebcnnm Branch, Karnataka where he v-orl.ed since 17-3-19Hb with a clean and good service recoid. Several appreciation letters wcie given to Ivm,

6. It is the further case of the first party that dur- ing the year 1989 change sheet was issued making allegation of three charges. He denied ihc charges the ugh he was Ldvis< J to accept them. Enquiry Offi- cer was : pi>oinli.il and enqiiiiy was con- ducted. Ko lai as enquiry is concern- ed number of allegations arc made saying that tin. enquiry is nut proper and fair. The enquiry suft'eis for ihe viohtion of priniples of na'u- ral jusuce. Many other grounds arc alleged so far as enquiry is concerned. The action of the management h nol correct a,id therefore the fiist party has piaycd to pass award in his favour.

7. The case of the second party in brief is as follows :

8. The reference is not maintainable because the dispute referred by Ihe Government is beyond the scope and ambit of the government under section 10 of the Tnducl'"i.il Disputes Act First party was dis- missed from seivice by an order dated 30-3-90 and the action of Ihe management is correct. The first party was working at Rancbcnnur Branch and com- mitted certain acts of niNtppropiiiron ol fund, of the second party and tampered with lecords of the bank by misusing the official position in the bank. So far as enquiry is confined it is said that the same is correct and full opportunity was given to the first party to defend himself and till the allegations therein are not conect.

9. The first chaige is he gave a fradulent fictitious cr.-dit of Rs. 30,000 t0 SB \\c 12404 mainta-nof at Ranebennur Branch of one Mr. Dcsharaih Thippanna Aurad, Railway Asstt. Station Master with nai ration as "By Clg. DD". He made alterations and insertions' in SB ledgeis as stated under charge No. 1 in the Counter. Tt is also alleged that he misappropriated Rs. 22,500|-. He also fiadulenlly and dishonestly gave a fictitious credit of Rs 5200|- to SC A|c 11157 of one Mr. C. N. Kallcde\ ir. He further misappro- priated Rs. 1000/-. All thf nllogiilioiis were proved and the management has rightly dismissed the first party from service and there is no merit in this reference. The management lor these reasons has prayed to reject the refeience.

10. Tt is seen from the records that in order to prove the issue of domestic enquiry, management examined one witness. MW1.

11. It is seen from the records that this court by its order dated 3rd June 1999 has held that the en- quiry is fair and proper and thcreaffei the matter was posted for arguments.

12. I have heard both sides in detail. I have peru- sed all the relevant documents and the enquiry pro- ceedings very carelully.

13. Now that the enquiiy is held as Jair and proper, we have to see whether the icport submitted by the enquiry officer is correct or it is perverse. Further we have to see whether the punishment is proportio- nate or loo harsh.

14. I have carefully scrutinised the enquiry papers, proceedings and the evidence but T am of the opinion that there is no direct evidence to connect the charges with the first party.

15. It is also clear from the records that the amount is reimbursed by Ihe first party. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first party that in the instant case the enquiry report is perverse and the fact that the first party has reimbursed the amount, the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and not pro- portionate. Tn support of his argument he i died decision reported in 1989-( 1 )-LLJ-7J - 1989 Supp. ( 1) SCC 31. Against this it was argued by the lear- ned Counsel for the Second l\irty, that th; action of the management is correct and this tribunal has no .scope to take any lenient view.

16. Tn support of this irgimn'iit he iciiec¹ following decisions :

fi) 2000(2) LLJSC Page No. 1395.

(ii) 1995(1) LLJ Page 233 KAR.

(iii) 1LR 2001 Kur P 2650 DB.

(iv) 1992(2) LLJ page 265 Kar DB.

(v) 1993(2) CLR Page No. 107R Bom.

(vi) AIR 1997 S CP 2661.

(vii) AIR 1997 SC page No. 252.

(viii) JT 1998(9)SC 37.

(ix) 1996 Lab 1C Page 1056 SC.

(x) 1995(J)LLJKar DB.

(xi) 1999(2)LLJ P 171.

(xii) 2001 Lab IC Kar DB P 1911.

17. I have read the above decisions vcrv carefully.

The facts of the case on hand are q\u'te different from the facts of the above decisions. Tt is true that once the DE is held as fair and proper this Tribunal has limited scope but this tribunal on facts can consider whether the report is correct or there is any perver- sity.

18. T have already snid rha,< 'here is no d;iect ni ifcrial to connect the IMM pnrtv with the charges and the report in perverse In view of this I / 4643

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. I he order of dismissal is set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the first party to his original post from the date of dismissal with continuity of service. Bui in the given circumstances no back w ages are allowed and this will meet the ends of justice.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 31st July, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer ^i for^ft, 7 W^ 20 01

spT . V, T . 22 5 3.—3f[?fTf? f^ f a n? 5f fafH^m, 194 7 ( 1 9 47 ^T 14) # srmr I i % SVJRTT ^, fen?

"+t 06-08-2001 ^f 9TccT |*iT "U I

\^5\M. 1 H- 1 2 0 1 2/ 2 0 8/ 9 7-5f T#"TR ("ft-ll) ] New Delhi, the 7th August, 2001 S.O. 2253.—In pursuance ef Section 17 of the Indu-f.-ial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centr.il Government hereby publishes the award of thw Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour C'oi'ii, Bangalore as shown IL the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Gov- e'limcnt on 6-8-2001.

[F. No. L-120i2|2U8|97-IR(B-ll)| C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNL-XURL

BEIORE THE CEN'IRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTR1 \L TRI3UNAL-CUM-LAB0UR COURT '"SHRAM SADAN'" UI MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD. YESHWANTHPUR, HAMGALORE

Dated : 31st July, 2001'

PRESENT :

Hnu'Me Sh.i V. N. kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C.R. No. 7j98

I PARTY :

Shr, Sudhir G. Tclang, S o G. S Telang, Major, i !, Sinn Park Road, Brmiaiorc-560 020 (Advocate—Shri N. S. NaiTsimhn Swamy).

SI PAR1Y :

The Dy. Geneirfl Manage-, Syndicate Bank, AT Sjnd-c^e Bank Eu'ldmg, Gandi'inagai, Bongdiore-560 (-09. (.Advocate—Sh. Pradeep S. Sawkar).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the jio>\vTs conK-ried by cictu^e (d) of sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has refeueJ this J'c^i;te \ide order No. L- L 2 0 1 2 | 2 08 9 7 - I R ( B - T I) dated 5th January, 1998 fcr adjudication OJ the fi'llmving schedule :

SCHLDuLE

"V\herher the action of the management of Syndic He Bank in dismissing Shri Sudhir 6. Tclang, Cleik w.e.f. 31-8-94 is legal and justified? If noi, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

2. The fust par<\ was woiking with the second party. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. On the basis of enquiry report first party was dismissed from service and¹, therefore, Industrial Dispiuc was 'ru-.cd.

3. P vives appeared ,-nd filui Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

4. I he ca>e of *he first party in brief is as under :

5. First pa."t\ joined ihc services of the Second paity in the year 1969 and has worked in various offices to the best of his capacity.

6. It is the further c-sse of the first party that the second paity ha-, a scheme ot sanctioning loan for construction of house by an employee in service. The fust party was one of the applicants and sought for h-iu<.mg loan :-nd ib<-- ;>me was ^anctioned in ihe year 1991. He was fuiiher sanctioned an oddition- iil uiiir of R 20,']00 to>.\Pida purchase of certain .I'-iterii'ls for rho •'!,••„ , -f construction. He had nesvt>ted for tin- puicn..i>c of a plot in Krishna- rajapurum and h'' uibsni'fed r-il the documents to the Second Party ;.nd the bank is recovering every month a sum of R>. 1.260 from h;s salary. The b tnk look th.is PS iiii^coiiuuci. The first parly had also introduced vne Shri Lak-hman. Shri Laksh- man ha<; tfken loan Irom the bank and he had paid the loan amount. Charge sheet was issued and he submitted explanation. Enquiiy was initiated. So fi" .'(- enq'':p' k co.T.-.'"ned n^ opportunity was given to the first pprty. The enquiry is not' fair and 11 roper.

7. It is the fuuhcr ease of the first party that Ihe adion of 'h,> ^vn '-om^in in dismissing the first party is ncthing but uriL;:.- labour practice. Admitted- ly it is al o clear cr> e cf v'rl'misation. The first party Ins pr.">)C'J to p is-s c,"ard in his favour.

8. The case of i"he Second Party in brief is as under .

9. !• is (rue I hut ;he fir I p^.jtv was woikin4644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l proper. Full opportunity was given and all the alle- gations maue by the first party are not correct. Re- garding Enquiry so many things are stated by the management contending that the enquiry is fair and proper.

10. It is the further ease of the management that the first party was engaged as "acts prejudicial to the interests ot the Bank" and it levealed that Sri Sudhiv G. Tenlag did not utilise the amounts released under the Housing Loan sanctioned to him for purchase of the site|construction material. There was four changes against the lust party and all the charges ware proved.

11. It is tlu turthtr cdac ot the management that the action of the Second party is correct and allega- tions made by the first party are not correct.

12. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the Management MW1 was examined who conduct- ed the enquhy against the first party. He is cross examined.

13. It is seen from the records that first party for the reasons best known to him has not examined himself at all.

14. It is s:en from the records that this court by its order dated 19th June, 2001 held that the DE i> fair and proper. Thercatier the matter was posted l'cr arguments. Fiist party remained absent since 4th April, cuntinuoii'ly. Therefore, arguments of Second Party were heuul and the matter was posted for award.

15. Now that the enquiry is held as fair and proper, the burden is on the first party to convince lhat the enquiry report is perverse and the punish- ment is too harsh.

J6, It is seen hoin the records that, for the reasons beat known to the fust party he has not examined himself after the examination of MWl. It appears that the first party is noi interested in this dispute and therefore, lie lun not given evidence and not argued the matter.

17. Now we have to consider the entire enquiry proceedings, evidence and documents before the cn- quiiy officer, There is no perversity in the finding given by the Pnquiry Officer. Charges are proved. 1 have already said that the first party has not con- vinced as to how the punishment is disproportionate.

18. Considering all 1 his 1 am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly 1 proced to pass the following Order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transerib.'d by her enrreeted and tsigned by me on 31st Jul>, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 9th August, 2001 S.O. 2254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 ol 1947), the Cential Government hereby publishes ihc award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO ank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2001.

[No. L-12Ol2|fS21!R7-D]l(A)J C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JAFAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. TD 18/88

Shri Sukhdeo Singh C /o Shri O. P. Mehta (AITUC), Chowk Dolewal, Ludhiana. ..Workman.

Vs.

Divisional Manager, UCO Bank, Sector* 17, Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shii O. P. Mehta.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 17-7-2001)

The Central Government vide Gazette Notification No L-12012/621/87-D.IKA) dated 22nd March, 1988 has referred the following dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the sei vices of Shri Sukhdeo Singh, Gunman, Ghurani Kalan, Branch, w.e.f. 25-9-86 is justified ? Tf not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" 2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he has worked with UCO Bank, Ghurani Kalan Branch, Dis- trict Ludhiana as a rjunman tor two years continuously @ Rs. 20 per day. His services were terminated by4645 the management w.e.f. 26-9-80 illegally and unluw- tully witnout any notice, charge sheet 01 eriquny. Jftc management did not follow tne provisions ut section 2b-t ol the l.D. Act, J947 in terminating his services. The workman served a notice ot demand upon the management and also approached to Lab^ui -auii^..- ties but the conciliation proceedings icsulted in faiiuic Therefore, the management be uirectea 10 I U I U I ^L him with continuity ot service and lull bach, wa^-s. After his termination the workman remained unemp- loyed and he could not get any job, so far.

3. The management has filed its written statement alleging that the workmen is not a workman as defined in l.D. Act, 1947, therefore, no relationship of master and servant exists between workman and the manage- ment. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present reference. The workman was not employed by bank authorities. He was deployed by police authorities. Therefore, the present reference is not maintainable. The claim ot the workman is belat- ed which is apparently time barred.

8. The management has filed affidavit ot inspecting officer Shri D. K. Sanmptra which is Ex. M l. The management has also hied the document Ex. M2 to Ex. M5. The witness of the management has deposed that the law and order situation was worst during the said peiiod and the workman was employed by police authorities as special police officer under the provisions of Section 17 of the Police Act. He was required for the protection and security of the bank property. He was not paid any salary but he was paid honorarium as fixed by police authorities. On perusal of the documents filed by the management, this Tri- bunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant is not the 'workman' under the definition given in l.D. Act, 1947. He was also not an employee of the bank Ex. M2 is the copy of the application submitted by the workman to Station House Officer Shri Payal for his employment in the Branch of the Bank. His appli- cation was forwarded by the S.H.O. to the branch manager. Ex. M3 is the copy of the circular issued by Inspector General of Police (Crime), Punjab Govern- ment Chandigarh which was addressed to all the District Superintendent of Police of Punjab State, to make arrangements for the deployment of special police officer for the security of the banks. The copy of the Minutes of Meeting held on 27-3-1984 for making arrangements for security of the banks work- ing in the State which has been exhibited as Ex. M5. In paragraph 3 it has been clearly mentioned that the gunman would be employed as a special police officer and they would not be deemed employees of the bank. Under these circumstances the workman can not be deemed a 'workman' under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. On merits it has been pleaded by the manage- ment that the workman was never employed by the Bank as a gunman but he was appointed by the police authorities as a special police olhcer under the provi- sions of Police Act as per the decision taken at the meeting held on 27-3-1984 in Punjab Bhawan, Chandi- garh. During that period the law and order snuauon in the State was not peaceful. The menace of terrorist was prevailing in those days. Keeping in view the security of the banking institutions, the ex-servicemen were appointed by the police authorities at the bank. The workman was also an ex-serviceman. He was an employee ot police administration and his services •were terminated by Station House Officer Shri Payal. His services and duties were governed under the pro- visions of Police Act. So the question ot reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages does not arise. After his disengagement, the workman did not remain unemployed. In the biggest industrial city where the employment is easily available. Under these circumstances the claim of the workman deseives to be dismissed with no relief.

5. The workman has submitted rejoinder and re-

9. Workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he was getting honorarium per day and the guards who were employed by the bank were getting salary and allowances as per rules of the bank. Any appoint- ment letter was not issued by the bank. The police authorities used to check his duties while posting at the branch of the bank. His .statement clearly indi- cates that he was not an employee of the bank. There- lore, the relationship of master and servant did not exist between the bank and the applicant workman. Under these circumstances, the provisions of Section 25-F are not applicable in this case.

asserted the facts pleaded in his claim statement.

6. In this case the engagement of the workman in the bank and his disengagement from the services of the bank are not disputed facts. 'I he main issue for consideration is that the applicant is a workman or not under the provisions of InduslriaJ Disputes Ad, 1947.

JO. The witness of the management has deposed in his cross-examination that the management did not retrench the applicant but he was withdrawn by the police authorities, when the law and order situation was found better by them. Therefore, the question of retrenchment of the applicant does not arise and his disengagement can not be treated as. retrenchment or termination of his services. The disengagement of Ihe workman can not be held unjustified in any way.

1 1. During the course pf arguments the rep. of the workman has cited the cases of State Bank of India Vs. Shri N. Sundramony (AIR 1976 S.C. 1111), Work- man of American Express Vs. the management of American Express (1986 Lab. T.C. 98 S.C), tho management of Standard Motors Vs. A. Parthsarthi and oihers (1986 Lab. T.C. 101 S.C.) and the case of Tial Kishan Vs. Presiding Olficer, Labour Court, Panipat 11996 (3) S.C.T. P&H 548). All these case 7. The applicant woikman has submitted his affida- vit which is Ex. Wl. He has deposed in his affidavit that he was appointed by the bank authorities on the post of gunman on daily wages and he worked there for more than two years. His services were terminated by the bank without giving any notice and charge sheet and without holding any departmental enquiry. The provisions of Section 25-F of the l.D. Act, 1947 were not complied with by the bank authorities. His services were terminated by the bank authorities illegally.

laws iciate to tliw Su.uu.ii 25-Ji an < z5-i jaeot pic v sioas aie only appi eabie in n'ose c ' ^s wneie die applicant it, iuUiid woixioan uiitU/i t K, ueuiiUiGn ^ -J in tiidt Act In Jitv i.a^ aidci coi^a^i u* a. me iela- tiO.iSiiip oi rtu.Aiiii,n j uu ,. iix^o_yci iida i >l t, i a ie^ betweui the applicant miu the i id iaj,uiivJt, ue u o. , Ui.sc case laws a.e nut ^ppucaDiw m t as cast 12. I ne woikman has depo&e i m *ns ujj.ua,it m at he iwinaiJua iuii_T)p'oy..u aitej uis (Jiacnga^mcij iro>n the &uViCe& ol ihe oanv iiai ui uib cro^a-CAdi j u a t u. i he has admitted v at Jie is c j . i ug l ib S m o od b_, \

13 In Uiis ease tne iiiu la^iii^u. iiat, ..i. i oui successtul m establishing that the workmin \vaa ernp iojed in the bank u\ a special police o^'Cer by tti^ police authoiitics ana Le was not an emp'o^ce ol the bank Iheietore, the elaho^ife discussion of Iheeu- dence is not desnaole The term o' the relerence lelales i,o the teimmatibn of the seticcs oi the applicant and Us jiut hcdtion iiut the appucaiu has ->jt been touiKi a 'workman undei Ihe dt-iimtion given in ID Act, 1947, so the leferen^e deserves to be answeieJ aguJ^t the applicant On me farjs oi t^c discn sions maoc above, the ldcience is am* ,e,eJ that tac ser.Kes oi applicant Sukhaev Saiga *c!s n^t turn 'ia^d by t^ie ban\ authoiJies Dut ii" wa^ witna awn by t!.^ disiriCi. polive authentic so, >>is te,ii>tiaUm i om the bwiik seivices can not be held ur_,usn ed Bot.i tne p"i Va shall b "r ihcu own st /wpiuprau Guveaimeni be mtoime^

Cpandigarh,

17-7-2001

R L lAl \ P"- - ^ Oi'

AJN^JLAUKt

LLrUhc St-^.i !3 l 1 U U, P^LAIDIJNCJ oi t ICi 14, C, L 1,1' L G ^\ i. ^is 1- iLN l iiNuv-vj j iAL <^.iJ VJ L A L O L IR C ^ l 1.-1.1 !JiG \V"i

Ca u No ib r / Oi 1W1

San D I. Sikka, -is Gsn'idl Seat-Miv, Haiyaud B " !\ JC. npioy^cj Ieut"at ^n, •">i > z ijaiik ol I-au aa, I loud ioWii, i-oluaic. PUiuoner.

Vs.

regional MaJugci, Lan'-' of Earoda, G. i .load, Ivarnal. Respouuem Fo die VvjL'vrnaii N O IK

T ui^ Maiidgvii'i. ut 'v'ii vijay Sin^kn

AvVARD

(1 isseJ on 7th

iiJc Cwiitidl G o\ Miiiei*", v . a i ^ i .y vj Labour vidv Noti'icufien No L-1201 ^[t^'SiyO I R B(F1) dated i8< i "l"H'.n ^-191 iia ^ e i f ' ed the to¹''Mug dispute to t'lib 11 sburid hii rdjud eai on •

New Deihi tne c)ib Autii t, _001

SO 2255—In pmsuanc- of Seeuoa 17 ot the In- dustual Disputes, Act, 1947 (14 o¹ 1O47\ th^ Central G o v e rn u c i ii he c b" p u b 'i h es ' c i M rl • I i L JI tial Govcmmcit In siua * bi. ^ .I/L cVii f uA Chandigarh as shown m ihe tlnnc ane 1,1 the InJostriul Dispute betveen fhc ^ in /c s 11 ci.it.o¹ i . i ugement ol Bank o+ '"* .rod > an ^ thei v o \sn n, vilue'i was rt- \ed S>v I e t c i t i ai GoveT ncut oi ') 8-2001

fN- '- ! >o IR '-T> ' !7-⁷~2001.

*i L JA1AV, P tsiJmg Oilier4547 Centra' Government Indiv><> ai Inbun.'l cum-Labour Court No. jl, I ijdiibv'" iVii i. •,ii.i.i'ii i ii io this l i i- 1) inal for fdjucliCtion.

New Delhi, the 9?1> August, 2001

S.O 2256—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 10 r/ (14 Oi 1 9 ^, tlv Cc > tjal Government hereby pubi->he!> t!ie a v i rd el hc Industrial Tribunal P^fna ai shown in 'he j u a uc in the Industrial Dispute b J wc i the employers m rehfion to the management of UCO Bank and the

[No. L - 1 2 0 l 2 / 6 6 , 9 9 - I P (E IP]

C. G A N G A D F A P A^ U"J.r S ^ r.

ANNCXURE

w . e .f ° - 7 - J ° 80 K H - J i ^i •>

if

.•

t

-

' --

ing certain contingent nature of work by the Manager ot Belhar Branch ot UCO Hank who had no autho- rity to engage. The engagement was thus void ab- initio. Ever since nationalisation, the UCO Bank has become a State within the meaning of article 12 vif the Constitution of India and is thus obliged to func- tion within the parameter of article 14 and Id of the Constitution in the matter of appointment. The pro- cedure prescribed for appointment or engagement was not followed. There was no advertisement of any vacancy inviting applications from prospective candi- dates and Sri Sudama Prasad Saw had never applied for engagement before the Manager of Belbar Branch. The workman can not be reinstated to the illegal void engagement. There was no vacancy in the Branch and moreover the Reserve Bank :i( Tndia had put a ban on recruitment of staff as per the letter dated 26-6-96. The ban continues as per the subsequent letter of R.B.I, dated 16-12-1997. The Bank has been iucur- ing heavy losses since the last several years. The ex- penditure incurred over payment to unwanted and illegitmately engaged individuals conies to Rs. one crore approximately per year in Bihar alone. Since Sri Sudama Prasad Saw and many others had been illegally engaged a policy decision was taken to dis- continue their engagement. On 29-3-1997 the Zonal Manager of the Bank directed that no engagement of casual workers except those who stand empanelled would be made by any Branch M.'.niigd'IOfficc. It was made clear that the authorities disregarding anv direction if engaged or continue the engagement nf any ca-sual worker will be personally responsible for such illegal engagement.

6. It is denied that Sri Sudama Prasad Saw was discharging the duties of a peon Whoever was paid w'as in consideration of doing casual and contingent nature of job as prescribed by the Government, Tt is denied that the workman was maintainin

7. A rejoinder to the written statement of the Man- agement has also been fil^d on behalf of the work- man reiterating the facts of the case as stated in his written statement. Tt is sMerl tint once the dispute is referred to the Tribunal Miis Tribunal is required to adjudicate the reference within the roncentunl frame work of the T.D. Ad. The UC'O Bank is an industry as per section 1(\\. Sri Sudama Prasnd Saw is a workman within the me'-vnine of section 2Cs) and his termination is covered u/s 2foo) of the T.D. Act. The workmr-n discharged all fhe duties of a peon for more than 240 davs in a year preceding his reirench- m em -iH hence his retrenchment without compliance of the requirement of section 25F of the T D, Act is illegal. The direction of the Bank lor disengagement made in the year 1997 has no application since the workman was removed much earlier in the year 1989 even prior to signing of the settlement dated 12-10-1989 for i-'bsorption of casual workers. The Management being a public sector Bank and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but it did not act fairly with the workman.

8. The following issues arise for adjudication :—- (i) Whether Sri Sudama Prasad Saw worked from 1-1-1982 to 7-7-1989 and if so, whether the action of the Management in terminat- ing his service w.e f. ^-7-1989 is justified ?

(ii) If not justified to what relief or reliefs is the workman entitled ?

FINDINGS

Issue No. (1) :

9. Before I proceed to decide the Issue 1 would like to mention briefly the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties in the case. The Management has not adduced any oral evidence. The workman has examined himself as W.W.l. Tn his evidence he has fully supposed the facts of his ca-se as detailed in his written statement. Tn his evidence he has said that he worked as a casual worker from) 1-1-1982 to 7-7-1989 and performed the duties of a regular peon such as opening the lock of the Gate, unlocking the Almirahs, bringing out ledgers/scroll books, token books, tokens from Almirahs and. placing them on the Tables, carrying the cash box from the strong room to the Cashier, going out from the Bank in connection with recovery of loan, carrying r?mit- tence from the Branch to Bhagaipur, visiting post office for posting and bringing mails, distribution of daks through Peon Books etc. He has said that after termination he had filed petitions before the Manage- ment for reinstatement. He had submitted such peti- tions before the Branch Manager, before the Regional office, before the Zonal office and also before the Head Office, He had also submitted petitions before the Management for absorption in the light of the settlement dated 12-10-1989. In cross-examination he has denied that after retrenchment he had taken up other employment and so he did not file any petition before any authority for reinstatement.

10. Both parties have filed xerox copies of certain documents which have been admitted into evidence on formal proof having been waived by each other. At first T would like to mention the documents ex- hibited on behalf of the Management, Fxt. M is the zerox copy of the letter from the Reserve Bank of India dated 16-12-1997 stating therein that the ear- lier restrictions for fresh recruitment of staff includ- ing for replacement of retirements, resignation etc. would continue except recruitment of specialised Probationary Officers with the prior approval of R.B. T/GOI. Ext. M/1 is the zerox copy of the circular of the Bank dated 29-12-1988 relating to the proce- dure to be followed for recruitment to the posts in subordinate cadres It has been filed by the Manage-4649 12. It may here be noted thai on 18th April, 2001

an affidavit petition was filed on behalf of the work- man for a direction to the Management to produce the details of work (date-wise, month-wise and year- wise ) along with payments made to the workman from 1-1-1982 to 7-7-1989. Accordingly a direction was made to the Management to produce in this Tribunal the required¹ information vide order sheet dated 18-4-2001. In compliance with the same direction of this Tribunal the Management filed a statement shewing the details of work date-wise and payments made to the workman. The said statement has been used by the workman and has teen marked Ext. W|8. The Management also tiled a separate petition re- garding the work of the concerned workman month- wise and year-wise beginning from January, 19-82 to July, 1989. This petition has been used by the work- mnn and has been marked Ext. W|9.

ment to show that the procedure for recruitment was not followed while engaging the concerned workman. Ext. -M/2 is the zerox copy of the order of the' Calcutta High Court dated 4-8-1999 passed in W.P. No. 1390 of 1990. It was a writ petition for absorption of the stmaining empanelled daijy wages workers m the vacancies of the subordinate staff in pursuant to the agreement dated 12-10-198*.) made between the Man- agement of the UCO Bank and the Unions. This order shows that under the said settlement between the Management and unions the casual woikers working continuously 240 days or more in the subordinate cadre during the period of three years immediately preceding the settlement flerj tv be absorbed in the permanent vacancies. The casual workers entitled for being absorbed in terms of the said settlement wcie empanelled for such absorption in vacancies as ajnd when arose. The order further shows that altogether 460 casual workers were empanelled for absorption out of whom only 69 casual workers could be absorb- ed. Some of the remaining empanelled v-oikers filed the writ petition before ihe Calcutta High Court stat- ing therein that though there were vacancies they were not being absorbed. 1 he Hon'blc Calcutta High Court oridered that the Bank authorities should consider the CLV'C of the petitioners and shall absorb the rest of the casual workers as and when restriction for appoint- ment by the R.BT. was lifted.

11. As regards the documents filed on behalf of

the workman Ext. VV is the eiicular of the Bank dated J9-10-1989 which was issued in terms of the settle- ment between the Management of the Bank and three unions of the workmen at the apex level. The said settlement was signed on 12-10-1989, According to the said settlement and the cucular the persons who had been engaged as casual workers for full days work and who had been discharging any of the normal duties in the Bank in the subordinate cadre as casual workers for a period of 240 days or more during the period of three years immediately preceding the settle- ment would be eligible for absorption. It v as, howeer, made clear that those who had been engaged as Water Boy on daily wage would not be eligible for being considered for absorption under the settlement. Exts. W/l and W /2 are said to be the zerox copies of applications which the concerned workman had sub- mitted in prescribed proforma for absorption in the light of the said settlement a"d circular. Ext. W/3 scries are the zerox copies of the applications which the workman claims to have submitted before the authorities from time to time for reinstatement after his termination. Ext. VV/4 and Ext. W/4-1 are zerox copies of the registration postal receipts. Ext. W /5 is the zerox copy of the petition of the workman addressed to the A.L.C.(C), Patna laising the pre- sent industrial dispute. Ext. W/6 is the zerox copy of the reply from the Branch Manager, Befhar Branch dated 20-4-1998 to the letter of the workman dated 30-3-1998. Ext. W/7 is the zerox copy of the letter of the workman dated 30-4-1998 addressed to the Branch Manager, Befhar Branch.

2550 Gl/2001—"4650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 1 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 300] ioi absorption in terms of the settlement and circular of .he Bank (Ext. W ).

Labour Court and others]. Ihermination of employ- ment on the ground of appointment being illegal will itself qualify as retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. The idea of illegal or invalid appointment is quite foreign to the scheme of the T.D. Act. Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act which defines Workman⁷ does not, have any such distinc- tion [1994(2) P.L.J.R. pag.; 24^ Mithle^h Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar] T

17. In the light of my above discussions I hold that Sii Sudama Prasnid Saw is entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 8-7-19S9 but he will not be entitled lor payment of back wages till December, 1996. He is entitled for payment of full back wages w.e.f. 1-1-1997. He is also entitled to be empanelled as casual worker for absorption in permanent post of the subordinate cadre as and when vacancy will arise and after restriction regarding recruitment of any staff by the R.B.I, is lifted. * Accordingly the Re- ference is answered. Let the Management imple- ment the Award within the period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the Award.

18. This is my award.

S. K. MISHRA, Presiding Officer 14. In the present case as Sri Saw worked moie than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment and as the precisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act were not emplied with at the time of termination, 1 have no hesitation to hold that the action of the management of UCO Bank, Patna in terminating the service t.f Sri Sudama Prasad Saw was not justified. I also find that Sri Saw worked from 1-1-1982 to 7-7-1989 before his termination almost continuously The issue no (i) is accordingly decided and answered.

Issue no. (ii) :

*^

New Delhi, the 9th August, 20C1

S.O. 2257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centrnl Government hereby publishes the awaid of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandignrij as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in I elation to the management of Ccnlinl Rank of Tndm nnd their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- cinment on 9-8-2001,

15. As has been held by the Hon'blc Supreme Court in Navotam Chopra, case referred earlier ii the service of a workman is terminated in violation of sec- tion 25F of the T.D. Act the order of teimination being ab-initio void the employee ordinarily will be entitled to continuity of service with full payment of back wages. It was submitted on behalf of the Management thuit no industrial dispute was raised by the workman as long as about nine yeurs alter teimi- na|tion of the service. But it rs well settled iact that the law of limitation is not applicable to the cases under th'e T.D. Act. The Horfble Supreme Court in a' case reported in 1999 ff>) S.C. eases page 82, 1999 Lab. I.C. Page 1435 that the delay in seeking refe- rence unless coupled with proof of real prejudice to the Employer is not sufficifn* to deny relief to the workman. Even in cases of proved delny relief can be moulded by declining whole or part nf back wages. Sri B. Prasad representative of the worlman in course of argument submitted that in view¹ of the inord'nV • delay in making the present Reference the workman has no objection if back waces are paid to him only with effect from 1-1-1997. The demand nf the work- man for pavment of n:ick 'va"es w.e f 1-1-1997 appears to be reasonybie.

l"No. L-12012|10l[KS-D-ll(A)) C. OANGADHARAN, Under Srcv,

ANNFXURE

BEFORE SHRT B.I . JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVRRNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-I.ABOUR COURT, CHANDiGARH

Cnse No ID 45|RR

Roop Chand C|o Genernl Secretary, Central Bank cf India Pmnloyees Union 129, Lai Kurti, Ambala Cantt.-Haryana. .. Woikman|L'nion.

Versus

The Regional ^fanaper, Central Bank of India. Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES :

For thr workman : Shri B.S. Gill.

Tor (he management : Shri ShHmmi Kaplish.

AWARD

(Passed on 5th of July 200] )

The Central Government vide gazette notification No. L- 120121101|88-D-2(a) dated 14th of July 1988 has rcfeircd the tollowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Wh.lhei the action of the management of Cential Bank oi India in dismissing Shii Roop Chand is justiiied? If not, to what iclief the conjoined workman is, entitled to?"

2, 1 he case of ihe workman in biief is (ha; he was initially appointed in the bank'as suboidinatc slulf on 14-3-1970 al Branch Office Patiala and he wai promoted from sub stair ton clerical cadre on 15-9-1983 and was posted at Branch Office Gidarbaha. He was again transferred to bianch office Rajpuin lownilup at his request. He was suspended vidi: letter dt, 5-11-1985 relating to the alleged misconduct com- mitted during the year 1983 at branch office Patiala.After that the charge sheet was given to the workman. The woikman admitted the chaiges with the intention to get the benefit of clause 19 : 12 (c) of Bipartite Scttlemenl governing the service conditions of the workman. In this clause it has been provided thnt if delinquent admits the charge of misconduct he should not be punished with the pemlUy of dismissal or djschaigc, Woikman admitted the charges levelled against him dui inn the course of departmental snquhy on the advise of the disciplinary authoiity. The enquiiy was conducted by the enquiry officer and held him guilty of the miscondoct. The disciplinaiy authority had inflicted the punishment of dismissal upon the woikman. He requested to the disciplinaiy authority to take lenient view in the mutter of punishment during the course of personal healing but disciplinaiy autho- rity did not consider his request and punished him with the penalty of dismissal ignoring the clause 19 : 12(e) of Bi- partite Settlement. He submitted an appeal to appellate authority to set aside the dismissal order but his appeal was dismissed. Theieafter, he submitted mercy appeal which w.is also dismissed by the management.

3, It has been pleaded in the claim statement (hat the action of the management in dismissing the woikman is con- traiy to the terms of Bipartite Settlement. The punishment inflicted is harash and disproportionate to the alleged mis- conduct keeping in view the admission of the workman. Therefore, the dismissal order deserves to be set aside and the management be diiectcd to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of service,

4, The management has filed its written statement allcgum thiit the workman was diiected to deposit an amount of Rs. 778.02 paivn on 17-8-1983, while he was woikinp as sub-stall' at blanch office A-dalat Bazar Patiala, asainst a telephone bill dated 11-8-1983. The said amount was not deposited on that day because the G.P.O. was to close its functioning at 2 P.M. Thtwfoic, the woikman undc-itook to deposite the s >me on 19-8-1983, On cnquiiv the workman informed the bank authorities that he had deposited the amount on 18-8-1983. He was advised to produce 1he teccipt in token of his having deposited the amouni lie did not furnish the receipt. On 10-4-1985, he came to the branch office and told a concocted story that he li.nl asked his fiiend to deposit the amount of the bill but he had not deposited the same with G.P.O As such the -imount of bill which he had token from tlie bank be ordered to be depo- sited in the bank. Taking into consideration thr facts and chcumitances, it was self evident that the workman had mnlafide intentions from the verv begi.iuinn and he hud mij-approri iated the amount to the prejudice of the baitV. Thus he had committed the oftcnic of breach of trust and commited misconduct amounting to loss of confidence in the cmplo\"i\ The workimn deposited the amount during the month of April 1985 after a pap of one year and 8 months, which deserved disciplinary action to be taken npninst the workman,

5, The departmental enquiry was initiil<\1 rind the chiii'"e sheet was givon tn (he workman. He volunt irilv admitted the chaiges durinc the course of enquirv proceedines. The cnqniiu officer, aftei havinq considered .'11 pios and cons o[ admission airived to the conclusion tint the woikman had c o m m i t t ed t he j l l c p ed m i s c o n d u ct a r id li • 1 I L * U1 H IT w o i l - m au oUiltv of misappropriation of puhlir money. The discipli- nary authority issued show cause notice proposing the penalty of dismissal or discharge. Opportunity of personal hearing was given to Lhc workman. Alter considering the facts and citcumstances of the case, the order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority, The workman filed, appeal and meicy appeal to higher authorities of the bonk which weie dismissed by ihe bank. Ihe woikman had admitted the cliiuges oi misconduct voluntarily. Therefore, it was within the disci etion of the management to impose the penahty of dismissal oi lessei punishment taking into consideration the fact and cucumstances iclating to the misconduct. The management has not acted contrary to the provisions of clause 19 ; 12(e) of Bipartite Settlement. The workman had admitted his guilt, theieforc, the presenting officer did not adduce any evidence against the woikman. Therefore, the cnquny officer had not committed any irregularity in closing the enquiry pioceedings, after voluntary admission of the woikman. Workman is not entitled to be reinstated with back wages and continuity of seivice. His claim deserves to be dismissed without granting any relief.

6. The woikman has filed rejoinder reasserting the facts pleaded in the claim statement.

7. In this case all the facts are admitted facts except the penalty of dismissal exercising the discretion under clause 19 : 12(e) of Bipartite Settlement by the management, 8. The woikman has submitted his affidavitfcx,Wl and the affidavit of Geneml Secretary of the Union Shri Mangut Ram which is Fx. W2. The workman has also produced documents which have been exhibited as Ex. W3 to W4. The management has submitted the affidavit of Shri R.P. Singh which is Fx, Ml. The management has also relied on the documents exhibited as E\. M2 to Ex. M7. The workman has been cioss^evimined by the representative of the mana- gement. The woikman has admitted jll the facts in his cross-examination relating to the misconduct and condition, of departmental enquiry. Therefoie, the narration of the facis is not. necessary in my opinion. 1 he witness of the management has been cross-examined by the rep. of the woikman but nothing has come on iewOid to disbelieve this witness. Now the question ari-.es for consideration as to whether the disciplinary authoiity has exercised his discre- tion pioperly under clause 19 : 12(e) of Bipartite Settle- ment. The workman has also challenge) the action cf the management in the matter of punishment¹ under this provi- sions also, and he has requested the tribunal to exercise its discretion under Section ll-A of the I.O. Act 1947, 9. As per clause 19 : 12(e), an enquuy need not be held if, employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his leply to Ihe show cause notice of rhe pioposed punish- ment. If the management, does not intends to award the punishment of dischaige or dismissal, if the misconduct is piovcd, Ihe enquuy need not to be held against the deli- quent. When the ehaige sheet was issued to the workman and he attended the cnquiiv and he admitted his guilt volunliiuly the clause 19 : 12(e) was alti.icted in the matlei ol punishment and fuithei continuance of the departmental enquiiy. If the maniKCment wanted to punish him with Ihe penalit> of dismissal the departmental enquiiy must have been held by the management. The workman in this case was given Ihe memo of the proposed punishment which is Ex, W7. The order of punishment dated 4-4-1980 is Ex. W9. On persual of punishment older if is evident lhat the woikman had requested the discipbnaiy aulhoiilv in tcply to the notiw of the proposed punishment (H\. W7) that under clause 19: 12(ej of Bipartite Scttlcmcm the penality of dismissal should not h.ivc been imposed upon him. But Ihe disciphnaiy authority considered In dismiss lhc woikman taking into consideration the admission of the woikman. Under these circumstances as per clause 19 : 12(e), the enquiry mirt have been opened by the management ;ird the evidence must have been addu- ced by the piesenti.iu; oliicei to mcU the principle of natural justice and to give effect lu provisions of Bipaitite Settle- ment. The facts and gravity of the misconduct committed by the woikman is also not so grave which require the penalilv dismissil. The pcu.ilitv of dismissal is dispiopor- tionale to (he misconduct committed by the workman. There- fore, Ihe wmkm'in is entitled to he reinstated instead of facing the punishment of dismissal. Under Section 11-A this Tribunal is empowered to substitute lesser punishment to meet the ends of iuslice and to cive effect to the provisions of Rin.nlito Si'Mknvnt. The suhilitulc punishment should be with holding of two annual increment, with aimutotivc effect. If the workman had not been dismissed fiom seivce4652 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BfIADRA 10, 1923 [PART tl—Stc. 3(ii)] he wonld have got the monthly salary from (he date of his dismissal. Therefore, he is entitled to get the hack wages. But the woikman ha;, not pleaded in his claim statement and has not deposed in his affidavit that he icmained unemployed after his' dismissal. Therefore, he is only entilled to get the 50 per cent of the back wages with continuity of seivicc.

10. Taking into consideiution the fact,, and cireumrfances of the case and clause 19 : I2(e) of Bipditite settlement, the punishment of dismiss^ is contrary to the Bipartite Settle- ment. Therefore, the action oJ the management in dismiss- ing the workman can not be held justified. Therefore, the reference is answered that the action taken by the manage- ment of Central flank of India in dismissing the wolkman is not justified. Consequently, the punishment of dismissal is set aside arid the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect is substituted by exercis- ing tin- poweis con1_iied U/S ll-A of the I.D. Act 1947. The managem nt is rtiK'Ctfd to itiiiftate the workman on the date of his dismissal from service with eonfinuitv of service. The workman shnl! be entitled to get 50 per cent of the back wages. Both parties shall bear their own costs of the ptoceedinys. Appropiiate Govuijment be informed, Chandigarh.

5-7-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st August, 2001 S.O. 2258.—In pursuance of Sccion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No, 2, Dhanbaid as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-8-2001.

[No. L-200J2|104|92-lR(C-I)J

N. P. KE3AVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding OJtioer. In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section l O ( l ) f d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 24 of 1991

PARTIES :

APPEARANCES;

On behalf of the workman : Shri S. C, Gaur,

Advocate. On behalf of the employers : Shri H. Nath,

AdVocate. STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd July, 200]

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L~20012| lO4¹92-I.R. (Coal. I) dated the 22nd March, J993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Gopah'chak Collieiy of BCCL in not granting one increment at the time of his promotion to the post of Mining Sirdar to Shri Ramu Barhi is justified ? ' If not, to what relief the workman i^ entitled ?"

management has arbitraltly and illegally fixed his scale of pay @Rs. 782 instead of Rs, 822 Accordingly he submitted his prayer for his relief of getting of one additional increment with fixation of pay of Rs. 822 per month.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S. has denied all the claims and allegations whkh the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The mangement in the W.S. submitted that the concerned workma|n was a Line Mistry in Cat. IV of NCWA- III and was getting a basic salary of Rs. 29.70 P. in the pay scale of Rs. 24.1O-U.8O-35.3O and his monthly basic pay was Rs, 772120. The management further submitted that as the concerned workman obtained Mining Sirdarship certificate from the D.G.M.S. Dhanbad he was regularised as Mining Sirdar vide Order dt. 4-5-33. Jt has neen further submitted that the wore! k'Fromotion" used in the promotion order is nothing but a misnomer and has been erroneously used. They submitted than the Line Mistry and Mining Sirdarship are two different cadres and one belong to E & M Discipline and other belongs to Mining Supervisory Personnel. So in the real terms the case of tho concerned workman is the case of rcgulan'sation and not promotion and for which the claim of extra increment had no footing. The management further submitted¹ that Miner|Loaders are piece rated workers and in any case they cannot be granted one extra increment because they aie not m the time sca,le. Accordingly in such cases monthly Mages are calculated and their basic wages is fixed in the regularised category ar the proper slab of the pay scale. While doing so it is ensured that they do not get less than what they ha,ve been getting prior to their regularisation. The concerned workman was given a basic of Rs. 782 per month in She pay scale of Rs. 742-1422 of Mining Sirdar which was more than what he was getting. The management further submitted that they iiid not commit any illegality and impropriety in fixinu the pay scale of Ihc concerned workman after regularising of his service as Mining Sirdar and accordihgly they submitted their prayer to pass an Award lo the effect that not granting of one increment at the lime of rcgularisatfon of the con- cerned workman to the post of Mining Sirdar was illegal and arbitrary.

4. The points for decision in this reference are:-—

"Whether the action of the management of Gopalichuck Colliery of HCCL in not gran- ting one increment at the time of his pro- motion to tins post of Mining Sirdar to Shri Ramu P.arhi is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

DECISIONS WITri REASONS

the concerned workman has failed to pruducc a single scrap of paper to show that the management had specific promotional policy relying on which a time rated worker by virtue of rcgulaiisation of service enjoys fixed pay scale and is entitled tc get additional increment. Learned Advocate for the management submitted that while the concerned workman was in time rated job his monthly wage was Rs. 722 but after regululrisation oc service into regular pay scale his pay was fixed to Rs. 782 i.e. next higher stage of increment. Therefore, the management did not commit any illegally and impropriety in fixing the pay scale of the joncerned workman to Rs. 782 per month in the pay -c;\k of Rs. 572-J 008.

6. 1 halve considered all aspects carefully and after careful consideration I ha\e failed to find out any illegality and imprnpiiety in fixing the pay scale of the concerned woilman to Rs, 772 per month. As the concerned workman has failed to produce any cogent paper to show tl

"The action of the management of Gopalichuk Colliery of BCCL in not granting one incre- ment at th: time of his nromolion to the post of Mining S'rdar to Shri Ramu Barhi is justified¹, Consequently, ihe concerned workman is not entitled to PTIV iclief,"

n. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the lit August, 2001 S.O. 2259.—In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1l>47 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the nwrrd of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhunbud as shown in the Aunexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and'their workman, which .was received by the Central Government on 1-8-2001.

|No. I.-_>(KJ12|394 94-IR(C-I)1 N. P. KLSAVAN, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ir*Dusi:.;\L -HUBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shu B, Biswas, Pie kUg Oflicer.

In rh- ma'ter el" an inJust, Lil Dispute under Sec ion 10(1 )(d) vi the I. D. Act, 1947 Refeu nee No, 135 of 1995

PA^TihS :

Jinijjloyeis in iJ;t! on to the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine, of M|s. BCCL and (liL-ir workman.

APPu-ArtANCES :

On behalf o! the Woihrmn—Shri D. Mukher- jee, Secretary, Biht-r Colliery Kamgar Union,

p.i hehilf or 1h; limplryei—Shri B. Joshi, Ad- vocate.

S i A lh : Jharklumd. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbnd, iac 23id July, 2001

AWAVsD

The Government of Indi i, Ministry of Labour, in •'\ere'ie oi the jxwei. LOniuied on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has refer- red the following,

SCHLDULK

'Whether the action ot the management of SudaiTul'h Shaft Mine of Mis. BCCL in dismissing Shri Kidtmi Luehan Pathak from the services of company is justified ? If not, to what reli;f the concerned workman is entitled ?"

i 2. The case of the concerned workman as per \ \. S. in briet is a. lollows :—

enti led to get any (ti.ei. Actuidiagly the manage- ment h.ij piayu. ; . J,'.,-int. Lln Av, aril holdng the coaci-rncd workr > a. jiul v,-tttled to any jelief. inspit.: vt giving reply to the chargesheet grven to h;'"n iiij ni; n'if .picnt rI'd not consider the same. On the conltvry they stance! a domestic enquiry and found him guLty and th(.n.cflcr discharged him from hi.-, service. Is "S the fyu'.-ific allegttion of the con- cerned wckman that hs c;cier of dismissal v.as not only illegal ?nd arbihaiy bi-t -\ko it violated the

^ . J QC _ • ! - :> of n a t u ' vl j u s t i c e. A c c o r d i n g ly he h as

pu.yed for passing ncce'si-ry award to reinstate him with full back wa^es and ofhcr consequential bene- fits.

4. Before tak n" uo finai Ltaring of the instant icfetvnc-e n prcl^, ..i.ij, ;s m. wa¹- taken up for hear- ing by nr>' pred'V • -n-< ffi^t to con^der the fair- ness, propne'y a- veil as the legality of the domestic enquiry held by t\ FnqnVy Officer appointed by the" management, G> d-deV No. 37 dated 21-9-99 it was held that the donietiic enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer v^^ l.:ir ::nd proper. As such on the basis of the i.:d fi'-d.i^' referred to above the instant case was ''ken fo: fi.ial !'c r;ng.

5. Now the pc'-fo for , ori?"ae:^o.i m this refe-

rence are :—

"Whether th^ ce.: >JI oJ the management cf

Sudamdih Shaft M~>m of M!s. BCCL in dis- missing Shri P i??.iii tcch^n Pathrk from the s c r e es of company is justified ? If not, to wiiat rclie<" the concerned work- man is entitled ?"

Decision with Reasons4656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1. 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] I'^mcnt that the conrerncd workman was a habitual absentee and tnspite of giving due caution and also initiation ot disciplinary preceding he did not mend hs attitude. On ihe conlioiy it is the contention of ihj concerned workman that due to his continuous illness he did not find scope to attend his duties and loi which he made representation to the manage- ment for liis deployment in the surface on compas- .londte ground. But 'he management did not pay ;iny heed to his appeal. It ha¹- to be borne into mind thai until! and unless any honest intention is existed none will daie to admit the fact of his absence from duty. Here it is seen that the concerned work- man though admitted the i^et ot his absence from duty has assigned it's reason. The management in course of hearing d?d net hi-Leve this claim. It is not expected that a person who often remained ill will be able to carry on its duties normally The job which was entrusted to the concerned workman was definitely a serious in tuiure Naturally physical fitness wih very much essential. But inspite of in- forming ihK fact hi the management by trie concern- ed workman the management ignored the same. There was scope on the p;,rt of the management to anange for his voluntary rcrnement declaring him nr:dic-illy unfit but the management did not consider to do so. On the coniian with the allegation of misconduct lor his habitual continuous "absence he was di. missed from his service. A person who dur- ing the period as alL-ced bv the management remain- ed under treatment in the hn-pital run by the mana- gement would not be expee'ed to carry on his duties-. Therefore considering all aspects carefully and also considering the discharge ot ceilificate issued by the Medical Officer of the management I find it very drllicult to say that the concerned workman committ- ed any misconduct for his continuous absence from duty for the period from 1-10-92 to 17-10-92. I therefore hold that the order of dismissal passed by the management was not only unfair and improper but also it violated the principles of natural justice. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—

' The action of the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M\ BCCL in dismissing Shri Padam Lochan Pathak from the ser- vices of company is not justified. Conse- quently, the concerned workman is entitl- ed to reinstatement but without any back wages".

The managemen* is directed to implement the Avaid witlvn three months fiom the date of publi- cation in the Gazette of India.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2001 S.O. 2260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1047 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Trihunal-cum-Labour Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employ TS in relation to the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and their work- man which was received by the Central G o ^ n m e nt on 7-8-2001.

[No L-42011111 99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAl VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.l.T.-cum- Lubour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute case No. 28712001 Dated Bhubaneswar. the 26th July. 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Jfanpath. Unit-IX, Bhubancswar-751001

1st Party-Management.

AND

Their workman, represented through their. General Secretary, EPF Staff Union, C o. Office of RPFC, Bhavishyi Nidhi Bhawan,

J.'np^'.h Unit j \, Bhubaneswar.

2nd Party-Uninn APPEARANCES :

Shri S. Dasmohapatra, Enforcement Officer, Legal Oio. Regional Provident Fund, Ciimi lissioner, Bhubanesw;ir.

For the 1st Pn'tv Marn"rcmen<.

Srri K. C. Gena, General Secretary. FPF Slat Union, O o. RPFC,

Ritnrvir>"w"r . For the 2nd Party Union. ?s?n c.i Tni —io

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L 42011111 |99]IR(DU ). dated 30 7-1999: —

"Whether the action of the Management by not corresponding with the General Secretary of the Union (who is under suspension) is legal and justified 7 11' not, to what relief the workmaniGeneral Secretary is entitled ?"

2. While sending the reference intimation was sent to both the parties to tile their res- pective Claim Statement and documents before, the Tribunal. The parties were also noticed by this Tribunal ;vd they have made their appearance. The representative of the Union has filed a petition stating that after fresh election held for the period 2000--2002, there is a mutual understanding between the Management and the LTnion. So there is no dispute exists between the parties and the M"in:'L":ment has also conceded this fact.

3. In view of the above facts this Tribunal is of the opinion thut presently no Industrial Dispute exists between the parties. Hence, rtn dispute award is passed.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 7th August, 2001 S.O. 2261 —In pursuance of Scct;on 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of !947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes thf nwml of the Central Government4658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1. 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 300] Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Supdt. of Post Offices and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 7-8-2001.

[No. L-40012 |250l91-IR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

"SHRAM SADAN'\

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUM- KUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 30th July, 2001 PRESENT :

HON'BLE SHRT V. N. KULKARNI, B.COM, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C. R. No. 73 92

I PARTY :

S. R. Kulkarni, Satti Post. Chikodi Division, Chikodi-591201, (Advocate-Shri An'int P. Suvadi).

II PARTY :

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chikodi Dvision, Chikodi-591210, (Advocate-Shri V. P. Kulkarni).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industria Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this disputt vide order No. L-40012'250,191-TR(DU) daled 2-9-92 for adjudication on the follow- ing schedule ; —

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Management of Supdt. of Post Offices, Chikodi Division, Chikodi is justilicd in terminating the services of Sliri S. R. Kulkarni, extfa Departmental delivery agent w.e.f. 28-4-1983 ? If not, what re- lief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. The first party was taken as Extra Department Delivery Agent at Satti Post Office by the Superintendent of Post and work was by the management and he was working with the management satisfactorily. He was given memo which was not correct and with- out any enquiry he was not continuing and therefore the industrial dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim State- ment and Counter respectively.

4. The case of the first party in brief is as follows :

5. The first party was taken as Extra Department Delivery Agent at Satti Post Offices by the Superintendent of Post and work of packing was extracted by the Department of post and same is also shown in the Inspec- tion Report as Extra Department Packer Since 1969. He worked satisfactorily. But to the surprise of the First party, an office Memo bearing No. PFjSRK'Sntti dated 22-5-1982 came to b? issued in which propos- ed action against the first pnrty came to be mentioned and explanation was calkd for. The memo was not given by the Competent Authority and no charge sheet was given. No enquiry was conducted propcriv. En- quirv was against *he principles of natural justice.

6. ft is the further case of the first party that he applied for leave and the same was sanctioned bv the Competent Authority. Despite it, it was alleged that it was the case of unauthorised absence. The first pnrtv for "hesc reasons has prnved to pass award in his favour.

7. The case of the Second Party in brief is as follows :

8. It is true that the first party was appoint- ed as EDDA and he was not willing to work a° EDDA. First party was doing ED Pac- ker's job and he was directed to do the4659 EDDA job for which he was appointed. The first party refused to do the work of delivery.

9. It is the further case of the management that the first party started availing leave and remained absent for more than 180 days dur- ing the period from 8-6-1981 to 15-12-1981 and according to the Rule 5 of the ED Agents (Conduct & Service Rule) 1964 action was taken. The first party was directed to re- port for duty on 7-1-1982 but he did not re- port for duty. All other allegations are false.

10. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry as per rules and principles of natural justice and therefore, the allegations are not correct. Management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. Tt is seen from the records that during the pendency of this reference application to bring the LRs of first party was filed. LRs \yere brought on record and matter was post- ed for arguments. Thereafter the LRs of the first party did not attend the court at all. This is a matter of 1992 so matter was closed after hearing the management.

12. I have carefully perused the available records. LRs of the first party did not re- present the case at all. Admittedly the re- ference is to the effect that the dismissal order is illegal.

13. In the given circumstances lirst partv is not alive and his LRs arc ordered to be brought on record. The LRs of the first party have not taken any steps to come on record.

14. We have some cnc|biry papers. The judgement, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3385-86 of 1996 is filed along with other appeals. The LRs of the first partv have not take any interest in this proceedings and not conducted the case at all. The LRs of the first parly are noi interested in this case. In view of this fact I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her correct- ed and Mgned bv me on 30th July, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th August, 2001 S.O. 2262.—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 Tribimal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Director, Military Farm, Western Command and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2001.

LNo. L-l40U|2i99-IR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VFRMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRT B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBTJNAT.-CUM-LABOUR COURT, C K A N T J J G A RH

"-'as* No. ID I5ft|99

the Sccjctary, Western Comm.¹¹(J Milii;

(Union)

Vs.

The Director, Military Farm Western Command, Head Quarter, Chandimandi'r. 2. Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Ambala Cmntt. Management, APPEARANCES:

For the Union : Shi'i Dhani Ram.

For the Management : None.

AWARD

(Priced on 24th of July, 2001) The Central Government vide gazette notification No. L-14OI1|2|99!IR(DU) dated 21st of July 1999 hns referred the following dispute lo this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action o:" the Director, Military Farm, Western Command Head Quarter Chandimandir and Ollicer lncharge, Military Farm, Ambala Cantt in denying the demand of the Western Command Military Farm Workers Union CRcgd ), Ambala Cantt for grant of nicht allowance to the 'Shed Cleaners' u legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?" 2, Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the Union. Reg. of Union Shri Dhani Ram appeared and made the statement that the union does not want to pursue with the present reference. The same may be returned as withdrawn by the Union. In view of the statement of the rep. of the Union the present reference is returned to the Ministry as withdrawn. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

24-7-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th August, 2001 S.O. 2263.—:ln pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- traj 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 Instt. lur Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2001.

I No. L-42012|48|95-IR(DU)] KULD1P RAF VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 52|96

Distt, President, Karumchari Union C.l.R.B. Hissar

. .Petitioner.

Versus

Director, Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hissar, Haryana

. .Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the workman : Shri Darshan Singh.

For the management : Shn R. K, Sharma

Advocate.

AWARD

(Passed on Sth of June 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette notification No. L- 42012|48|95-l.R.(D.U) Dated 30-5-96 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 S|Sh. Satbir Singh, Rajbit Singh, Chandi Ram, Radhcy Shyam, Subash, Baljit Singh, Roop Ram, Ishwar and Smt. Ram Koori is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?" 2. The representative of the workman appeared. He intends to wnthdraw the case against the manage- ment. The ^representative of the management has no objection. Tn view"¹ of the above, the request of the rep. of the workman is accepted; and no dis- pute award" is returned to the Ministry. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

8-6-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi', the IOth August, 2001] S.O. 2264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Pentral 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 i3,l3,M.B. Division and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 10-8-2001.

INK L-42O12II51|91-IR(DU)1 KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer4661 ANNEXURE

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

Case No. f.D. M of 1992

General Secretary, Beas Sutlcj Link Project, Ma/door Emta Union, Sundcrnagar Township, Distt. Mandi (HP)-174402. . .Petitioner. Vs.

Executive Engineer, B.B.M.B., Hydel Channel Division (Baggi Electrical & Mechanical) B.B.M.B. Division, Sundernagar Township Distt, Mandi (HP) 174402 ..Respondent REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : Shri Dhani Ram.

For the management : Neeru Chadha.

AWARD

(Passed on 20th July, 2001)

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notifi- cation No. L-42O12|I51|91-I.R. (D.U) dated 29th June 1992 hais referred tin- following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of BBMB Hydcl Channel Division in termina- ting the services of Shri Ram Dutt S/o Thikhu w.c.f. Au"usf, 1989 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?" 2. Case taken up today ar the request of the rep. of the workman. The rep. of the workman maide a statement that workman does not want to proceed \K ith the present reference ns he has been re-employed by the management, Tn view of the statement of the rep, of the workman the present reference is returned as No dispute award¹.

Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chnlndigarh.

20-7-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 8th August, 2001 S.O. 2265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publises the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chcnnai as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation Jo the management of Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalft and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-8-2001.

|No. L-41012/2()4/94-IR(B-l)| AJAY KUM \R. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 1st August, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 397/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 32;96)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri S. Vittalraj and the Management of Southern Railway, Tiruchi- i appalli.

BETWEEN

Sii S. Vittalraj. . .1 Party]Workman

AND

The D.P.O., Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli. . .11 Party/Management APPEARANCES:

For the Workman : Sri I'. Fcnn Walter, D. Gcetha and J. Soundarichandrasekar, Advocates.

For the Management : Sri P. Arulmudi, Advo- cate.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred Ihe concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudi- cation vide Order No. L-4l012/204/94-TR(B-I)' dated 19-03-1996.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file ns I.D, No. 32/96, When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adju- dication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 397/20014661 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 |_PART 11—SEC. 3(,ii)] and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with u direction to appear before this Tri- bunal on 20-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side were present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case fur- ther.

Whtfn the matter came up before me for final hear- ing on 21-06-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following : —

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows : —

"Whether the action of the Management of Southern Railway in terminating the services of Shri S. Vittalraj with effect from 22-09-76 is justified'! If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—The I Party/Workman Sri S. Vittalra] (hereinafter refer- red lo as Petitioner) entered service in the II Party[ Southern Railway/Management as Khalasi in the year 1960. He was working as Khalasi of the Golden Ro^k Woikshop, Triehy. Since he was suffering from ailment pertaining to nervous system, he was in the habit of wearing copper wire around his waist. The said copper wire was given by his friend, when he was working at Tanjavur. On 10-5-1973 at about 17.15 hrs. when he was going out after duty the R.P.F. staff checked his personal belonging. At that time, he questioned him regarding the copper wire around his waist. The Petitioner explained them that it was not railway property and that he has been using it on medical advise for many years. But he was taken to the RPF Office and was subjected to coercion, intimidation, threats and force and he was forced to sign a statement prepared by the Inspector Mr. Sam- bandam. The copper wire was seized from him as theft property. In this connection, the charge sheet dated 22-6-73 was issued. Tt is alleged in the charge sheet that the Petitioner has committed a serious mis- conduct by attempting to take out dishonestly within Southern Railway Workshop; Golden Rock, the rail- way property i.e. copper wire rope weighing about 200 gms. kept concealed in the green underwear of the Petitioner, when he was caught red handed by the RPF ;if the north gate of Golden Rock workshop at about 17.30 hrs. on 10-5-1973. The Petitioner denied the charge framed against him. An enquiry was conducted by the APE/GOC. In the enquiry, six witnesses were examined for the Management and the Petitioner has examined two witnesses. Among the six witnesses from ihe side of the Management, two witnesses were not able to state any thing about the incident, the other lour wirni">vr

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II PartyjManagemcnt are as follows : —

The II Party|Southern Railway Management (here- inafter referred to as Respondent) has contended that the Petitioner was appointed as TY. Gangman on ^-S-1962 in Permanent Way Inspector, Thanjavur and subsequently transferred to Golden Rock Work- shop as Khalasi and posted to Wagon, Assembly- Shop, Golden Rock from 7-12-1972. He was re- moved from service with effect from 22-9-76 after- noon for an attempted that of railway property, namely copper wire on 10-5-73. The Petitioner was proceeded against departmenlally and the enquiry was conducted as pier Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, The Petitioner himself has given a confession statement with regard to the in- cident on 10-5-1973 and it was marked as Ex. A2 in the enquiry. Though the Petitioner has referred to the confession as a statement obtained from him under threat and force, he had continued to participate in 4<5fi3

horn 22-9-76 is not unjust, improper and. illegal. So it is a decision given by the competent Court in lespett of the same relief prayed ioi by the Petitionei. It is also seen from the records that I he Petitioner who preieircd an appeal against the judgement passed by the City Civil Com I, Madras and the same has been transtcired to the file of Central Administrative Tri- bunal and vlhen it was pending there, he filed a petition to withdraw the case and on that application, the CYnlial Administijfivc Tribunal, Madras Bench, was pleased to dismiss the same by its oidei dated 27-2-1987. So from this it is seen that the earlier decision of competent coiut in icsptct of the relief prayed for by the Petitioner here in this Tribunal against the Railway Management holds good even to-day and it operates as ics |iidicata as it is repre- sented by the learned counsel for the Respondent the enquiry even aftci that confession statement has been exhibited as A2 I hough there are minor dis- ci epancies in the evidence of witnesses, they did not affLCt the principal pioot of. guilt of tin.- accused. Su, the E n q u uy Olhcer fids gi\en a propci finding and llu. saint wci a n x p Ud by the Disciplinary A u i h o n ty in awarding punishment to the Petitioner by removing Jinn l i om service and all of them are stiictly in accor- dance with rules. T he Petitioner wus caught red h a n- ded while he was attempting to lemove cupper wire h um Hie Kiilwjy premises So it is tor the Petitioner to p a ne that if does not belong to the iairways and belongs to him exclusively. T he punishment imposed to the Petitioner is not disproportionate. In order to protect the public property, the Railway has to take stringent view to curb the ever increasing theft of railway property, as such the punishment imposed is not disproportionate T he Petitioner approached the City Civil Court, M a d r as by filing a suit O S No 4 1 2 7| 1981 for the relief of declaration ie removal from service from 22-9-76 was unjust, improper and illegal and consequently he was deemed to continue in service with all benefits and for cost T he C o u rt \^as pleased to dismiss the same with cost on 29 P - I 9 83 T he ipneal filed by the Petitioner was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, where on 27-2-19S7, the Petitionei had filed a netition for withdrawal of the case and thereby the Central A d- ministrative Tribunal had dismissed that case. T he Petitioner has toally suppicsscd these facts in the Claim Statement T he Judgement in O S. N o. 4 1 2 7 | 81 , h tH ">o-i 1-1Q83 in respp^t of the same relief sought for bv the Petitioner is binrline on the Petitioner on the principles of res indicate On these eronnds also the claim of the Petitioner is got to be dismissed Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss this industrial dis- pute as devoid of merits

4 When the matter was taken no for enauirv, no witnesses were examined on either side No document has also been filled as oxruhjk on either side T he counsel on either side have filed their respective written arguments.

5 T he point for mv coneideration i s --

" W h e t h er the action of the Management of Southern Railway in tciruinating the services * nT ^bri S Vitt-ilrni with ' effect from 22-9-1976 is justified 7 Tf not, to what iclief he is entitled ?"

POINT :

The counsel for the Respondent has filed into Court

nme sei of owners as documents of the Rcsnondcntj Management The copies of the same had nlso been fmn'Oicd fn the counsel for the Petitioner That tvne set of papers contain the charge sheet dated 24-9-74 i 'ii -d i p' n<-t fb" Petitioner for the alleged misconduct and the enquiry nroceedine^ The copv of judgement p.i^ed b the C<\ 'ACn.irt m D S No 41"7'81 and the ^rder ni-^vi bv th~ Central Administrative Tribunal have been filed It is seen from the mducment of the Civil Court in OS No 4I27'81 i findine has been piven with neccrd to the sfini= r;hef piaved for by the Petitioner here, in this industrial dispute¹, statinc that the order of removing the Petitioner fiom seivice

I'.'kcn iiyainsl the IVliliuner'Wumau is just, proper and legal and hence the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Thus, T answer the point accordingly.

7. Tn the result, an uward is passed holding that the action of the Management of Southern Railway in terminating the services o! Sii Viltalraj w.e.t". 22-9-1976 is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 1st August, 2001,) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Pies ding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED '

On either side : Nil

New Delhi, the Slh August, 2001 S.O, 2266.—In pursuance of Section L7 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, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment en 7-8-2001.

[F No. L-12012/309/2000-IRfB-T)]

AJ <\Y KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNPXURE

BEFORE THE C F N T R \L GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 20th July, 2001

Present :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 87|2O0O

fin the matter of the c/isrwie for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2CA) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Art. 1947 f14 of 1947). between the Workman Shri M. A. Susui Raj and the Management of State Bank of India, Tinichirnpalli.)

RE". WEEN

Sii M. A. Susai Raj . . I ParlylWorkman

AND

Hie Deputy General Manager, . . IT Party Management Mate Bapk of India, Tiruchirappalli.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman :

M[s. Row & Reddy & Mr, W.I Prabhakar, Advocates

For the Management:

M|s, K. S. Sundar & R. Umu Maheswari, Advocates

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 0 4 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Disp.ite for adjudication vide Order No. L-120IV W^OOOfiTi (B-1) dated 7-11-2000.

This dispute on coming up before me tor iinal hearing on 25-fi-200I, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, other material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, and h'u matter having stood over till ihis date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the fo'lowni: :—-

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Cential Govt. for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the dismissal of Shri M. A. Susai Raj by the Management of State Bank of India is legal and justified ? If not, to vhnt relief Is the workman entitled ?"

2, The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party[Workmao are briefly as follows, •—

The 1 PartylWorkman Sri M.A. Susai Raj (here- inafter referred to as Pet.tioner) joined service in the II Party|Managemeni, State Bank of Tndiai (herein after referred to as Rspondent) on 21-7-1980 as C!erk-cum-Cashier at PoncTHiery Main Branch. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office placed the Petitioner under suspension on 26-7-94 and after a lapse of six months, the retit>nner was served charge sheet dnted 15-12-94 alleirina rha' on 4-4-94 vhen the Petitioner wns working at the Accounts Division at Pondicherry Branch. Mrs. Beauvailon Marie Anna holder of savings bnnk account No. 135[C 8906 handed over to the Petitioner the savings bank withdrawal slio for Rs 5'ionL alon " with S B Pass hooks One i-olntine to her S.R. account another rela- ting to her son's S B. Account No 135TC R907 with M request fo transfer ifip mid imount of Rs *i000l- from h^r S.B nt-foun^ tn h°r sin's S H Account. fnsVnd of cnmiV">tip with the above request of Mrs, Benuvallon Mairr Annn, the Petitioner withdrew4665 staff of the Respondent|Bank of the bianch at Portdi- cheny committed misappropriation of Rs. 5,(J()0|- of a bank's customers money and tampered with the records of the bank given to the customer in order to conceal his misconduct. Tampering records is a serious offence and stood proved in the enquiry. The S.B. Account holder Mrs. Beauvallon Marie Anna gave a complaint dated 25-7-94. Alter the letter of Mrs. BeauvalJon Marie Anna, the Petitioner had persuaded her and she succumbed to the pressure and had taken a lenient view and gave the other letter dated 27-7-94. Since the confidence of the employer over the Petitioner was lost he was placed under sus- pension from 26-7 1994 and an enquiiy was ordered. 7 be Petitioner fully participated in the enquiry through his defence representative and cross exa- mined the Management witnesses. The Petitioner also examined Mrs. Beauvallon Marie Anna as DWI. She gave evidence that she could not remember her Her'dated 27-7-1994. On the enti'-e materials, the Enquiry Officer has found that both the charges against the Petitioner stood proved and gave his re- port. After hearing the Petitioner, on 27-4-98, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punish- ment by dismissing the Petitioner from service. The Appellate Authority also gave personal hearing to the Petitionci and after cnn:idcing all the materials on record, confirmed the punishment of dismissal. The Enquiry has been conducted duly in accordance with principles of natural justice by an authority and no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner. The investi- gation officer was examined and the Petitioner had an opportunity to cross examine him. The investigation report was not relied upon by the prosecution nnd the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the case on the basis of the evidence and materials available on re- cords. It is not necessary to provide copy of the investigation report to the delinquent employee. The Petitioner was working in the pensioner seat located in the first floor and not in the Banking Division where the savings bank account is maintained. The fact that the Petitioner had initiated in the savincs bank pass book for which he is not authorised to do would show mala fide intention of Ihe Petitioner. Fur- ther, the Petitioner made a credit entry in the savings pn=s booV without actually puffing through the tran- sactions The nature of misconduct proved in the course of the enquiry is so brief that public interest is suffer and hence the punishment given to the Petitio- ner is correct. Hence, it is nraved that this Tribunal mav be pleased to hold that the order of dismissal is legal, valid ;>nd iustified and to dismiss this dispute, ^ The pvc-nicnts in thf rrvi-ntpi- Sialement (iled

j-i\ i¹!. p( ir"-'irl-nt '\re briefly as follows :—

Tt is iccent'-H rase (if the Petitioner thnf he witn-

(]r^m Pq 5000' from the ncconnt of fhe rustomcr of

the R i - w i A ' t ii /R'mV ;uv\ (.imnored wilh records

pp'1 Mirli nr(c are =eri'His and matcri-il misconducts. "p-v thh nii""TTiiif't, the Pi-^'i'oni'r ^ I T' lo=t h'<; cn-di- b'i ;tv 'iri'l rnr\Mf"nr*f" m1* 'if thr- r^i^mit,i"1 of thf Peti-

tion ^- nni; inn-ii and ii'stifird The Petitioner as a

7 ^0 ("IT ~"*"ii i!

Point :—

evidence of PW3 and also the documentary evidence placed before the Euquiij Officer, Ihe Enquiry Officer has given a finding in his report thai PW3 had en- quired the savings bank account holder Mrs. Beau- vallon Marie Anna and her son elaborately and he proceeded on the niateiiuJs placed before him that the complaint was received by the bank from the concer- ned savings bank account holder, which is the basis for the disciplinary action. It cannot be said that the Management had taken a disciplinary action against the Petitioner/Workman without any basis or on a false complaint given by the savings bank account holder. The said account holder was examined as a defence witness has given an another letter in support of the Petitioner, the charge sheeted employee i.e. perhaps on persuasion and pressure given by the charge sheeted employee to the concerned lady. It is further seen from the enquiry proceedings that two other wit- nesses were examined on the side of the Management and Ihe documents marked on the side of the Manage- ment in respect of these transaction, which arc exhi- bited here as M2 to M10 clearly shows that they have established the charges filed against the delin- quent employee, the Petitioner herein. As submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the non- supply of the document which has no bearing on the charges and not relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in support of the charges will not prejudice the delin- quent and no prejudice will be caused. It is so held in the case reported as 1982 (Supp) SCC 518 by the Supreme Court. In another case reported as 1996 5 SCC pg. 474, the Supreme Court has held that "the duty of the authority is only to supply the relevant document and not each and every document, asked by the delinquent. It should be established as to how the non-supply of a document has prejudiced the case of the workman." These decisions of the Sup- reme Court are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The delinquent employee, the Petitioner herein cannot said to be prejudiced by the non-supply of the enquiry report of PW3 when the Management is not relyine unnn the sanv in the enquiry as a docu- ment to prove the charge against the Petitioner. So under such circumstances, it cannot be held that with- out ;niv material or evidence the Enquiry Officer has piven a findine in his report that the charge levelled against the delinquent employee has been proved in- voking the theory of preponderance of probability. So it cannot be said th;it it is ;i perverse finding of the FnquTV Officer.

The I Party/Workman Sri M. A. Susai Raj, the Petitioner herein was working in the Respondent/ Bank ut Pondicherry as a Clerk. Il is alleged that on 4-4-94 when he was working in Accounts Division of Pondicherry branch, he had committed an act of misconduct of misappiopriation of Rs. 5,000|- using the savings bank withdrawal slip handed over to him by the savings bunk account holder. A charge sheet dated 15-12-94 was issued to him. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W2. Prior to that he was placed under suspension by an order dated 26-7-94. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. Wl. The said charge sheet was given to the Petitioner on the basis of a complaint dated 25-7-94 given by the savings bank account holder, a customer of the Respondent/Bank, Pondicherry branch. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M l. In pursuance of the charge sheet given to the Petitioner, he gave a reply dated 11-1-1995. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W3 and M15. Then an enquiry was conducted by the Respondent/Bank. The xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings have been iiled a^ E \. WM. In that enquiry the defence repre- sentative submitted his brief. A xerox copy of the same is Ex. W5. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner has been proved on the theory of preponderance of probability, taking into the circumstances of the case. The xerox copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer is Ex. W6. It is the contention of Petitioner that the charges are based on the investigation report and the Enquiry Officer also has relied iifnn that report and has given his findings. But the said report has not been fur- nished to the Petitioner inspite of his several requests. So, non-furnishing of the Enquiry Officer's report to the Petitioner which is relied upon by the Manage- ment in the domestic enquiry is violative of principles of natural justice and further it amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to put forth his defence. The learned counsel for the Respondent would argue that the investigation report was not basis material which was relied upon by the Manage- ment during the course of enquiry or prior or subse- quent to the enquiry. The official who went to investigate into the matter, one Mr. P. V. Balachan- dran has been examined as PW3 in the enquiry and even in the course of the examination, the said Sri P. V. Balnchandran has not relied upon the investiga- tion report which was in the nature of collecting dates and the said PW3 was cross examined by the defence representative at lenith and honce. it cannot be said that the non-furnishfng of investigation report had prejudiced the Petitioner verv much and thereby he was denied reasonable opportunity to nut forth his defence effectively. Tt is seen from the enquiry pro- ceedings that the said Investigating Oflicer, who has been examined as PW3 in the enouirv. was cross examined with reference to the first complaint given bv the savings bank account holder Mrs. Bcauvaiion Marie Anna, Ex. M l, and also her letter given at a later stage marked as Defence Ex. 1 in the enquiry, which is Ex. M il here. PW3 has been further exa- mined with regard to another letter riven bv the said savings bank account holder marked as Defence Ex.2 in the enquiry, wh'ch is Ex, Ml2 here. From the

6. It is the next contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Punishment awarded to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as dismissal from service is disproportionate to the jrravitv of the charges, since the amount involved in this charge is onlv Rs 5.000I-. From the materials available in this casr, it is seen that aoart from unauthorized¹ with- drawal and misanpronriation of Rs. 5.000|-hv the driinoiH-nt Tnnlovee, there is a charge relates to tam- Dcrinfr of bank accounts and makinr false entry in the nn^s bnoV of the depositor. This amounts to falsification of records and firn-erv. The Bank I Management cannot hf ^xpe^ted lo keen this work- man in service, who could tamper with the records of thf banV bv commi'tintr foreerv and such workman cannot enjov the confidence of the Management also. So, the BanklManagemcnt cannot be expected to4667 further employ such a person on whom, it has lost confidence in view of the serious charges against him in the banking transactions. Further, the quantum oi' the amount of the misappropriation is not a rele- vant factor to judge a misconduct of the delinquent cmpluyce. it is held in a case decided by the High Court of Madras 1999 (I) LLJ 185 that "the Labour Court has interfered with the quantum of punishment without warrajm or justification or plausible reasons. Sympathy shown to the delinquent was a misplaced sympathy or the part of the Labour Court, Quantum of amount of mis- appropriation is not a relevant factor to judge the misconduct ou the facts and circumstances of the case. The employer had lost its faith and the employee has miseonducted himself by forging the signatures claimed monetary benefits apart from bringing bad name to t\e employer for not rendering the service to the customer whom the employer has already charged. On the findings and in view of the gravity ol the misconduct, the punishment cum dis- missal from service cannot be said to be dispropor- tionate to the charges established. This observation of the High Court of Madras in that case is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. So undei such circumstances, taking into Considera- tion of the proved misconduct of the Petitioner in this cape, in view of the gravity of the misconduct tlie punishment of dismissal from service by the Res- pondent|Managemcnt cannot be considered¹ to be dis- proportionate to the charges established. Under such Circumstances, it can be concluded that the dismissal of the Petitioner from service by the Management[State Bank of Tndia is legal and justified. Thus, T answer the point accordingly,

\V8 20-1-98—Xerox copy of letter of the Peti- tioner to the Management,

W9 24-2-98—Xerox copy of letter of the Peti- tioner to the Management,

27-4-98—Xerox copy of letter from, the W10

Management to the Petitioner.

13.7-98—Xerox copy of letter of the Peti- W ll

tioner to the Management.

3.3_oy—Xerox copy of letter from the W12

Management to the Petitioner.

25-9-98—Xerox copy of the final order.

W13

W14 28-10-99—Xerox copy of letter from the Petitioner HI the Regional Labour Com- missinncrf Central).

W15 23-6-2000—Xerox copy of letter from the Petitionu 1o the Assistant Labour Com- missioner (Central).

W16 S-9-92-—Xerox copy of account opening form of Beauvallon Marie Anna.

W17 8-9-92—Xerox copy of account opening form of Mangeny Marie Eric Radjou.

For the 11 Party Management :

Ml 28-7-94—Xerox copy of letter from Smt, Beauvallon Marie Anna to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

M2 • 4-4-94—Xerox copy of withdrawal voucher of Smt. Beauvallon Marie Anna for Rs. 5000.

M3 4-4-94—Xerox copy of cashier's payment scroll.

MA :

7. In the result, an award is passed holding that the dismissal of Sri M. A. Susai Raj by the Manage- ment of State Bank of India is legal and justified. Hence, the encemed workman is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 20th July, 2001.)

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer 'Witnesses t:\annncd :

On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For 1 Paitv Workman :

Ex. No. Wl

Date Description 26-7-94 --Xerox copy of the suspension order.

15-17-94—Xerox copy of the chuige sheet.

W2

\V3 11-1-95—Xeio\ copy of letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

W4 7-6-95—Xenu copy of enquiry proceed- ings.

W5 18-1-96--Xero\ copy of the defence repre- sentative's Submissions,

Wf. 20-1-96--Xerov copy of Enquiry Report.

W7 6-1-08—Xerox copy of letter from the Management to the Petitioner.

23-1-94—Xero.v copv of withdrawal voucher of Mangeny Marie Eric Radjou for Rs. 2000.

M5

M6

25-7-94—-Xerox copy of statement of ac- count c,f Beauvallon Marie Anna. 3-9-92- -Xei ox copy of S. B. pass book of Bcauvallon Marie Anna.

M7 •i-9-92 -Xciux copy ol S. B. Pass book of Mangeny Marie Eric Radjou.

MS 8-9-92—Xciox copy of Statement of ac- count of Mangeny Marie Eric Radjou.

M9 4-4-94—Xerox copy of Bank Cash scroll PEX 10A.

M10 4-4-94—Xerox copy of Bank Cash scroll PEX 10B.

M il 27-7-94—Xerox copy of letter from Smt. Beauvallon Marie Anna to the manage- ment.

MI2 l-,S-(>4—\eiox ct'py of letter from Smt.

Mangeuy Marie Eric Radjou,

Mi 3 27-7 94—Xerox copy of letter from Smt. BcjuivallcMi Marie Anna to the manage- ment.

Mh I 1-8-94—Xerox copy of letter from Smt.

Mangeny Marie Eric Rudjou.

Ml 5 11-1-95—Xei ox copy of letter from the Pelil:onci to the Management,4668 THE GAZETTE OF fNDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the I Oth August, 200 I

S.O. 2267.—-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 Tribual|Labour Courl, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 9-8-2001.

[F. No. L0 2()12/26l/89-IR(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2. The case of the workman in brief is that he \*as appointed as watchman-cum-peon at Samana branch of State Bank of l-^trahi. He was charge- sheeted by the Regional Manager Patiala on 2-9-1987. He gave reply to the charge sheet but the disciplinary authority, without considering his r/-'p'y. initiated de- partmental enquiry against him. During the course of enquiry the copies of the documents relied upon by the management were not given to him. Oppor- tunity to cross-examine the djpail mental witnesses was not given by the enquiry officer. The enquiiy oflicer arrived at his findings against the workman and submitted his report disciplinary authority. The finding of the enquiry officer was based on sur- mises and conjuctures. His report was perverse. The disciplinary authority without considering the facts and circumstances of the case issued notice of the proposed punishment of dismissal to the workman. The workman submitted his reply but his reply was not considered by disciplinary authority and dismissed the workman from service on 31-8-88. The dismissal order passed by punishing authority was illegal, arbi- trary and against the principle of natural iusticr The enquiry whs not conducted by enquiry officer fairly and properly. The appeal was filed by the workman against dismissal order which was dismissed by appel- late authority. The workman has requested that !he dismissal onier be quashed and the management be directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages, alongwith other incidenhl bene- fits.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHR1 B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-EABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No, ID 5 of 1990

General Secretary, State Bank of Patiala Staff Union. 719, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

. . . Petitioner.

Vs.

General Manager (Operation), State Bank of Patiala, Mall Road, Patiala-147001.

. . Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman—Shri Ajit Singh.

For the Management—Shri N. K. Zukhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 16th .if July, 2001)

The Centra] Government Ministry of Labour vide Notifk-.Uion No, L-1201 ? 26l[8Q-].R (B-f) dated 9-1-1990 has referred the following dispudc t0 ihi-3 Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Suifc Bank of Patiala in dismissing Sh. TUka Ram, Watchman- cum-Peon at T.T.E.T. Patiala biandi w.e.f. 31-8-88 is legal and justified? If no!, to what relief the concerned workman is en- titled to and from what date ?"

3. The management has submitLcil its written state- ment alleging that the claim of the workman is not maintainable because of non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. The workman wac guilty of serious mis- conduct. On the basis of that misconduct he was charge sheeted, The charges were mentioned in the charge sheet dated 2-9-1987. He was guilty of misappropria- tion of public money. He Ir.id lowered the image of the management in the eyes of the public, so, ihe departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Dur- ing the course of enquiry the opportunity to cross- examine the departmental witnesses was afforded to the representative of the workman. Due opportunity was also accorded to him to examine, pcrsued and take notes of the relevant record and documents. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in fair and proper manner. The enquiry report was submitted by him to the disciplinary authority on 26-6-1988. The charges levelled against the workman were fullv proved. Consequently the notice of the proposed punishment of dismissal was eiwn to thr workman. The reply filed by the workman was considered by the disciplinary authority who found the reniv un- satisfactory, therefore, the workman \w dismissed from service on 31-8-1988 bv dis'-inlinarv autlviritv. The workman aeprieved bv rhp order of thr discipli- nary authority filed an appeal befor- appellate autho- rity. The personal hearing bv nppeliatc authority, was given to the workman. After considering the whnie record of the enquiry nnd thu nrrj'nnRt'nn piven bv the workman, the appellate authority reierw] iTv; appeal. The action taken by the management I'H dis- missing the workman was leuni, iust nnd nrotvr and in accordance with the rr>Vs nn^ rppn1'itinn"i applicable to the employees of the bank Then-fore the claim4669 of the workman deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost

4 The workman has, hied replication whieli has not been signed by the Woikmai or by the General Secrctaiy ot Stair Union In tin* replication the la^t-i pleaded in the claim statement have been reasserted No new fact has been pleackd in replication 5. In this case the date ot appointment of llie workman and the fact of dismissal and rejection ot appeal are admitted facts

6 The workman has iikil his affidavit (Ex. Wl) and the management has submitted the aihdavit ot Deputy Manager Shn Om 1'aiLash MW1 and retired chief manager K D Tnvedi (Ex MW2) Enquiry^ hie has been submitted by the management which huS been exhibited as Ex Ml It contains 88 pages 1 he workman lias deposed iii !iis affidavit that he was not allowed to cross-examine the departmental wit nesses Avinash Kumar and the opportunity to cross- examine the other witnesses was not given bv the en- quiry officer during the couisc of enqunj proceedings The witnesses of the management have deposed tli.it the opportunity to cross e ^amine the- departmental witnesses was given to the wmkman The hist witness Pntam Singh PW1 was examine 1 on 30-11 1987 On that day, the woikman attended the enquiry proceed- ings but his representative was absent The woik- man requested to give him time in order to bring his representative The time was granted bv the enquirv officer but the workman and his represent itive did not turn up and the statement of Pntam Singh was lecoided on that day Theieaft°r the st itement of Avinash Kumar was recorded m the absence of fhc workman because he did not tuin up The witnesses Raj Kumar Goel PW3 and A|mer Singh PW4 weie also examined The workman turned up on that day at 3 15 PM His representative Shn Curbaksh Singh was not present and the workman mtimaU\1 the en- quiry officer that his representative eould not come to participate in the proceedings as he Ind come urgent piece of work The case WTS not adjourned bv the enquiry officer and Shn Ruldu Khanna PW5 was examined in the presence of (he woikman Woikrnan was directed to cross-examine Shn Ruldu Khanna butl he showed his inability to eros^ examine th(- witness in absence of his representative

7 The next date of healing w,i, h\ed 1-12-1r>87 and 2 12 1987 On thesi. Jates the wiimsse". nf the management were examined but th * icprescntaUve of the workman was absent Reisons of his absence wai shown by the workman thit the tepresentativc vvas busy in some urgent work The conduct of the work- man and his lepresentativc is not reasonable Thnr conduct shows that they were not participating deh- bratelv in the enquiry proceeding, so it ran nut b" infered that the proper oppoifunitv lo cioss-s\armne the witnesses was not civen to the workman Tl his repieseniativc was h'is\ in sonv in etnt woik ]\c should have attended the proceedings and should have requested to the enoiniv office* foi idniirnnpiit explaining the unavoidable circumstances The state- ment of Witnesses w ne rerorrtM on 30-11 19^7 J-17-1QR7, 2-12-1087 On 14 T> 1"87, Ihc woil-man informed to the enquiry officer that his lepresentative Gurbaksh Smgh had refused to assist him in the enquiry. The proceedings weie adjourned fy the en- quiry officer and the time was granted for the ap- pointment of other representative whose name was Shn Bnj Lai Sharma On 17-12-87 Shn BL Sharma appeared in the enquiry as defence repiesentative in oidei to assist the workman On tha< Jay, Shn B L Shaima did not request the enquiry officer for the eross-exammation of departmental witnesses which were examined eaiher He sought adjournment and the next date of hearing was fixed ij-1-1988 toi detente witnesses On 8-1-1988 defence witnos Shn Ram Sarup Sharma was examined Aftei the eross-exann- nation of the defence witnesses tin icpiesentative of the workman closed his defrnre li he had intention to cioss-examine the departmental witnesses, he should have made request to the enquiry olricei to give opportunity to cross-examine them Under these circumstances, it can not bs held that the proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was nol given by the enquiry officer

8 During the course or nguments the representa- tive of the workman has refened rule No 56(9) of Bank Service Rules and argued that two oppoiUimtics should be given by the cnquiiy officer foi cross exami- nation But under these rules there is no provision for giving opportunity to the workman without his re- quest The representative of the woikman has also referred the case ot K Raja Rao Vi Syndicate Bank (1999X1) S CT page 608 (Kamataka) In para 1⁷ of this case law, the Hon'ble Kainataka High Court has held that proper opportunity foi the cross-exami- nation of the departmental witnesses tu be given to the woikman If opportunity is not civen, it will vio- late the principle of natural justice But the fads of this case law are different from those of the case under consideration In that case, the prepared statement of the witnesses wbre read out to th; workman and he was directed to cross-examine the witnesses in the case under consideration, the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the work- man, and his representative Shn N I Shaima did not make request to the enquny officer for recalling departmental witnesses for cioss-examniation Thus, this case law is not applicable in this case

9 The workman has depose 1 m his cross-exannn i- tion that the opportunity for his examination in his defence was not given by the enquiry olticei As per provisions of Bank's service Rules, (papie No 679) the right has given to the deiiquent workman for his examination On persual of the enquir/ proecedmps of 8-1-1988, it is evident that the mquiiy officei asked the woikman whethei \ ->u wan tod to IOCOKI his state- ment, the Workman submitted that he did not want to record his statement todav He wanted to submit his wiitten bnefs in his defence The reciuesf of the woikman was acceded by the enquuv officei Theie- fore, the non examination of 'he woikrnan does nnt affect the conduction of the enquiry

10 Tt has been ireuod'nn behalf of the workman that the copies of the documents relied upon by the management were not supplied to the man Tn sup- port of this argument the case of R'-ishi Nmh Dikshii v IJ-nmi of Tndia mr]m1iM I 1 9 S 6 P ) ST R n><*r 6°0 S CI lias been refened Tn this case I iw the copies of the statements of the witnesses lecorded4670 THE GAZETTE OF fNIMA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(iij] the findings is completely baseless or perverse". Keep- ing in view the law laid down by Their Lordships, the material placed in the case under consideration has been persued and considered.

during the course of preliminary enquiry and the list of documents mentioned in th^ charge sheet were not „ supplied to the deliquent workman and he was al- lowed to inspect documents and take notes, but the request for engaging a steno turned down. The num- ber of witnesses was 38 and 112 documents running into hundred of pages were produced, Under these circumstances, their Lordship of the Supreme Court have held that the provisions of Article 311(2) oJ Constitution of India has been violated by the man- agement. Rule 33 of Bank¹,; Service Rules has a.l;-o been referred by the representative of the workman. On going through the enquiry proceeding*; dated 11-11-1987, it is evident that the copies of the list of the witnesses and documents (Ex. P. 12 & P. 13) were given to the workman for his reference and record. The deposition of the witnesses were explained to the workman in local language. This fact has been noted in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, this ease law is not applicable in this case. The representative of the workman was also allowed by the enquiry officer to take the mites of the document:.. The notes were taken the representative of the workman, and he did not make any complaint to the enquiry officer about his inability to take notes of any documents. Therefore, no prejudice hrs been caused to the work- man in his defence.

11. The copy of the enquiry report and the copies of the order of the disciplinary authority and appel- ate authority have been submitted by the manage- ment. It has been argued, and has been pleaded in the claim statement, that the personal hearing were not given to the workman by these authorities to th> workman. On going through the proceedings of the enquiry file, it reveals that the opportunity of personal hearing was given by all these authorities to the vyork- man. The orders passed bv those authorities are elo- bratc and speaking ones. So it can not be held that the proper opportunity to defend the workman was not given to him. Every page of the proceedings has been signed by the workman and his representative and this fact has been recorded on the last page of the proceedings.

13. In para y of the claim slaiemeiii, il has been pleaded ttiat tlie work and conduct of ihe workman was round praiseworthy when ue was posted at Samana brtuicn. uurmg his posting at Samaria Branch, he found an envelop containing Ks. 140U which restored to tiic owner of the envelop. This fact has not been considered by the punishing authority while passing punishment order. Ihe charge- sheet has been exhibit- ed as Ex. M2. First charge relates to the purchase^ made by the workman on credit from M/ s. Puri General Store who was the customer of the bank. The workman borrowed Rs. 300 in cash from that cus- tomer. The second charge rslafes to M/s. Bajwa Gun House from where certain articles worth Rs. 163 were purchased by the bank. The cheque was issued in the name of the parties. But the workman did not handover that cheque to the parties and reported to the bank authorities that officials ol' Mjs. Bajwa Gu.i House required cash payment instead of cheque. The bank authorities gave to the workman an amount of Rs, 163 for making payment to M/s. Bajwa Gun House but that amount was not paid to Gun House and was misappropriated by the workman. Third charge relates to the non-deposit of two instalments amounting to Rs. 400. First instalment of Rs. 200 was paid '.o the workman by gurantor of the borrower to be deposited in Agricultural Term Loan account. That amount was not deposited by the workman and misappropriated by him. The second instalment of Rs. 200 was given to the workman for deposit in term loan account but that amount was also not de- posited by the workman, and he utilised that amount himself. Fourth charge relates to his misbehaviour with the bank officer. These ehaiges have been proved by cogent evidence adduced in the enquiry. Keeping in view the gravity of the charges levelled against the workman the incident of restoration of the envelop containing Rs. 1400 has no significance. At a parti- cular spell of time one person may be honest and after some, time he may become ..dishonest subsequent- ly. The workman was running in in-debtness and he consequently misappropriated money of the custo- mer of the bank. This misconduct of the- workman has lowered down the image of the bank in the eyes of ihe public. Keeping in view the charges levelled against the workman the punishment of dismissal ca.i not be held to be harsh and disproportionate.

14. This Tribunal can not act as an appellate autho- rity of the management to interfere with the findings and the quantum of the punishment without any rea- sonable ground. Tn this case the proper and fair opportunity to defend the workman himself has been given during the course of enquiry, and the principle of natural justice has not been violated hv the man- agement. Consequently the dismissal of the workman from sriviee eannnl he held i'IIe";il rind unjustified. Under these circumstances, the workman is not en- titled lo get any relief from the management.

12. Tt has been pleaded in the claim statement and has been argued by the representative if the workman that the findings of the enquiry otlicer is not based on any convincing evidence. The findings of enquiry officer is perverse. On going through the enquiry report, it is found that I he enquiry officer had discussed the evidence properly and his findings are based upon the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry. It has also been argued that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the alleged mis- conduct. In support of the case of (he workman, the case of M/s, Kardaha & Co. Ltd. Vs. ihe workman (AIR 1964 S.C. 719) has been referred on R-hnlf of the workman. In this case Their Lordship h;>s held that "an industrial tribunal will not interfere with the action of the managemenl in dismissing its employes after holding an enquirv into the allcfiml misconduct unless it is show|n that the management has not acted in good faith, nr th?.-t the dismissal amnunK to victi- misation or unfair labour prac-tirp or the management hns been nuiltv of hrrsir cn..r, f.>r violation of the principle of natural Justice, or when on the material

15. On the basis of discussions made in prectxlin^ paragraphs, the reference is answered that th? acrion of the management of State Bank of Patiala in dis- missing Shri Tikka Ram, Watchraan-cum-pcnn at4671 T.I.E.T. Patiala branch w.e.f. 31-8-1988 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief from the management. Both Parties sh.il] bear their own cost of proceedings. Appropriate Go\l. be informed.

Chandigarh.

16-7-2001

B. L. JATAV Presiding Officer New Delhi, the JOth August, 2001 S.O. 2268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 .if 1947), the Cential Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute beiween (lie employers ;n Ielation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was leccived by tne Central Government on 09-08-2001.

(No. L-41012/95/83-D-2(B)/IR(B-I)l AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDITSTRIAL TRIR UN AL-CUM-LA BOL. •> COURT. CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 112/89

Shri Lai Chand son of Shri Ramji Dass, H No. 499/1, Sita Nagar. Behind Hotel Shiraz, Ludhiana.

. Workman.

Vs.

Divisional Rly. Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur.

..Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri B. N. Seheal.

For the Management : Shri P. P. Khorana.

AWARD

r P wH on 18th of July. 2001)

The Cential Government vide Gazette Notification No. L-41012/95 S8-D-2(B) dated 21st July, 1989 has referred the loilowiog d'spu'e to this Triunal for adjudication :

"Whether the aUion ot DRM, Northern Rly., F.iozepui", in dismh'ing Shir Lr.I Chand, Ex- Stoie Clerk from 9-9-1985 is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?" 2. The case of fha workman in buef is that he joined tne services ot the clerk with Northern Railway on 2-8-57. When he was working at LuJhiana, he applied for 45 days leave w.e.f. 2-11-1976 to 16th December, 1976 and the leave at that time was al- ready at his credit. He was to report for duty on 17-12-1976 but due to the circumstances beyond his control he repoiteJ i'or duty on 19-12-1976. He was not allowed to pcifmii his duties despite many re- quests and representations. The Rly. Admn. did not give any reply to his requests ond representations, so, he approached to the Labour Court. Jalandhar on 27-9-1977 for the payment of his salary. The Rly. Admn. issued a charge sheet on 10-11-1977 for his alleged absence from duty on the chaiges which were baseless and false. He was promoted and transferred from Ludhiana to Amritsar vide letter dated 22-1-77 but he received promotion order on 5-12-1977. He submitted his represota'ion dated 8-12-1977 against hi" transfer and requested to be retained at Ludhiana. He also requested for the issue of transfer pass and relieving letter so as to enable him to proceed to Amritsar. He refused promotion and request for his retention in Ludhiana by submitting his representation dated 30-10-1982 which was recommended by the then Corriage and Wagon Supdt.. Ludhiana. But the Rly. Admn. did not accept his representation and the domestic enquirv was initialed against him.

3. The charge sheet was given to him on 11-10-78. "feven enquiry officers were appointed. Six enquiry officers did not proceed with the enquiry, whereas, the workman attended on every date of hearing. Seventh enquiry officer Shri K. K. Khanna proceeded with the enquiry. He did not conduct enquiry in fair and proper manner. He was not allowed to take the ass;stance of defence counsel. He was also not allowed to inspect the relevant record of the enquiry. The enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte against the work- man on first date of hearing i.e. 9-9-1985 without giving the proper opportunity to the workman to defend h'mself. His services were terminated illegallv, arbitrarily and wrongful by the Divisional Mechani- cal Engineer. Northern Riv., Ferozepur vide his order dated 9-9-l°85. The workman filed appeal which was also rejected by D.R.M., Northern Rly., Ferozepur Cantt.

4. The order of the dismissal ^as been challenged by the workman on several grounds. He has pleaded in his claim statement that the departmental enquirv wns held after the lapse of nine veTS, from the date of alleged misconduct. The choree sheet was ill draft- ed and the list of witnesses and documents were not autt-et'^ivd T - O P HV bv issu;n" officer. The witnesses were examined without giv'np prior notice to thp workman He w^" not triven d¹'? onrlortiinitv io defend himself during the course of enouir" frier to piscine the di^mis^l np-W, the "how rnii'e no+io^ ani the467"! THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii>_ oppoitunity of personal hearing were not given to the workman by the disciplinary authority or by the appel- late authority, lhe management has not followed the principle of natural justice and the piovisions of Dis- cipline and Appeal Rule, 1968 during the course ot domestic enqu'ry. The dismissal oider of the workman is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. That dismissal order be set aside and the management be directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages, alongwith other conse- quential benefits and interest (a> Rs. 12 per cent per annum.

5. The management has filed its written statement alleging that the allegations made in the claim state- ment are wrong and false. Leave was not sanctioned to the workman by competent authority. HL leave application was rejected by the then Wagon Repair Foreman. The intimation of the rejection ot the leave application was communicated to the workman on 30-! 1-1976 but he did not turn up for duty and re- mained absent with effect from 2-11-1976 unautho- risedly. The workman was promoted to the post of senior clerk under the control of Head Train Exami- ner, Amritsar vide order dated 22-1-1977. The workman was advised vide letter dated 5-12-1977 to carry out his transfer and resume duties at Amritsar. The workman did not carry out the orders and continued to remain absent from duty His represen'dtion for his retention at Ludhiana was rejected by the competent authority and the decision was eomrm> icated to the workman vkb it letter dated 20-3-1980 but he remained ab- pent unputhorisedly from duty. Charge sheet was issued to the woilman for h;< unauthorised absence. The tHsciplinaiy proceedings were launched against him during the month of October, 1977 but enquiry was delayecf due to the dilatory tectics adopted by the workman. The procedure laid down under Rly. Servant Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 1957 was fol- lowed by the enqu'ry officer in the conduction of the enquiry. The workman remained absent w.ei. 2-11-1976 to the date oi his dismissal i.e. 9-9-1985. Thciefore, he is not eniitled to get any backwages for tfrs petiod.

6. It has nl O been pleaded by the management that the woik'run had been serving with M's. Kansal Hosiety Mills Pyt. L d. I udbiana during the period of his absence. Th;s fact was confirmed by Superin- tendent of Police Ludhiar'd in the month of Septem- ber, 1985. During the cour-e of his unauthorised employment in that Hosiery Mill he issued certifi- cate during the month of ! 983 under his signatures. Acco/ding to service rules v Government servant can- not do private "ervic: and carry on any business so long as he is an employee of the government. The claim cf lhe wok man is not maintainable which de- serves to be disnrssed without any relief.

7. The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement He has denied the factum of his emp- loyment in Kansat Hosiery Mill Ludhiana and issue of certificate a< alleged by the management in its written statement. Other averments made in the claim s f ^ m e nt have been reasserted in the rejoinder filed by the workman.

8 fa this c;ise, the uo'Lm. n has filed his affida- ^ it which is FA. W1. The management has submitt- ed the affidavit of Han- R i clcik cf DRM office which is Ex. M7. The ir. "i.^ement has also exa- mined his rcpiesentatic- Slui P. P. Khorama vho has tunhrcd document, :dating to the departmental en- qu ry which Ivv,; been exhibited as Ex. Ml to Ex. M6." The workman has depofed in his affidavit that he proceeded on k-a\e for 45 days which was sanc- tioned by the competent i-u>!iority. He had to re- port for duty on 17-12-1976 but he could not attend his duties on 17-12-1976. Tic reported for duty on 19-12-1976. So, hi-, absence on 17-12-1976 and 18-12-1976 was considered as unauthorised absence by the competent million¹ v He was not allowed to join his dutie- afrer I')-1 2-1976 till his dismissal. The department 11 enquiry v.as not conducted fairly and proneily and K WP'-. not o'Joned to defend himself. Seven enquiry officers were appointed by the discipli- nary authority. They could not conduct the enquiry expediouslv. ^h^ enqnirv was held exparte against him on 9-9-1985, after elapse of nine years. He was dKmisicd by the d:sciplinajy authority illegally con- tiaventine the principle of natural justice. His ap- peal against the d;smis->a' order was also rejected by the ..opJl:,o authority without considering the facts a"'l circumstances of the Cd-o, Therefore, his dis- missal be --etaside ond he should be reinstated on !ne date of h'" dismissal.

9. The. witness of the nr'ru'j.'ement Hans Raj has deposed that the workman rtnrned absent from duty w.ei. 2-11-1976. The leme applied for by the workman was not sanctioned by the competent autho- rity and the d:cis'on m this respect was communicat- ed to the workman on ?-l 1-1976. He was promot- ed ^nd transfcred to Amriisai but he did not re- ported for duty to H cd Train Examiner Amritsar and -n-.tffed for IT'S retention in Ludhiana. There- fore, the departmental enquiry was held against the workman for his r"? conduct of unauthorised absence from du'y. The enouiry was held according to the diFC;pl;nnry tules but he did not attend the enquiry and ho was dism'ssed by ilv competent authority.

10. In this case tve'cr of the enouii-v w-i-, PKO intimated snd the dnte of henrin? fixed was r>lnc" representative. He insisted to engage the4673 advocate as a defence lepresentative. The manage- ment did not permit him keeping in view the provi- sions of Railway Seivcnt (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968. 'Ihe EK. Ml to Ex. M6 reveals that the workman did not attend tlis enquiry dclibrately. Therefore, it cm not he hold that due opportunity to defend him w.r not given by the enquiry officer.

11. The icpreseiitjtive of the workman has cited the c

12. The lepresenUi'ive of the workman has also ciled the case of llavbhaj^n Singh Vs. State of Punjab aind others 1992(2) S. L. R. 135 Pb & Hniy.ina, and V. P. State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Muniruddin LI991.2) R.S f. 696 Supreme CourtJ and R. K. Vashshth Vs. Union of India and others [1993(23) Admn. Tribnual cases 444(ii) Supreme Court. In these case laws it has been held that the non-supply of copies of documents relied upon by 'he management and enquiry report to the work- man shall vitiated the enquiry proceedings. On pcr- sual of the enquiry Tile and the documents Exhibited as Ex, Ml to Ex. M6 it is evident that the copies of the documents relied upon by the management was given to the workman and 'he cupy of the enquiry report was also given to him. Therefore those cases do not Mipport the case of the workman.

13. The representative of the workman has cited the case of Ram Chander V¹-. Union of India [1986 (2) All India Services Law Journal 249] in which Their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that the appeal of dismissed workman should be con- sidered by the appellate authority by marshaling the evidence on Tecord, and applying mind to miscon- duct of the delinquent. If it is not done by the appellate authority the order passed by the appellate authority is bad in the eyes of law. But in this case, this case law is not applicable. The order was passed by appellate authority on 17-3-1Q86. This order has been written e\pressely considering the alleged misconduct of the v\orkman and the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry. Therefore, it can not be said that the order passed by the appellate authority is non-speaking,

14. The representative of the management has cited the case of Major U, R. Bhat Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 S. C. 1344), the case of Motors Industries Co. Vs. Sbekh Mohammed 1978 Lab. T.C, 1335 Karnataka and the case of Shiv Sampat Lai Vs, State of U.P. and others 1983 Lab. T,C, 324 All-ihabad and the case of Associated Cement Co. VS. T. C. Siivastva and other.- (1984 Lab. TC 864 S.C.). In these case laws the law has been laid down that if the date of hearing has been commu- nicated to the workman but he does not attend the 2550 GI 2001—12

departmental enquiry ori tho date fixed by the en- quiry officer, the enquiry officer may proceed cxparte turainsi the deliquent and under these circumstances, the deliquent may be dismissed by the disciplinary authority. The copies of the documents Ex. Ml to Ex. M6 indicate that the notice of the next date of hearing i.e. 9-9-1985 was communicated to the workman and Rly. pass was also issued to him.He was also intimated that the permission for the ins- pection of additional documents had also been grant- ed to him but the workman did not attend the en- quiry proceedings on 9-9-1985 and the statements of (he witnesses were recorded by the enquiry officer. In the context of these case laws cited by the mana- gement, the action taken by the enquiry officer ex- parte against the workman can not be held to be illegal. In this case, the principle of natural justice has been followed by the management in holding the departmental enquiry aganst the workman, therefore, it can be held that the action taken by the manage- ment to dismiss the woikman was justified and con- sequently he is not entitled to get any relief from ilic management.

15. On making the appreciation of the .evidence adduced by both the parties, this Tribunal arrived to the conclusion that the action taken by the manage- ment in dismissing the woikman is justified. There- fore, the reference is answered by holding that the action of DRM Northern Railway Ferozepur in dis- missing Shri Ltd Chand from 9-9-1985 is justified. Consequently, the workman if not entitled to get any relief from the management. Both parties shall bear their own costs. The reference is answered accordingly. Appropriate Government be informed.. Chandigarh.

Dt. 18-7-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 "S.O. 2269,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispulc Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the nwmd of the Central Government Industrial Tiibunal/Labour Court, labalpur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management or Rescive Bank of India and thcii woikiTum, which was leccived by the Central Govern- ment ™ lb-8-2001.

[No. L-12O11/9/89-D. IV(A)/IR(B-T)1 AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer4674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 TPARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNfcXURE

BEFORE THE OI.NTRAl. GOVhRNMKNT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM 1 ABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No. CGH |LC[R[107lK8

Picslding Officer: Shri K. M. Rai

The Secretary, Reserve Bank tmployccs Association, Mandir Marj;, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

. . .. Applicant

Versus

The Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur, '

. . .. Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 18th dRy of July, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Lahour vide order No. I -12011 /9/89-D. IV(A) dated 4-10-88 has referred the following dispute for adjudication hy this tribunal—

"Whether the order of the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur No. 26/Samanya-?2.87/88 dated 17-7-87 regarding Table Assistants in Note examination Section is legal and justified "> If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

2. The case for the Union is that the management of. Reserve Bank of India, Nagpui effected the change in th-j service condition applicable to the 18 table assistants working in the bank's cash department at Nagpur by order No. 26/Gen. 22/87-88 dated 17-7-87 in violation of the provisions uf Section 9-A of tlic l.D. Act, 1947 read with rulc-34 of the J.D. (C) Rules 1957. The Reserve Bank of India has a sole right to issue bank nnte and is therefore required to provide exchange facilities to members of general public. The bank receives notes tendered in u large quantities by Commercial Banks, Railways. P & T, Government Departments. Statutory Bodies and Public for Ciedit. For the proper exercise of these functions, the Bank has deployed 463 Class III employees ;i( Nagpur office to attend for processing and examination of currency notes and other duties to cany out the functioning of the ca->li departments. These 463 Class III employees aro called coin note examiner Grade II as under :—

350

18 (for 18 officers, Assistants piovided) 4

6 4 1

1 4 2

For Note Examination work Table Assistants to Note Examination sections At vriiious vaults as Asstts, to officers At claims section At coins '•ectiou Weighmenr Asstt, to Officer Assistant at PA's Desk Admn. Cell M.P, Units (2) officers Assistant Remittance Pool Additional office Building Leave Reserve

(—) vacancies not filled up

22 2 62 476 13 463

3. It is fmther alleged by the Union that the aforesaid employees have not been jmen any promotion by the manage- ment since the date of the appointment. The discontent arose amongst the employees and therefore the matter was referred to the National Industrial Tiihunal for adjudication regarding the wage revision and service condition clc The national industrial tribunal diiccted the Bank to improve State of affairs. In view of this direction, the Bank reorganised the cash department suo-motto w.e.f. 2nd July 1QS4. The existing 10 Note Examination sections at Najipur office were earlier placed in charge of 10 officer-. As a sequel to the reorganisa- tion of the cash dcpaitmcnt. now 18 officers have been placed in charge nf the said 19 Note Examination Sections w ef 2-7-84 and were provided 18 full time clerical asstts i e table as"tts. without disturbing the established ratio of 1 -I as iegards Asstt. Trtasuict and clerical asstts. Ench officer (.Prior to 2nd July, 1984) was pro\ifled with one full time clerical assistant. The clerical assistant is called as Table assistant. He is assigned with multifarious clerical duties including writing and maintenance uf Books. Tin's practice of providing a full time table assistant lo flu; oflicei in charge of Note Examina- tion section is in vogut sjnoe 1982 at Nagpur office. It is backed up with statutory pjovisjons contained in para 66 chapter III of the Banks issue Department Manual. An extract of the said paragraph is annexured herewith as Ex-B, The cash department was icorganiscd w.c.f. 2-7-84 as stated earlier. Instead of 10, now JS officcis (assistant treasurers) were placed in charge of 10 Note Examination Sections at Nagpur office. It may be pointed out that the foregoing charges not bcinn prejudicial to the workmen concerned were made by the Bank sue moto and there v/ere no consultations/agreement/ settlement over the issue with

4, Furthci the following administrative follow up action of the Bank establishes beyond any doubt that these 18 posts of Table Assistants created alter 2-7-84 were on full time basis.

5. Union further contends that on 12-9-86 the Central Office of RBI, on the lecommendation of RHI, Nagpur dated 14-8-85, rccumnicnded the re-organisation of note examination section including IS posts of table assistants. These 18 posts of table assistants had been tteated as regular post like all other posts and consequently leave reserves also sanction against the lamo. On 17-7-87, the currency officer of RBI Nagpur issued an order reducing 18 posts of table assistants From full time t" half day hnsis and requiring them to per- form half days quota of examination work in addition to the duties allotted to them The oihcr tnbie assistants working in cash department under the supervision of various assistant tieasuieis are also on full time basis and (hey have not been nshigncd any olhei duty. In this way the order in respect of IN table Assistants are disciiminatory. The management has arbitrarily changed the scivice condition of 18 full time table assistant!. Inspitc of the protest of the union, the management' did not change ils oider in question. The oidor of the management dated 17-7-87 deserves to be quashed. 6, The case for the management is that the Union is not a representative Union nt Naemir as it does not have adequate following among the Class-Ill employees at Nafipur office. The present dispute is not covered under the provision of Section 2(k1 of l.D. Act, ll>47, The order of Bank dated 17-7-87 has not chanced the service condition of 18 table assistants. It is an office oidcr dealing with the distribution/ location of the work in the cash department of the bank's Naerciir nfflc amunust coin examiners Grad^-II. It is in respect to the efficiency administiation and functioning of the Bnnlc A table assistant was riven fiom 1974 to assist the Assistant treasurer for writing hooks and attend to other work like any other centres in the Nappur office. Right from the begin- ning \h • fnble assistant' in the Nappur office had hpen doing the 1/2 day days quota of coin examination work on the day; on which tbev have uoiked as table assistants. It was always regarded as a part of his duty to do half davs quoin work. Aftet tlie if-oreinistitlon of the ensh department in .Inlv 19H4. the bank allowed one more table assistant wheie 2 Ass'stHnt treasurers were working. In this way there was a substantial decrease in the work allotted to the table Assis- tants and under utilisation of available man-nower Taking this view into consideration, the Nagpur office vide order I*⁷-?-^ oiderf-d tht- tabV assistants posted in the Note Examination Centres to do half days quota to note examina- tion woik ns they were doina earlier. There was no chanize eilhci in duties or service conditions of table assistants ami therefore ihe Bank has not committed bv breach of the nro- visions of Section 0A or the I D. Act, 1947. In view of thes^ facts, the Union !•, no) entitled to any relief as claimed hv them The reference therefore deserves to be answered in negative.

7. Tru- following issue- arise for decision in this case and mv findings thneon nre noted hereinafter:—

1. Whether the management has chang-d (hr service enndifnn of thr IS tfible assistants vide order dated 17-7-87 in violation of the provisions of Section 9A of the l.D. Act, 1947 ?

2. Relief nnd costs ?

8. Issue No. I : The Union luis challenged ilie office order oi RBI, Nagpur dated 17-7-N/ alleging to iiuve changed the service condition to table Assistants working in Nagpui ollice. In this connec- tion, tlie management has contended thav it was obstivcd by the uilice that tnc examination of notes etc. for halt a day by the table assistants attached to note examination section are not beinu done for sometime past which has resulted in under utilisation ot available man power. It was therefore decided uial all the table assistants posted in the note examination sections will hereafter lie allotted half days quota to note examination etc. This step was, taken by the manaaemeiit with a view lo the piopoi utilisation of manpower. Examina- tion ot notes by coin note examiner Grade II is the basic lunction to be attended by them in the cash departments m note examination centre. While assisting the Assistant treasurer, the table assistants does not seize to be coin note examiners. There is no separate cadie of table assistants in Nagpur office. Class-Ill staff in non-clciical cadre in note examination section are coin note examiners Grade II and Grade J. Consideiinfi the work of helping the Assistant treasurer in the Note Examination Centre, table Assistants were allotted hall day quota of note examination on week days and quartet quota on Satin days when the Bank functions for half day only. This is the service condition of coin note examiners, assisting the Asstt. treasurers as table assistants, since 1973 in all oltices ot the bank including Nagpur office. This practice was involved since 1973 and the office order of 17th July 87 was not new which could be said to have brought any change in the service condition of the table assistants.

9. The Assistant Treasurer is officer in Grade-A, A Table Assistant, who is a coin note examiner Grade II is nivcn to Asstt. treasurer when necessary to assist him in writing books and to attend the other miscellaneous work. In this way, the woik does not last for the whole day. The Table Assistant, who is a note Examiner Grade II was allotted half days quota during which time he had no work as a table assistant. The note hxamining Sections were considered to be unduly large and therefore it was decided to be re- organised as to ciisurc bettei protection, tight security and more effective supervision in order to achieve the better performance and to provide promotional opportunity to non- clciical staff in the issue department to the post of Assistant Treasurer in officei jjrade. In view of this fact, the posts of note Examiners weie reduced in order to afford promotional opportunity to the officer trade, in no way, any change was effected in the service condilion -of the table Assistants. The Coin Note Examiner acting as Table Assistant was required to do half days note examination work in addition to the work attended to by him in helping the Assistant Treasurer of the Note i \ainininn Centic in view of the letter dated 81 h Octobci 1973 issued by the Central office of the Reserve Hank of India. Hy the issue of letter dated 17-7-87, no Change was effected in the serviet condition of table Assistant. A table Assistant in Nagpur office was provided from 1974 to assist the Assistant heasurei to attend the work like othei centres. The Table Assistants in the Nagpur office and elhe- whete hnvr been doinfa> the half days quota of note Examina- tion work while simultaneously working as table assistant. It has always been a part of the duty of Coin Note Examiner acting as Table Assistant to do half days quota work till 1973. In this ways the management did not violate the piovisions nt Sec.-9-A of I.D Act, 1947 by changing the service condilion of the Table Assistants working in Naxpur office of Reserve Bank ol India.

10. II is well established piinciple that it is within the managciial discretion of an employer to organise and an mice his business m Ihc manner he considers best. So long it is done in a bona fide manner il will not be proper to hold that the employe; in doing so has violated the provisions of I D. Act, 1947, II is for the employer to decide whether the particular policy in running his business will be profitable, economy arid convenient So long such decision of the em- ployers is not actuated by any consideration for victimisation or any unfair labour prjciice. then their act cannot be held to be illegal. In the instant case, the management has simply continued the implementation of service condition prcvelant in Nagpui office since 1973 with respect to the half day woik in note examination section by Table Asstt. T do not find (hat by ordci dated 17-7-1987 the Bank has changed the sen-ice condition of the tdble assistants in violation of the provisions of Sec.-9-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. This Older is only viith a view to ensme the maximum utilisation of manpower in the Bank. It is within the competence of the management to allot the duty in respect to its employees for taking proper work from them, In the present case, no new service condition has been added in the case of table assistants. It is therefoie held that the management's order dated 1 /-7-19K7 with lespect to the duty to be performed by the Table Assistants is. perlcctly just and proper. This issue is answered accotdingly.

11. Issue No. 2 :

In view of the foregoing" icusons, the Union is not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. The order in question passed by the management with respecl to the work of table assistant is perfectly legal. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the work- man—

12. Copy of the award be sent to (he Ministry of labour, Government of India, as per rules.

K, M. RAI, Presiding Officer, New Delhi, the 17th August. 2001 S.O. 2270.—In pursnance of Section 17 of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chcnnai as shown in the Annoxure in the Industrial Dispute between :he employers in relation to the management of Pandyan Grama Bank and their workman, which was received by the Centra) Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-12011/20/99-1R(B-l)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CEN1RAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAl Monday, the 6th August, 2001 Present : K. K A R T H I K E Y A N,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 271/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D, No. 289/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under claudc (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industiral Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Claimant, the Asst. Gen;i\il Secretory, Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Association and the Management of the Pandyan Gjama Bank, Virudhunagar.

BETWEEN

The. AS3is>ia.ni General Secretary— I Party/Claimant Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Association Virudhunagar. AND

The Chairman —II Party/Management Pandyan Grama Bunk, Virudhunagar,

APPEARANCE :

For tho Claimant : M/s P.V.S. Giridhar

& Ranjani Ramadan Advocates For tho Managoment : Mr. N.G.R. Prasad

Advocate

The.Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub sec. (1) and sub sec. 2 ( A) of sec. 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), havo referred concerned Indus- tirla Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12011/20/99/IR(B-I) dated 26-10-1999.

This reference was first mado to tho Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal where it was taken on filo as I.D. No. 289/99. When il was pending therefor adjudication, as per the orders of the Central Govt. this caso hag been transferred to the file of this Tri- bunal. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on filo as l.D. No. 271/2001 and notices wore sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 12-2-2001 with their respective parties. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on record on either side were present along with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When tlae matter was transfcircd from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, the matter was pendin for filling the Counter Statement ofthc IT Party/Manage, ment. They filed the Counter Statement on 26-02-2001 Then by consent of counsel on either side documents were marked as Ex, W.I & W. 2 and Ml to M5.

In the schedule of reference made in the order of the Central Government Hie number of temporary messangers and their names who sought the relief under this dispute have not been given. The learned counsel on either side have made a joint endorsement on the back side of the order of referrence stating that "The reference relates to 33 persons whose names are listed in the Annexurc to the claim statement".

Having no oral ovidenco on either side, the learned counsel on either side advanced their lespective argu- ments.

When the matter came up before me for Jinai hear ing on 06-07-2001, upon pcrsuingthe Claim Statement, Counter Statement, other material papers on record, upon porusing the documentary evidence let in on eithoi side and upon hearing the argument;, advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this mater having stood over ill this date for consideration this Tribunal has passod the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dir.pute referred to in ihe above order of rcfeicncv by the Cential Gevc. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:—

"Whether the action of the Management of Pan- dyan Grama Bank in denying the wages to the temporary messengers at pro-rata basis with effect from 29-01-1993 i.e. date of settJe- ment is jusiified and legal ? If not, tu what relief the concerned workman ;ire entitled ?

2. The aveimerits in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :

The Assistant General Secretary of Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Association, (herein after referred to as Petitioner) espousing ihe cause of Thirty three workmen as claimant has filed the Claim Statement. The temporary messengers woiking various branches of the TI Party/Management Bank (hereinafter referr- ed to as Respor dent were denied the benefits of regu- larisation for a long time. So an Industrial Dispute was raised before I he Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central II Chennai. Following conciliation, a jcttle- ment was signed by LIIU Petitioner Association and the Respondent Bank under Section 12(3) of the Indus- trial Dispute Act on 29-0J-I993, under which temporary messengers wun divided into two panels viz. Panel A and Panel B. Panel A consisted of temporary messen- gers, who have put in more than 240 days of service, while panel B consisted of temporary messengers who have put in iess than 240 days of service. There were 33 temporary niesscngeis of whom 10 figured in panel A. Their services were regularised soon thereafter. The Respondent Bank promised to regularize the other messcngeis as and when vacanies arise. The messen- gers in Panel A & B were however, paid wages on con- solidated basis at the discretion of the Respondent, contrary to clause (8) of the Settlement. The failure of the Respondent/ Bank to p.iy pro-rata wages to temporary messengers is illegal and contrary to the said Settlement, Hence, a petition was filed before the AssLiant Labour Commissioner, Maduiai" seeking conciliation in respect of the same. The Res- pondent/ Bank thiOLU_'li their aply dated 22-12-1998 admitted the violation and started paying the prorala wages p;ospL0tively. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply that pro-rata wages should K paid letros- pectively "i.e. from 29-1-1993, the date of settlement.

As the RfEpodnct fa'led. to c-"icede the srnv\ a failure report was submitted by the Assistant Labour com- mLsioner. Thueaftcr, the Govt. was pleased to refer this as an industrial dispute for. adjudication by this Tribunal. U nder Clause 9 of th*- Settlement, it is clear that the Managenu-nt has undertaken to pay wages on pro-raLa basis from the date of the Settle- ment. Hence, it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent/Management to pay wages to the temporary messengers in Panel A & B, listed in the annexure hereto, with effect from 29-01 — 1993 with all conseqenlial including all arrears follow- ing therefiom.

Tlu claim itself is barred by limitation. The members did not objection to the consolidated payment fj-om the date of joining after the Circular dated 6,1.96 till 4.3.98 and received the same without any objection. From 9.9,98 Panel B employees are getting prorata wages. When the. demand raised by the Petitoner Union before the Management itself is not for anvars and that the dispute has been raided belatedly, the relief prayed for by the P-titioncr cannot be granted. The p¹ea of i\strt spective benefit was clauredfor the first time before the Conciliation Officer i.e. after a lapse of two and half years. H<. 'ti\ the Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner Union.

3. The aveiments in the Counter Statement of

the Respondent are briefly as follows :—

4. Though it is mentioned in the Schedule of reference as temporary messengers, the number of list of aggrieved workmen and their names have not been furnished with the reference by way of annexure, When the matter was taken up for enquiry, this dis- crepancy in the reference of the industrial dispute to be adjudicated by this Tribunal has been noted and a joint memo by the counsel on either side has bjen fil- ed requesting this Tribunal to read the reference after the words the 'temporary messengers to add the wrods "mentioned in annexure thereto" and to have the an- nexure containing names of the thirty three workmen to K, add'.-d to the reference. That memo has been recorded.

5. The point foi my consideration is •—

"Whether the action of the Management of Pan- riyan Grama Bank in denying the wages to the temporary messengers at pro-rata basis with effect from 29-01-1993 i.e. date of settlement is justified and legal? Jf not, to what relief the concerned woikman are entitled ?"

Point :

At the time of Settlement i.e. 29-01-1993, the Ser- vice of 11 temporary messengers were required by the bank for whom pro-rata wages paid fiom 22-4-1993. The Petitioner Association pleaded the bank to en- gage the other temporary m^ssengers-cum-sw-cpers as they are jobless and rinding it difficult lor their liveli- hood. On a sympathetic approach the bank had taken setcps to create employment avuiues by engag- ing themi n Urban branches as additional hand apart from regualar messengers, been though the b^i.k >s in- curring hcrvy losses continuously. It is mutually agreed topay Rs. 45/- per day as wages and the name of the temporaiy messengers-cum-swcepers were circulated to the branches voflr engagemen by a Circular dated 6-1-1996 and subsequently by anothtr Circular dated 30-12-1996. The amount so paid was agreed and no objection was raised by the p:litioner Association till 4-3-1998. On 4-3-98, the Petitioner Association has given a representation wherein they have requested to incrcse wages of temporary messenger cum-; weepers in Panel B as that of Panel A. The said request was consi- dered favourably and the wages was inucased to Rs. 75/- per day. Tn the meantime, the Petitioner Asso- ciation has filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 12707/98 for directing tin Bank to pass orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 4-3-98. The High Court of Madras by an order dated 21-8-98 directed the Bank to dispose of the rid representation dated 4-3-98 wilhin a p:ricd of twelve weeks. In order to avoid resorting to revision then and there and to hi've a permanent solution in this matter, the Respondent paid pro-rala wages from 9-9-98. In the Petitoner's* representation dated 4-3-98, they have requested only to incieasc the wages of the Messengers in Panel B on pro-vata wages and not requested for retrospective clfect . The bank havo also regularized the scivicc of 21 temporary me .su- pers out of 33 and appointed then as permanent stall" of the bank, [f is denied that the temporary Messen- gers in Panel A are not paid pro-rata wages. They hav" been paid pro-intii vvafo from 24-4-9S i,c,t immediately after the dale of Sitllemuit i.e. 29-1-93

In the Counter Statement of the Respondent, it is stated that the Bank have regularized the services of 21 temporary messengers out of the 33 and appoint- ed them as permanent staff of the bank. It is not disputed by the other side. Further, when the matter was came up for final hearing oa 6-7-2001, the counsel for the Petitioner had made an endorsement in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner for restricting the relief claimed by stating L the relief claimed with regard to 23 messengers who were already regularized and whose particulars furnished to-day will be res- tricted till the date of their regularization date." On the side of the Petitioner the list contained names of 23 persons as temporary messengers, whose services had been regularised, has been filed. From this, it is seen that the persons mentioned under serial numbers 15, 25 to 33 arc the temporary messengers, whose services have not yet been regularised by the Respondent/Bank. The claim made by tho4678 THE GAZETTE OE TNDIA : SEPTEMBER i, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART II— Sec. 3(ii)] Petitioner Union for the concerned workmen is based on Settlement dutcd 29-l"93. The xerox copy of that Settlement is marked as Ex. Wl. It is seen from the terms of the Settlement that the temporary messengers employed by the Respondent/ Bank have been divided into two groups as Panel A and Panel B. The temporary messengers who have put in moic than 240 days since the date of their first engagement have been included in Pariel

A, while temporary messengers, who have put in service of less than 240 days, since their date of the first engagement have been included in Panel B. As per the terms of the Settlement under Clause 8, it is mentioned that 'until such time the services of the members of Panel A & B are regularized, they would be utilized in the leave vacancies/temporary increase in work etc. arising at branches/offices. Pro-rata wages would be paid for the services ren- dered. However, no claim of arrears would be entertained or services rendered in the past prior to the date of the Settlement. It is the contention of the Petitioner Union that as per the terms of the Settlement dated 29-1-93, pro-rata wages were not given to the temporary messengers under Panel

Bui they have not asked for incerasirg their wages to those temporary messenger-, with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of Settlement 29-J-93 under Ex.WI. In the Counter Statement :tself, it is stated thai the time of Settlement i.e. 29-1-93 the service of 11 temporary messengers were required by the bank and pro-rata wages were paid to them from 22-4-93. From the pleaol¹ ther party, it is .seen that bank the had engaged them as temporary messengers in urban branches as they were jobless and it was mutually a reed to pay Rs. 45 per day to them as wages as per the Circular dated 6-1-96. A xerox copy of the circular is Ex.M2, This is three years after the Settlement dated 29-1-93 under Ex.WI. This is not disputed by the Petiiioner Association. Further on the representation made by the Petitioner Asso- Association under Ex.M4 dated 4-3-93' their conso- lidated pay of Rs. 45 has been increased to Rs. 75. This is also not disputed by the Petitioner Associa- tion. As it is contended in the Counter Statement of the IL party(Respondent Bank, while accepting this consolidated payment as Rs. 45 as daily wages, which has been subsequently increased to Rs. 75 as represented by the Petitioner Association, no objection has been raised by the Petitioner Asso- ciation and there was no claim for payment of wages on pro-rata basis with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of Settlement under F.5X.WI. Their claim of wages at pro-rata basis from the date of Settle- ment till 9-9-98, the date on which all the panel employees arc getting pro-rala wages has been made for the first time by the Petitioner Association. Only when they iaised the dispute before the conciliating authority, Assistant Laboui Commissioner (Central), the Petitioner Association lus raised to plea that the Respondent/Bank Managcmcn, has violated Clause 8 of the Settlement and they prayed for the payment of wages at pro-rata basis to he temporary messengers on retrospective effect. That representation was made before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai by the Petitioner Association for the first time in March, 1990, wherein they'have admitted that wages were paid to the temporary messengers on consolidated basis. Having accepted the consolidated paymen even subsequent to Ex.WI without any objection, the Petitioner Association cannot claim now at the belated sLage, the wages to the temporary messengers on pro-rata basis from HIL date of the Settlement dated 21-9-93 till 9-9-98. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Association would argue that the claim is being made by the Petitioner Association as a mailer of right under th Settlement and what it is given under the Settlement cannot be taken on the basis of limitation as a belated claim. She would fui Iher argue that the right claim by the Petitioner Association is a determined claim under the Settlement and no limitation has been pre- scribed In answer to this, the learned counsel lor the B. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the failure of Respondent/Bank to pay pro-rata wages to temporary messenger is clearly illegal and contrary to the said Settlement and the wages to be paid to the temporary messengers on pio-rata basis from the date cif Settlement. It is an admitted case that 23 out of 33 messengers listed in the annexure added to the Schedule of reference on joint memo filed by the counsel on eithci side have been regulariz- ed in service by the Respondent/Bank and they res- trict their relief claim from the date of Settlement till the date of their rcgularisation. Though it is stated in the Claim Statement that the Respondent/ Bank has not paid the wages to the temporary mes- sengers on prorata basis, they have not stated in the Claim Statement that first they were paid consoli- dated pay of Rs. 45 per day, as per the Circular dated 6-1-96 and the same was increased to Rs. 75 per day to the temporary messengers cum sweepers in Panel B as that of panel A, on the resprcscntation given by the Petitioner Association on 4-3-98. This has been pleaded in the Counter Statement of the Respondent. That is not disputed by the Petitioner Association, It is also admitted that pursuant to the direction of the High Court in W.P. No. 12707/98 to dispose of the representation made by the Peti- tioner on 4-3-98, the Respondent paid pro-rala wages to the temporary messengers from 9-9-98 Ex. M4 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 4-3-98 from the Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Association to the Chairman of Pandyan Grama Bank. In that letter the Pet t oner Assoc ation has requested the Respondent Bank Management io increase the wages of temporary messengers in Panel B as in Panel A.

7. In the result, an award is passed holdin

Uiat the action of the Management of Pandyan Grama Bank jn denying the wt ges to the temporaiy mes- sengers at pro-rata bPsis with effect fiom 29-01-1993 i.e. the date of Settl-mentis justified and legal. Ilcncv, the conccred workmen arc not entitled to any re- lief. No Cost.

(Dictated lo thc Stenogiapher, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me m the open court on this day the 6th August, 2001),

K.KARTHIKFYAM, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side i None

DOCUMFNTS MARKED

For I Partv/Workman :

Ex. No. Date

Description

29-01-93

Wl

Xerox copy of thc settlement between thc Management and the Petitioner Union u/s. 12(3)

W2 Nil

Xorox copy of Equation Com- n.ittee Report. Along with annexures.

For the 11 Party/Management;

Description

Date

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubuncswar as shown m the Anncxuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 16-7-2001.

[No. L-12012/26/97-IR(B-l)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Offker

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESHWAR

PRESENT :

Shri S. K. Dhai. OSJS. (Sr. Branch) Presiding Officer, C.G IX-crm-Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASF NO. 165/2001 Dated Bhubaneshwar, the 31st July, 2001 Between :

The Management Branch Manager Federal Bank: Ltd , Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneshwar. 1 st Party— Management

AND

Their "Workmen, Represented through Secretaj y. All Bank Employees Co-ordination Committee, C/o. Allahabad Bank, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneshwar. 2nd Party—Union APPEARANCES :

Sr. Manager, Federal-Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar :

For the 1st Pnrty—Management.

None :

For the Union.

AWARD

The Government of Tndia in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of subjection (I) and sub-section, (2A) of Section 10. of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the followinc dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-I2OI2/26/97-1R (B,I), dated 11-02-1998 :

"Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank Ltd. in rtfiiiing Wve to Shri K. T. Jose on sickness ground even after production of a Medical Certificate from A registered Medical Practitioner is legal or justified ? Tf not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2. In spite receipt oi miice the Union has no m:u). app.arancu b j oa this Tribunal No claim statements also have been fil.-d by the Union. The t'bovc position would suggest tlwt no dispute exists Iviwixn the pi'Kiis ; i tl the Union has no cause of action.

3. Hence, no dispute award is passed.

4. The reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer *rf f ^ f t, nwpFri, 2001

Tf.^T. 2272.—afiWW fsrsrr^T STFafjpTJT, 1947 (1947 *fli 14) ^ am 17 % mnr*\ Jr, % ^ JT ^T 1fa-8-2001 ^"T ^M gjfT qr I

[h -;T~ 120 1 2/ 2 8/ 8 9-Vji *ifr(Q\.3) / (sft-I)] New Delhi, the 17Lh August, 2001

S.O. ^?7.-)._in Pursuince of S-ction 17 of the lndustri.il dispute A'-t, 1947 (14 of 19*7), ih- Ccitnvl Government hereby publishes th awird of the Central Govern men* Industrial Tribunal 'Ltibou'- Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Indorc and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-8-2001.

,[ No. L^120I2/28/89-IR (B-3VB-T) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/21/90

PRESIDING OFFICFR : SHRI K. M. RAT Ku. Fozia Khan, P. S. Kothwali Road, Near Bakshiji Ki Mazjid, H. No. 82, Bhopai. Applicant Versus

The Regional Manager, Region II, State Bank of Indore, Regional Office, House No. 4, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, Non-Applicant AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of July, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour v;

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Indore, Bhopal in dismissing Miss Fozia Khan w.e.f. 7-10-87 without propci enquiry is justified or not 7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. The case for the workman is that she was appointed as clerk by the State Bank of Indore on 11-10-84 and since then she continuously performed her duty till the date of her termination from service. Since tho date of her appointment, she was being harassed by the management by frequent transfers, ill treatment and mcfttal pressures. She was forced to sit late in the evening to clear her arrears in the Bank. She refused to sit late in the bank after the working hours were over. The atmosphere in the Bank was not proper to sit late in the evening and therefore she had refused to sit late to discharge her duty. As a sresult of the mental harassment of the management, she became a patiuit of schizopliaonia. She has been constantly under treatment from Jan., 1987 onwards. Due to this disease, she was not ablo to think properly as her mental faculty was adversely effected.

3. The workman further alleges that falso and frivolous chargesheet dated 14-7-87 was served on her committing alleged misconduct. Duo to her mental illness, she was not able to submit her expla- nation to chargesheet properly. The management got some papers signed by her. The domestic en- quiry was not properly conducted by the Enquiry Officer. At the time of domestic enquiry her mental condition was not proper and therefore she bad requested for her medical examination which was refused. During the course of D.E. she was not given ample opportunity to defend her case properly. The Enquiry Officer wrongly held the charges proved against her without assigning any adequato reasons in respect thereof. The Disciplinary Authority mecha- nically accepted the repurt of Enquiry Officer and her services Were terminated w.e.f. 7-10-87. She preferred an appeal before the competent authority who rejec- ted the same without giving reasonable consideration and assessing the meaterial on record. The termin- ation order is bad in law which deserves to bo quashed. She is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on her is disproportionate in tho circums- tances of the case and therefore it is not maintainable in the eye of law. Taking the enltlre facts into 2550 01/2001^-13

46&1 •"ceflSidtffilion, she-is tmtitied-tcrronstasWitt with*U consequential monetary benefits.

4. The case of the management is that the work- man joined the Bank services w.e.f. 11-10-84 at Bank's Marvadi Road Branch, Bhopal. The manage- ment never ill-treated her during working hours as stated by her. The allegations in this rospect arc totally false and concocted. The workman committed serious misconduct for which chargosheet was served on her. Sbo submitted hor reply to the charges and her roply was not found satisfactory. The domestic enquiry was therefore conducted against her. The management further alleges that the workmen parti- cipated in the D.E. and she was given all the relevant documents to defend hor case properly. She had effectively cross-examined the prosecution witnesses during tho enquiry proceedings and she was in a proper and healthy condition at the time of enquiry. Her mental condition was normal and satisfactory. No papers wero got signed by the workman by exercising prossure on her. She had never made any application for her medical examination at all. She had never informed the management that she was suffering from mental disease. The Enquiry was conducted in a just and fair manner and the enquiry officer had given the report after considering the material on reaord. The Disciplinary Authority rightly accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and terminated the services of the workman in a lawful manner. The charges of misconduct were properly proved against the workman.

5. The management further alleges that in April, 87, the workman was posted in T. T. Nagar, Bhopal Branch Office of the Bank. Sho was looking after the work of inward clerk. Three cheques of QUt- station customers were received in the bank for collection and were handed over to her for making entry in inward register. She secretly removed the cheques amounting to Rs. 12,066.20 and deposited them in her account with tho Central Bank of India. The amount of the cheques was collected and crodi- ted in her account by the Central Bank. While the search for the missing cheques was going on, the manager of the Central Bank informed that the workman had deposited the said cheques and the amount was credited in her account. The workman could not withdraw the amount from the Central Bank. For this serious misconduct, she was eharge- sheetod and after the D.E., the charges were found to be proved against her. Her misconduct was of a serious nature and therefore the Bank had lost con- fidence in her. Suoh worker cannot be retained in the service of the Bank. In view of all these facts the termination order passed by the management, against the workman is just and proper and it needs no interference. The workman is not entitled ta any relief as claimed by her, mi TH& GAZETTE OF TNTJIA : SEPTE&ffiElTt 2001 /BHA©K)T1©, "1*23 BPJwr- *-8*c^34")] 6. The following issues arise for decision in the case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter ,

1. Whether the D.E. conducted against the work-

man is just and proper ?

2. Whether tho imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on the workman is proportionate to the circumstances of the case ?

3. Whether fhe workman is entitled to reinstate-

ment with monetary benefits ?

4. Relief and costs 7

7. Issue No. 1 •

the material available on record and thereafter held the charges proved against the workman. His finding does not appear to be pcrverso. This court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. At the same timo, this court also cannot rcappreciate the evidence adduced beftfrc the Enquiry Officer, Tho enquiry officer had rightly held the charges proved against the workman and the Disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal after accepting this report as proper. In the circumstances of the case the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is not disproportionate The workman has committed a serious misconduct and therefore hor termination from service is a proper punishment which dees not required any interference. This issue is answered accordingly

10. Issue No- 3

It has been held by this tribunal on 22-7-98 that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is just and proper. In view of this finding this issue neods no consideration at all.

8. Issue No. 2

In the light of my finding given on ISSLC NO. 2, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement with other monetary benefits in this case. This issue is answered accordingly.

11. Issue No. 4

On the reasons stated above, it is hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by her. Her dismissal from service is just and proper. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

Copy of tho award be sent to the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAl, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, tho 17th August, 2001 Tho workman was chargoshceted for her serious misconduct regarding depositing 3 cheques of out- standing customers received in the Bank for collec- tion in the Central Bunk of India in her own account. The Central Bank of India credited tho amount of those cheques in the account of the workman. Sub- sequently this fact was brought to the notice of the State Bank of Indore by the Manager of Central Bank of India. On receiving this information, the chargesheet Was servod on the workman and tho domestic onquiry was conducted against her. The inquiry hes been hold to be proper. The workman ms cloarly admitted in her statement that she had bposited the ?aid 3 cheques in her account in Central Bank of India, She had further stated that these ;hcquo we4o bouncod cheques. Her admission :'c2rly goos *° show that she bad deposited the said hroo cheque of outtation customers in her own recount with an intent to benefit herself. In no way ihe was entitled to get these cheques deposited in her own account with her full knowledge. Her act was p^judidol to the interest of State Bank of Indore in A'lixh sbo was employed as a clerk and where she was discharging the duty of inward clerk. Her conduct is' full of rnalafides. She was holding the responsible post and the Bank had full confidence in her for the iLcbarge of her duty sincerely and honestly. This confidence was completely shattered when" she tried to gain herself by depositing the cheques in her ov-n account for which she had no legal autho- rity. This charge has been fully proved against her during the course of enquiry. L

S.O. 227'3.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the. Central Government horeby 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 Kolar Graniin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment cm 16-8-2001. - k

9. The enquiry papers amply reveal the fact that tre woikman was given all the relevant documents to defend her case properly before tho Enquiry Officer. £hc

[No. L-f 2012/48/9^1*1 (B I)] AJAY KUMAR, Efesk Officer 46*3 ANNEXURE*

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INijbSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CtJM LABOUR COURT BanjaJore

DATED : 7ih August 2001

PRESENT : HQN'BLE V.N. KULKARNI

PRESIDING OFFICER '$. I .party was working" atTCahQihalft'Brancnhi a Messenger right from 1988, He was honest and sin- cere in his work. His father was working in the Min es at KGF.

6. It is the further case of the I patty that his Father was Mental patient and to look after ftim hp used to remain absent, but this was taken is miscort- duct.

C.R.No.80/97

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary, The Chairman, Kola Gramin Bank Kolar Gramin Bank, SC/ST Staff Welfare Association, P.B. No.5, Head Office, Gowri Pet, KOLAR M.G.Road, KOLAR 563 101. 563 101.

APPEARANCES

I Party : None

II Party : Pradcep S. Sawkar

Advocate

It js not correct that the I party has misappro- priated a sum of Rs. 135.00 as alleged by the Mana- gement. I party has not admitted the charges. So far as enquiry is concerned-, it is said that enquiry is not correct. It is not based on the evidence. No opportunity was given to the I party. This is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11 (a). I party has also narrated the Charges No. 1 and 2 in the Claim Statement. The action of the management is not correct. The I party for these reasons and some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

7. The case of the II party in brief is as follows.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/58/95-IR(B 1) dated 13-10-1995 for adjudication on the following schedule.

8. Itistruethatthelparty-wasworkingat Nam- bihalli Branch as Part Time Messenger-cum-Sweeper from 21-3-1985. It is the further case of the mana- gement thftt he was absenting from duty and remained absent for 217 days which was nuauthorised absence. Details are given in the Counter. Charge No. 1 and 2 are narrated in detail. The management has also given the dates of unauthorised absence in the counter.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kolar Gramin Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri M.Govinda Raju, part-time messenger-cum- sweeper for an alleged misappropriation of Rs. 135/- and absence from work for a period of 386 days within 4 years and 2 months? If not, what relief he is enti- tled to and from which date?"

2. I party workman was working with the mana- gement. Workman is represented by the General Secretary, Kolar Gramin SC/ST Staff Welfare Asso- ciation. Workman committed some misconduct. Charge Sheet was issued and enquiry was held and on the basis of the Enquiry Report, the workmen who was working as Part time messenger-cum-sweeper was terminated and therefore this Industrial Dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and file Claim and Counter Statements respectively.

4. The case of the I party in brief can be narrated as under.

9. Regarding enquiry, it is contended that the same is proper and the Enquiry Officer after consi- dering all the material has given finding. Full oppor- tunity was given to the I party workman flncl all the allegations made by the I party are not correct. The action of the management is right. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the-reference.

10. It is seen from the recrods that the I party remained absent continously. At one stage the coun- sel who was appearing for the I party also retired. 11. The management in order to prove that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper has examined MW 1 and various documents are marked in his evi- dence.

12. His evidence is that he issued notice of enquiry to I party and the I party appeared. He explained charge sheet and the I party workman admitted the charges. 11 documents were marked. The I party admitted the charges, I party has not examined wit- ness.

13. This witness is not cross examined by the workman for the reasons best known to him This court by its order dated 26th June 2001 considering th$ evidence of MW 1 and the enquiry proceedings held that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper.

14. Now that the enquiry is held as fair and proper and in a situation like this, this Tribunal has no discretion to invoke the provisions of the Section 1 l(a) of the ID Act because the I party has not pointed out that the enquiry report is perverse and the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is not based on the evi- dence and the documents relied by the management. I have already said for the reasons best known to the I party workmen he has remained absent and has not conducted the proceedings properly. It appears he is not interested in this dispute.

15. 1 have heard learned counsel for the mana- gement. It was submitted by tha learned counsel for the management that in the instant case, charges are proved, charge against workmen is of misappropra- tion and absence for long time and there are no grou- nds to take any lement view and I party is not entitled for any relief. In support of this submission he relied on the followng decisions.

a. 1995 (1) LLJ Kar (DB) —1995(1) LLJ 233(SB) D. Padmanabudu vs. Bank of India & Another

Once the enquiry is properly held and the Manage- ment has thought fit to pass an order of dismissal con- sidering the nature and gravity of the act committed by the employee, it is not for the Court including the Labour Court to interfere with su<-h order of management. These being a case of misapro- priation by a person who was holding the position of Account clerk in a Bank it cannot bo said that the bank had taken a wrong view of the matter and the punishment was unduly harsh.

b. AIR 1998 SC 2311—1998 Lab IC 2514 Union Bank of India vs. Vishwa Mohan The Hon'ble Supremo Court has categorically held that the Court cannot go into the question of imposition of punishment. It is for the Discipli- nary Authority to consider what be the naiure ' of the punishement to be imposed upon the mis- conduct prove against him.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in this case as under :

"It needs to be emphasized that in the Banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needg to be preserved by every Bank em- ployee. If this is not observed, the confidence of the publish would be impaired ".

c. 1996 Lab I.C. 1056 (SC)

Municipal Committee Bahadurgad Vs. Kishen Behan

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that' there cannot be any other pumshrnent - other than dis- missal in case of misappropriation and corruption.

d. JT 1998 (9) SC 37

State of Karnataka & other vs. H. Naganqa Dismissal—Punishment imposed after depart- mental enquiry — Principal of proportionality can be invoked regarding punishment only in a case where the punishment was totally, irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. Such is not in the pre- sent case. Hence the order of the Tribunal which is impugned before us is set aside and the order of the Appellate Authority is restored.

e. JT 1989 (2) SC 132

Union Bank of India vs. Parmananda Dismissal from service—Inquiry Officer finding the Respondent guilty of fraudulent act for self aggran- disement—Penalty of dismissal imposed by the Dis- ciplinary Authority-—Sccpo of jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal —Held that Tribunal have no discretion or power to interfere with the penalty which is lawfully imposed.

f. 1987 Lab I.C. 77

Wimco Shramik Union vs. Seventh indus- trial Tribunal

Sec. 11-A of the I.D. Act—Powers of Labour Court of tribunals to interfere with dismissal— Workmen found guilty of theft —Punishment of dismissal justified—No interference u/s 11—A on ground that workmen had rendered long period of unblemished service and stolen property was only Rs. 150.

g. AIR 1997 SC 2661

Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Kala Singh

Sec. 11-A—Powers of Labour Court—Rein- statement—Labour Court coming to the conclusing that misconduct had been proved against workmen and that dismissal was justifiable—Management also loosing confidence that workman would faithfully ' carry on his duties to view of proof of misconduct Refusal by Labour Court to exercise power u/s 11-A to grant relief of reinstatement with minor penalty—is improper.

h. AIR 2000 SC 3028

State Bank of India vs, Tarun Kumar Bantrjee Soc. 11-A I.D. Act—Industrial Tribunal Interference—

With finding of misconduct recorded in domestic enquiry—Bank cashier found guilty in domestic enquiry of receiving excess money from customer and retaing same with intent to misappropriate— Finding proved to hiet by evidence of branch mana- ger "and head cashier who'actually saw the incident— Dcmcitic Enquiry found to be just and fair foy'Tri- bunfll —Setting aside of finding of misconduct on grounds of non-examination of rnohey arid non- production of confessional statement—Not proper.

I.?000(ii) LLJ 1395 (SC)

Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Co- perative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Others Sec 11-A I.D. Act—Labour Court finding charges of misappropriation and breach of trust against Work meti proved—Once misappropriation stood proved, showing sympathy held uncalled for.

j. 2001 (1) LLJ 1330 (SC)

Tripura Gramin Bank & Others vs. Tarit Roy & Another

Sec. 11A I.D. Act—Punishment of dismissal of cashier of bank from service—Principles of Sec.ll-A not to be grafted into disciplinary proceeding of Government servant or other employees governed by rules and not by I.D. Act.

k. 2000(11) LLJ 1367 Kar

Managing Director B.G.M.L., K.G.F. vs. Sundareshan and others

Sec 11-A—Employees dismissed from service charge of theft and fraud—Held theft being henious act and lenient view would cause damage to disci- pline in industry—Dismissal confirmed.

I. 1999(11) LLJ 155

Baby Vijayan vs. Industrial & Another Dismissal from service—For grave misconduct by employee in Nationalised Bank—Past record in such cases has no relevance—Lokewise question \vhether Bank sustained loss also not relevant.

16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the management and all the decisions relied by the management. I am of the opinion that the I party ha not made out any case to say that the Enquiry Report^ is perverse. On the other hand misconduct is proved and the action of the management is correct.

17. Considering all this, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to the L.D.C transcribed by hjm, corrected and signed by me on 7th August 2001)

V. N. K.ULKARNI, Presiding Officer

46W New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S. O. 2274.—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 Tri- bunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tung abhadra Grameena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

INo. L-12012/87/98-IR (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT BANGALORE Dated : 6th August, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. K U L K A R N I, B. COM,

LLB,

PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-ClfM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

C. R. No. 93/98

I PARTY

11 RARTY Shri K. Sybba Rao, C/o Sr. G. N. Gowranna 5th Ws*rd, Ranipeth, Hospot-583201 (Advocate-Shri Manikappa Patil)

The Chairman, Tungabhadra Grameena Bank, Head Office, Sangankal Road, Bellary-583101 (Advocato-Shri B. C. Prabhakaj)46*6 THE GAZETTE OF IWiA i SeKTSMBER J*- .3fifti/J3.UAPRA 10, 1923 [PART I M B C. 3(101 AMfARD

1. The Central Government by Zeroising the, power* conferred by clause <4) <*f Sub-scptk>n 2A of tr^e Section 10 of tjhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has' referred this dispute- vide Order No. L-12Qj2/$7/?8/lR (frl) dated 30th October, 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule •

SCHEDULE

lll"Whether the Management of Tunga- bhadra Grameona Bank was justified in dismissing the services of Sri K. Subbaiao, Clerk, HalavagaVu Branch of Tungabbadra - Granite Bank with effect from 4-1-97 . If not, to wh# relief the workman is entitled. ?*' 2. The first party was working with the Second Partly. He committed misconduct and charge sheet was issued. Enquiry was held and on the basis of the enquiry report he was dismissed from service, and therefore, the industrial dispute is made.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

4. The case of the first party tha' he joined the services oi the Second party during the year 1992 as a Clerical Trainee and after completion of one year probationary period the services of the first party was regularised. He worked upto 25-6-1994. There were no allegations against him.

5. It is the further case of the first party that when he was on leave on 14-6-94, a preliminary enquiry was conducted without issuing of notice to him and he was compelled by the higher autho- rities to plead guilty that he had manipulated the records and that thereby had misappropriated the funds of the bank to the extent ofRs. 93,300/-. But the first party has not committed cny mis- appropriation,. The enquuiry conducted by the Vigilence Officer is not correct. So far as enquiry is concerned it is the case of the first party that the enquiry is not fair and proper.

6. It is the further case of the first party that on 16-11-94 and 17-11-94 though the first party was actually present for enquiry but it has be^n falsely seated that the first party has remained absent, and the Enquiry Officer other than collect- ing the documents has not proceeded further to- examioc tl)o witnesses. The enquiry officer has not given full opportunity to the first party and the report of the enquiry officer is not correct. In fiftot the ma^a^ec^t has collected Rv 3,00,672.51/- from the fir'st party and tho action of the managc- "Tment is iBe^aTand arbiitary. Firsrpsrty fot'tfiftw reasons has praved to pass an award in inVfiivoiix.

7. The case of the Second party is as follows 8. Infact after detailed enquiry by the VigHence Officer the first party voluntarily confessed the misappropriation committed by him and also gave it in writing. The charges are proved against the first party. The charges were very serioujs, The first party availed 15 Gold loans amounting to Rs. 93,300 - in the names of various parties, He also reduced the balance under KDR head in the General Ledger and Day Book, he made credit entries aggregating to Rs. 26,240/- in 11 Gold loan accounts with his initials in the ledger folios without preparing any slips. He committed fraud of Rs. 20,000 All details charges are given in the Counter. The first party also made fraudulent adjustments as stated in the Counter, a, b, & c on page 6 under Charge-5. Details of charge No. 6 are also given in the counter.

9. It is the further case of the Second party that the enquiry was properly conducted and all the allegations made by the first party are not correct Full opportunity was given to the first party to defend himself. The action of the management is correct The first party has grossly misused his official position. The enquiry is properly conducted by giving full opportunity. The first party has admitted misappropriation. The action of the management is correct The second party for these reasons and many other reasons stated in the counter has prayed to reject the reference.

10. It is seen from the records that top management examined MW1 and various documents were marked.

11. It is seen from the records that since a long time the first party and counsel are not present. The first party has not cross examined the management witness and remained absent This court by its order dated 21st Juno 2001 held that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper. There- after the mattor was posted for arguments. But the reasons best known to the first party, he remained absent and his advocate also remained absent So I have heard the learned counsel for the management. 1 have heard all the enquiry proceedings and the documents in detail, 12. Now that the DE is held as fair and proper we will have to see whether the enquiry report is correct and is based on the evidence and documents. The first party has not submitted anything as to how the report is perverse. The charges are very grave against the first party and according to the evidence and document* taefore the enquiry officer, charges arc pro\ed. There is no rf>sofl to discard the enquiry report because nothing is made out by the first party so as to say that the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and is not based on the evidence.

13. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the action of the management is correct and it is not disproportionate at all.

14. In the given circumstances it is admitted fact that this Tribunal has little discretion after holding that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper. There is a grave charge of misappro- priation and the charges are very serious in nature. The first party has not worked honestly in the Nationalised Bank and he has committed misconduct and the charges arc proved agamet him.

15. Considering all this I am of the opinion that there no merit in this reference and accordingly! proceed to-pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected aud signed by me on 6th August 2001) V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S. O. 2275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial .Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour CoUri, Kahpur as shown in th&. Armexuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. H2012il2I/S9-lft(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR,'Desk Officer

we?

ANNEXUKE

BEFORE , SHRI RP PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT &ARV0DAYA NAGAR, KANPUR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 255 OF 99 IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN SECRETARY AKHIL BHARTIYA SAMASTA BANK CHATURTH SHRENI KARMCHARI MAHA- SANGH SITANAGAJt FIROZABAD R OD AGRA

AND

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA CfflPRl TOLA BRANCH AGRA.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide its notification no. L-120I2/L21/99/IR(B-I) dated 7-9^99, has referred the following depute for adjudication to this tribunal—

Whether the action of the State Bank of Ir.dia Agra relating to denial of family pension to Smt. Anar Devi widow of lates Sri Dambar Singh is legal and justified? If not to what relkf is the workman's widow is entitled to in this regard. , 2. In the statement of claim it has b ^c alleged that Dambar Singh was a gu^sd in Chipi Tola Branch ,of the Bank. Hu died whilu working as guard in the year 1991. His widow Smt, Anar Dvvi moved an application in the bank for family pension but her request was turned down by the bank. It has been alleged, that as Dambar Singh dial while in service of the bank at, guard, hi* son was aLo c:it:tlnl to get appointment in the bank on compassior ate ground. It hai b ^n alleged that the b.mk refused family pension to Smt. Anar Devi. It is wrong to say that the age of Dambar Singh on tho datu of recruitment was 38 years. It has b . ji alleged that according to the rulc3 Dambir Singh was entitled to get pension and after hij death hn widow is cntitl.d to get family pension. It has b.^en alleged that on a dispute raised on behalf of Smt Anar Dovi, Govern- ment of India, has referred the matter to this tribunal and a direction may be issued to the bank to grant family pension to Smt Anar De\i the w'-dow of Dambar Singh.

3. Thffl management filed written stP-Urnent with the contention that relief for compassionate appoint- ment is bjyond the scope of reference, hence it is not maintainable. It ha& boon alleged that deceased Dambat .Singh was, riot a member of pension fund 'Scheme'Irenes his widow was"also not entitled to. get4W THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SBFTEMSBJU, 2QQ1/BHADRA 10, 1923 TPART I 1 ~ S B C. 3fii)l lamiiy pension. It has boon allogei tnat uocqasea- Dambar Singh was a member of Employees Provi- dentFund but lr was not entitled to get pension faci- lity. As the Provident Fund Scheme and Pension Fund Scheme were two distinct and deffernt schemes ard members of P.F. Scheme cannot not become member of Pensoin Scheme. It has been alleged that at the time of his appointment Pambar Singh was over 38 years of age, hence he was not covered within the provisions of Employees Pension Fund and Gratuity Rules. It has been alleged that his recorded date of birth in the bank is 1-7-37 and his date of joining is 4-6-76 and the date of confir- mation is 4-12-76, thus on the date of confirmation in the service he was 39 years, 9 months and 3 days of ago, hence he was not covered under the provision of Rulo 8 sub section C of the said rules. It has been alleged that Smt. Anar Devi was informed that her husband was not member of Pension Fund Scheme, hence she was not entitled to get family pension. It has been alleged that the claim raised in this case is misconceived and is liable to bt rejected.

4. On behalf of the claimant rejoinder statement has been filed in which the facts alleged in the state- ment of claim have been reiterated. It has been further alleged that the management has given wrong date cf birth and wrong date of appointment and wrong date of confirmation of Dambar Singh, It has been alleged that Dambar Singh was in Military Service buforc joining the service of the bank, hence his service rendered in defence should be excluded while calculating his age on the date of his recruitment and confirmation.

- oi age. Tt^r-cxmtemsm'-ct-me fttrtftotwaff •ttipftita tative for the bank is based on the pleadings of tne management and is also supported by the evidence on the record. It has come in the evidence of Raj Kumar M.W.I that the date of birth of Dambar Singh according to the record of the bark is 1-7-37 and he was appointed on the post of guard in the bank on 4-6-76 and was confirmed after six months from the date of appointment . The management has filed a photocopy of the service sheet of Dambar Singh which is Ext.M.I on the record. This shows that the date of birth of Dambar Singh was 1-7-37 and he was appointed on the post of guard on 4-6-76 and was confirmed on 4-12-76. The management has also filed photocopy of PF Form duly filled by Dambar Singh which is Ext.M.3 on the record. It bears the signatures of Dambar Singh. This document also shows that date of birth of Dambar Singh is 1-7-37 and he was appointed on the post of guard on 4-6-76 and was confirmed on that post on 4-12-76. Thus it is established beyond doubt by the evidence on the record that the date of "birth of Dambar Singh was 1-7-37 and that he was oconfirmed on the post of guard on 4-12-76 and on the date of confirmation he had crossed the ago of 38 years. Thus in view of aforesaid rules he was not entitled to bo a member of Pension Fund Scheme. I, therefore, find force in the case of the management that Dambar Singh being more than 38 years old on the date of confirmation on the post of guard was not entitled to become a membT of Pension Fund Scheme and was also not entitled, to get pension even after retirement. As he was not entitled to get pension his widow was also not entitled to get family pension under rules applicable to the omployces of the bank.

5. On behalf of the claimant Smt. Anar Deyi has bjun LXBmired as W.W.I and 6 documents have been filed marked Ext.W.I to W.6 The bank has examined Raj Kumar Assistant Manager State Bank of India, MJIH Branch Agia, as AM.,.W.I and filed 3 docu- m nts matked M-l to M-3.

7. Although it has boon pleaded on behalf of the claiment that 1-7-37 was not tho correct date of birth of Dambar Singh and, 4-6-76 was not the correct date of his appointment and 4-12-76 was not the correct date of his confirmation but the claimant has not produced any evidence in support of its case as pleaded above. On tho other hand tho case of the claimant stands falsified by overwhelming oral and documentary evidence adduced by the management on this point. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the claimant that Dambar Singh was not above 38 years of age on the date of his con- firmation on the post of guard and he became member of the Pension Fund Scheme.

8. The authorized representative for the claimant has drawn my attentibn towards the circular dated 12-2^87 issued by the t>ank which is Ext.W.I on the record and has argued that relaxation in the upper age limit in the case of ex-military personnel should bo granted in the case of Pension Fund Scheme, also- I have gone through the afore&'aid circular, 6. I have heard the authorised representatives fur thv. p •.rues apd have gone through the record of th, case. Tho authorized representative for the i .v n vm Mt of the bank has argued that as the date of ~OA\h of Sri Dambar Singh was 1-7-37, and he \v z a;ipjintod on the post of guard on 4-6-76 and w,"s conn-med on 4-12-76 he could not bocome member of ihc ?vrv>ion Fund Scheme, because he had crossed the ago of 38 years on the date of his confirmation. He has argued that according to the pension Fund Schem; only that employee of the bank could be mimbji- of the Pension Fund Scheme who is not bjlow the age of 21 years and not above the age of 38 years. He has drawn my attention towards Pension Fund Rules, which are known as State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules. According to Rule 8 of the said rules only that employee could bj monfor of the psnsiori fund scheme wKo is, not bolow the age of 21 years and is not over 38 years4689 which relate*, to the relaxation in the age limit tor recruitment of sub staff. According to this circular Ex-servicemen are entitled to get relaxation in the upper age limit Tor three years plus service in the armed f<>ri.i_. THIS is the ieason thai Danib ir Singh could get appointment on the post of guard even he hud cios:cd the ago of 38 years. This circular regu- late the rcciuilmeiH and has no lebvance l.o lUr ..'s the Pcnsio i Fund Scheme is concerned which is governed by scpai.itc Pension Fund Rules accoiding to which an employee who hab eius^d tho Ligc of 38 years is not entitled lo become membus of ihc Pension Fund Scheme. Thus thio cueuUi is ot no help to the claimant.

9. The authorized icprusentative for the clai- mant has further drawn my attention towards cueU- lar dated 4-6-97 which provides, that if :i pension holding pension-able post retires after completing 10 years of service he shall be cnt.tled to get pension. la my opinion, this circular is of no help m die case of claimant because Dambar Singh admittedly died on 9-7-91 and aforesaid circular cannot be made applicable on him. Secondly according to Rules an employee of the bank who had completed 20 yeais of service became entitled to get pension. Tn my opinion this circului applies only lo those employees who were members of Pension Fund Scheme and only tluy were entitled to get benefit uf ihis circular. Sri Dambur Singh who died in iheyejr 1991 ;md who was not member of Pension Fund Scheme was not entitled to get the benefit of pension under Lhis circular hence his widow was also noi entitled to get family pension.

10. It has been pleaded on behalf of the claimant that the son of Dumbai- Singh was L- niticd to get compassionate appointment as Dambar Singh died while serving the bank as guard. It has been pleaded on behalf of the management that his point is beyond the scope of refemece, hence this question cannot be decided by this Tribunal in this case. I have gone through the order of reference. In the order of reference there is no mention ol giving compassionate appointment to the son of Dambar Singh. I, there- fore, hold that this court cannot decide this question of giving compassionate appointment b.'ing beyond the scope of the present re-ferchce,

11. Tn view of findings recorded above, I hold that the action of the State Bank of India. Agra, m denying family pension to Sml, Anur Devi widow of Sri Dambar Singh is lawful and justified. Sml. Anar Devi is not entitled to get any relief in pursuance of the reference.

12. Refeience is aiT-vwred accordinjv.

R.P. P A N D E Y; Presidinc nffiY. , 2350 CI/200I—U

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexurc in the Indusliial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-12012/123/99-IR (B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RP PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No.247/99

In the matter of dispute between

The Secretary. Akhil BharLiVii Samast Bank C\vitu''th Shivni lOiramchari Singh C.Mitral Olliee New TV Tower, Firo/abad Road Agra

AND

The Assistant Geaeul Manager, State Bank of India, Region No. I Zoral Office Sanjai Place, Agra

AWARD

I. Central Government. Ministry of Labour New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-l 2012/123/99/ IR(B-I) dated 8-9-99 has referred the 'bllowing dis- pute for adjudication to this tribunal-

Whether the claim of the Akhil'Bhartiya Samasla Bank Chatuilh ShrcVi ICi'ramchan Mahasangh that Sii Rama Kant Gupta should b: give i per- manent appointment by the managen-.e u of Stale Bank of India is local and justified? If not to what relief the said workman is ent'tled ?

2. Jn this cast after exchange of pleadings and documents between the parties, wh*n the case was taken up for hearing on 25-7-2001 that is the date of evidence of the workman, the authorized represen- tative for the workman instead of adducing evidence of the workman made an endorsement on the state- ment of claim to the effect that he is not interested to contest the present reference and requested to pans award accordingly.

3. In view of statement of the authorized re- presentative for the workman the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the concerned work- man is not entitled for any relief for want of proof in pursuance of the prtsunl reference.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

R.P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer nt f^fr, 1 7 *nWT, 2 0 01

VT.W.22 7 7-—*1fllPi"t> T$4\A 0fafaiff, 1947 (1947 tt 14) *t £Tm 17 % VZW*t %, %?fl*r tfVPix &z fsp "rN> fffeirr % sronra¹ % " r^ fajforerr faarrc % % ^i n*tnT ?faftPi+ wftTq>T

1 6 - 8 - 2 0 01 ^TSTPW^WT TT I

[tf. r/ff- 12012/148/89-

[Mo. L-12012/148/89-l.R. D-III/(B.I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas,

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(lXd)oftheI.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1990

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Patna and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman :

None.

On behalf of the employers :

Shri Sihabuddin, Law Officer.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Banking Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th July, 2001

AWARD The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in ex- ercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the LD. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/148/89-l.R. O-IJI, dated the 28th Dec, 1989.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank Of India, Tati Jharia, P.O. Tati Jharia, Distt. Hazaribagh in terminating the services of Shri Devender Jaiswal, Canteen Boy of SB1, Tati Jharia, w.e.f. 13-7-86 is legal and justified 7 Tf not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

2. The case of the workman as per W.S. in brief is as follows :

The concerned workman in hJs W.S. submitted that he was a Canteen employee appointed by the management on 14-9-81 and since then with all deligence he discharged his duties as Canteen emp- loyee. It has been alleged that inspite of his conti- nuous work at Tati Jharia branch for about 5 years the management terminated his service without giving any notice on 12-7-86. The management also did not pay any retrenchment compensation to him. He submitted that the cause of his termination from service was that he went on leave for one day prior to the date of termination on account of his illness. It has been further alleged that after terminating his service the management has appointed another Canteen boy to perform duties similar to that of his service and that was so done by the management illegally, artibrarily and with some ill motive. The concerned workmafi further submitted that he was an employee of the Bank in view of the Decision of the Shastry/Desai Award and also in respect of the fact that recurring and non-recurring expenditure of staff canteen are financed by the Bank's Staff Welfare Fund which consists of funds sanctioned annually by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank out of the Annual profits earned by them. He submitted further that at each local head office there is a Circle Welfare Committee consisting of the Bank's Chief General Manager, one of the General Managers, Personnel Manager, three members of 469)

by Itoe raariagirnent & pot agro"tfitiftt dtttrtwfl. Into between the Federation and Apex Body representing the Award staff in the Bank. The management further submitted that the canteen run at the Tati Jharia does not fall Within the category when the Bank is running the eanteeft. The management submitted that all the allegations made by the concerned workman are false and fOr which the concerned workman is not entitled to get any rolief by raising the instant industrial dispute. The management therefore submitted to pass an Award dismissing the claim of the concerned workman,

4. The points for decision in this referenc <

arc

"Whether the action of the management o j

State Bank of India, Tati Jarfa, P. O. Tati Jharia, Distt. Hazaribagh in terminating the services of Shri EJevefider Jaiswal, Canteen Boy of- SBI Tati Jharia w.c.f. 13-7-86 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled '.'"

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

5. It is seen that the f management in order to officers staff and five members of Award (Cites HI and Class IV) staff. Circle Welfare Committee allots funds to Local Implementation Committee at the Branch/other establishment levels for different staff Welfare activities including canteens. Books and accounts of the canteen are kept in a manner as laid down by the Bank and these are periodically audited by the Bank Branch Inspector/Auditor. All vouchers pertaining to the expenses of canteens put through are to be passed by the Branch Manager or Accountant or any authorised officer of the Bank. All such vouchers are to be kept for inspection/audit by the Branch Inspector/Branch Auditor of the Bailk. All vouchers/receipts are retained in date-wise order in monthly bundles like suspense account vouchers for examination at the time of the next inspection/ audit of the Branch. Local Implementation Committee is the creature of the Bank. It figures as an intermediary between the canteen employee and the flank management. Tt has no independent activity. The Committee takes direction and advices frofo the Circle Welfare Committee who in turn take their instructions and advices from the management. He submitted that as pet rule of th* Bank a temporary subordinate cadre employee was entitled to be absor- bed in permament service after completion of nitte month* service but inspite of the said rules the management did not consider necessary to absorb him in permanent service on the contrary violating the principles of natural justice illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service with effect from 13-7-86 with- out holding any enquiry. Accordingly the concerned workman submitted his prayer to pass an Award holding his entitlements to subordinate cadre with effect from th" data of his appointment and his re- iristatement in the Bank's service with retrospective effect.

substantiate the olaim examined three witnesses. The concerned workman irtspite of getting scope to adduce evidence did not examine a single witness. MW-1 Shri K.. M. Panday during his evidence disclosed that Tati Jharia Branch of SBI faJfe within the jurisdiction of Rejstena] IV of SBI Zonal Office, Ranehi. This witness during his evidoace disclosed that the concerned workman was never an employee under the Bank arid in support of his claim he relied on the fay slip of the Staff of the Sftid Stanch which dtirJrtg his evidence w^s marked as Ext. M-t Even fhc concerned worktnari being aa employee of the. Bank did Dot sigft the Attendance Register. Photo copy of the Attendance Rflgtetdr was marked as Ext. M-3. I have consideredj the Attendance Register and pay sheet. It transpires clearly the neither salary of the concerned workman was disbursed as per the said pay sheet nor he siened the Attendance Register being a regular staff of the Bank. This witness disclosed that Bank runs a oanteon where staff stfongth excited 200 but where the streiigth of the stiffe is less than 200 the caflteeH is njfl by the Local Implementa- tion Commlttte. This committee is the Welfare committee Of the Staff of that place. The appointment of any fanteen boy to stifh area where tbe strength is below 200 is not made by the State Bank of India. The termination of su"li canteen boy h also not done by the S.B.L TM& 3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder has denied all the claims and allegation whioh the concerted Workman asserted in his W.S. H has been submitted by the manage- ment that the appointment of the concerned work- mart was made by the Local Implementation Com- mittee which runs and manages such canteen for staff Welfare. This committee engages the Canteen Boy on their own behalf and not on behalf of the Ba.uk or for the Bank. These canteens run by mem- bets of the staff through their representative to cater their daily tea etc. and as such it has nothing to do with the activities of the Bank and as such the dispute raised doas not fall within the ambit of Sec- tion 2(k) read with Sec. 2S of the I.D. Act, 1947 so far as Bank is concerned- The management has categorically denied the fact that the concerned workman was appointed by the Bank as Staff of the Bank. It has been itatod that facility of Caafocn to the members of the staff are provided4692 THE GAZETTE OF INDfA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 fpART II—SEC. 3(iij] witness further disclosed that Sbastri Award and Desai Award is not applicable to the Canteen Boy where the canteen is run by the local implementation committee. They are not emitted to get any bouys and other facilities which the stafT of the Bank are entitled to get. From the evidence of this witness it transpires that at the relevant time the staff strength of Tati Jharia branch was below 5. He submitted that the cheques relating to meeting the expenditure of the canteen are signed by the President and the Secretary of the Local Implementation Committee and in support of the claim he relied on the document marked as EXI. M-2 series. Salary of the concerned workman was also paid through cheque duly signed by the Secretary or President of the Local Implementation Committee. This witness also relied on Ext. M-5 and M-6 duly signed by the President and Secre- tary, Circle Welfare Committee relating to allocation of recurring expenses and Staff Welfare Fund. The photocopy of the letter signed by the Secretary, Local Implementation Committee dt. 8-11-85 during evidence of this witness was marked as Ext. M-8. During cross-examination this witness disclosed that the fund to the local implementation committee was allocated by the Bank by debiting Bank charges account The salary of the "Jaff is paid through establishment by debiting Bank charges account. MW-2 and MW-3 in course of their evidence corroborated the fact disclosed by MW-1' relating tu the procedure by which the staff canteens are run at respective branch of the SBJ. The witnesses disclosed categorically that where staff strength is more than 200 canteen in that case Canteens arc ran- by the Bank but where the staff strength is less than 200 the canteen is run by the local implementation committee. The committee is provided only with the subsidy by the Bank anil not the pay of the staff. The subsidy to the committee is paid after debiting charges account Sundries. Therefore,, considering the evidence of MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 and also considering the documents procduced by the mauagmement in course of hearing it transpires clearly that where the ntaft strength of the Bank exceeds 200 in that . case the canteen of the said Bank is run by the management but wheic the staff strength of the Bank is less than 200 in such case local Canteen is run by the Local Implementation Committee. The Bank authority only gives subsidy in the matter ol running the canteen for benefit of the staff. It is also clear that the Local Implementation Committee for running of the Canteen is entitled to appoint any staff and in no way the Bank authority is involved in that regard. Only subsidy to* the committee is • paid after debiting charges accounts.

-Sundry. It is -the submission, of the. management that the concerned workman was not at all the employees of the Bank and for which they had no role at all in the matter of termination of their service. In course of hearing the concerned workman inspite of getting opportunity has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that he was catually appointed by the Bank authority as Canteen Boy. He has also failed to file a scrap of paper to show that he received his salary through salary sheet issued by the Bank, that he used the sign the Attendance register of the Bank as regular employee. It is the specific submission of the management thai where the Canteen in r un by the Local Implementation Committee the Bank had no role in the matter of its management The authority allows some subsidy for smooth runing of the canteen for the interest and benefit of the Bank staff thtough the funds to the Local Implementation Committee is allocated by the Bank by debiting Bank charges accounts. There is no scope to say that for the said reason the canteen is run by the Bank authority. The representative of the management in course of hearing relied on decisions reported in 2000 Lab. 1C page 1481 and AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1241. In the decision reported in 2000 Lab. IC Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that Shastry Award does not cast any obligations on State Bank of India to provide canteen facilities by tunning a Canteen. The employees of canteen run by the Local Implementation Committee can not claim to be absorbed as employees of the Bank. Their Lordships further held that employees of the canteen which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committees as per the Welfare Scheme framed by the SBI Could not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such canteens. In the decision reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Cour page 124 J Their Lordship of the Apex Court held the same view. Therefore, considering the decisions referred to above there is sufficient scope to say that when a canteen employee is appointed by the Local Implementation Committee he cannot claim to he a regular staff of the Bank concerned. It is seen in the evidence MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 that the concerned workman as employed as canteen boy by the Local Imple- mentation Committee and not by the management. Nationally the management had no role in the matter of termination of his service. Inspite of knowing fully well of the fact the concerned workman claimed himself to be a regular stall ' under the management but in course o t, hearing4693 the concerned workman has failed to justify his claim lamentably. After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the allegation which the concerned workman made against the concerned management about his illegal and arbitrary termination finds no basis at all. Accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered :

"The action of the management of State Bank of India, Tati Jharia, DistL Hazaribagh in terminating the services of Shri Devender Jaiswal, Canteen Boy of SBT T^ti Jharia w.e.f. 13-7-86 is legal and justified, Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- trial Tribunal I, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Irdia and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-I2012/187/99-IR (B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-I HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tribunal-I.

Dated : 2nd day of July, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DEPUTE No. 50 OF 1999 2550 Gl/2001—15

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Mariyadass, Ex-Temporary Messenger, C/o. Kornclus Reddy, Gari Church, Ayyappa Nagar, Vijayawada, A.P. —Petitioner AND

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Labbipct, Vijayawada, A.P. —Respondent APPEARANCE :

M/s. P. Lakshmi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Sri B. G. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Letter No. L-I2012/187/99/IR (B-I), dt. 9-8-1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dis- pute to this Tribunal, for adjudication in between the workmen and the management on the issue mentioned in the Schedule noted b -low :

"Whether the action of the management is not absorbing the services of Shri P. Mariadas, Sr. Most Temporary Sub-Staff to permanent status and thereafter terminating his services is justified. If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from what date ?"

Aftor the appearance of the parties, they filed sepa- rate pleadings.

2. Briefly stated the facts mentioned in the claim statement are as under ;—

The Petitioner workman joined as Temporary Messenger on 5th July, 1985 in Kothapet Branch, S.B.I., Vijayawada Zone and worked from 5-7-1985 to 21-9-1985. Again from 2-5-1986 to 21-5-1986, he worked at Gandhinagar Branch. Again on 17th and 18th February, 1987 ho worked in Patamata Branch. In all he worked for 91 days in all the branches. The Respondent had issued a Notification on 1-8-1988 for appointment of regular full time or part-time messengers in the S.B.I, which is to the effc-ct that temporary staff who worked as full time or part time in the Bank are eligible to apply for the said post with a condition that he had worked after 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 for an aggregate period of 30 days in any calendar year or one must have worked for 70 days on temporary basis within 36 calendar months. The pw-titioner had fulfilled the said condi- tion and so he applied for the appointment of a regular full time/part time Messenger. An interview was conducted during 1989 in which the Petitioner4694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SfiPJEMipR 1. 2GG1/BHABRA 10, 1923 [PART H—5EC. 3(ii)] was abo selected and his nam^ was kept in empiiel- ment list keeping him at S, No. 9, The list was for- warded after completion of selection and cmpanel- ment to Patamata Branch for appointing the peti- tioner as regular Messenger. The Petitioner worked for 788 days in Patamata Branch, Vijayawada Zone and in other Branch 78 days. In total 866 days. While so, the Respondent without continuing him in service, by an oral order terminated him siting that he is not possessing eligible cond'tions for regular appointment which is illegal, aibitrary and unjust. Hence prayed to hold an enquiry into the matter directing the Respondent to set aside the termination order, ordering reinstatement and firther to direct the Respondent to regularise his service with conse- quential benefits.

3. The Respondent filed counter ard in brief ;he

facts are as under :

The petition averments are all not true and the same are denied and that the Petitioner is pur to strict proof of the same. The Petitioner never worked for 240 days in any yea/. It is not correct that he was terminated from seivice. Dcpe*. dbg upon the availabiiity of the work, the put'tioner was engaged as-a temp3rary messenger. As such, the question of termination does not arise. The Respondent is not an industry and that the pct-tioner is not a workman within the provisions of the I.D. Act. On 17th November, 1977 the Management and the Employees Federation have entered into an agreement under Section 18(1) of the I D. Act and signed it and by means of which the temporary employees are cate- gorised into three categories i.e. A, B and C category'. 4s p^r the agreement, temporary employees, cate- gorised above, would be giver chance for b"mg

. considered for pet mancnt appointment in the Manage- ment Banks service against the vacancies likely to fPSo during the years S987 to 1991. Subsequently, .-other agreement dt. 16th July, 1980 was entered rao for agrccirg to substitute the period for being CO'ISKV -rtd for peimanent appointment in the Bank

mpectivch by fubrtstutirg the years 1992 with 1994 of the first settlement dt. 17-11-1987. On the basjs of the settlement, ^he Management had prepared a panel of selected candidate;, of temporary employee⁵- The said panel was prepared Zone-wise. The Fede- ration approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad for implementation of the Bipartite Settlement in respect of absorption of tern-, porary workman. A conciliation was arrived at agreeing that both the panels of tempe-rary employees and daily wages/casual labour will be kept alive upto March, 1977 and vacancies will be filled up from both the lists concurrenily Again a fifth settlement dt. 13th July, 1996 was entered into agreeing that both the panels will be kept alive upto March, 1997. Again on 27th February, 1997 a Memorandum of understanding was signed between the Federation and the Management Bank regarding the fact that the exercise of identifying the messenger vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by the Central Office thereby 403 messengmal vacancies were sanctioned to this Circle. It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temp&j&ry employees - after affecting conversion of full time, n&nTjnesseBger staff in the usual, manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. By means of the settlement dt. 30-7-1996 both the panel of temporary employees/dafty wages, casual employe* would lapse on 31-3-1997. All those applicants whe have, put in more number of days have been absorbed. The Petitioner had put in an aggregate temporary service less-than? 249 days in a continuous 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988, so he had no right to seek direction to consider the candidature for absorption under any other rute/law except under the said settlement and other settlements entered into thereon. The Management' has,not violated anj of the provisions in the terms of the • above settlement aa alleged, The temporary -service rendered during the period from 1-1-1975 to 31-7-1988 is only to be taken for permanent absorption and number of days worked subsequent to this period are not counted as per the agreement! As the panel had,, elapsed on 31-3-1997 engaging services temporarily does not arise. The Petitioner was not kept at S. No. 9 in the empanelment as alleged and his number was at 597 in the list. In this connection, it is to be noted that number of days of temporary services put in by an erupanelnient of the employees after the cut off date*was not to be considered and any length of such temporary seivice does not give any right to perma- nemt appointment. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in Shankarshon Dash V. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC page 1612) held that inclusion of the candidate's name in the merits, does not confer any right for selection. So also, in another Syndicate Bank Vs. Shanker Paul 1997 (6) ScC page, (584) it was. held4695 that tho wait list for a specific period and if it lapses, the wait listed persons do not have any further right. So also in Sanjay V. Vs. Union of India [ 1997 (4) S cC page 283 ] it was held that the wait listed candi- dates have no right for appointment as there are no vacancies. Hence prayed to ditmiss the claim of the Petitioner as not maintainable.

4. The point for consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled for the rolief as prayed for ?

5". To substantiate tho claim, the Petitioner him- self examined as W.W.I and reinterated the factual aspects averred in the claim sfatement and also filed few documents which were marked as Exs. Wl to W16. On the side of the Respondent Bank, the Assistant General Manager of S.B.I., Vijayawada, was examined as M.W.I to elaborate the stand takon in the counter, by producing Exs. Ml to M7.

6. The main contention of the workman is that since he worked for more than 240 days in an year as temporary Messenger and by means of Ex Wl notification he became eligible for selection for per- manent vacancy and that his name was kept in the selection Panel at SI. No. 9 and subsequent to the selection 'in all he worked for 866 days in different •State Bank of India branches of Vijayawada Circle, while so he was Orally terminated from service w.e.f. 31-3-97 as such tho termination amounts to retrench- ment which is contrary to Section 25(F) of I.D. Act. 7.' Whereas the respondent's rival contention is that the- Management could either act arbitrarily or go against the terms of tho settlement that were entered into between the employees union and the Management from time to time covered by Exs. M3, M4 and M6. It is on the basis of settlerrent for absorbing temporary' part time Messengers/casual soparate panels were prepared zone-wise in discen- doncy order of temporary¹ service put in by the candi- dates during the stipu lated period i.e. 1-7-75 to 31-7-88. As per MOU dt. 22-7-97, the Central Office had identified 403 messenger's vacancies as on 31-12-94 and sanctioned the same to Vijayawada for filling it from 1989 panel, and it was agreed in the settlement dated 30-7-96 that the panels of temporary employees and daily wage casual employoe would lapse on 31-3-97. Thus all the 403-vacancies wore filled up and absorbed from the eligible candidates of the panels who have more number of day:- and seniority than the workman herein. As the work- man's- temporary sorvice in an aggregate is less than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 months during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 he cannot seek for absorp- tion out of the way without adhering to the settl - ment dated 17-11-87, 16^7-88, 27-10-68, 9-1-91'and 30-7-88,

8. As the workman has been harping that he was discontinued from service which amounts to retrench- mont as per Section 2(00) and 2 (BB) read with Section 25(F), it is necessary to consider the factual aspects and evidence on record to find out the truth or otherwise and the legal irapJi cations thereby.

9. As per the settlement (supra) the workman was considered to include his name in the panel of 'C category as he worked only for 89 days as on 31-7-88 and he was empaneled in the list at SI, No. 597. Some of the settlements wero questioned by some of tha employees by filing a Writ No. 12964/94 whieh was dismissed as such the same issue cannot be decided and that as the settlement havo got statutory force and it binds the workman also.

10. Either during the relevant period of Ex.Wl notification i.e., 1*7-75 to 31-7-88 or subsequently the workman had not worked for the period conti- nuously exceeding 240 days so except the eligibility for empanelinent in 1989 panel he could not get any right by it.

11. The workman in his cross examination admitted that as per the Ex.Wl notification a selec- tion was made and his name was kept in the panel showing at SI.No. 597 but not SI, No. 9 as asserted by him. Also admitted that E.X.W2 Seniority list showing the names of the employees temporary Messengors exclusively relates to the persons worked in patamata branch but not the Zonal Seniority list of temporary employees Vijayawada circle, In this context the evidence of MW1 is to be read together in which he clarified that of the workman during the relavent period i e, 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 had worked only for 89 days so he falls under the category 'C as per the settlement Ex.Ml. By the date of lapse of 1989 panel i.e., on 31-3-97 the panel exhausted with a serial No. 227 so the workman could not get the selecti on

12. MWl was suggested in the cross examination that without exhausting the candidates of 1989 panel the management had absorbed the candidates of 1992 panel, for which he answered that on the basis of the settlement dated 1741-77 and subsequent Amend- ment the vacancies arose upto 1994 were filled up from out of the 1989 panel and since the agreement had lapsed by 31-3-97 the panel also had lapsed. He also clarified that candidates of 1992 panel were taken from the category of general attendants as per the 'MOU' dated 27-2-97. According to him the workman since he Worked on leave vacancy on daily wage basis there was hor relationship of employer and employee-relationship exist at all, and as per the settlement the empanelled 'candidates should not claim continuous of service, Unless ^they get 'Qbsorp- tion permanently.

13. The object and scope of Industrial Dispute Act is to achieve social justice and to protect the interest of workmen from being exploited and also to see for the advance for the progress of industries, keeping harmony and the cordial relationship between the workers and the management,

14, Section 25(F) (G) and (N) of the Act arc enacted to protect the rights of workman who had continuous service of not less than 240 days in the preceding 12 months in a calendar year, and such employees cannot be wrongfully terminated from service at the will and pleasure of employer. In the background of the legal principles and the evidence available on record which on its scrutiny makes clears that the workman had never worked exceeding 240 days in any calendar month during his temporary service and his name was kept at SI.No. 557 in Cate- gory 'C of the selection panel of 1989 on the basis of 89 days of continuous working days to his credit during the relevant period. Though his name was \n the selection panel of 1989 he could not get the chance as the panel had lapsed by 31-3-97 which was on account of the subsequent bipartite settlement entered into between the parties, Both the union and management arc bound by the terms of settlements covered by Ex.M3, M4 and M6 entered into between them from time to time. The workman is also bound by the settlements. When some ol¹ the aggrieved employees have questioned the settlements in a writ and the same was dismissed it has a binding affect on all the temporary employees who are the members of the association. The claim of the workman thut without exhausting 1989 panel, the candidates of 1992 panel were absorbed is not tenable, as the panel related to the future vacancies arose in 1995 upto the end of 1996. The temporary service rendered by the workman after the cut off dated 31-12-97 cannot"be taken into consideration for selection as per Ex.Wl notiflcatioa

15. Regarding absorption of temporary employees or for reguJarisation of the services, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines from lime to time and in a decision reported in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh (AIR 1992) Supreme Court page 9130, made it clear that the court must act under due care and caution before issuing a direction to the management for absorption of temporary employees or to regularise their services, It cannot be denied that the workman had joined on dai.'y wage in the leave vacancy with an understanding that his work ceases astand when the permanent employee returns back to duty.

16, Similarly in another decision in Tarun Kundu Vs. .Skte of Bengal 2001 LLl (Calcutta) page 258, -add in a decision HinianshU'Kumar Vidyarthi vs. Stat? of Bihar 1998 2 LLJ Supreme' Cotirt at page 15\ it was held that mere completion of 240 days in one calendar year does not confer right to claim a benefit and non continuation or absorption cannot be termed as retrenchment

17. It is interesting to note that Apex Court has made it clear in the following decisions regarding the panels of selection and merit lists layin down the legal position that wait listed condidate in the selec- tion list cannot have a claim that he should be appointed when no vacancies available or that the list was cancelled for any other reason viz., (1) Shanker Shahundas vs. Union of India AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 1612. (2) Syndicate Bank vs, Sharpaul 1997. 6 Supreme Court cases page 584. (3) Sanjay vs. Union of India 1997 4 SCC page 283.

18. The principles laid down in the above deci- sions folly supports the contentions of the respondent making it clear the helpless position which prevented in absorbing the workman on permanent basis which is bonafide and it cannot be considered as unfair labour practice or victimisation. Therefore the claim is devoid of merits.

19. In the result an Award is passed holding that the action of the management is> justified in not absorbing the Services of the workman i.e>, Sri P. Maria Das, temporary staff of permanent status and thereafter terminating his services. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 2nd day of July,' 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal-I APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witness Examined for Witness Examined for the Petitioner: the Respondent:

WW1 P. Maria Das MW1 L Jaya Prakash Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.Wl Xerox "opy of the notification.

Ex.W2 List of empanelled candidate WW1 is at SI. No. 9.

Certificate of the Branch Manager Kothap

Ex.W3 4-3-86

Ex.W4 Certificate of the Branch Manager andbi 8-7-86 Nagar Branch for 18 days from 2-5-86 to 21-5-86.

Ex.W5 Certificate of the Branch Manager Patamata Branch for 2 days 17/18-2-87.

Ex.W6 Letter from the Zpnal Office .to the Apt.

General Manager.

18-3-97

Letter of the Union regarding the SajSpdfnt- Ex.W7 6-3-97 ment of temporary employees leave reserve by way of part time general attendants in Messenger cadre.

Representation made to the ACL Vijayawada.

Ex.W8 30-10-98

Ex.W9 Written Statement filed by the Bank before ACL.

*

Certification for 95 days 4-3-91 to 29-5-91, Ex.W10 8-7-91

Certificate for 179 days 13-7-92 to 31-1-93.

Ex.Wll 1-2-93

Certificate for 200 days 3-8-93 to 9-3-94.

Ex.W12 11-3-94

Certificate for 53 days 5-10-94 to 2-12-94.

Ex.W13 10-1-95

Certificate worked for half pay from 11-9-95 to 13-3-95.

Ex.W14 13-9-95

Certificate for 18-9-95 to 22-4-96 for 199 days.

Ex.W15 10-5-96

Certificate for 156 days 4-10-96 to 31-31-97.

Ex.W16 31-3-97

EX.W17 Circular of 8/91 of the Bank appointment should be made from panel.

Documents marked for the Respondent:

Settlement

Ex.Ml

17-11-87

Ex.M2 Settlement

16-7-88

Settlement dated 27-10-88.

Ex.M3

Ex.M4 Settlement dated 9-1-1991.

Ex.M5 Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings dated 9-6-95.

Ex.M6 Settlement dated 30-7-1996.

Ex.M7 Memorandum of understanding dated 27-2-1997.

4t&7 New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S.O. 2279.—-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishs the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-12012/223/92-IR (B-3)(B-Ij]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/93

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI K.M, RAI Shri Ramsingh Karosia, S/o Kalyan Singh, R/o House No. 1916, Lalmati, single Quarter, Gharaapur, Jabalpur Applicant Versus

The Regional manager,, State Bank of India, Regional Office No. 2, Marhatal, Jabalpur The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Waraseonj, Distt. Balaghat (MP) Non-applicants

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of August, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-I2012/223/92-IR(B-3) dated 17-2-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Ramsing Karosia w.e.f. 30th April, 1991 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the work- man is entitled to and from what date?"

2. The case for the workman is that he was appointed as a security guard on the permanent vacancy by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat vide order dated 3-5-90 in compliance with the order of Regional Manager, Jabalapur dated 12-2-90'. His probation period was of 6 months, His work was found4W THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER -1, 2001/BHADRA 10, 1923 [PART I I -- S EC 3fii)] is just and proper and therefore does not require any interference by this court. H is not entitled to re- instatement with back wages

5. The following issues arise for decision in this

case and my findings thereon aie noted hereinafter :

1. Whether the services of *he-workmanrwore illegally terminated by the management w.e.f. 30-4-91?

2. Whether the workman is entitled to reiAOWte-

ment with back wages?

3. Relief and costs?

6. isftucNd 1 :

satisfactory 'dUrieg the probation period-and there- fore the management extended the period of his Service'for 3 months rriore-vidcofder dated 3CMO-9O Withfout any "Weak in the Service. Thereafter >ttgain hi? period of swvfce'Was Extended for a farther- period cf 3 months vide order dated 2-2-91. He conti- nuously Worked in the'flank for mote tHan 240 days in a caleridaf year 'preceedmg the date of his termina- tion from'service'-w.e.f. s e - ^ l / P r t or to terhtinatton 6f his' service, the mitnftge'frient -neither served him with one month statutory notice as laid down in Sec. '2§^F of the I.D. Act, 1947,-nor he was paid any ratrenohmont compensation in lieu of his dispensing his services. The termination order passed by the management is, therefore, illgeal and deserves to be quashed. He is ^entitled to< remstatoment with back wages > and' dtfter ^monetary' benefits.

3. The case for the management is that the workman was appointed as- sedtfrity guard'ton 3J5:90 at the Waraseoni branch of the Bank on< probation for the period of six months. The conduct and work of the applicant was found unsatisfactOTy during the period of probation and therefore the 'proba- tionery period was extended for a period df 3 months more from 3-11-90. Even after the 'dxtentibn of probation period, the workman did not^tWprove his conduct at all. The management further ex- tended his period of probation for 3'months from 3-2-91 to 2-5-91. It was found that the wcfrkm&n remained absent without permission from l*'10*90 to 8-11-90. He had also not filed any application for the grant of leave to the Coirtptttdnt Authority. During the entire period of probation, it wafc'fauhd that the work and conduct of the¹ Workmamwas far from satisfactory.

the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st September, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chap- ter V and VI (except sub-section (i) of Sec- tion 76 and Sections 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 Andhra Pradesh namely :—

"All the areas within Municipal limits of Kukatpally except the areas wherein ESI Scheme is already in force and the Revenue village of Nizampet in Qutbullapur Mandal in Rangareddy District of Andhra Pradesh."

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

[No. S-38013|20|2001-SS.l] S.O. 2280.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section of the Section 1 of

M. C. MITTAL, Dy. Secy.

Piintad by the Manager G->\. of India PrcM, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064

pad Published by the Controller of PuWhntfioM, D"lhH 10054, J001