This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

Tn the r^vlt. th:s retjtion is d^missed. The order of dis- m'ssal of the petitioner from the service is confiimed. Each partv do bear their own co->ts.

Tvpcd to my dotation, corrected and pronounced by me in the on"i court on this, 19th day of July, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Cfetarmao-cum-Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Workman : For Management :

-Nil-

-Nil-

Exhibits

fFor workman :

-Nil-

For Management :

Ex. M-l dt. 15-5:80 Warning letters issued to the petitioner, xerox copy.

Ex. M-2 dt. 30-4-80 Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-3 dt. 27-7-98 Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-4 dt. 2-8-98 Reply to the charge-sheet.

Ex. M-5 dt. 2-8-98 Enquiry notice.

Ex. M-6 d>. 7-8-98 Enqujy proceedings alongwith the documents.

Ex. M-7 dt. 7-8-98 Enquiry report.

Ex. M-8 dt. 20-10-98 Show-cause notice.

Ex. M-9 dt. 23-10-98 Ack., to the show-cause notice.

Ex. M-10 dt. 6-1-99 Dismissal order.

Ex. M-ll dt. 29-3-99 Letter issued to the petitioner by the Director (CP & P).

Tf fswff, 16 worker, 2001

^i.m. 2 3oo:—srWrfw faKftwTvfam, 1947 ( 1 9 47 spf 14) €r srr

[#. r^T-420 12/93/91-^T-II (^1)]

^. "ft. %rvRH, f^> STRJ^.TT ^Jew Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

S.O. 2309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industral Dispute between the employers in relation to tho management of BBMB and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-42012/93/91-D. II(B)1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B.L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. ID 15 of 1992

The General Secretary, BSL Project Mazdoor Ekta Union, S. 1|51, Sunder Nagar Township (HP) 174402.

. . Petitioner.

Vs.

Executive Engineer, Hvdel Channel Divn., & Gate, B.B.M.B. Sundej-nagar Township (HP) 174402.

,. Respondent.

Representatives :

For the workman : Shri Dhani Ram,

For the management : Mrs. Neeru Chadha.

AWARD

,(Passed on 20th July 2001)

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notifi- cation No. L-42012|93|91-D.2(B) dated 4th March 1992 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudi- cation :

"Whether the action of the management of BHMB Sundernagar Township in terminating the services of Shri Moti Lai, S|o Puran Chand w.e.f. 1-8-89 is justified? If not, what reliief he is entitled to?" 2, Case taken up today at the request of the rep. of the wotkman does not want io proceed with the present reference workman does not want to proceed with the present lefcrence as he has been re-employed by the man'jgemen*. In view of the statement of the rep. of the workman the present refe- rence is returned as No dispute Award. Appropriate Govern- ment be informed.

Chandigarh

20-7-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

S.O. 2301.—In pursuance of Soctkm 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award¹ of the Central Government In- dustiial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was icccived by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

fNo. L-22O12|394|93-IR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Offlcei

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer

Reference No. OGIT : 15212000

Th= Sub Area Manager, fiajtn Colliery, WCL

AND

Shri Baban Zamlu Gadhawe (Workman)

AWARD

adjudication vide order No. L-22012/394/93-IR(C-II) dated 16-3-94 on following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of the Sub Area Manager, Rajur Cojliery oit WCL, £JO- : Rajur, Tah-Wani, Distt, Yavatmal in terminating the services of Shri Baban Zamlu Gcdhawe. Ex- Fitter-Helper Rajur Colliery is justified or not 7 If not then to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

This refeience] was sent by Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 16-3-94 to C.G.I.T. Mumbai Tribunal No. I, This file was received by transfer from Mumbai to this Court in, June, 2000.

The workman Baban Zamlu Gadhawe was appointed as Loader on 23-7-81 at Rajur Colliery of WCL. He. was pro- moted as Catgory-I Majdoor from 1-5-83. He waa iurtner promoted as Fitter Helper on 1-4-84. In 1991 he wo^ki-d for 91 days and in the year 1992 from January, 92 In December, 92 he worked for 94 days, Chargesheet was issued against him 25-2-93 as he was in the habit of re- maining absent without any leave. He submitted reply to the chargesheet on 19-3-93. Shri Gohukar was apponted as Enquiry Officer on 28-3-93. The service of. the workman was terminated vide order dated 26-5-93.

The workman Baban Z. Gadhawe has stated that he was not given apportunity to be represented or to take the help of co-worker during enquiry. The documents were rot giv;n to him. The enquiiy report and show cause notice were not given to him before imposing punishment

He also says that he was promoted as Fitter Helper from 1-4-84, whereas his juniors got promotion early. The authority concerned demanded bribe from him and due to not making any payment his service was terminated. He claimed for reinstatement with full backwages.

The management of WCL has stated that the performance of the workman was unsatisfactory. The workman had developed the habit of remaining absent from duty in- authonsely. He was not getting his leave sanctions! fiom the Superior Officers. In 1992 he Worked only for 94 days. The copy of chargesheet was given to him. The workman Baban Z, Gadhawe submitted his Written Explanation on 19-3-93. He was advised to take the help of th= co worker. He told the Enquiry Officer that he would conduct the case hmself and does not want to take the assistance of co- worker. Ho attended the enquiry and himself cross examined 1he witnesses of management. He produced documents in defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted finding that (.harges were proved apainst him and his pSrvice was terminated vida Letter No. WCL-RSASAM-PER-93-617 dpted 26-5-93. The stoiy for demanding the bribe is false. He did not raise any dispute before ALC regarding his Issue of hen:o;lty.

Both the parties hi this cast hr.vj submitted oral and documentary evidence. I have heard the advocates of both the parties and have prepared the oral and documentary evidence on record.

Babun Z. Gadhawfe fb" yrotVmm. submitted his affidavit on 4-7-96 and was cross examined bv the advocate of WCL in C.G.I.T. Court ill Mumbai.

The witness of management S.M. Gohakar has also submitted his affidavit in C.G.I.T. No. I in Mumbai on 10-7-97. He was cross examined in this court by the advocate of workman M. S. Nandanwar on 26-9-2000. The counsel for workman further called this witness for cross examination and he was further cross examined pn 3-4-2001.

Both the parties h.w: also submitted their Written Argu- ments through their advocates.

He also admitted that he did not take any co-employee or ihe union worker to deiend turn m we enquiry piOccc- Uuiys. iic aucmiai me enquuy and had signea uii yi^eia OJ tiic Liinuuy piuLVLtlUiga. He was supplied with the list of witness aim uiu cup.ts oi me ducurauits timing the enquiry, We iuu uui Lompidiu ajjtiiitoL me wnn"ii"i Mr, Inooi and Mr. iviuuun wnu weic eA.iui

Thu" the woikman has admitted that enquiiy was :uu- Uu-Ltu lH.ny and ne was given opportunity LO tiuas gamine tne wuiittaes oi nitiuaHtiiivin, kic had no grievance against tno Jtuqu.iy Oinccr b. .N. Gorakar.

ihe sfacwuent of Shri S, N. Gohak-ir was also rtvOrded Lii this touri. ne mentioned in crosi aamumiiun mat tiom inn, ± w/ to Det, iyy£ the wontmaii iidd worKeu iur yi days, i-ie remained present on duty ior 94 days m iV'jl as mentioned ir< tiie cnargesneet. Me turther says tnat i.i. 1J. bingh was me i-resenug Umccr from the siue ot hiaiuueinent. Aiitr lhac U, P. Liodeahwai was appointed in nis place. ihe statement ot D.F, Uodeshwar was recoidea on ~J-4-9J. tit wu3 cross examined by the woikuian. He had no piejuditi. wuh llie workman, he further says, that tue woikman wai given opportunity to produce the detence.

The counsel for the workman has argued that the work- man was denied opporunity to delcnd himself, 'ihm ULHU- ment of the counsel tor tne workman has jap force in the above circumstances.

I therefore hold that enquiiy was conducted fairly and according to the principles of the Natural justice, Tho counsel for the workman further argued lhai tile puuisnmunt awarded to the workman i.e. teimmatinfl uoiu service is dispropoitionale to the alleged charge.

1 have considered the argument of the counsel of the workman. As I discusoed above the workman has himself admitted in his reply to the chargeshect dated 19-3-93, that ho did not mention about any illness. He had under- stood tho contents of the charseshcets whui he submitted iiia leply. It is therefore clear that the workmau did uu. explain any convincing leason ioi his abscn;e lroin duty aj many as 271 days during the year 1992. He wojked tor only 94 days in 1992 and remained absent for 271 days. In the year 1991 also he worked only for 91 days. It is ihe.e- fore clear that the workman was in the habit of remaining absent from duty without any satisfactory explaiiution. In the chaigesheet it is clearly mentioned that in Jan, 1992 his attendance was nil. He did noi work for any day in Jan. 1992. Prom July, 92 to Dec, 92 he was contineously jfbsent io: 6 months. lie did not woik even for a singlu dj.y from July, 92 to Dec, 92. In the above circumstances the punish- ment awarded to him the termination of his service by the management of Sub Area Manager, Rajpur Colliery of WCL v.;is justified. Tho workman is not entitled for any othci relief.

ORDER

The action of the management of Sub Area Manager Rajur Colliery of WCL, P.O. Rajur, Tah. Wani, Distt. Vuvatmal in terminating the sen ices of Shri Baban Zamlu tiadhawe, Ex-Fitter Helper, Rajpur Colliery is justified.

The workman Baban Zamlu Gadhawe is not entitled for nny other relief.

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 S.O. 2302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government Iwicby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employeis ii relation to the management of WCL and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-22012/125/200-D-IR(C-II)1

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFCRli THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer

Reference No. 299'2000 and 316/2000 THE SUB AREA MANAGER (WCL)

AND

SHRI JITENDRA SINGH RAJPUT

AWARD

The Centra) Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) oi Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012|125|2000|IR(CM-II) dated 8121-11-2000 and L-22012|125|20OO|IR(CM-II) dated 22|28-9-2OOO on following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management namely] Sub Area Manager, Murpar Sub Area of WCL in termination the services ol Sh. Jitendra Singh Rajput Electrical Foreman, Murpar Project oi WCL is legal and justified ? If not, to) what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? What other directions we necessary in the matter ?" Reference No. L220l2|125|2O0O|IR(CM-II) dated ?2|28-9-200f> was icccived in this court on 3-10-2000. This njeren;e No. is registered at No. 29912000. Both the parties were infonned and 6-11-2000 was fixed. On this date Shri B. A, Raghorte, Safety Officer appeared for WCL manage- ment an* filed the Vakalatname of Shri M. P. Badar, ad- vocate. In this reference the workman remained absent on 6-11-2000 an^l 19-12-2000. Notice was issued to workmans' union and 19-1-2001 was fixed. An other Reference No. L-22012|125|2000lIR (CM-II) dated 8|21-11-2000 was re- ceived on 27-12-2000 and net'e-.s were issued to both the parties for 30-1-2001. This Reference No. was registered as 316|2COO.

Both thce references 3162000 and 299/2000 had the same schedulo and were concerning the termination of services of Shri Jitendra Singh Rajput, Electrical Foreman, Murpar Pioject of WCL.

The reference I* answered accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA. Presidinn Officer On 19-1-2001 the counsel lor workman Jitendra Singh Sinph Rajput appeared and¹ filed Vakiilatname. As the sche- dule in both the^f reference was common and the matter toi be decided was the samo, both the files were amnloamated aid References No. 299|2000 became the leading file. The parties were informed that File No. 31.6I20OO has been aitached with Reference F ie No. 299/2000,

From the above facts it is evident that the advocate of the workman Jitondra Singh Rajput had filed Vakalatnama on 19-1-20O1 and he took four months in filing Statement of Cairn The Statement of Claim was filed on 11-5 2001 The M P. Bddar ihe advocate of WCL did not appear in the court on any date from 6-11-2000 to 3 7-2001 His Vakalalnama was filed by Sim B A Raghorte on 6-11-2000 Safety Officer, Murpflr,WCL

As both the parties in ih? cas? are avoiding to appear and contest the case, the above- references should be disposed of for want of prosecution

No document or affidavit has be"n filed by counsel lor the workman in support of The Statement of Claim Theie- fore there is no evidence on record to adjudicate the dispute between the parties

ORDER

Reference No 316|2OOO and 29912000 concenvnjt the mattei of termination of services of Shn Jitendra Singh Rajput, Electrical Foreman, Murpar, Project of WCL were disposed of for want of prosecution

No other directions aie necessary m this matter as the parties are themselves avoiding to produce any evidence concerning the claim of the workman

Dated 3-7-2001 B G SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th August, 2001

SO 2303 fi t-jrjuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publ shes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad, as shown m the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers m I elation to the mntiagement of SCCL and their workman, which wns received ly the Central Government on 16 8-2001

[No. L-21012/66/87-D III(B)1

N P KESAVAN. Desk Officer

ANNrXURE

BEFORF THF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA1-I AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT

Sri Sycd Abdullah, B Sc , B L ,

Industrial Tribunal-I

Dated 20th day of July, 2001

Industrial Dispute No 50 of 1987

BETWEEN

Smgareni Coal Mines Karjtuka Sangh, Rep by its General Secretary at Ramakrishnapur, Adilabad District Petitioner

AND

The Management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep bv its General Manuger at Ramaknshnapur, Adilabad Distuct. Respondent APPEAkANCES

Sri K Srimva8a Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent None for the Petitioner.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order dated 28 9 1987 vide No L-21012/66/87-D. ni(B) has made a reference to this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute under Clauso (d) Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Indus trial Disputes Act, 1947 on the issues annexed to the schedule "Whether the action of the Management of M/s Singareni Collieries Compan> Limited, Ramaknshnapur in dismissing Shn P David Raju, Motor Mechanic, Workshop from services with effect from 7-7-1986 is jus lifted ? It not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

After the appearance of the parties, they have filed their respective pleadings

2 In the claim statement the averments made by the work man are as under.

The Workman (P David Raju) Ex-Military Heavy Vehicle Mechanic had joined the service of the Respondent Company en 16 8 1977 as Motor Mechanic While he was working, that on 24 9-1986, the Auto Garage Engineer of Mandaman Workshop had instructed the workman to go to Mandamarn Workshop to enquire about the availability of the gear bo* parts and he obeyed the instructions. Shri Vijaya Saradhi hngmcer Auto Garage of the workshop asked the workman to receive two tyres and in the absence of instruction, he refused to receive the same Since he was insisted he oobeyed the orders After a lapse of three months from that date tho workman was served with the charge sheet dt. 15-12-1985 that ho failtd to handover the tyres at Auto Garage at Ramakrishnapur and when he was asked to submit an ex- planation The Divisional Engineer has no authority to issue A charge sheet to the workman In charge sheet itself the punishment indicated questioning tho charge sheet, the work- man filed W P No 8642 of J 986 in the High Court of Andhnt Pradesh but it was di'missed at the admission stage Subre quently the Divisional Ingineer issued letter dt 30-12-1985 to the workman to shev cause why a sum of Rt 6,400 00 should not be lecovered from his salary towards the cost oi the tyrco The woikman submitted his explanation Followed by it anothei letter dt 25^79-1-1986 was served on him stating that hih explanation is not satisfactory, an amount of R^; TCO 00 will b"* deducted from his wage every month anJ infact no deduction was made As apprehended formal enquirv was done and the workman vv is dismissed from service w e f 7-7-1986 vido letter dt 6-7-1986 issued by the Gonoml Manager, Ramnkn^hnapur Copies of the enquiry proceedings and findings are not all served A show cause notice wa^ served proposing punishment to be imposed without discuisino evidence in support of the enquiry report The good recoid of service of the workman was also not considered before imposing the giave punishment of dismissal which is highly dispioportionate to the Rravity of the charge said to havL been established Again WP No 8642 of 1986 was filed but it Wai withdrawn with a permission to raise a dispute under the I D Act The Enquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice in ccnciuclmg the enquiry The Enquiry Officer also did not record the points asked in the cioss examination of the management witness Hence prayed to set aside Hv impugned order of dismissal and to order reinstate menf of the workman with full back wages and all other benefits which he is entitled for in the interest of iiistice ¹ The Respondent filed counter and m brief stated ^ undor

The records reveal that two tyrr^ which were taken on loan account ind handed over to P David Raiu did not reach thfl destination for accounting in the Company records which fact came to light on verification of the record? So4772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 .[FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] a charge sheet was issued by the competent authority. As per the procedure the Personnel Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter for taking discipli- nary action, It is false to allege that the enquiry was held in a formal manner complying with the principles of natural justice. The management witnesses were allowed to be cross examined. On the basis of the enquiry report and the findings the Management applied jts mind and passed dismissal order dt. 6-7-1986. The workman had not chosen to ask for the copies of the enquiry proceedings. Though his conscious of his rights ho filed writs tu stall the proceedings. The Manage- ment had also dismissed Sii Vijaya Saradhi, Auto GaraKe Engineer for the shortage of misappropriation of company's material since he connived with the workman to cause loss to the Companys properly. The workman had suprcssed certain material facts rtlLtinj; to the case for which he was charge sheeted. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim In the interest of justice.

4. The point for adjudication is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for?

5. This Tribunal passed an Award dt. 26th February, 1990 holding that the action of the Management in dismissing Sri P. David Raju, Motor Mechanic from service w.e.f. 7-7-1986 is not justified. With rcgaul to the other reliefs in this case, the fact that the workman did not deliver the tyres is beyond dispute. The order is vitiated purely on a technical ground, that the copy of the rcpoit of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him. In the circumstances It was felt that it ia justified and proper if the workman is reinstated immediately giving back wages and other benefits only from the date of the Award. Aggrieved by the award passed by this Tribunal, the Management filed W.P. No. 13739 of 1990 which was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and in its judgement dt. 14th March, 2001 while allowing the writ petition, the awjrd was set aside and the case was remitted back to this Tribunal directing it to dispose off the case on merits after giving an opportunity to bptli tho parties expeditiously within four month.! from the date of receipt of the judgement. The Hon'ble H'Sh Court also observed that the labour Court should not have mechanically set aside the order of dismissal on tho ground that lhe enquiry repo/t wa3 not furnished in view of the Apax Court's decision in the Management of E.C.I.L. vs. Karunakai (AIR 1997 S.C, Page 74) which is to the effect that the enquiry once completed cannot be reopened on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished and further that lhe principles laid down in (Union of India vs. Md. Rarnzan Khan) was only prospective in operation i.e.. w.e.f, 20-11,1990 and therefore the impugned Award cannot be sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. At per tha direction from the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 13739/90 dt, 14-3-2001. It is to be considered whal is tho effect of non-furnishing of enquiry report in the Unlit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Md. Ram/an Khnn (1990 (61) FLR page 761 S.C.) where in the principles laid down is that the decision haa only n prospective effect from the date of the delivery of the said decision. Reiterating the same principle in a recent deci- sion of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. S. Balakrishan [20111 (W) FLR 865] it has been made it clear once ajjain that non-supply of the enquiry report could not have vitiated the entire proceedings. This Tribunal had passed the Award dated 20 2-1990 but placing reliance upon a decision of the judir^mint of the Supreme Court niven in 1986 (II) LLI pane ^34 Secretary of the Central Board of Excise and Customs vs. K. S. Mahalingam. in which it wa-5 held that non supply uf the report would therefore constitute vlolat'on of principles of natural justice and accordlnRly tant^mounts to denial of reasonable opportunitv within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, Consequently the impugned punishment passed by the Management covered under Fx. Ml 3 was held to be not valid and vitiated- As far nt the facts of the case are concerned the inquiry report Ex. M12 wai dated 20-12-85, and the dismissal order was passed on 6-7-86, by which date the decision in 1986 II LLJ (S.C.I 434 was not in txistanee to h.ive any application of this case 7 In thn Award dt. 26-2-1990 passed by this Tribunal, the findings are that the worKman was guilty of the charges however the dismissal order as fetaslde cm techn;cal around that tlT¹ copies of th" rnmt'ry report wn not furnished to tho workman before p?wlng the fln"l dismissal ordftr. On this aspect the Hon'ble High Court while disposing off the Writ Petition "No, 13733/90 against the Award passed by this Tribunal haa not inlcrferrcd with the findings given by this Tribunal with regard to the confirmation of the charges of misconduct. Even subsequent to the remand when an opportunity was given to the workman he did not come forward or attend to the hearing to pioceed with the case muchless as pointed out any factual irregularities in respect of the findings arrived at about the misconduct that has been con- firmed by this Tribunal basing on enquiry findings. As seen from the direction of the Hon'ble H";h Court in W.P. No. 13739/90 the case was remanded only for the limited purpose observing that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md.. Ramzan Khan case has any prospective operation i.e., from 20-11-1990 for giving benefit to the workman. Both the enquiry report Ex. M12 and M13 were issued long prior to 20-11-1990 and as such no benefit can be extended to the workman.

8. In the result, Award is passed holding that the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rajnakrishnapur in dismissing P, DaWd Raju. Motoi Mechanic Workshop trom service w.e.f. 7-7-1986 is justified There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal, this, the 20th day of luly, 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunoi-I Appendix of Evidence (BEFORE REMAND) Documents marked for the Management.

Ex. Ml Photostat copy of the order of General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rarnakmhnapur, dt, 18-9-1985 appointing M. L. Sadanandam, Peraonnel Officer to conduct domestic enquiry of depailments of Ramakrishnapur Area, Ex. M2 Charge Sheet dt. 15-12-1985 issued to P. David Raju, by the Sr. D.V.. (W/S), R.K.P. S.C. Co. Ltd. Ex. M3 Explanation to the charge sheet dt. 18-12-85 submitted by P. David Raju to the Senior Divisional Engineer, Ramakrishnapur Workshop.

Ex. M4 Enquiry Notice dt 2-1-1986 Issued to P. David Raju, by the Sr. D.E. (W/S). R.K.P. S.C, Co. Ltd. Ex. M5 Enquiry Notice dt 4-1-86 issued to P. David Raju, by the Sr. D.K. (W/S), R.K.P. S.C. Co. Ltd. Ex. M6 Enquiry Notice dt. 9-1-86 issued to P David Rnju, by tho Sr. D.E. (W/S), R.K.P. S.C. Co. Ltd. Ex. M7 Enquiry Notice dt. 11-1-86 Issued to P. David Raju, by the Sr. D.E. (W/S), R.K.P. S.C Co. Ltd. Ex M8 Enquiry Notice dt 15-1-86 issued to P. David Raju, by the Sr. D.I'.. (W/S), R.K.P. S.C Co. Ltd. Ex. M9 Enquiry Proceedings.

Hx. M10 Application tit, 9-1-86 of P. David Raju to the enquiry officer for taking an observation.

Lx. Mil Application dt. 4-1-86 of P. David Ram to the Sr. D.E. Workshop, Ramakrishnapur for ad- journment of enquiry.

Ex. M12 Enquiry Report.

Ex, MI 3 Dismissal Order dt. 6-7-86 issued to P. David Raju by the General Manager, S.C. Co. Ltd., Ramakrishnapur Area.

Ex. M14 Photostat copy of the letter dt. 13-7-85 addres- sed by Chairman and Managing Director, S.C. Co. Ltd., Kothagudem Collieries to all G.Ms.,/All Chiefs of S.C. Co. Ltd., with regard to disciplinary action.

Ex,

Ex.

M15 True copy of the Show cause notice dt. 30-12-85 issue*40 P. David Raju by Sr. D.E. (W/S) R.K.P. with regaid to co 4773

E x. M J7 T r ue c o py ot t h e, i p t f er < "• 4 3 / Z J " - I - OO a a m c s s cu to P. "David Raju, by Sr. D.E. (W/S) R.K.P. with regard to recover costs of tyres by deductins Rs. 300 per month from his wages.

Documents marked for the Workmen :

NIL

AFTER REMAND :

No oral or documentary evidence adduced by both the parties.

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

S O. 2304.—In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial "Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centml Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal (Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexuve in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

'[No. L-22O12I395|97-IR(C-TI)J

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO. COIT : 98|2000

The General Manager, (WCL)

AND

Their 23 Workmen

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2fA) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-220t2|39.M97|IR(CM-lD dated 11-11-1998 on following schedule.

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the management namely Genera] Manager (OP), Wani Area Ghup.us of WCL, PO : CHuiKus, Diitt, Chandvapur, in not giving employment lo the dependent of 23 ex-workers of Nakoda Mines is legal, proper and Justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date? What other directions are necessary in the matter?" Shri B. N. Prasad the counsel for the management is prc- and notices were issued to the parties. Tn the statement of claim, it is mentioned that Party II i.e. workmen arc a group of 23 number of ex-employees of RI and PITs of Nakoda. Sub Area of Wani, Area of WCL. In statement of claim submitted by the workmen through their advocate Shri S. N. Sarkar, It is not mentioned anywhere as to who are those 23 workmen. Thus the statement of claim does not show the names and the parentage of these workmen who raised the dispute and want to seek the relief.

In the written statement filed by tho management of WCL dated 27-1-2000, again the list of the workmen who have claimed relief is not disclosed. In written statement it is mentioned that the 25 ex-workers were aggrieved whose dependants are rlleged lo have denied employment.

Thus from the statement of claim as well as from the written statement it is evident that both the parties are concealing the facts as to who are the claimants who raised the dispute. Who were the twenty three e\-employees and who are their dependants.

I have considered the schedule received from the Ministry •of Labour, The list containing the names of the 23 workers and their dependants has not been scit to this Tribunal by the Desk Officer concerned namely V.K. Rajan.

This case was received In C.O.I.T. at Nagpur on 3-7-2000. In thi.s case Shri S. N. Saikar the counsel for the workmen appeared on 18-7-2000 and the counsel for WCL Shri B. N. Piasnd was also present. None of the advocates submitted the list of the 23 ex-workers in this court, Shri S. N, Sarkar counsel for the workmen moved application for producing oral evidence but no oral evidence was produced fiom the side of the workmen. As many as seven adiournments were granted to the parties but they avoided to submit the list of the 23 workmen and the details of their dependants. On 28-5-2001 the undernoted order was passed.

Both the parties will file the list of the workers showing their names, parentage and full address who ore wekin? relief in this dispute and the case was adjourned to 23-7-2001".

Today also i.e. 23-7-2001, nobody appeared from the side of the workmen to conduct the case. Neither the advocate of the workmen appeared in thp court nor any representative of their union turned up to represent the workmen. No list of the workmen or their dependants was submitted by tlie management. Thus more than one year has passed and both the parties have not submitted the list of the workman, who have raised tho dispute and who wants to seek relief from this Tribunal. In view of the above the facts on the vague statement of claim and the vague written statement of management, no relief can be granted. The reference ii therefore disposed of for want of requhed information.

ORDER

As the name of the 23 ex-workmen and their dependants have not been disclosed by tho union of the woikmen in their statement of claim and also by the management in their written statement dated 27-1-2000, no relief can be granted in the above circumstances. Mere than one year tinin wis c m- ted to both the parties in this court and several adjournments were gianted hut bath tho parties concoilt-d the names of the 23 ex-workmeti and the names of their d-pendants Hence the dispute cannot bo settled Even from the Mmktrv of Labour, New Delhi, the list of the 23 et-woikmen find their dependants was, not sent with this reference. Thus ihe varue statement of claim and written statement were filed by the parlies. The reference therefore is disposed of for wa'nt of prosecution and for required essential informn'ion for tb; decision of the reference.

Dated : 23-7-2001.

B.C. SAXENA, Pressing Officer icnt.

Nobody turned upforthe workmen to contest the case.

This reference was sent to C.G.T.T, Court No. II of Mumbai on 11-11-98. Ofi 24-12-98 the case was registered4774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The workman has claimed that the pay jeaele was revised

ond in November, 1992 his pay scale should be as under:

01-01-92—Jls. 1350.

01-01-93—Rs. 1398.

01-01-94—Rs. 1446.

01-01-95—Rs. 1494.

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

He has submitted pay slip (Ex—-W-I) showing his salary R-. 1494 in October, 1995. In Ex—W-II his pay was shown as Rs, 2145. The workman says that according tq revii^d scale the pay of Rs. 1494 was to be fixed at R'. 2225 and fiom 01-01-96, his pay should have been Rv. 2305. So he is drawing Rs. 80 less per month from 01-01-96. The counsel for the management has represented that on 01-01-96, one incvtnicnt of Rs. 80 was given to the workman and his pay was fixed Rs. 2225.

S.O 2305.—In pureuancc of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between. the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-8-2001.

|No. L-22012|40l|97-IR(C-I!>]

I have heard the counsels for the both parties and have perused the documents submitted by the parties. The coun- sol for woikman argued thpt the workman was appointed as Clerk Gr-II but he was not given pay scale of Gr-III.

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRLSENT:

Shri B G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT: 134|2000. Eub Area Manager, WCL.

AND

The counsel for< management has argued that the work- man was getting higher salary so he did not press for fixation of the salary at initial basic pay of Gr-III Clerk. His promotion to Gr-II would have been due after 3 years of seivicc i.e. on 23-06-93, but the management took a ivmpalhetic view due to his poor health and he was gran- ted promotion in Gr-II w.e.f. 01-01-92. From the date of mder 02-01-94 his pay was fixed in Gr-TI clerk at Rs. 1905. On 01-01-95 his pay was Rs. 2145 and one increment of T"s R0 wa\ s'v;n to him and the basic pay was fixed at R-.. 2225 w c.f from 01-01-91. So there is no dispute (.deeming the fixation of his pay.

S'iri II. 11. Rao

AWARD

It is strange that when the workman had accepted the job of Typist from 23-06-90 as Clerk Or. Ill, why his pay wai riot fixed in the pay scale of¹ Clerk Gr-III.

Versus

In these cucumslances this dipute should have not been entertained bv the Assistant l.aboui Commissionei and th' Desk Officei ol the Ministiy of 1 aboui should h uv n¹ reli'irod this dispuie to the Tiibunal tor adjudication as it was an individual dispute,

TIK- counsel tor the v-oikman has submitted iiilinn I'J'Jt- UCLR-pa{;e-64S (Supicme Com 1), Uhayawn Sukhla vcisus Union o[ 11 did & otlicis. It is aigued that the woikm.m was not r'v MI the opportunity of hearing even when his pay was i educed and increment was not given to him.

The Zonal Manager West, 1 o<.d Coipoiation of India, MisLiy Bhawan, D.W. Road, Chinch gate, Mumbai Sr. Regional Managei, Food toiporation o£ India, Chetak Bhawan, Mahaiana Pratap Nagar, Bdop.il

• • Non-applicants

AWARD

Passed on this 6th dav of August, 2001

rI he Government of India, Ministry of Labour \ide o der No. l.-22012|436|'>5-IR(C. II) dated 2fi-9-% has rdfencd the following dispute lor adjudication by this tribunal—

I have tonsideied this ruling In view of thr above i ul- inji fh; woikman should be given an opportunity uf heaiiny by the management 'ind ihe Suuoi Accounts Offieci or the Genial Managu, Accounts should considei whether the wrakmin is entitled to eel Rs. 2305 from OL-OJ-^h. Ii should .1-u be cosidi-red as to why the pay of the workman was not i> rd in CU-ik Gi HI from 23-06-90 when he ioined ;is Cli-ik G r i ll under Medical Supci intendent. Ballarpur Aiea :is Typist.

Cdif No. C G I T | L C ; R | 1 8 4 | 9 'I

him to count his seniority w.e f. 30-3-77. The management Ivv nghth lixed his seniority as Assrtant 'SiM,- l!il">) o.i tho basis of zonal seniority w e.t. li-JO-89. He •, iijt wititieu to Mi nionclJiy ! encfits a¹ o.

4 / // This charge-sheet was issued on 30-3-1996 by colliciy mana- ge!. 1 he Turkman submitted hiv reply on 4-4-9(3 that he had gone to Ins village ioi his personal woik. He met with i..n accident and fell ill aevcial times due to which he could not repoit lor duty.

explanation for his absence fiom duty for moie than one year from 1-3-95, The medical certificate showing his illness fiom l-3-')5 to I9-2-96 does not bear anv date. So it is not explained bv the woikman as to when he obtained medical ceihficiitc fi >m docioi R.C. Mattey. No reason is explained by Iho woikman cs to why he did trot submit any medical ceitifiVnle of hi¹ illness to the management from 1-3-95 to 19-2-96 This certificate shows that the woikman was fit to join duty on 20-2-1996. It is therefore clear that medical ccililitate was obtained by the workman aftei 20-2-1996.

He did not join duty on 20-2-1996.

On 15-4-1990 the enquiiy slaited against him and Shii 13.R. Bankar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. 'I he lust date of enquiiy was lixed on 2N-6-96 when ihe woil.rruii appeared with his co-woikei Ciopal Nanaji, the chargeshect was given lo him and 5-7-1996 was lixed. On this date the woikman lold that his wife was ill and 13-7-l99b was fixed with his consent. On 1J-7-I996 the workman and hi? defence repie- sentative did not appeal. After that 2K-1-1(J97 WHS fixed and workman attended the enquny with the co-woikei. He also biibmltW vned.cal certiflcalt; lui his lllnes-, tiom 1-3-1995 to 19-2-1996 and another medical ceitificule for his illness fiom 21-2-1996 to 27-1-1997. The enquiry was concluded on this day after tecoidiug the statement of workman and his defence representative who was co-workei i.e. Gopal Nanaji.

Again the woikman obtained another certificate foi illnc-s fioin 21-2- 199b to 27-1-1997. He a

On 12-3-1997 the cnquiiy officer submitted his repoit that the chaige against the workman has been proved. Show- case notice was issued to the workman on 18-3-1997 and his seivices was terminated vide older dated 23-3-1997.

The wolkman has daimed his leinstatement with lull back

Now comes the question of punishment awaulcd t-o the wages.

woikman.

The management in wi itlen statement alleged that woik-

man was given lull opportunity duung enquiiy foi cross examiaatiou ol Hie witness of management and lo submit his detencc. The woikman did not give any satisfactory expla- nation foi his absence on duty trom 1-3-1995 lo the dale of submission of chaiyesheer. Hi remained absent from moie than one year, hence his service was terminated.

The repiesenlative of the workman has argued that the nunishmcni i- disproportion ite to the alleged misconduct. I have considcied this augment also, The representative -of the management has submitted that the woikman lemained absent fiom du y foi about one year from 1-3-1995. During this period he had not intimated to the management that he w.v MifFerinu Jrom any disease, He did not move any application foi leave. In these circumstances the punishment of dismissal from seivice was justified.

1 have heaid the union u'piesenlativc of the workman Sliri S. R Pendre and Ihe representative of the management Shn U. C. Gupta. Both the paities have submitted their written arguments. I hey have also argued the case orally.

As I discussed above that the woikrmn was given full oppoitumtv to expl u'n the leasons for his absence from his duly lor more than one year, but the workman himself admitted that hi- had prine to his village for his person-il woik and did not turn up foi his duty after 1-3-199*!. He also admitted in his statement durinjj enquiiv that he had not moved any arip''i-niion to Ihe management for his absence. He also did not submit any medical certificate for his illness before 1hc submission 'Of chaigesheet. Li these eiicumstanccs the dismiss.il of the wort man from service is legal "nd justi- fied.

'I he statement oi the woikman, Piabhakar S. Pendam was iccoided on 14-12-1999. In cross examination he admitted lhal he had leceived the charge sheet dated 30-3-1996. says thai he was not present during enquire on 5-7-1996, 13-7-1996 and 28-1-1997. He also admitted 'hat he had received the lepou of ilie cr.qunv officer and his findings. He did not submit any leply of the enquiiy leport. He did not file any appeal against his dismissal. From the side of the management the statement of Kamta Pias.ul, Cleik, was recorded. He s.iys that he had iccoided the proceedings of enquiry on Ihc dictation of enquiiy officer.

ORDER

The affidavit of Guncsh Desh Pandey ih^ picsenling officer ol management was submitted by management on 3-2-2000. On 26-3-2001 the management leprcscntcd thai this witness be discharged. Management does not to piodtiLe him foi cross examination.

The action >f I!UJ m m igement of New Majii Sub Area of WC'L, Distt. Chnndmpur in dismissing Shii Prabhakar Silaram Pendam, Fx-Loaiier is le^al nnd justified.

The woikman is no( entitled lo any oMiei lt-lief,

The reference is answered accordingly.

Haled : 6-7-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Piesiding Officei Hie slutemuit ot D. It. llank.ii- enquny officer, was lecoided on 7-12-2000. lie was cioss examined by the lepresenlative of thi- union of the woikman ShiI S. R. Pendic. In cro-,s examination he stated that on 5-7-1996 woikman P.S, Pendam had attended the cnquliy with hi, co-worker Gopal Nanaii. He; has also mentioned :LI his alf.davit that on 28-1-1997 the; woikniiin Piabhakar S. Pendam and his defence representa- tive Gopal Nunaji weie present. He had also enquiied fiom the workman as to why he had not sent anv intimation of his absence JI sickness to the management. I he workman has submitted U\o medical ccitifiVatc m his defence The explanation of ih<- woikman foi his absence was not reason- able. He concluded the cnqniiy and submitted enquiiy lepoit. The woikman has admitted that the shov-causc notice was received bv him. 'Ihe woikman did not reply of the show- cause notice and did not prcfi-r to file -my appeal against the order >of Ihc dismissal.

In view of (lie ,iho\c ciiciimslnncei it is rsi iblished lint Ihe enquny was conducted aij.uiT-t the wort man accoiding to the pnnciplcs of natural justice

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2001 S.O. 2 J U 8 .— in puisuance of Section i7 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, i y 4/ (14 oi 1947J, the Central Government hereby publishes the award of tne Cen- tiui Government iiiaustrial iribunai/Labour Court, vlabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2001.

|No. L-220l2/183/93-lR(C-IJ)J

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRiBUNAL-CUivl-LAtfOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/168/93

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

Sliri Kishori, Through Uie General Secretary, M.P.K.K.ivl.P. (HMS), P.O. Junnardeo, Disit. Chhindwaru.

. .Applicant.

Versus

The Manager, Rakhikol Colliery, PO Rakhikol, Distt. Chhindwara. Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of August, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-220l2/183/93-lR(C.II) dated 30th April, 1994 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action oi the management of Rakhi- Kol Colliery, WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Rakhi- kol, Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Kishori S/o Pirmo from services w.e.f. 23rd June, 1989 is justified 7 If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that he continuously worked for 15 years in Rakhikol colliery of WCL w.e.f. 1975. He was served with a charge sheet of misconduct by the management and the department enquiry was conducted against him. He was not pro- vided tlie copy of relevant documents relied on by the management. He was not properly served with the notice regarding the date oi' hearing before the Enquiry Ollicei. The enquiry officer did not give him adequate opportunity to defend his case properly be- fore him: He was called in (he office and his thumb impression was obtained on some documents for which he had no knowledge at all. The management illegally accepted the report of tlie Enquhy Ofliccr and terminated his services w.e.f. 23-6-89. The order of termination is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

3. The case for the management is that the work- man was a casual employee and designated as badJi tub loader/temporary BPR, He was appointed on 23-2-82. Since the inception of his appointment, he was in the habit of remaining absent unauthonsedly from duty. He never continuously worked lor 190/ 240 days in a calendar year and therefore he was not regularised. It was observed that he was absent con- tinuously from duty w.e.f. 10-7-88 without any infor- mation or sanction of Jeave from the competent autho- rity. A charge sheet dated 23-7-89 was therefore serv- ed on him and lie submitted his reply to the charges on 31-3-89. The explanation was not found satisfac- tory by the management and theiefore the department- al enquiry was conducted against him. During the course of enquiry, he was given all relevant documents i.0 defend his case. He was given ample opportunity by the Enquiry Ollicer to participate m the Enquiry proceedings. He cross examined the prosecution wit- nesses and set out his defence before the Enquiry Officer. The adequate opportunity was given to him by the Enquiry Officer 10 defend his case in an effec- tive manner. The Enquiry Ollicer after considering the entire material on record, held the charges proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority accepted this report and terminated his services after due considera- tion. The Departmental Enquiry was conducted in a just and fair manner and thereiore the order of ter- mination passed by the management against the work- man does not require any interference. The workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

4. The following issues have been framed in this case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter : —

1. Whether the enquiry is just, proper and legal'?' 2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribunal ?

3. Whether the charges of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case ?

4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?

5. Relief and costs ?

5. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 : It has been held by this tribunal on 6-2-96 that the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is just and proper. The management is not required to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. In view of tin's findings, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 needs no consideration at all.

6. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 : From the enquiiy papers, it appears that the charge sheet was served on the workman and he had submitted his reply to the charges. His reply was not found satisfactory and therefore the management thought it proper to bold the DH against him regarding the alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who issued the notice to the workman who participated in the enquiiy. This notion was served on him. The workman also ap- peared before the Enquiry Officer on 2-4-89. The work- man participated in the enquiry proceedings and cross examined the prosecution witnesses to prove his de- fence. The Enquiry Officer gave the ample oppor- tunity to the workman to prove his defence. No4779 pre-judice has been calscd to him. After the careful consideration of the entire material on record, the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved against the workman. I he report of the Enquiry Ollicer does not appear to be perverse at all. 1'his itpmi % lu-od on sound reasoning and is supported by hie evidence available in the enquiry proceedings. 1 his court is not legally authorised to reappreciate the evidence be- fore the Enquiry Officer in such case. At the same time this court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the order of disciplinary authority. In view of all these tacts, I find that the misconduct of the workman has been pioperly proved from the evidence available iu the enquiry pioceedings. The Enquiry Oilicer has committed no legal error in holding the charges prov- ed against the workman. It is therefore held that the charge of misconduct has been properly proved against the workman. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT|LC|R|228|93

Presiding Officer, Shri K. M. Rai.

Shu Ram Dhani, Son of Vishal, Ticket No. 1485, Ex-loader of Kotma Colliery, SECL, Shahdol.

. .Applicant

Versus

The Sub Area Manager, Kotma Sub Area,

SECL, Bilaspur,

. .Non-applicant

AWARD

The workman appears to be habitual absentee caus- ing loss of production to the coal industry. Such work- er does not deserve any leniency as tar as the punish- ment of removal from service is concerned. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed the proportionate penalty of dismissing him from service which does not require any interference in the instant case. Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 5 : On the foregoing reasons, it is held that the management had rightly dismissed the work- man from service w.e.f. 23-6-89. Ihe workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages as claimed by h'm. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

8. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per uiles.

K. M. RAT, Presiding Ollicer New Delhi, the 22nd August, zuut S.O. 2309.—In pursuance of Section 1 7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ol the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Com I, Jabalpur, as shown in the Anncxure in the Indu.irirJ Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which are leceivcd by the Central Government on 21-8-2001.

[No. L-22012!217[93-IR('C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Passed on this 6th day of August, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide ordei No. L-22O12|217|93-1R, C-ll dated 22-10-93 has referred the following dispute for ad- judication by this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Kotma Sub Area of SECL, P.O. Kotma colliery in dismissing Shri Ramdhani S'o Vishal, Loader T. No. 1^85 from eompnay services w.e.f. 30-6-89 is legal and justi- fied V If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2 Neither the workman nor any office bearer of the Union appeared before this tribunal when the case was called on for hearing on 6-8-2001 till 3 P.M. (Hence proceeded exparte aguinst the workman.

3. In view cf the above said facts, it appears that the workman is not interested in pursuing his claim. It is therefore held that no dispute exists between the parlies in the present case.

4 On the above said reasons, No Dispute Award is passed. It is further held that the workman is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him.

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of Tndia as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer4780 T H£ GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8S 2W1/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)1 New Delhi, the 22nd' August, 2001 S.O. 2310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribuna^Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 21-8-2001.

[No. L-22012|260|92-IR(C-Il)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO. C G I T , L C ; R ; 1 6 7 | 95 Presiding Officer, Shri K. M. RAI Smt. Sushila Bai & Smt. Bolli Bai, C|o. Shri K. K. Mishra, Gandhi Hospital, Pathakhcra, Distt. Betul (MP), . . Applicant. Versus

The General Manager, WCL, Pathakhera, Distt. Bctul. • • Non-applicanj.

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of July, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012 260 92-IR (C-II) dated 19-9-95 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of WCL, Pathakhcra Area, Distt. Betul in terminating the services of Smt. Susliila Bai and Smt. Bolli Bai is- legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. The case for the workman is that they worked in the employment of WCL as wor- ker on daily wages basis w.c.f. 1983 to 1987. They were paid the wages from Pathakhcra mine No. 2 and their attendance was being recorded repuimiy by the iii1in;)

3. The case for the management is that the workmen were neither employed by the WCC in Pathaphera coal mine nor paid any wages for per- forming their duty as a worker. No relationship of employer and employee ever existed between the parties. They were not given any appointment order by the management. They had worked for 9 days in the employment of contractor Shri Ganesh Jha who was awarded a contract work for pre- parations of grounds for conducting annual sports meet. They never worked in the employment of the management. Their contention is wrong that they had. worked continuously for 4 years w.e.f. 1983 to 1987 in Pathakhera Mine No. 2 of WCL. They were not in the employment of management and therefore the question of terminating the ser- vices does not arise. The workmen were not re- quired to be served with the statutory notice nor any retrenchment compensation was required to be paid by the management according to the provi- sions of Sec. 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947. The work- men are not entitled to reinstatement with back wages as alleged by them.

4, The following issues arise for decision in this* case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter :

1. Whether the workmen were employed as temporary worker on daily wage basis by the management and continuously worked w.e.f. 1983.

2. Whether the management illegally terminat- ed their services in the year 1987.

3. Whether the workmen are entitled to re- instatement with back wages.

4 Relief and costs ?

5. Issue No. 1.—The contention of the workman is that they were employed directly by the manage- ment in the year 1983 and they continuously work- ed till 1987. They were paid wages regularly by the management of PK. II Mines of WCL on daily wage basis. The workmen have not been able to produce any written appointment order issued by the management to prove that they were pinplov- cd in the year 1983 as daily paid workers. For the nnpoi'ntmont of workers the vacancies me r.otified by the management and the names are sponsored 47rf

case. The workman arc not entitled to reinstate- ment with any other monetary benefits. They are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workmen.

9. Copy of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAT, Presiding Officer

New Delhi- the 22nd August. 2001

S.O. 2311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hercbv pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Anncvxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman- uhich was received bv the Central Govern- ment on 21-8-2001.

[No. L-22012,l432|96-iR('C-II)l

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE through local employment exchange. The candi- dates are interviewed by the appointment com- mittee and after succeeding in the test, the up- pointinent order is issued to the successful candi- dates. In the present case, no such formalities had been observed in appointing the workmen. Jn such a case, the workmen cannot be said to have been given appointment according to the provisions of rules in respect thereof. Without observing these rules no person can claim any right to the post for which he claims to have been directly appointed on daily wlage basis. In such a circumstance, it is not possible to hold that the workmen were em- ployed by the management of PK. II Mines of WCL in the year 1983. The management has specifically stated that the workmen were never employed by the management ancf there- fore the relationship of employu and em- ployee does not exist between the parties. Their contention is that once Shri Ganesh Jha was award- ed a contract work for preparation of grounds for conducting athletic meet. The said contractor had maintained the wagesheet Exhibit M.T in which the Workmen have been shown to have worked for 9 days and the contractor had paid the wages to them. The workmen did no* v ork in the employment of management but in the employment of contractor only. The workmen have not been able to challenge the en- try of Exhibit M-T by producing any documentary evi- dence. This wage sheet Ex. M-I clearly establishes this fact that the workmen were employed by the contractor and he had paid wanes to them for the work they did. The workmen had not produced the copies of attendance registers maintained by the management to prove that they were rcpnlariv per- forming their dutv in the mines w.e.f. 19R3 to 87. Tn the absence of this document, it is not possible to held that the workmen had actually worked in PK. IT Mines during the said period. On the contrary Ex. M-I goes to prove that they had worked with the contractor Shri Ganesh Jha for a few days only. The workmen had also not been able to eet the relevant documents produced in the court bv the management to prove that the relationship of em- nlovee and employer existed between thj parties., In the nbsence of documentary evidence, oral evi- dence of the workmen does not appear to be satis- factory to prove their claim of being employed bv WO in PK TI mines in fhe vr-m- IQR3 Tn view of the absence of the evidence on record, it "s held that the workmen were never employed bv the WCT in PK. TT mines. Tssuc No. 1 is answered ac- cordingly.

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

Case No. CGiT'LC'R 13696 6. Tssue No 2,—-Tn view of my finding eiven on i"ne No 1. the cniesrinn of termination of the ser- vices of the workmen does not arise at all as they¹ were never employed bv WCT , This issue k ans- wered in negative.

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. RAI 7 Tssne No. 3 —Tn the light of rlv nhovp- said

finfji'inrc t h' workmen are not on'i^i^d to n"irKtpi

R. Tssne No. 4,—On the reasons stated above, it i' held that the relationship of employer and em- ployee does not exist between the parties in this

Shri K. R. Jadhav, Asstt. Grade If (D), D-66. Sector-II, Dcvendra Na.ear, Raipur CMP).

.. Applicant.

Versus

The Zonal Manager West, Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, D. N. Road, Church gate, Mumbai.

Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chetak Bhawan, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal. • - Non-applicants.

tion given earlier. He continuously worked on promotion post for a considerable period of about 11 years and even then he was not gi-'en the proper seniority among the Assis- tants by the management. The order of re- version of the management is illegal and deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to be deemed to have been promoted w.e.f. 30-3-77 on regular basis and his seniority also should have been established accordingly in the gradation list of the Assistant. He is entitled to the monetary benefits of promoted post w.e.t. 30-3-77 till date.

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of August, 2001 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-220121432 96-1R (C-II) dated 7696 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

'"Whether the action of the management of FCI in continuing Shri K. R. Jadhav, AGIID on adhoc promotion from 30-3-77 to 2-9-98 and revctt- in back to his parent post as AGIII (D) and again promoting him from 13-10-89 as AGIl(D) on regular basis and not considering his seniori- ty from the date of adhoc promo- tion i.e. from 30-3-77 is lawful and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

4. The case for the management is that the promotion from RGD (III) to category II are ordered by the Zonal office on the basis of zonal seniority. Due to urgent situation during 1977, regional office, Bhopal had effect- ed some adhoc promotion in all categories of class III staff on the basis of Regional seniori- ty than existing in MP region. The workman was therefore given adhoc promotion on 30-3-77 on the basis of regional seniority ot MP region. Promotion amongst the class III staff arc effected on the basis of seniority maintained in the zonal level as the Zonal Manager is the competent authority to pro- mote the class III staff. The seniority for considering promotion is maintained in the Zonal office. The West zone office of FCI consists of MP, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Goa, Since the work load in MP was consider- able on account of procurement of rice and wheat, the zonal office advised the regional office, Bhopal to give adhoc promotion on re- gional seniority basis and as and when the pro- motion order on regular basis issued by the Zonal office the officials promoted on adhoc basis be reverted to the original post. On this basis of advice of Zonal office, the workman was promoted on 26-3-77 as Ag. II (D) purely on adhoc basis. This fact was mentioned in the order of promotion issued by the manage- ment to the workman. The adhoc promotion does not confer any right to higher seniority amongst the zonal seniority of the class III employees.

2. The case for the workman is that he was promoted on adhoc basis as AGII(D) w.e.f. 30-3-77 by the management and con- tinued to occupy this post till 2-9-88. There- after he was reverted back to his parent post as AGIII(D) and again the management pro- moted him as AGIKD) w.e.f. J 3-10-89 on regular basis taking the zonal seniority into consideration. By this subsequent promo- tion the management did not consider the period of his adhoc promotion in fixing his seniority. He should have been deemed to be promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 30-3-77 only and not w.e.f. 13-10-89. He made seve- ral representations himself and through, the Union to the management for considering his grievance, but his request was not consider- ed bv the FCI. Due to this refusal, the pre- sent dispute arose.

5. The management further alleges that the workman accepted the subsequent regular promotion on the basis of zonal seniority without any grievance. The workman was entitled to cet regular promotion onlv during the year 1989 on the basis of zonal seniority and not w.e.f. 30-3-77 which was a stop gap arrangement by way of adhoc promotion. In view of all these facts, the workman is 3. The workman further alleges that the management has contravened the provisions of its' own rules and regulations in promot- ing him on regular basis v/.e.f. 13-10-89 with- out considering the period of adhoc promo-4783 not entitled to a regular promotion w.e.f. 30-3-17 and seniority amongst class III cm ployees on the basis of adhoc promotion as per regional seniority given to Him as a stop gap airangement looking to the quantum 01 work tor procurement tor nee and wheat in the JW region. The management has given proper promotion to the workman w.e.f. 13-10-8^. He is not entitled to any relief a& claimed by him.

6. The following issues arise for decision in tlus case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter :—

1. Whether the management had illega- lly reverted the workman as AG J II (D) w.e.f. 2-9-88 from AG-II(D) ?

2. Whether the workman is entitled to get his seniority amongst the Assti. Grade II(D) w.e.f. 30-3-77 on the basis of adhoc promotion given by the management ?

3. Whether the workman is entitled to the monetary benefits as claimed by him ?

4. Relief and costs ?

7. Issues No. 1 & 2.—Admittedly the work- man was promoted as assistant Grade II (D) vide order dated 26-3-77 Annexure. A on the basis of Regional Seniority purely on adhoc basis and he was allowed to continue till he was reverted as Assistant Grade HI(D) vide order dated 2-9-88 on the basis of Re- gional seniority fixed by the management. The West Zone of FCI consists of states of MP. Maharashtra, Gujarat and Go?. The seniority of the employees of this zone was fked by the management as per rules and therefore the workman was reverted to the original post of Asstt. Grade III in the year 1988. subsequently he was given regular promotion as Assistant Grade H(D) w.e.f. 13-10-89 on the basis of zonal seniority fixed by the management. His seniority was accordingly fixed from the date of regional lyoniot'on only and not w.e.f. the rhte of eJhoc promotion i.e. 30-3-77.

8. The workman contents that his seniority should be counted from tv dite of ?>dhnc pro- motion i.e. 30-3 77 ?nd not from the regular promotion w.ef. 13-10-89 on the basis of rv,"ri1 s^!;on+v. In th's connection, the Sunre.-'e Court has held in SC cases, vol-4, ioop p , oe 24 Masood Akhtor Khan and o^!w, VO--H^ Stife of MP and others tnat the 2668 GI/2001—12

seniority to be counted not from the date of initial stop-gap appointment but from the date of regular selection under the rules. Ii the imrial appointment is not made accordingly to the rules, subsequent regularisatlon of an employee does not entitled him to the benefit of intervening service of seniority. In view of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the workman is not entitled to get his senio- rity counted from the date of adhoc promo- tion i.e 30-3-77. He is entitled to the fixa- tion oi seniority only from the date of re- gu'ar promotion amongst his zone as per zonal sonority vide order dated 13-10-89. The management has therefore not committed any error in fixing the seniority of workman as Assistant Grade II(D) w.e.f. his regular promotion i.e. date 13-10-89 as per zonal seniority fixed by management according to rules. Issues No. 1 & 2 are answered accord- ingly.

9. Issue No. 3.—In view of my finding given on issue No. i and 2, the workman is not entitled to any monetary benefits as claimed by him.

10. Issue No. 4.—On the reasons stated above, it is held that the workman is not entitled to his seniority as Assistant Gride II w.e.f. 30-3-77 as claimed by him. He is en- tided to his seniority as Assistant Grade II(D) on the basis of his regular promotion on seniority basis fixed by the management w.e.f. 13-10-89. The adhoc promotion of the workman shall not entitled him fo count his seniority w.e.f. 30-3-77. The management has rightly fixed his seniority ?s Assistant Grade II(D) on the basis of zonal seniority w.e.f. 13-10-89. He is not entitled to any monetary benefits also.

11. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of I abour- Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI. Presiding Officer4784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEP1EMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FAR! II—SEC. 3(n)] New Delhi, the 22m! Aujmf, -001

S.O. 23J2.—In pursuance or Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute^ Act, 1947 (1 -¹ ol 1947), the Central Goen.ment hcvby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Anncxirc in the Jndu^nol Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, vhich was received bv the Central Gowrn- ment on 21-8-2001.

[No. L-22012'80!86-D.lII(B)l

N. P. KESHAVAN. D-sk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR

by the management ol Kanhan aica m tnc year 1982. On 15-10 84, he was served witii the ehargesheet by the Manager, Rakhikol cUlien. Kantian area of WC! >hilc working us ijiedidiucal utter. The ehargesheet was served under the provisions of certified stand- ing orders which was applicable to Rpkhikol collkrv. Prior to the nationalisation of Rakhikol colliery, it was owned by the Shivax C. Combata and Co. Pvt. Ltd., After the nationalisation of the coalfields, the management of Rakhikol colliery was handed over to the WCL on 1-5-75. In view of this fact the service condition of the workman will not be governed by the provisions of stand- ing orders of the Shivox C. Combata Co. Pvt. I id. Rakhikol colliery of Kanhan area. The ehargesheet served on him under the p-ovis- sions ol the said standine order i-> illegal.

COURT. JABALPUR

CASE NO. CGITLClR'Ul 87

PRESIDING OFFICER, SHRI K M. RAI

Sbri Bishram Shahu, So, Paliram Shahu, Ex. mechanical Fitter, Rakhikol Colliery, C|o. D. N. Tripathi, Damua colliery, PO Damua. Distt. Chhindwara. Applicm

Versus

The Manager, Rakhikol Colliery, WCL, PO Rakhikol Co'liery, Distt. Chhindwara. • Non-npplicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of Julv, 2001

1. The Government of India. Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012 80 86-D III (B) dated 20-8-87 has referred the following depute for adjudication bv thh tribuml :—

"Whether the action of the m^awment of Rakhikol colliery of WCL. PO Rakhikol, distt. Chh'ndwrra ;n dis- missing Shri Bishrpm Shahu Mechanical fitter from services w.e.f. 31-5-85 is justified ° If not, what relief the worker :^ cvf't} *d to?"

6. The following issues have been framed in this case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter :—

1. Whether the domes tic | departmental

enquiry is proper and legal 7

2. Whether the punishment awarded is

proper and legal ?

3. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribu- nal ?

4. Whether the termination action taken against the workman is justified on the facts of the case ?

5. Relief and costs ?

authority. The domestic enquiry was held in lus absence which is against he piinciplcs oi natural justice. The order ot termination in writing was also not served on him. The management also did not pay any compensa- tion prior to termination oi his service and therefore violated the provisions of Sec. 25-F oi I.D. Act. 1947. The management also did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 25-G ot the i.D. Act, L947. The Enquiry Officer also did not submit any enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority as required under the rules. In view of all these facts, the order of termination passed by the manage- ment is illegal which deserves Lo be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other monetary benefits.

7. Issue No. 1&3.—On 16-4-95, this tribu- nal has held the Departmental Enquiry as improper and thereiore the management was directed to lead evidence on the charge of .misconduct against the workman. In view this finding. Issue No. 1 and 3 need no lurther consideration at all.

4. The case for the management is that the workman deliberately absented himself from duty w.c.f. 29-8-84 to 15-11-84 without any intimation to the management. The chargesheet therefore was framed against him on 15-11-84 for continuous absence from duty. The workman did not submit his reply aller receiving the chargesheet within the stipulated period of time. The Departmental Enquiry was therefore conducted against him. The Enquiry Olhcer issued notice to the workman to appear before him on 30-1-85. The workman deliberately did not appear before the Enquiry Officer who was therefore forced to proceed cx-parie against him. The enquiry was therefore held e\- parte against the workman and the report was submitted to the disciplinary authority for needful action. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and teruiinn¹.- ed the services of the workman.

8. Issue No. 2 & 4.—From the perusal of lecord and the claim of the parties to this dis- pute, it appears that the workman was dis- missed from service w.e.i". 31-5-85 on the mis- conduct of remaining absent for the period of 10 days without any intimation and obtaining permission irom the management. This charge oi misconduct does not appear to be so serious which warrants ter- mination of service. In my opinion the punishment does not appear to be propor- tionate in the circumstance of the case. The lesser punislnnen. shall meet the ends of jus- tice as the workman has attained the age of superannuation in the light of his appoint- ment in the year 1952. I therefire convert the order of termination of service into com- pulsory retirement from the date he attained the age of superannuation. The period of absence from duty of the workman shall be treated on duty only for the purposes of pen- Monery benefits. The workman shall be en- titled to (he pensioner/ benefits after the date of his superannuation as per rules. Issues No. 2 & 4 are answered accordingly.

5. The management further alleges that the workman deliberately remained absent from duty without intimating the manage- ment. He also did not submit the application to the management for obtaining permission to remain absent from duty as well as he also did not submit any medical certificate tri prove his sickness. The absence of the work- man from duty caused the loss of produc- tion in the mine. The Departmental enquin was therefore held against him in a just and proper manner and order of dismissal passed against him is ju^t and proper. The work iran is not entitled to any relief as cbiined by him.

9. Issue No. 5.—On the above said reasons, it is held that the order of dismissal passed bv 'he management against the workman on 31-5-85 is unjust and the punishment is dis- proportionate to the facts ol' tl'^ r;r,i\ The ore'er of termination from service is therefore4786 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : S E P T E M B ER 8, 2 0 0 1 / B H A D RA 17, 1923 |F*ARr I I — S i x. 3(ii)J converted into tlu letircmcnt from service from the day he attained the age of superan- nuation. The period of his absence from duty shall be treated on duty for the purposes of pensionery bcnefils. He shall be entitled to draw pension and other benelits as per rule from the day he was to retire Irom service. He shall he paid the arrears of pension and other henrfits according to rules within the period of 6 months from the date of award.

10. Copy of the award be sent to 'he Mini. try of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M, RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2313.—In pursuance of Stcflon 17 or the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government inJustrial Tribunal |Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-41011/22/89-D.2(B)/lR(B-l)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPTJR

AWARD

Passed on this loth day of July, 2001 1. I he Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-4I011[22jS9-D-2vB,) dated 5-12-89 has interred die following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action ot the management of Assistant Engineer (M) Central Railway, Agra Cantt. in not providing employment to Shri Noor Islam, Sjo Buddu Khan and Shri Sitaram S/ o Snri Govind Das, MRCL after 19-2-87 and 16-7-86 and whether his terminaition from service is justified 7 if not, to what relief the workmen is entitled to?"

2. The case for the workmen is that they were em- ployed as casual labour by the management and after their continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of their termination, they attained tempoiary status as per rule. r(he management wrongly discontinued their employment w.e.f. 19-10-87 and 1v>10-So on the basis of submitting forged¹ service record, to obtain employ- ment in the Railways. Fnor to termination of their service, they were neither served with uue month's statutory notice nor they were paid retrenchment com- pensation according to Ihe provisions of Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act. The management has regularised the other junior casual workers and the workmen have been not regularised so far. The management did not make any enquiry residing the validity of the service card submitted by the workmen. Their ser- vices have been illegally terminated by the manage- ment and therefore they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

4. Whether the termination action taken against the workmen is justified on the facts of the cas'e?

5, Whether the workmen arc entitled to get em- ployment as per law '.'

i). Relief and casts?

5. Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3 : from the puusal of records it appears that no domestic enquiry was conducted against the workmen. In such a cneumstance, the validity of Departmental enquiry was conducted against the workmen. In such a circumstance, the validity ot Departmental Enquiry is no lequired to be adjudicated in this case. Kilties have been allowed to lead cvjuence to prove their respective claim. Hence these issues need no consideration at all.

o. Issues No. 4 & 5 : The workmen claimed to have been appointed as casual worker by the Railway Administration and subsequently they were issued genuine service cajrds. rlhe Railway Administration has challenged the validity oi these service caids sub- mitted by the workmen for getting rcgularisation. The workmen were given opportunity to submit the veri- fied service cards from the Issuing Authorities, but they failed to submit their varitied service cards to the Railway Administration for getting regularisation ot their service. On the contrary they discontinued to work after receiving the notice from the Railv ay administration for submitting verified casual service record in order to get rcgularisation. IOW Bltopal and PWI Morena have not issued any appointment order to the workmen as per the information submitted by the said authorities of the Railway Administration. It was the burden on the workman to prove that they were issued the proper casual service cards by the concerned authorities of the Railway Administration. They have failed to discharge this burden by adducing proper evidence in this respect. On the other hand, it is proved from the evidence on record that the workmen secuied employment by submitting fake service card which cannot be the basis for getting regularisation as claimed by them, In view of this fact, theyJiave no legal claim of right to the post as alleged by them. They are therefore not entitled to get reinstatement with back wages and other mone- tary benefits, Issues no. 4 & 5 are answered accor- dingly.

7. Issue No. 6 : On the reasons stated above, it is held thai the workmen are not entitled to get any relief in the instant case Tip refnence is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workmen.

8. Copy of the award be sent In the Ministry of Labour, Government of India a? per rules.

K M. RAT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes Jhc award of the Central Government Industiial Tribunal|Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Aune.xme in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway, Hazartganj and! their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-41O12|13|99-IR(B-1)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Fresiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar

ADJUDICATION

T.D. No. 133|2000

Rcf. No. L-41012|13]99|TR(B-I)

dated 11-5-2000

BETWEEN

The Divisional Organization Secretaiy, Ultar Railway Karmchari Union, 2R3J63 Kha Garhi Kanora (Premwati Nagar) P.O. Manuknagar Lucknow (U.P.)-6 (in the matter of Hairi Kishore Mishra)

AND

The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Nor'hern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

By relercnce No. L-41012/13/99/IR(B-l) dated 11 -5-2000, in the Central Government in the Minis- try of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section ( I) of Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over the industrial dispute between the Divisional Organization Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union Lucknow espousing cause of Hari Kishore Mishra ana Sr. Divisional Per- sonnel Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow for adju- dication. The reference is produced as under • "Whether the action of Management of Northern Railway in not promoting Shri Hari Kishore Mishra as Electric Fitter Gradc-II on the In sis of examination result dated 11|3|1994 was legal and justified 7 If not what relief the workmaf 's entitled to ?"4/88 THE GA/ETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] statement in his rejoinder. In view of this situation, the factual position explained by the management has to be accepted. Result dt. 11-3-94 cannot be treated basis of seniority for purposes of promotion specially, when this result was not given effect, in view of merger of the employees of both Diesel Sheds Mugalsarai and Lueknow.

The workman, Hari Kishore Mishra seeks promo- tion ah Electric Fitter Gr-11 on the basis of examina- tion rcsuli dt, 11-3-94. The claim statement is silent about his appointment in Fitter Gr., Ill, the feeder post Irom wmch promotion is sought, on the basis oi examination result. The management on the other hand, has clarified the position by stating that the workman Hari Kishore Mishra was initially engaged as substitute in 28-2-78 and later placed on the penal of the group 'D' m Steam Loco w.e.f. 28-8-80."

Accordingly, the action of the management not promoting Ha|ri Kishore Mishra as Electric Fitter Grade-Il on the basis of examination result dated 11-3-94 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Award accordingly.

LUCKKNOW

8-8-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer His name was placed at seiial no. 143 of the penal in the scale of pay Rs. 196-232. He was promoted as Khalasi helper in scale of pay Rs. 210-290 w.e.f. J-l-l9"4. He was agajn promoted as Diesel Filter vide letter No. 155EJ1-1 S,Uiesel litter dated 18-6-92. Admittedly, the workman was booked for the trade test tor the post of highly skilled fitter in Nov. 1994 along with others. However, before the appoint- ment on the basis of the above result could be made, a decision w as taken on recommendation of the joint meeting of the unions and management, to redraw seniority in view of merger of Diesel Sheds of Mugal Sarai and Lueknow. In view of the said decision, seniority list was drawn. Those senior to Hari Kishore Mishra were promoted. The management has denied that any employee junior to the workman wais promoted.

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S.O. 2315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexute in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in l-elation to the management of Northern Railway and their -workman, which wofs received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-410I2|43|94-IR(B-I)J

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Seniority claimed by the workman is based on test result dt. 11-3-94. The management denies that the test result is seniority list, to be treated basis for future promotions, rather it determined eligibility. The management on its own and as desired by this tribunal, filed seniority lists, copies of which were also delivered to the workman. From perusal

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDF.Y, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS'! RIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT SARVO-

DAYA NAGAR, KANPUR

Indusliuil Dispute No. 69 of. 1995

In the matter of dispute between '1 he Zonal Woiking President Uttar Railway Karjinehari Union 96,1 MO Roshan Bajaj Lane Lueknow,

The woikman did not challenge the seniority list, in any piocecding before this dispute. Also, in this industrial dispute he has not challenged correctness of the seniority list. Sole claim of his promotion is. based on test result sheet dt. 11-3-94, which cannot be treated to be seniority list. Test result sheet are not necessarity prepared on the basis of seniority. In any event, in lace of the facts, that the seniority list, were redrawn copies of which were given to A|R workman, remained unchallenged, the claim of seniori- ty on the baisis of test icsult dated 11-3-94 is not justified.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Noiihen, Railway Lueknow.

The management has iiiv.u ' Tl details of service of the woikman in its written statement, The vork- man had not challenged stated lacts of the written4789 AWARD

back date or Irom the date when vacancy in the vlecUm pi) i c am red. It has b'en alleged that the ciaim i> iiibLunceival and liable tc be reacted, 1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vale it:, notified! ion Mo. JL-41012,4-3,94-IR (B'l) d.Ued 15-6-95 has referred the following dis- pute lor adjudication to this tribunal—

4. The wujkimin examined himself as WW1 and Died a lew documents in biippoit of his case. The management did not examine any witness and did not file any document JH .support of its case.

5. f have heard the authorised repiesentativc foi both the sides and have gone through the record of the case.

"Whclher the action of the management of Northern Railway Lucknow in refusing to pay arrears of salary in the scale of Rs. 1600-2060 w.e.f, 22-5-86 to 6-5-88 to Sri K K. Puri, the then parcel supervisor and ticat him promoted as Chief Parcel Supervisor with effect from 9-2-9- and pay him arrears in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 from Fcbiuury, 1991 till he was actually promoted to the post is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2, The statement of claim has been filed on behalf of Sti t\, K. Puri with allegation that Sri Puri was guard Grade A in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and was ctruwiiiif pay at the maximum of Rs. 2300. Sri Pun subsequently being declared unfit for the post of guard Grade A Special was medically decate- {.'ori-cd and was ab-oibed on the post of Chief Parcel clerk with ellcct from 22-5-86. He accepted- that post under protest. On the representation made by him he was given pay scale of Rs, 1600-2660 witfi effect from 2-5-8(1 but I he benefit of that pay scaje was given to him with effect from 6-5-88 when he took ovci charge on the post of Parcel Supervisor. The pay fiom 22-5-86 to 5-5-88 was not paid to Ivm on the ground that he was given proforma pro- liidtion'absorption with effect from 22-5-86. Sri Puri made icpasentation that he should be given benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1500-2660 with died from 22-5-86 according to the railway rules but no heed was paid to his request. There was a vacancy on the post of Ch'ef Parcel Supervisor with effect from February, 1991 on Ihe retirement or Sri T. C. Tlripathi, Chief Parcel Supervisor, Sultanpu) Sri Puri being the senior most was entitled to get promotion on that poLt but he was given promotion in the scale or Rs. 2000-3200 with effect from 9-12-91 merely 21 days before hi-, retirement. It has been alleged that Sri Puri wns entitled for difference of wages accrued to him from 22-5-86 to 5-5-38 and wasalso entitl- ed *o get promotion on the post of Chief Parcel Supervisor with effect from Febiuary, 1991. As the railway administration did not grant this benefit to h'm a dispute was raised on his behalf and the matter has been referred to this tribunal for deci- sion. He has prayed for the grant of the aforesaid benefit to him.

6. On behalf of the workman a letter of Divisional Railway Manager Lucknow, sent to the Assistant Labour Commiy>icner(C), Lucknow dated 16-11-92 has been filed. It shows that on the representation nude by Sii Puri, he was absorbed in the grade of Rs, 1600-2660 with effect from 22-5-86. From the pleadings ol the parties also it is established beyond doubt that Sri Puri was originally posted on the post' of Chief Parcel, Clerk and was arbsoibed on the post of Parcel Supervisor in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 with effect from 22-5-86 because he was entitled to that grade from the date ol' absorption. The decision was taken in the meeting of permanent negotiation machinery in which the officers of the railway depart- ment and the office bearer of the union of Railway Employees participated. He was given benefit of this priy with effect from 22-5-86 but actually he was paid his salary when he took charge on the post of Parcel Supervisor and the arrears of pay from 22-5-86 to 5-5-8S were not paid to him. The con- cerned woikman made a icquest that his pay in the pay scale of Rs, 1600-2660 should be given from 22-5-86 because he wa,s entitled to that grade acJ cording to the decision taken by the railways and he should not be deprived of this benefit merely because the lailway administration took decision at a late stjge The authorised representative for the mana- gement coulu not show me any provision under which the employee who is given promotion or absorption from a previous date in a higher pay scale shall not be entitled to get pay of that scale from the date of promolion[absorpion. When the railway administra- tion accepted absorption in Ihe pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 with effect from 22-5-86. It was the duty of the railway administration to pay him arrears of pa> also in the same pay scale with effect from 22-5-86. As the absorption of Sri Puri in the scale of payRs. 1600-7660 was delayed due to the mistake and lap^c on the pari of railway administration. Sri Puri cannot bo made to sulfer on account of mistake or error of the railway administration. Had the railway administration taken decision in time Sri Puri must haive been given that pay icale from the date of absorption, This is the reason that though the railway administration pave him pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (mm 22-5-86 but benefit of that pay -scale was not g?\en to him from that day and his pav was fhed at the maximum of that pay scale on 6-5-88. treating him to have been pro- promoted'Absorbed in the pay scale of Us 1600-2660 with effect from 22-5-86. The action of the railway administration on this point appears to be unjustified. The claim of Sri Puri appears to be just and fair. I. therefore, hold that Sri K K. Puri was entitled to tjet the benefit of pay scale of Rs, 1600-2660 with effect from 22-5-86 and he¹ *?. The mpnacement has filed objection on the cround thru after decatpgnrisation Sri Puri Guard Grade A Snecial was given the post of Chief Parcel Clerk He nride representation and the matter was discussed between the General M; naeer Northern Riilwny pnd Mu- Railway Mens- Union in the perma- nent negotiation machinery and it was derided to give Sri Puri nb'-orpticn after decateporisation in the pay scr.le of Rs. 1600-2660. But the benefit of that pay scale was given to him when he took over clvtrec on that po^t. He was further promoted on Ad-hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 from 9-17-91. Sri Puri could not claim promotion from4790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] should be paid anears of salary ior the period irom 22-5-86 to 5-5-88 after filing his pay in the pay scale! of Rs. 1600-2660 with clfeet fiorii 22-5-86.

7. The cisc of the workman is that the post of Chief Parcel Supervisor was vacant witJi ctlect irom 9-2-91 but he was given actual promotion on that post w.e.f. 9-12-91. It has been alleged that he should have been given promotion on that post from 9-2-91 when the vacancy on that post occurred. It has been alleged that Sri K. K. Puri was senior most Parcel Supervisor on that date. There is no dispute about this I act but no employee of any department can claim benefit of promotion from the date of vacancy. He can claim benefit of promotion when actually he WHM promoted. He was actually pro- moted on that post en 9-12-91 on ad hoc basis. 1 do not find any justification for giving any direction to the railway administration to promote Sri Puri from 9-2-91. I do not find any illegality in the action of Ihe railway administration in giving him promotion on the post of Chief Parcel Supervisor with effect Trom 9-12-91.

8. In view of findings recorded above I hold that Sri K. K. Puri is entitled to get arrears of his- salary for the period 22-5-86 to 5-5-88 in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660. The railway administration is directed to fix his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 with effect from 22-5-86 and to pay him arrears accord- ingly for the period 22-5-86 to 5-5-88 within a period of three months from the date of publication of this award in the official gazette.

9. Reference made to this tribunal is decided accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

fNo. L-4IO12/61/92/X/IR(DU)/

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS [RIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COUR1, SARVOOAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 16 ol 1993 and 42 of 1995 In the matter of dispute between—

The President (Sri K. N. Soni), Railway Employees Union, 1 18/78, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur.

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway AUahabad-211001

2. The Area Manager,

Northern Railway, Kanpur Central Station, Kanpur-208001.

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification given below has referred the following disputes Tor adjudication to this Trebunal lor adjudication :

1. Notification No. 4 1 0 1 2 / 6 1 / 9 2 / X / I R ( D U) dated 18-3-93—Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway through Divisional Railway Manager, Allahabad and Area Manager, Tstorthern Railway, Kanpur, in not granting additional increment for undergoing tubectomy operation and issuing order of transfer from Kanpur to Allahabad to Shri Sarvar Alam, Enquiry and Reserva- tion Clerk, Kanpur Central, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. Notification No. 41012/144/93-TR(B-T) dt. 28-3-95—Kya Mandal Rail Prabandhak, Uttar Railway, Allahabad tatha Mukhya Kshetriya Adhikari, Uttar Railway, Kanpyr, ke dwara Sri Sarwar Alam, Enquiry-cum- Rescrvation Clerk, Kanpur ko duty pradan na karna, Mah October, 1991 se vetan na dena aur use deya special increment na dena nyayochit hai ? Yadi nahi to sambandhit karmkar kis anutosh ka haqdar hai ?

2. Both the aforesaid cases have been consolidated together on the request made by the parties and arc based on common facts, hence they are being disposed of by one award.

3. The case of Sarwnr A1am as set up in the state- ment of claim Tiled in the aforesaid cases is that he w;is selected alongwith others as foods clerk in erade) 260—430 throueh Railway Service Commission, Allahabad and he alonirwith others joined ns such on 17-5-77. He alonqwith others was deputed to work as Enciuirv-cnm-Reservation Clerk (hereinafter refer- red to ns ERC for the sake of brevitvV Althouch he was entitled to ret the pav scale of Rs. 330—560 from ihe date of initial appointment but that grade4791 was £;ven to him v/.e.f. 24-2-81 alongv/ith persons who had jomed the service wiih him. Employees of No,them Railway, Kanpur Centra!, formed a Trade Union which wac got registered under Tiade Union Act, 1926 in the mine oi Ra:lway Employees Union, Kanpur and Sarwjr Alain was elected as Genera! Secie^iv OL the same and was continuing as such til! the statement of claim v is filed before this tribunal.

way doctor examined the concerned workman and advised him hed rest. Late, on the Raiiwaj doctor referred (he concerned workman to J. K. Cancer Ins- titute, Kanpur, on 19-9-91. The doctor of Cancer Institute ciier examining the concerned workman ad- vised bed lest. The concerned workman applied to the management for lea\e on medical grounds tfuough his applications dated 24-9-91, 25-10-91 and 18-11-91 respectively which were not received by the manage- ment. Then he sent the same by registered post. The doctor of the Cancer Institute examined the concern- ed workman on 20-12-91 and found him fit for his duties vith effect from 21-12-91 at Kanpur. The doctor issued a certificate to this effee*. The workman presented fitness certificate to the Cmef R<\s -rvation Supervisor on 20-12-91 and requested to permit him to join J ii.es with effect from 21-12-91 at Kanpur Central b it h: refused to receive the fitness certificate. On 21-12-9J l;c rj.Vn contacted Sri B. D. Verma who was working as Chief Reservation Supervisor on that date in place of Sri Manohar Lai but his joining report was refused. Thereafter, the concerned workman sent his fitness certificate and joining report by registered post to the higher authorities of manage- ment at Kanpur Central. With effect from 21-12-91 the workman was reporting for his duty in the office of Enquiry and Reservat'on, Kanpur but neither any work was being taken from him nor he was allowed to sign the attendance register. The concerned work- man was getting his pay irom pay office at Kanpur till September 1991 but from October to December, 1991 no wages have been paid to him. Although leave for the period from 16-9-91 to 21-10-91 has been granted to him. It has been alleged that he .was paid salary for the period January 1992 and February 1992 but no work was taken from him. It has been alleged that aforesaid promotion/transfer order dated 15th April. 1991 was not issued by the competent authority and was therefore, illegal. It has also been alleged that it was hit by mala fide and arbitrariness. It is alleged that promotion-cum-transfer order has been passed with a view to victimise the concerned work- man. U has further been alleged that the management of railway administration has neither suspended him nor has terminated his service yet no salary was being paid to him although he was ready to serve as ERC at Kanpur Cen'ral. It has also been alleged that al- though he was entitled to get special increment under family planning programme as mentioned above but he has been deprived of the same. It has further been alleged that if the concerned workman did not join on the promotional post he should have been allowed to work on the lower post at Kanpur Central but the management of railway administration has not done so with an intention to penalise the concerned work- man. On the basis of these allegations the concerned workman has p-ayed that impugned order of transfer dated 15-4-91 be held PS illegal and be quashed and an additional advance increment be granted in favour of the concerned workman w.e.f. 12-1-88 in terms of the service condition of the concerned workman by virtue of appeal d~*ed 3-2-8? repardins* implementa- tion of family planning programme and the workman be deemed to be on duty and posted a' Kanpur Cen- tral in the grade of 1400—2300 and a direction be 2668 GI/2001 - 134792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 (PART I I —S E C. 3(ii)] issued to the management !o pay him sai;:ry, bonus with effect frcun Ociobcr J991 uli date.

; '* g-v-n i.o me IOCJJ employees by local authority in the year 1982 only. The concerned workman is alleged to have opted for family planning in the year W.S, when no such privilege was given or issued in the year 19u8, hence the concerned employee cannot get any benefit ol the appeal in the year 1982. The service condition of the railway employees are regu- lated by Railway Establishment Manual and Railway Establishment Code and also by subsidiary statutory rules which haw the force of the'law and appeal made by Divisional Railway Manager, Allahabad in 1982 was irre'evant in case of transfer order passed in 1991. The workman was asked to tile certificate and decla- rations as required under the relevant Government Orders for granting him special increments for adopt- ing family planning programme but he did not furnish the same. The management has no objection in grant-* ing the same if relevant papers are filed by the work- roan before the competent authority. It has been that the case of the workman is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Tbe concerned workman fi'ed reioinder in both the cases in which he has reiterated his statement made in the claim. He has further alleged that if he d'd not join the place of his posting at Allahabad, he should have been accommodated on the lower post at which he was working af Kanpur Central in terns of nilss applicable to the employees of the railways.

7. The concerned workman examined and re-exn- mined himself as W.W.I in both the cases and filed n number of documents in support of his case. The management examined Manohar Lai as M.W.I in both the cases and filed a number of documents in support or i's case.

8 I iv'vc heatd Sanvar Alam the concerned work- .-;i."n wh.-i was psesen¹ in person and the authorised repre ent:=r the management and have gone (!i>"CH'2h the record.

5. In both the cases written s*alemefit !us been filed by the management. It has been alleged t!;.ii the concerned workman was not complying with ihe transfer order da^cd J 5-4-9! and he remained absent from duty since 1991, hence he was not entitled to get salary for the period,when he was unuuthorisedly absent from duty. It has been alleged that the man- agement of railway administration has no objection to grant additional special increment to the concerned workman for his wife under going tubectomy opera- tion as admissible under rules provided the workman Sarwar Alam submitted all declarations, certificates which were sought from him by the letter issued from the office of Divisional Railway Manager dated 18th March. 1992. Tiie workman did not submit papers till date hence the management was handicapped in granting him additional special increment to him. The management admitted that he was appointed as goods clerk on 17-5-77 at Kannur and was eianted the grade of 1200—2040 on 24-2-81. On 18-4-91 the concerned workman was promoted in his own channel of promotion as ERC in the grade 1400—2300 and was transferred and posted at Allahabad on adminis- trative ground in terms of promotion/transfer order dated 18-4-91. Sarwar Alam was spared from Kanpur for attending his duty at Allahabad as per terms of his engagement. It was obligatory for him to join the place of transfer in compliance of transfer/promotion order, but instead of joining at Allahabad he filed case O.A. No. 493 of 1991 before CAT Allahabad against the transfer order. That case was finally dis- posed off on 17-5-91 in which a direction was issued to the Divisional Railway Manager to make disposal of the representation of the concerned workman dated 26-4-91 on merits. That representation of the con- cerned workman was disposed off by the Divisional Railway Manager on merits and the order was com- municated to the concerned workman but he did not obey the directions given in the order. He was spared and relieved from Kanpur after communication of the order of rejection of nr>oeal but he did not make compliance of transfer order, ft has been alleged that once his original application moved before Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the transfer order was finally disposed off without granting the relief of quashing the transfer order ii was not open to the concerned workman to raise the industrial dispute again against the same transfer order before this Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been alleged that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in several cases that if the transfer order is made on administrative ground any court or tribunal should not interfere on transfer matters. It has been alleged that as the concerned workman did not attend his duties after he was, transferred from Kanpur to Allahabad at Allahabad and was remaining absent since then he was not entitled to get any salary for the period when he was absent from duty, ft has been.j alleged that the appeal of Divisional Railway Mana-. ger in the year 1982 in respect of the family planning, programme was made for the year 1982 only to achi- eve the target of family planning scheme for the year 1982 and not after wards. It was the privilege which

tunii and t-ondit ons given m appeal Ext. W.I and it we! in violation et the terms and conditions as mentioned eai 1991 by v, n ch ihv concerned workman wa^ transferred from Kanpur Cuuiai to AUahaoad

I ' IL . ' • s u ed bv fh- G o v e r n m e nt of I i d ia f r om t me to

>>me A nj (. dei I sued by D vision?] Railway JViiiitig<_i in l ie fonn of appoil oi order cannot i c i u-

i \ it t he ' • ^ I V CC c o n d i t ' o ns of t he e m p l o y e es of " t he

j c " l " / cy , d , v, n • • ' . a t i on b e c au e e m p l o j c es of l a i l w ay

an exigency oi service and the transfer order passed on aainmisu jtive consiuuu,m..iib cannot be inieileied wth ll iiu malafide JS shown.

1 have already held above- that me impugned order of promotion and transfer is not vitiated by malafide. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order ol transfer which have been passed by the competent authority on administrative grounds cannot be interfered with by this tribunal.

] 6. In view of above consideration 1 do not find any illegality in the order of transfer dated 15-4-1991 passed by the railway administiation against the con- cerned employee and such oider of transfer cannot be interfered wilh by this tribunal in this case.

promoted him also wilh other employees mentioned in the order. He o.ny made a prayer that he should be allowed to continue at K^npur. riis that appeal was iejected by Divisional Railway Manager, This shows tnat the concerned workman knew very well that Divisional Personnel Olhcer Northern Railway AHc.th.abad was competent to pass promotion order as wcii as tiansier ordei on behalf ot the Divisional Railway Manager and dial JS why he was thankful to Uie Divisional Railway Manager for promoting him in the higher grade in accordance with the im- pugned order. He has no where said that his pro- motion order was illegal or invalid or was not pass- ed by the competent authority. He has always made an attempt to say thai he should be Jlowed to con- tinue at Kanpur and should noi be shifted to Allaha- bad, li is notable that promotion,Iransier orders hitvft been signed and issued by one and the same aumoiity. It the promotion order according to the eonceintd woikman is valid H is not open for him to challenge tae validity of the tiansier order which has been passed by the same officer who had passed the promotion ordei. Ihe promotion as well as transfer a.e contained in tiie iinpug.ied oiuer dated 15-4-9L 1 rom this point of vievv also the conten- tion oi Lhe c.nicejned workman that the iransfer order dated 15-4-91 is invalid appears to be without any substance and cannot be accepted.

14. The duUionsed representative foi the railway adminisliauon has argued that transfer orders which have b^eu made on administrative grounds cannot be interlered by cou.ts except it is vitiated by mala- fide. He has drawn my attention towards the law I,nd down by the HorTble Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh versus S. S. Kourav and other, AIR 195 SC 1056 as under :

The courts or Ttibunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on ad- niiji'sU'.itive gicimds. Ihe wheels of ad- ministration should be allowed to run ojiioothly and courts mid Tribunals are not expected lo imerd'ct the working of the admin,stiative system by iiansfeiring the officers to prop;r pl-ices. Jt is for the ad- nrnistratiun to take appiopnate decision and such deci lions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafidts or by ex- tieneous consider¹)tion without any factual background foundation. When, as in this case, the transfer order is issued on admi- nistiative grounds, the couit cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place,

15. In Ijnion H" Fndn versus N P Thomas 1993

1 LLJ, 1063 ( S O. the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India h.is held as under :—

The 'Government employee holding a trunsler- able post Iris no vested right to remain in a paiticular place of posting itself and can- not claim, as a matter cf right, the polling in that place even on promotion.

Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad)

V_-uUiJJCl(.liL AuLiLoilly Sliill LUKi dcCIMUjl Whlllli U ye-iLuu. ui iwu niumns Irom the uaie ia lcceipi ol such papus imm the concLi^ed employee, n such decision is nut taken within ihe lime allowed oy tins i n b u u al it will be prebumcu UiuC ihe e o n u _ nl tj v , - v- man is entitled to get tne ben^iil ui

18. "Ihe next question which liaa been icte.ir.ed to Ihis tribunal lor decision is whetner Hie action ui' iailvvay administration in not giving uuty to Sarwar Alam h RC at kanpur and not giving salary troni UcloLcr, 1991 onwards is juslihed oi not.

to carry out transfer order as his appeal dated 26-4-91 was iejected by me Divisional Railway ivianager. Keeping in view this letter Chief Reservation Super- visor had issued the relieving order to the concerned workman on 23-10-91. The aforesaid orders were also communicated to the concerned employee on 29-10-91 when the concerned employee was present before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur. This fact is borne out from the letter dated 12-11-91 sent by Aslam Mahnuid Area Manager, Northern Railway, Kanpur Central, Kanpur, address- ed to Sri Om Prakush, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. Northern Railway, Allahabad which has been filed by the management and which is on the record. Thus it is evident that the concerned workman even after knowing that his appeal was rejected he did not join the place of his posting on transfer. If he was relieved from Kanpur Central keeping in view the result of his appeal and if he was directed by Area Manager Kanpur Central to make compliance of the promotion order dated 15-4-91 there was no justifica- tion for the railway administration for permitting Sri Sarwar to join his duties at Kanpur. As he was absent from duty after his appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Railway Manager against transfer order he was not entitled to get salary of the period when he did not work at all either at Kanpur Central or at Allahabad, Thus the action of the railway ad- ministration in not permitting him to jojn his duties at Kanpur Central after he was transferred from Kanpur to Allahabad under the older.* of Divisional Railway Manager, Allahabad and not paying him salary for Ihe period when he did not work at all cannot be said to be unjustified.

20. The concerned workman argued that when he did not proceed to Allahabad for joining the post of promotion, after his appeal was rejected by Divisional Railvfay Manager, he should have been allowed to work on the post of lower sca'le at Kanpur, treating the concerned employee to have refused hi-' promo- tion in the higher grade. After going through the re- cord of the wise, T do no not find any foice in ibis con- tention. If the appeal of the concerned employee against the transfer order was rejected by Divisional Railway Manager, the concerned workman made a number of representations to the Area Manager, Kanpur, for permitting to work at Kanpur, but in none of them he expressed his desire to work on the post in the lower grade at Kanpur Central. On the other hand in all those applications including the ap- plication/appeal made to the D.R.M. on 26-4-91, he requested that he should be allowed to join duty at Kanpur Central Station in the promotional grade at Kanpur. Fven in his praver made in the statement of claim he has requested (his- tribunal to issue direc- tion to the management to permit him to work in the promotional grade at Kanpur and not in the lower grade/scale. This shows that the concerned workman was trea'tini> himself to have been promoted in the higher trade under orders dated 15-4-91 and wris claiming that salary and he always intended lo work on promotional post at Kanpur. Tn these circumstances railway administration was not in a position to permit him to join duty on the ooit of lower scale specially when he never expressed his desire lo forego his pro- motion. T, therefore, do not find any cu1vfance in this arcument of the concerned¹ workman,4796 THE GAZETTE OF J N D I\ : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FART II—SFC. 3(ii)] 21. The next question to be decided in this cae>e is as to what reliei can be granted to the concerned, employee in this case. As 5>u Sarvvar Aiam did not join his duties at Allahabad in compliance ot the transfer/promotion order dated J3-4-91, under mis- taken notion that it was an illegal ojder. I think it proper that he may be permitted to join the promo- tional post at Allahabad within a period o' thirty days fiom the date of publication of this award. If he- joins at Allahabad in compliance of that order, the management is direced to permit him to join his post- ing at Allahabad as ERC in the promotional grade. The management is further directed to pay him salary of the promotional post from that date as revised from time to time. Admittedly he was granted leave for the period from 16-9-91 to 21-10-91 by the com- petent authority. He has already received salary of the period before 16-9-91. He is entitled to get leave salary of that period that is fiom 16-9-91 to 21-10-91.

22. The concerned workman submitted medical certificate and applied medical leave for the period from 16-9-91 to 20-12-91. Il is on the basis oi that medical certificate that aforesaid leave was granted to him. If medical leave is due to him he should be granted medical leave by the competent authority for the period from 22-10-91 to 20-12-91.

23. Period from 21-12-91 up t0 the date of his joining at Allahabad shall be regularised by granting such leave as may be due to him and if no leave is due to him he may be granted extra ordinary leave or leave without pay for the remaining period. As the promotion order shall become effective aftci the concerned workman joins at Allahabad in compliance of the promotion/transfer order his leave salary and other emoluments shall be paid 1o him calculating his salary according to his pay on the post on which he was working before promotion. If the concerned em- ployee joins at Allahabad in compliance of the direc- tion given in this award, the railway administration of Northern Railway shall pay his dues (o him within a\ period of three months from the date of his joining at Allahabad.

24. Management is further directed to comply with the directions given in paragraph 17 of this award provided the concerned workman submits the relevant documents before the competent authority within the time allowed to him in this award.

25. Both the references are decided accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Office New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2317.—In pursuance of Section 17 ot the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ol 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the awaid of the Central Government Industrial Tiibunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betwetn the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway mid their (workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 16-8-2001.

[ [No. L-41012/i48/99-IR(B-t)J

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

("ANNEX U RE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No, 275/99

Jn the matter of dispute between ;

Surcnder Singh, President, Rashtri'ya Chatuith Slucni Rail Mazdoor Congress (INTUC), 68-Sector 16 Sikandara, Agra.

AND

Divisional Railway Manager, (Personnel) Central Railway. Jhansi.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide its notification No. L-41()i2/l48/99/IR(B-I) dated 4-10-99 lias referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this tribunal; —

"Whether the action of Divisional Railway Mana- ger (Karmik) Central Railway, Jhansi, in not giving employment and pension 1o Guddi w/o late Sri Parmand, MRCL Kl:a lasi, on compassionate ground is legal anJ justified ? Tl not, to uhat relief the woikmjn is entitled to 7"

2. In this case after exchange of pleadings between the parties the case was fixed for filing of documents by the management on 7-8-20(11. On the date of hearing of the case, concerned work Lidy filed her affidavit dated 5-8-20O1 stating therein that as the management of Central Railway lias provided her appointment on compassionate giound vide its order No, 9/2001 dated 28-3-2001 during the course of pendency of this case, hence reference may he decid- ed accordingly.

3. In view of facts alleged in tlv* tiihYiuvit of the concerned lady now there remains PO dispute bet- ween the parties. Accordingly it is held that M the grievance of the concerned lady has been satisfied by the manfrgcmonl of Central Railway to her full and final satisfaction. Being so, it is furtlvp held that no4797 dispute exists between the parties in pursuance of the reference made to tins tribunal.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

This reference was received in this court on, 23-1-2001. Notices were issued lo both the parties. On 26-2-2001, the workman Ruknnnibui appeared in the court out did not Hie any statement of claim.

R. P. PANDEY, Piesidins Officer

The ciise was adjourned lo 16-3-2001. Rukminibai filk;d Vakalu'tnama of Advocate Chandrashekar Vs. Anwane and the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur filed VakalarnaiiKi of advocate S. N. Dhanagare. So both the parties were heing represented through their advocates from 16-3-20(11. The case was adjourned to 8-5-2001 but no statement of claim was filed by the workman. The case was again ad- journed to 4-7-2001 & 5-7-2001 but both the parties absented on these dates.

On 8-5-2001 cost of Rs. 500 was imposed on the workman as the statement of claim was not filed and the counsel had mentioned that he has vet in lake instructions from his client for the preparation of statement of claim. The workman did not pay the cost.

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

In view of the above facts it is evident that both the parties are being represented through their advo- cates since 16-3-2001 but they have been lingering on this case.

As no statement of claim has been filed by the workman, the workman cannot be granted any relief mentioned in the schedule. The reference is therefore disposed of for want of prosecution S.O. 2318.—In pur^ian.je of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 if 1047), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation jfo the management of Central Railway and their (Workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 16-8-2001.

ORDER

[No. L-41012/209/2000-TR(B-I)1

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The workman, Rukminibai M. Sahu has not sub- mitted any statement of claim regarding her dismissal from service. Her counsel did not file anv statement of claim through several adjournments were granted since 16-3-2001.

BEFORE THF CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

The reference is disposed of for want of prosecu- tion. No relief can be granted to the workman. Refer- ence is answered accordingly.

Shri B, G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Dated: 5-7-2001.

Reference No. CCTT 5/2001

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Rail-

way

AND

The Secretary, National Railway Mazdoor Union

AWARD

The Central Government. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause fd) of Sub-section (1 > and Sub-section 2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disnute A d. 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. 1,-41012/209/2000/IR(B-I) rlated 29-12-2000 in the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, (he lhth Aurusl, 2001 "Whether the action of the manntiement of Cen- tral Railway through the Divisional Railway Manager (Catering Unit), Nagpur in dismis- sing Smt, Rukminibai M. Sahu. Naopur. w.e.f. 1999 onwards is iustifrd ? If nni what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

SO 2119. —In rmrsmnc* rf Section 17 of the Industrial Di'-niitr", Aft 1947 M4 of 1947) Ihe Central Government l-frcbv n'i'i|i\hcs tlv Awaul of the Central Government Indn^i i >1 Ttihiimi ciirn-Lrihoiii Crurf. Chcnnai as ihown in tlio Anncxiue, In (he industriill dispute between the employee4798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. SEPTEMBER H, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 LF'ARI II—Six 3(n)] in ichtion to the futieonn Pent Trust and then woikracn whuh was received bv the Cendal Government on 14 08 2001

[No L 44012/24/97 IR(M)1

D M DAVID Under Secy

ANN? XL RF

BEFORF THL CENTRAL GO\TRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL C UM LAFOuR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday tht 17tn July, 2001

PRrSFNT

K KARTHIKrYAN Presiding Officer

Irdt.stnal Dispute No 455/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industnal Tnbunal I D No 102/97) (In the mattei of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Subjection (1) ai d Sub section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947) betweei thi workmen S/Sn P Sidalai D Noble Annadurai ~nd K Petchiraj and the Management of the Tuticoun Poit Trust)

BL HVFEN

The General S°cietarv T Paity/Claimant Port Wrrkeis Union Tuticoun

AND

II Party/Managemen* The Chapman Tuticoun Port Trust Tuticoi in

APPFARANCE

Foi the Workman M '<< R Vaigai & Anna Mathevv Advocates

For the Management Sn R"o & Reddy & S Vaidhya nathm and W T Piabahar Advocates The Government of India Ministry of Labour m exercise of powers conferred by c^use (d) of Sub section (1) and Sub section 2(A) of Secticn 10 of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947) have l u e n eJ the concerned Industn 1 Dispute foi adiud'cation vide Older No L 44012/24/97 IR (Misc) dated 21 10 97

AWARD

fi Lidu uuil Depute ieleried to in the above order of icf ic.ice by ihe ( enti il Government foi adjudication by tni Iimunal ii as follows —

Whahei ihe action cf the Management of ruticonn P ol li u t uuiy ng Guide I to S/Sn P Sudalai D Noble Annadui ti and K Petchiraj is justified ' If not to vvhit relitt the concerned workmen are entitled ⁹ '

2 Tht au orients in the CJairn Stattment are briefly as follows --

The Poit Woikers Union is espousing the cause of its members the thrte workmen concerned in this dispute b\ r1 1 herefoi "> thev weie [i mo'ed ts mechanics in the year 1992 and 199* S nee the ifoiesaid S Veimail did not posses ITI qitdl ficauon he was yven an ad hoc promotion as mechanic on S 7 94 much ldttr the aleitsaid three workers wei promoted as such On 7 7 l/i a scheme called Tuticonn Poit Trust Scheme of 'killed c.tteoi/es 1995 was introduced pro- viding for ceitain conditions for further promotion Uudei the Scheme \aious tiades in the Port Trust were div dp mfo differem grades of skilled and highly skilled categoue The skilled arades were divided into Grade III and Grad and hichlv skilled caiecoiies were divided into Grade II i*\ ' Giade I The eond tion for promotion to the various grad <-re a-, follows —

qualification under the statutory regulation. After the repeated representations by the Claimant/Union, the Respondent Po, t Trust promoted the concerned three workers to skilled Gr. 1 on 9-1-1998 but only prospective!}. They are entitled to be promoted from 15-9-95 in pieierence to the said S. Velma 1. who is the junior in the post of mechanic. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased lo hold that the action of the Respondent/Man .^croent in denying Grade I to the concerned three workmen from 15-9-95 is unjustified and illegal and consequently the concerned three workmen are entitled to promotion as skilled Grade I from 15-9-95, with due seniority over Sri S. Veimail with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary.

"!. The Respondent had filed a Counter Statement disputing the contention of the Claimant Union in their t laim S'atement and they are briePy as follows :—

This in.¹"J''hl d'spute >s not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Tirticorin Port was declared as major Port in the v:n 197-1. The Tuticorin Port Trust board was formed w e.f 1-4-79 under the pro\'sions of Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The Central Government formulated and notified Tuti- coiin Port Trust Fmoloyees (reciuitment seniority and pro- motion) Regulations, 1978 as First Regulation. The Schedule to th' regulations contain recrui'ment rules for various posh operated in the Port on 1-4-1979. The three concerned work- m?n in the dispute along with S. Veimail had joined duty in Tuticorn Port Trust as dearer" and Assistant Mechan'c as noted hereunder :—

Name

Date of joining as Cleaner

Date of joining as Asst. Mechanic

22-10-1979 26-10-1984 23-05-1984 28-05-1987

01-10-1973 05-01-1979 04-02-1980 04-02-1980

S. Veimail P. Sudalai Noble Annadurai Petcbirai

1. Sri 2. Sri 3. Sri 4. K.

The Post of Assistant Mechanic is the feeder post for pro- motion to the grade of mechanic The recruitment rule to the srade oi mechanic is as follow? :—

Qualification :—

I. VIIT standard pass:

2 IT! certificate with four years experience in the line:

3. Should pass Trade Test conducted by the Port.

Method of Recruitment :—

By promotion, failing which by direct recruitment.

On Promotion :—

1. Assistant Mechanic with 5 year experience in the Port after appointment, thereto on a regular basis.

2. Should na"s the Trade Test prescribed and conducted by the Port.

1 mployees (recruitment, seniority and promotion) Regulations 1979. The relaxation had been done not only in case of Sri Veimail but also to many empiovees for promotion to the grade of mechanic namely S/Sri S. Jeyaramakrishnan. (.'. Pciulsamy, S. Muruge'-an and K. Kruppaiah. Therefore, non- po.ncsMon of ITI certificate i.e. academic qualification is not a bar for giving promotion to employees who are fit for promotion, if the individual is otherwise suitable and qualified by reason of adequate expsnence and passing the trade test Moreover, pending Notification of the said amended recruit- ment rules in the official gazette promotions are being made on ad-hoc basis. Therefoie, promotion made on ad-hoc basis h valid and legal. The scheme of skilled scales/services as prevailing in other major Ports were not introduced in Tuti- corin Port Trust for a long time. From the date of formation of Tu'icorin Port Tru"-t w.e.f. 1-4-1979 to till date of intro- duction of the scheme i.e. on 14-09-1995 all the employees who were brought into the scheme were drawing the scale of p;;y equivalent to the pay pf stilled grade TI. They never worked in any skilled'semi-skilled post carrying the scale of pay equivalent to skilled giade If I (entry level posts to the scheme). Due to the non-existence of the scheme thev were directly enioyinc the scale of pay equivalent to skilled Gmde II till the introduction of the skilled scheme. The Central Government by its letter dated 7-7-95 communi- cated the sanction for implementation of the scheme of skilled scales in Tuticorin Port Trust. This scheme of skilled scales have covered 15 caterer ies of posts including mechanic category. The classification of tmc^s covered under the scheme of skilled categories are as follows:—

(a> Highly skilled Gride I Rs 2420-85-2930-100-4430 (b) Highly skilled Grade If Rs. 2250-85-2920-100-4330 fei Skilled Grade i

Rs. 2370-70-2720-75-3845 (Five years service in this Grade eligible for next grade promotion)

frl) Skilled Grade II Rs. 2230-70-2720-75-3695 (S>> years service

(e> SkiPed Grade !!I Rs. 2150-70-2780'-75-3605 (FiVht years sen,lie in this grade eligible for next grpde promotion)

t

1.

1.

S. Velmail

01-10-73 02-10-79 14 yrs. 16 yrs.

2.

3. 15 yrs.

4. 2 P. Sudalai 05-05-79 20-06-84 14' yrs. 11 yrs.

7.5 yr<=.

3.

04-02-80 23-05-84 14 yrs. 11 yrs.

D. Noble

Annadurai

6 yrs.

Point :—

It is sc"n from this above ijbuKu statement that Sli S. Vclmail had joined in this Poit Tinst on 1-10-73 as cleaner, whereas the otl.vjr lhret¹ wuikmen have joined only in the year 197y and 1980. Si i S. Vilm.nl is senioi in the giade of eleanei as well as in tile trade of Assistant Mechanic which is a semiskilled tjuulc. IICIYC.CI, ,i, u mechanic, he became junioi as he failed in tile 1r.ide kst, while considering for the j;nid; of mechanic. However, when the scheme was introduced the total service put logethei in the semi-skilled and skilled i.e. Assistant Mechanic and Mechanic having taken into account wluk fixing the piad,\ On tins basis, Si i Vclniail has put 16 years of service in the skilled grade i.e. semi-skilled and skilled, whereas the ot'icr three employees have put in 1 1 years, 1] years and 8 >ears respectively and the minimum seivice requiicd iui .in M1IS.UI to be considered for the skilled grade I is 14 \efir.s. Since Sri Velmail has got 16 years service ns oil 1 .S-9-95 in the skilled category, he was offered skilled giade J, whereas the other (hire employees have put less than the rcqmied minimum pei oil of service they were offered skilled grade II. The four employees who had been refemJ to in this case had been piomoted on ad hoc basis only During the time of le-eau-jn risation of employees in the "scheme of skilled scales w.e.f. 15-9-95, the follow in i? factors wcie taken into consul atir :i : —

(ft) skilled categories alieedy existing; ibj SCJL of pay p.cfently enjoying by them; (c) sen ICLS icndeied by the employees in Ihc respective

Kiail; including •, mi skilled grade;

Name

Date of jci ing as Mechanic i.e. Taken as service in Skilled Gi II

Date of from which they be eligible for considering to next higher grade

SudaJai Noble Annadurai

~L P. 2. D. 3. K.

09-01-1992 09-0 M 992 27-08-1993

09-01-1998 09-01-199S 27-0^-1999

Fetch i raj

averred liow the scheme provisions have been implemented in respect of the concerned three workmen and the workman Sri S. Vclmuil and when the scheme wus introduced the Respondent /Management had t.iken into account the total service put together by the employees in the semi skilled and skilled i.e. Assiitunt Mechanic and Mechanic posts and had fixed thcii guide. Cm this basis, it is seen that Sri S. Velmail had put in 16 years of service in semi-skilled and skilled jobs, whereas the other concerned three employees have put 11 years, 11 years and 8 years rcspeclvely. It is not disputed fhai minimum service required foi Artisan lo be considered for Skilled Grade J n 14 yeais. As on 15-9-95 the workman Sri S. Velmail had got 16 years of service in the skilled category. This is nut disputed by the I parly Claimant. That was v.hy on 15-9-95, when tie scheme was implemented and (he guides have been fixed for the employees, the said workman S. Velmail had offeied skilled Grade I, whereas the concerned three employees havinp put less than the lcquired minimum period of service i.e. 14 years for skilled Grade I they were offered Skilled Grade 11. So it cannot be said that the action nf the Management of Tuticorin Port Tiusl in denying Grade I to the concerned thiee workmen on 15-9-95 i- unjustified, A perusal of the documents Ex. W3 and W4 clearlv shows that the action tfiken by the Management, n¹ it is spoken by them in Ihe Counter Statement, is only in accordance with the scheme mentioned under Ex. W4. Under such circumstances, it is seen that the Respondent/Manaa-- jnent Tuticorin Port Tiust had not committed any irreRularity or wrong in denying Giade I to the concerned three workmen on 15-9-95 and it was granted to (he workman Sri S. Velmail on the same day, Thus, I answer the point according.

6. In the result, nn award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Tuficonn Port Trust in denying Grade 1 to S/Sri P, Sudalai, Noble Annadurai and K. Pctchirai as claimed hy them is justified Therefore, the concerned woikmen are not entitled to the relief prayed for by the Claimant/Union in this industrial dispute. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, coirected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 17th July, 2001.)

K, KARTIIIKEYAN, Presidinji Officei Witnesses Examined :

On either side: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

Eor 1 Party/Workman :

Ex. No. Date Desci iption

\V1 16-03-79 Kliact from T.P.T. Employees (Recruit- ment Seniority & Promotion) Regulation, 1979.

W2 07-07-95 Xtrox copy of le(tei from Ministry ol Surface Trunspori to thr Chairman, Tulicoiin Port Trust.

Wll 17-0S-9S Xerox copy of Petitioner's rejoinder to the Asst, Labour Commissioner (Central). Chennai.

VVI2 21-10-98 X m j\ cop\ ot Respondent's reply to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai.

1 oi the 11 IVuty/Manajiemcnt ;

Ml Nil !.\tiact liimi T.P.T. Employees- Recruitment (Seniority and Pi emotion) Regulation, 1979.

M2 01-12-94 Xeiox copy of senioi ity list of fjganers and Assistant Mechanics ot Port Trust.

M3 lfi-07-94 Xeiox copy of order of piomotion from the Assistant Mechanic to Mechanic on ad-hoc basis.

M4 07-07-95 Xerox copy ul rcgeularization of ad-hoc services made i>i Mo grade of Mechanic.

M5 07-07-95 Xerox copy of Tuticorin Port liust Scheme of Skilled Categories, 1995.

Mo 07-07-95 Xerox copy of letter from the Ministry of Surface Transport to the Respondent.

M7 15-09-95 Xerox copy ot Older of Port Trust under Reference No. E(M>35/28-/95-K Y 1173.

M8 15-09-95 Xciox copy of order of Port Trust under KeteiLii.c- No. KfM)15/2S/95-P. O1174.

M9 23-01-98 Xerox cop> of order of Port Tiust under Rcfeicuec No. hi M)40/1/97-P O318.

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 W6 W9 wio4KO2 THE GAZETTE OF INDfA : SEPTEMBER S, 20D1/BHADHA 17, 1923 [FART l l _S E C. 3(ii)1 AND

PRfcSENT ;

S. N. Saundankar, Prcsidins Officer

Reference No. CGTT-1|31 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of M|s. Cawajsi Then Workmen The General Sectetaiy, Pcti oleum Employees Union, Tel-Resayan Bhavan, Tiiak Road, Dadai, Murabai.

APPEARANCES :

Uehiamji and Company M[s, Cawasji Bchramji and Co., The Director, MPT-4, 166, Sasson Dock, t olaba, Mumbai-400005

For the Employer : Sfm G, D. Talrcja, Representative.

For the Woikmen : Shri N. A. Khanvikur, Representative

AND

Mumbai, daled 9th July, 2001.

AWARD

Their Workmen Shri Harshadrai Barot, Peter Chawl, Near Ekta Nagsu', MH 3 Colony, Dohanukar Wadi, Kandivili (W), Murobai-400067.

APPEARANCES :

The Government of India, Ministry of 1 alwui, by its Older No. L-30012|27|99-IR

For the Employer : No Appearance.

For the Workmen : No Appearancce.

Mumbai, dated f.th July, 2001.

AWARD

"Whether the aclion of the management of ONCC Ltd. Mumbai in accepting the resignation forms of 89 members of Petroleum Emp. Union submitted by ONGC (BOP) Karmachan Sanghatana is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the Petroleum Emp- Union is entitled to ?"

The Government of India, Ministiy of Laboui, hv its Order No. L-3l012|31|99-IR(M), dtd. 16-3-2000 Hnd letter dtd. 2^-f)-200O, have referred the following dispute tor adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of powt-is conferjed on it by Clause (d) of Sub^Section (l)and Sub-Section (2Aj uf Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Ac', 1947.

2. Pursuant¹ to the notices of this, tribunal management ONGP and the I'mployees Union, appealed. Management vid* application (Exhibit-5) pointed out that the union did not put their Statement of Claim, thetefore, union bein^ .ioi interested, reference be disposed of Union's Oeneral Secrc- taiy, Mr. N. A. Khanvilkar vide purshis (Exhibt-b) tontended that they are not pressing the reference. In view of this, following ordei is passed :^-

ORDliR

"Whether the action of the management of M|s. Cawasji Behramji & Company in terminating the sei vices of Shri Harshadiai Barot is instilled ? If not, to •what relief the workman is entitled to?" Reference stands disposed of for non-pioieculion vide

purshis (Exhibit-6),

S, N. SAUNDANKAR, In-charge Picsiding Officer

2, Pursuant to the notice of this tribunal dtd T-.S 2000 management M|s. Cawasji Behiamji and Company, and workman Shri Harshadrai Baiot, though served (vide Exhi- bit-3 & 4) did not appear. Therefore a fresh notice n,,s issued again (vide Ex-5) and that recoid shows though both the parties served, none appeared, which indicates that the workman is not interested in proseeutinp the re- ference. Therefore following order is passed :

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution

| S. N. SAUNDANKAR, tn-Chaige Presiding; Officer New Delhi, the Ifitli August, 2001

S.O. 2J21.—In puisuance 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, Mumbai as shown in the Annexurc, in, the industrial dispute between the employers in lelation to the M|s. Cawnsji Behram Ji & Co. .ind their workmen which was received by the Central Government tin the 14-8-2001,

New Delhi, the lfilh August, 2001 JNo. L-3;012|?ll'"-TR(M)l

B. M. DAVID, Under Sccj.

ANNEXURL

BEFORE THE CI'NTRAl GOVHRNMHNT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. I, MUMBAI

S.O. 2322.—Tn pursuance of Section I⁷ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieby publishes the Award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tiibiirial-cum-Lnbour Couit, Bhubnneswai (Oiissa) ns shown in the Anneuirc, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the M|s. Mahesh Kumar Polaj4803 and their woikmen which was received bv the Central Gov- ernment on the 14-8-2001.

fNo. L-260ll!3|y?|IRtMJ]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT. BHUBANESWAR PRESENT :

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE CASE NO. 164|2001 Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 18th July 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of M|s. Maheih Kumar Polai, Contractoi, Kasia lion Mines, P.O. Kasia, Keonjhar.

. . 1st Party-Management.

AND

Their workmen, represented through the Getieial Secretary, Barbil Workers Union, P.O. Barbil, Kconjhar.

.. 2nd Party-Wmkinan.

APPEARANCE:

Shrr G.D. Pati, .. For the 1st Paily Management. None. , . For the 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministiy of Labour, in exeicisc of Powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-seetion (\) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have refeired the following dispute for adjudication vide their Ordei No, L-26011 |3|97| IR(M), dated 5-5-1997 :—

"Whether the demand of the Baibil Woikfis Union to raise the existing rate for 9 L'ft. Iron Ore of 4" size from Rs. 15 to Rs. 25 and to reimburse the cost of medicines prescribed by Doctois to the woikmen of the management of \1|s. Mahesh Kumui¹ Polai, Cont. Kasis Iron Mines, M[s. Essel Mining and Industries, PO : Kasia, Dist. Keonjhar, are proper? If so, what lelicf the woikmen are entitled to?"

2. On leccipt of Ihe reference the M.imujenunt appealed and filed his written statement denying the claim of the Union, But the Union did not appear before this Tribunal inspite of intimation sent by the Government of India (Ministiy of Labour) and notice issued to him time to lime by the Tribunal.

3. When the 2nd Parly-Union has not filed any claim statement and have not appeared before the Tribunal. Tt would suggest that presently no dispute exists between the parties and the 2nd Paity-Union has got no cau=e of action.

4. In view of the above fuels this Tribunal is of the opinion that theic is no Industrial Dispute exists between the parlies nnd ihe workmen are not entitled to ,m\ ielief, 5. No dispute award is passed accordingly.

6. Reference is answered accordingly.

S.K, DHAL, Pivsidini. Officer New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S O 2323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Donimalai Iron Oic Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2001.

fNo. L-26011|4|96-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN I" INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM SADAN, III MAIN III CROSS, II PHASE, 1UMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated ; 16th July, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com., LLB., Presid- ing Officer.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT. BANGALORE C. R. No. 180197

I PARTY

The Geneial Secretary, Donimalai Iron Ore Project, Employees Association. Donimalai Township P.O. Sandur, Bellary District, (Advocate—Shri Ganesh Bhat, Y.H.)

II PARTY

The Gcnciul Manager, Dominalni Iron Ore Pioject, Donimali Township P.O. Sandur Taluk, Bellaiy, (Advocate—Shri N. Venkatesh)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- feirej by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has ;eferrcd this dispute vide older No. L-26011 |4|96-IR (Misc.) dated 13-11-96 foi adjudication on the following schedule,

SCHEDULE

"Whethfi Manatjcmenl of National Mineral Development Coiporation, Donimalai is justified in not paying HRA to workmen residing at Villages other than Sandor and Donimalai Township at the rate of 7-1 \2 per cent the basic pay w.e.f. 1-1-1992. If not to what relief the workmen aic entitled to?" 2. The workmen of the Employees Association, Donimalai lion Ore Project. Donimali Township are woiking with the management. The said management is not paying HRA to workmen residing at village other than Sandur and Doni- malai Township at the rate of 7-112 per cent of the basic pay w.e.f. 1-1-1992 and theicfore the dispute is raised.

3. Paities appealed and filed Claim Statement and Counter lcspectivcly.

•I. The case of the fust paity union workmen in brief is as under:

5. It is an admitted fact that the workmen are working with the Management.

6. The giicvance ot the woikmcn is that allowances were llxcd in Hccoidanee with memorandum of 16-12-1989 in respect of HRA and the Second Party management entered into various settlement daiod I^-?-l976. 23-8-1980. 17-9-1993 and 16-12-1989. The workmen residing at surrounding areas of Donimaini were treated equally as one category.

7. It is the further case of the workmen that subsequent to the settlement dated. 16-12-1989 the second party through the Chairman, NMDC, Hyderabad has issued an office order No. 2|RuIes|72|Vol. If dated 21-8-1991 with regard to House Rent Allowance payable to thi: woikmen. On pursuing the same order it is clear that tncie is no departure in the House Rent Allowance payable to the workmen residing outside the Doriirnalai Township, l-or the first time Sandur is demarked as distinct and separate place for grant or House Rent Allowance and is fixed at tf e rate of 10 percent of the basic pay.

8. It is the furthei grievance of the woikmen (hat while referring to the order dated 21-8-1991 the second party management inferred wrongly and categorised to the Sandur and other villages and implemented the above said order and the HRA to the Workmen who are residing at Sandur are being paid at the rate of 10 percent of the basic pay and HRA for the workmen who resides in other villages were continued to be paid at old iatc i.e. according to the settlement dated 16-12-1989.

9. There is no office of the second parly at Sandhur and therefoie the action of the management is discriminatory, illegal and arbitraly. These workmen have similar problems and the villages surrounding Donimalai Township like Bhujanganagcr. Taranagar, Rnnjitpur, Naraspur are also Mandal Panchayath similar to that of Sandur. So there h no rational in discriminating the workmen on these leasons.

10. It is the furthei case of the workmen that in similar circumstance House Rent Allowance for the- workmen who aie workinR in R&D I.ub and New Product Corporation of NMDC Ltd., situated al Uppal in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh, managed by the National Mineral Develop- ment Corporation are being paid at the rate of 25 per cent for with the employees working at Hyderabad Office.

- It. Many lepresentations were made but nothing is done.

12. It is the further case of the workmen that the office •order dated 6-10-1995 is also not implemented by the Second Party management. The woikmen are entitled at least for 7-112 per cent H.R.A, The woikmen for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in thcii favour and to pay HRA at the rate of 10 per cent of the ' basic salary.

13. The case of the Second Paity in brief is as under:

14. The allegations made by the workmen are false.

15. The Second Party has been paying House Rent Allow- ance to its employees posted|residing in vaiious cities based on classification of cities notified by the Government of Tndia and communicated by the Head Office of Second Party. Similarly, house rent recovery from those woikmen provided with accommodation in the project and workmen not pro- vided with accommodation and residing in surrounding villages are paid house rent equal to the sum recovered from the allottees of accommodation .based on tripartite settlements arrived at from time to time. With effe<;t from 21-8-91, Panna Town and Sandur have been classified as unclassified cities and workmen posted|reslding in the^e places nre paid HRA at 10 per cent of basic pay.

16. It is furlhei stated by the Second Pmly in the counter that the relevant provisions in the settlement dated 181 Ii September 1995 regaidinij HRA for ;ities me as under:

(i) Wherever H->use Rent Allowance and City Com- pensatory Allowance are being p.iid to the work- men posted in the cities as percentage of basic pay, the present practice shall continue,

fii) Clflssificition of cities An ruvincut of MIL-II allow anccs shall be ns notified bv the Corporation.

(iii) It is agreed to include city of (a) Calcutta along with the grouping at Bombay and Delhi, and (b) Raipur along with the grouping of Visakhapalnam for payment of House Rent Allowance w.e.f. 1-6-95.

17. it is the further case of the management that the office order dated 6-10-1995 regrouping the cities for the purpose of payment of HRA is being made. In the above order there is a mention that "other places not covered in the above grouping HRA is payable at 7-112 per cent."

18. It is the further case of the management that is applic- able to cities only. The management has also said that the piovisions of recovery and House Rent for the project is as per the Clause 5, stated in the counter.

19. It is the further contention of the management that the dispute raised hy the wotkmen in regard to payment and recovery of House Rent in project area is not correct.

20. It is the further case of the management that the house rent payable to workmen in projects is in accordance with the Circular dated 28-11-1995. That circular is cited in the Counter as under :

(a) "the percentages of HRA indicated in the Office Order dated 6-10-95 are applicable to only citiesl Places other than project and feasibilities;

(b) in reaped of workmen posted to work in the piojects and feasibilities, the rates for payment of HRA and rates for recovery of house rent as provided in Annexure III of letter No. 7(R)89-tR dated 20"h December 1989 issued in pursuance of Memoran- dum of Settlement dated 16-12-1989 continue to be applicable".

21. The said Clarification has been issued by the Corporate Office. There is a memorandum of settlement dated 16-12-1989 and that is applicable. The claim is not correct.

22. It is the further case of the management that payment of recovery of house rent to the woikmen piovidcd with ac- commodation in the project and workmen residing in surroun- ding villages of the project is regulated in accordance with provisions of various Tripartite Settlement entered into from time to time at the Corporate Level with the work- men represented by the All India NMDC Workers Fede- ration and its affiliated Unions,

23. The management has also given in the counter memo- randum, the settlement dated 30-10-1971 as under:

24. Payment of HRA was extended to only those emp- loyees who are posted at Cities viz. Bombay classified as Group A, DelhiICalcutta classified as Group B, Vizag classi- fied as Group C, Bangalore|Faridabad|Ranchi|Raipur|Jaga<3al- pur|Mangalore classified as Group C.

25. Memorandum of Settlement dated 15-2-1976 is as under:

26. The concept of payment of HRA to workmen whu have not been provided with lesidential accommodation at the Project Township was for the first lime introduced with effective from 1-3-1976 as per money tables, tqtiivaleot to the rates of recovery of House Rent fro.n workmen provided with accommodation,

27. Memorandum of Settlement dated 17-04983 is at under: —

28. This settlement provided that "Meiely as a conse- quence of increase in Basic pay" due to rcvisior of wages, there shall not be any change in regard to the eligibility of workmen for allotment of quarters and in the house rent iccovery and there shall also be no change- in the payment of House Rent Allowance to those workmen who fire not allotted quarters,

29. Memorandum of Settlement dated 16-12-1989 is as under :

30. A similar provisions as in Memo of settlement d,m*d 17-9-1983 was incorporated. While maintaining the recovery of home rent to those who me provided wiith residential accommodation equivalent to Type fl and below at4805 Rs. 2 JO p.m , (he [able lor payment ot Hou;>e Rent to those who arc not piovided with residential accommodation was rationalised on the basis of the grades winging from Rs. 35 for L 1 tirade to Rs. 125 for L 10 Cirmle.

31. Memorandum of Settlement d.il.-rt 1S-9-19V5 is as under :

32. "Merely as a consequence of increase in Basic Pay, there •-hall not be any change in regard to the eligibility of workmen foi allotment of quarters and house lent recoery". "Workmen coveted by this Settlement who aic not allotted and who ore not in occupation of Corporation quarters shall be paid HRA as per the existing guidelines issued from time to time". "Exisiting rate of House Rent Recoveiy for the quarters allotted shall continue". "Classification of Cities for payment of such allowance ih.ill be as notified by the Corporation."

33. The mnnagement for these reusons for some other leasons has prayed to reject the reference.

34. It h the further case of the managemen that the surrounding villages of unclassified city of Sandur cannot be equated on par with Uppal forming part of urban ngglome- ratioin of Hydeiabad. There is no discrinvr.tition as alleged by the woikmen and the reference has no merit.

35. The management for these reasons and some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

36. Tt is seen from the records that on 3rd August 1999 this court by consent of paities document marked Ex. Ml to Ml 2 and the matter was posted for arguments. Workmen also filed some othei documents,

37. I have heard both sides in detail mid I hive considered all the documents.

38. The main contention of the first parly workmen i^ (hat though Vhe management is paying HRA at the old rate, in accordance with 1989 settlement the management has to pay 7-112 per cent HRA of the Basic pay in accordance with the office order dated 6-10-1995. All this is stated in para 10 of the Claim Statement. I have carefully perused the Settlement Ex. M i l. The HRA is paid lo the workmen residing in cities as per Clause 6.1 of the settlement dated 18th September 1995, under Section 12 sub chuse 3 of the ID Act 1947. As per Ex, Mil Settlement clause 6.2 is classification of cities for payment of HRA which says that the house rent allowance shall be notified by the Corporation.

39. Tt was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the management that as per the settlement Ex. M i l, (hi; HRA (o be paid was only for cities and not the person^ residing in the projects and therefore, the ptesent HRA paid to these workmen of the first party anion is correct and they aie not entitled for 7-1 [2 ncr cent as allege-] by the workmen.

40. He further contended that in fact, when the workmen raised this dispute the prayer was to pay house icnt at the rate of 10 per cent of the basic salary and th; reference is for consideration of 7-112 per cent and there is no consist- ency in the stand taken by the workmen and the reference has no merit. I htvc considered this arguments in the light of various documents,

41. Much was relied by the workmen on Ex. M8. Ex, MK is the office order and it says 7-112 neiccnt HRA will be oaid for the persons working at other places not cowered in the above grouping.

44. It is held by the Hon'blc Ape\ Court that the grant of amenities and allowance only to employees stationed within piojcet amenities and allow ante only lo employees stationed project but stationed not within pioicct area but in Taluk, Hcndquarteis and elsewhere is not disci iminatorv.

45. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decision I am of the opinion that the contention of the workmen that they arc entitled for 7-112 peitent HRA as by me on 16th July, 2001),

46. T have considered the entire malei Lil carefully and 1 am of the opinion that the workmen aie not entitled for HRA 7-112 per cent nnd the reference has no merit. Accord- ingly I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to P\ tianscribed by her corrected jnd "fined by me on 16th July, 2001)

V. N. KU1 KARNI, Presiding Office New Delhi, the 17lh August, 2001 S.O. 2324,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of ICM7). the Central Government hereby publishes the uwaid ol the Central Government Jndusti ial Tribunal, Bangaluic us shown in Ihe Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employe) s in relation to the mnnagement Kiidirmukh Iron Ore Co. and their work- man which was itccivAl by the Central Government on 14-OK-2OO1.

[No. L-26O12/l/96-IR(M)|

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNFXURE

BH1-ORF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN' 111 MAIN. Ill CROSS, II PHASE. TUMKUR ROAD YKSHWANTHPUR, BANGALORK

Dated : 9)h July, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kultarni, B.Com, LLB,

Presiding Oflicci

COIT-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore

42 In other words the first party uninn workmen are not residing in anv cities but thev are residing in the villages nearby the project and the existinc rate of HRA which i* pa;d is correct and it is in accordance with the settlement and there h no merit in this reference In Ex. M8 Sandur is shown nr citv foi ihe purpose of HR \ Tn view of this I 'im of the orinion that ihe fii-*t "irty union workmen arc not entitled for 7-1 '2 percent HR \ bec-iu^ the settlement and the dflke orders nnd circulars are onlv in resDect of workmen who are residing in the cities notified and not in fhe proiect and nenrbv villages,

43. The learned cnunse] fur the mannuemem in smmoi t of this argument relied decision reported in MR 1997 Supreme f\nirt page 300R

C,R. No. 139/97

T PARTY

Shii H. M. Sachidnnandn, Kampli Sugar Factory, P.O. Hosoet Taluk, Beilary-583133 (Advocate—Shri Satya Narayan)

II PARTY

The Geneial Manaoer (Peis..), KLudremukh Tron Ore Company Ltd , kudrenuikh-577142 f Advocate-Shri K, Katturi)48(Xi THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD

1. The Central Government b\ exeicising the poweis con- ferred bv clause (d) of sub-sect Mn 2A of llx- Section 10 of the Industiial Oispiilcs Act, 19.17 hus rcfened this dispute vide ord, i- No. L-26012/1 ,"jr,-IR(Misc) Jutcd 9-5-1996 foi ;idjudicaton on Hie iollowing schedule:

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 16th Aucust, 2001

SO 712⁵).—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 f14 of 1047). the4807 Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Governmi:iu Industrial Tribunal-eum- Labour Comt, Cheniui as shown in the Anntxurc, in the industriail dispute between the employers in relation to the MALCO MINES SALEM jnd their workmen whieh was received li\ the Cenlral Govern- ment on 1(4-8-2001.

|No. L-29O12|55!98|1R(M)J

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TIUBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Thursday, the 19th July. 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikcyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 534|2001 (Tamil Nadu Suite Industrial Tribunal

I D. No. 139(98

(In the matter of ths dispute ior adjiidication under clause (d) of sub-section ( I) and sub-section 2iA) of Section 10 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947"), between the Workmen S|Sri V. Allimuthu and 40 others and the Management of Malco Mines, Satem.)

BETWEEN

1. The General Secretary, . . .T Party/Claimant, Aluminium Thozhil.ilar Sangam. Malco, Salem.

2. The Gcncrail Secretary, Shcvaroys General Employees Union, VercaiicT.

AND

The General Manager, . . ,Tf Party/ Management.

Malco Mines, Salem.

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant • Sri K. Naga^ajan & V. K. Naliamurthu, Union Representatives, For the Management : M]s T. S. GopaJan & Co. Advocates.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of riowers conferred by clause (d) of sub-rection (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 19*7), have referred the concerned Industrial Disnute for adiudicaiion vide Order No. 1 -2901?|55|98lTR(M) dated 2^-11-^K.

informing them about inc transfer of this case to this Tiibunal, with a direction to appear before this Tri- bunal on 9-3-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tiibunal, the Union Representation for the I Party and tli£ counsel for the II Party were present with their respective parties and' prosecuted this case further.

This matter came up before me for final hearing on I9-6-200I, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement other material papers on record, the oral evidence let in on cither side and documen- tary evidence let in on the side of the TI Party] Management and upon hearing the arguments of the learned Union Representative for the I Party and the learned counsel for the II I-nrty and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribu- nal has passed the following :—

AWARD

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

"Whether the demand of Aluminium Thozhilaiar Sangam and She/aroys General Employees' Union for -omplovnicnt of S|Shri V. Allimu- thu and 40 other workmen is justified or not ? If justified, to what relief they arc entiled 7"

2. The Industrial Dispute between the parties is4h^8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ploring ot new aicas of mining, provoked the Peti- tioner Union to make claim lor employment to the 41 workmen whose names are mentioned in the An- nexure to the 18(1) ^ttlemenL Jt. 25-10-1994. The Union addressed a letter dated 11-10-96 making a demand lor employment to the 41 workmen. While considering the said proposal, it was also felt thait as a cost of raising oauiaie oie was escalating pheno- menally whether it will no¹ be woilhwhile to award a turn key contract to ai third paity possessing the necessary inliastiuctnre to raiyj: bauxite ore and deliver it at the Respondent's factory at Mettur for a lixed price per tonne. On 23-12-1990, the Res- pondent gave a paper publication (loading tender in- viting quotations of >he Award of contract. Howevei, die proposal did not materialize and it was not pur- sued. At this stage after heeinp th; advertisement the first and second petiti.vieii addressed a letter dated 23-1-1997 to the Regional Labour Commis- sioner (Central), Madras sluing that the company has floated a tender calling ior contractor tor breaking sueening aind loading the upgraded ores ino the lorries for despatch to the company's factory at Mettur. Bv another lette,, the second petitioner had staled lhal by the S'-tr'ement dated 25-10-94 in the event of any recruitment being made, pjeference should be given to 41 v.m-lcmen listed by the Union and (hat the Respondent \va" engaging contract labo.irer without consiiiennr UTIS- 4' workmen and r?io<-? 41 workmen -hou'd be provided employment in lerms of the Settlement dated 25-10-94

3. The Petitioner Uii'on had iuithei contended that \ulhout providing employment foi these 41 workmen, the Respondent|Managcmcnt is recruiting new work- men both for theii MMtnr (Vfaleo factory and their m'nes at K"Hi Hills. The indusf,;a| Jispnte raised by Hie Petitioner Union heloie Assistant Commis- sioner of Labour (Central) for conciliation was i-nded in L> fa'lurc, hence (his icteience hw been made by the Govt. as an indn,tir.il dispute for adju- d'e.rion by this Tribunal

4. It is the contention of tl.e Respondent|Manage- ment that 12.3. settlement dated 25-10-94 gave abso- lu'e discretion to the Respondent to take such rnea- suies as are necessary for sustaining the viability of Ihe operations and fheiefoie, there w;n no prohibi- fon for engagement of contract labour for any rpe- ration. Moreover, the settlement sought to protect only the employment of the exising workmen and even Hi" opportunity for the future employment to those 41 woikmen was leslricted to any appointment vhieh may be made against vacancies arising out of the cessation of employment of the existing workmen. Therefore, it was not op^u to the Petitioner Union t<- demamd employment to tho- 41 workmen based on filie'R'ion that the Respondent was engaging contract labour Tn anywhere ihe Respondent does not admit ih't it h'td cnciBed iny contract labour much less on iobs which <\w\d be canird out bv anv of the 41 "'rrVim-n Th • Putifinner Unirq h put to strict nroof fn- the Lillcc'itions tint the Pfsr>nn<1cnt had appointed anv persons over 1-nkini: the claims of 41 workmen.

as Ex. Ml to M4, One workman, Mi. Murugc-an was examined as WW1 and on the side of the Man- agement one Engineer by name Sri R. Chandra- sekaran was examined as MW1 and additional docu- ments were marked as exhibits M l3 and Ml4. At this stage, as per the orders of the Central Govern- ment this dispute has been transferred to the tile of this Tribunal for adjudication. Subsequent to the transfer of this case to this Tribunal and taken on file as I.D. No. 534/2001, when the matter was came up for final hearing, the Representative of the I Party Union and the learnetl counsel for the II Party/Management had advanced their arguments.

6. The point for my consideration i s : --

said amount they shall have no claim against the company. It is further contended by the Management in their Counter Statement that it was also agreed in that Settlement that in the event of any vacancies created in luture, the 41 workmen mentioned in the annexure list, will be given preierence of employment. This has be\;n admitted by the Petitioners in their Claim Statement in para 3 stating that clause No. 16 in that Settlement provides lor one such right of priority for that 41 workmen/employees. But the Petitioner Unions have contended in their Claim State- ment that without providing employment for these 41 employees, the Respondent/ Management have recruit- ed new employees in the Mettur Malco Mines and also mines at Kolli Hills. They have also averred in the Claim Statement that workmen were employed under contract basis also and in respect of the same the industrial dispute raised by the Union before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) was end- ed in a failure. So he submitted a fa'iluie of cqneijia- tion report.

"Whether the demand of Aluminium Thozhilalar Sangam and Shevruoys General Employees' Union for employment of S/Shri V, Alli- muthu and 40 other workmen is justified or not? Tf justified, to what relief they are entitled ?"

Point.—The two Unions as Petitioners have rais- ed this industrial dispute alleging that the 41 work- men mentioned in the annexuie to the schedule of reference to re-employ by the Management of Malco Mines and their demand mad; to that effect to the Management has not been complied with. It is the contention of both the Petitioners Union that the said 41 workmen were the permanent employees of the Respondent/Management for so many years and at the time of reduction of mining activities by the Res- pondent/Management, 94 employees in the Ycrcaud mines were terminated by wny of retrenchment by the Respondent/Management. This has been admitted by the Respondent in their Counter Statement, \n addition to that it is the contention of the Respondent in their Counter Statement tha' iegardiiv me non- employment of the 94 workmt.M-1. an industrial dispute was raised as T.D. No. 12/84 before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and an awnnl dated 31-10-89 was passed by the Tribunal directine the reinstatement of those 94 workmen without bark- wages. Against that Award passed bv the Tribunal, the Respondent/Management had preferred W P. No. 12982/89 in the High Court of Madras and the High Court was pleased to pass an order in W.M.P. No. 7633/90 directing the Respondent to make one lumpsum payment of Rs. 3.D00 to each 64 out of 94 workmen who presumably ih TO nloiv pfrsum" (he litigation. These averments of the Respondent/Man- agement in the Counter Stmemcnl has nit been de- nied by the Petitioners Union.

8. On behalt of the Petitioner Unions one Sri K. Murugesan, Member of the I Party, Aluminium Thozhilalar Sangam, Mettur Dam has been examined as Workman. Witness No. 1. lie has admitted in his evidence that an industrial dispute has been raised as I.D. No. 12/84 against the retrenchment of 94 workmen by the Respondent/Management in 1982 and an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 31-3-1989 directing the Respondent/Management to reinstate those 94 workmen without back wages and the Respondent/Management filed a Writ Peti- tion No. 12992/89 and the High Court of Madras was pleased to pass an order in WMP No. 7633/90 directing the Respondent/Management to make one lumpsum payment of Rs. 3,000. Hi; has also admitted in his evidence that a settlement was arrived at in the presence of Assistant Labour Commissioner (.Central) on 25-10-94, wherein it was agreed when the condi- tions of the mine industry of the Respondent, Man- agement improved, employment will be given to the workmen not less than 41 listed by the Union. He has also stated that in that Settlement it was agreed that the workmen will be paid a lumpsum compensa- tion of Rs, 20,000. The xerox copy of those Settle- ments have been marked as Fx, M2 and M3 respec- tively. It is his further evidence that the Respondent/ Management subsequent to those two Setlemenfs has engaged many workmen like them directly and em- ployed them in the Yercaud mines and Malco Mines at Mettur through contractors, but the Respondent/ Management has denied them employment ns per the Settlements, though the Respondent/Management have not given them employment. In the cross exami- nation WW1 has admitted that he worked in the bauxite mines ot the Respondent/Management and the Respondent/Management has got another sucV mines at Kolli Hills. He has admitted that for the re- moval of the bauxite ore from the mines, the vehi- cles of the other private agencies were used, but he dors not know who ;s the owner of that proviatc agency. He has also stated in the cross examination that they demand employment instead of contract workers and he does not know how many permanent employees are there in the mines and he does not know whether the Management lias employed ai¹ permanent workmen subsequent to 19°4 ? One Mr. Chandrasckaran, who has been examined as Manage- 7. The Petitioners Union have averred in their separate Claim Statements that in pursuance of thr fetrenchment of 94 employees by the Respondent/ Management they have raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner or r abour ("Cen- tral) and a settlement has been arrived at before him under section 12(3> of the I.D Act, on 25-10-94. Ti is admitted by the Respondent/Manngrmcnt in the Counter Statement and they would further state that a list of workmen given by the Union w^ nnnexrd io that Settlement and bv that Settlement it w.is aorrvd that those workmen will be paid a himn^nm romniMi- sation of Rs. 20,000 each and on payment of the4SiO THE GAZE11E OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] agement in their Counter Statement that in respect of mines at Yercaud, the Respondent had registered it- self as a principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act and that it has three contractors namely M/s. Trivcni Earthmovers for supplying earth moving and material handling equipments and related services, one M/s. D & D Securities for providing security services and Mi". E. Muthu for loading the ore in the vehicles to carry them to their mines factory at Mettur Dam, For this only, the Respondent/Management had registered themselves as principal employers by presenting Form I application for registration regarding employ- ing contract labour. Copy of the same is Ex. M10. This specific averment in the- counter statement of the Respondent/Management has not been disputed. Only because of this action of the management, the Petitioner Unions had sent letteis to the Central Labour Commissioner, New Delhi under the originals of Ex. M7 and M9. It is the contention of the Res- pondent/Management that after the factory operations were resumed on 1-2-95 their major requirement of bauxite ore was met from the mines in Kolli Hills. As far as the Yercaud mines are concerned, the avail- ability of bauxite ore was fast getting depicted with continuous raising of ore and thereby the number of workmen in the mines also came down. Further it is averred in the Counter Statement of the Respondent/ Management that in the year 1996 tin; Respondent was contemplating expansion of aluminium plant at Mettur and for that purpose, it wanted to augment the source of raising of bauxite ore, for that the Man- agement was exploring new areas for mining and in that regard the Respondent approached the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. fix. MS is the xerox copy of letter from National Mineral Develop- ment Corporation Ltd. to the Respondent. All these things have not been disputed by the Petitioner Unions. Having found that the activities of exploring new areas of mining will not be viable, the Respondent/ Management thought it fit to entrust the work of raising bauxite ore and deliver it at the Respondent's factory at Mettur for a fixed price per tonne to third party contractors possessing the necessary infrastruc- ture. So they gave a paper publication inviting tenders for that contract. But that proposal having not mate- rialized, the Respondent has not pursued it. Al] these averments mentioned by the Respondent in their Counter Statement also have not been disputed by the Petitioner Unions.

nicnt witness, had deposed (.hat v/hen the case was raised there were only 34 direct employees and on 5-0-2000, voluntary rctirerntjii. scneme was enforced, and at that time ail ttte 28 workmen in service weie opted for that voluntary retirement scheme and retir- ed. It is his Juiihcr eviuence inai the mine opciaiion is being done by leasmg it to the private agencies under Contract and the amount has been disbursed to them, according to the quantum oL bauxite ore brought Irom the mines and hence there is no scope for giving employment for the Liaimanl/Workmen. Ex. M l3 is a xerox copy of notice of voluntary retire- ment scheme proposed by die Management. Ihe applications given by 28 workmen opting to retire voluntarily under the voluntary retirement scheme and the Management's reply accepting their cessation of employment and the full and final settlement receipt have been filed on the side ot the Management in xerox copies as Ex. M l4 series (pages from 3 to 86). The xerox copy of the Muster Roll for March, 1995, December, 1998 and August, 1999 have been marked as Ex. M4 to show that the workmen employed by the Management have been reduced in due course, due to the reduction in mining work and depletion of the bauxite ore in the mines. In his evidence, MW1 in the cross examination has stated that as per Ex. M4 48 workmen are in employment and one Pushpa- raj is not in employment now. He has also stated that it is incorrect to state that 44 workmen arc employed from August, 2000. Objecting to the Respondent/ Management employing workmen under contract labour and demanding employment for the 41 work- men as per the settlement dated 15 10-1994, the 2nd Petitioner Union has sent a letter to the Respondent/ Management. A xerox copy of the same, is Ex. M5. Ex. M6 is the xerox copy of the paper publication made hi 'Thing 'lhanthi' dated 23-12-1996 by the Respondent/Management. Under this paper adver- tisement, tenders from the experienced mining con- tractors were invited by the Respondent/Management for the ore breaking, screening and loading the up- graded ore into the lorries for despatch to the com- pany's factory at Mettur. The Petitioner No. 2 had sent a letter dated 10-1-97 lo the Chief Labour Com- missioner, New Delhi informing him about the action of the Management calling for contractors for mining work. The xerox copy of that letter is Ex. M7 Ex. M9 is the xerox copy of similar letter dated 23-1-97 sent by 1st Petitioner Union to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi. They have also informed him that the Respondent/Management has called for contractors for mining work. The National Mineral 'Development Corporation Ltd., a Government of (India Undertaking had sent a k'Uer dated 10-3-97 to the Respondent/Management. The xerox copy of the ^ame is Ex. M8. Tt is with regard to exploration work at YarcaucT and Kolli Hills. The Ex. M10 is the xerox fcopy of the Form T application for Registration by | he Respondent/Management regarding employing ^contrast labour, Under this form the Respondent/ Management has given particulars of contractors and Contract labour and nature of work in which contract labour is employed. Ex. M il and M l2 are the xerox copies of the letters sent by Respondent/Management to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in respect of submission of application for registration of establishment employing contract labour in Form I. It is the definite averment of the Respondent/Man-

9. It is not the ca'se of Petitioners Unions that subsequent to the settlement dated 25-10-94, the Respondent/Management has created any new vacancy or made any permanent appointment. As per the 12(3) Settlement dated 25-10-1994, if nnd when future vacancies arise and are filled in by the Management, the Management will give preference of employment upto a maximum of 41 among the ex-workmcn, sub- ject to their being found suitable ns ner the list pro- vided by the two Unions, Tt is the definite averment of the Respondent/Management in Ihc Counter State- ment that the respondent has not made ,-rnv appoint- ment against tiny vacancv. To clisnrove this, the peti- tioner unions have not plared anv material evidence before Ihis Tribunnl that th? Responrlent/Mnnnpp- ment hns violated the ti-rms of the settlements dated 25-10-1994.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 19th July, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party/Claimant :—

WW1-—Shri Murugesan.

For the II Party/Management :—

MW-1—Shri R. Chandrasekaran.

DOCUMENTS MARKED : —

For I Party/Claimant : Nil.

For the II Partv/Manaeement :

Ex. No, Dqte Description

Ml 20-09-71—Xerox copy of certificate of registration in Form II under Contract Labour Act.

M2 25-10-94—Xerox copy of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 between the Respondent and the Unions during the course of conci- liation proceedings before the ALC(C)-I, Chcnnai.

M3 25-10-94—XerjDX copy of settlement under Sec tion 18(1} of the I.D. Act, Act, iy47 between the Respondent and Unions,

M4 March, 95—Xerox copy of Muster Rolls.

December, 1998. August, 1999.

M5 11-10-90—Xerox copy of letter from the 2nd Petitioner Union to the Respondent re- garding appointment of contractor.

M6 23-12-96-—Xerox copy of Newspaper pub-

lication inviting tenders.

M7 10-01-97—Xerox copy of letter Irom the 2nd Petitioner Union to the Chief Labour Commissioney, New Delhi.

M8 10-03-9" -Xerox copy of letter of National Mineral Devept. Corporation Ltd. addressed to the Respondent.

M9 23-i> -97—Xerox copy of letter from the 1st petitioner Union to the Chief Labour Commissioner.

MUf

10. It is further contended in para 11 of the Coun- ter Statement of the Respondent that the 12(3} settle- ment dated 23-10-94 gave absolve discreuon to the respondent to take such measures as are necessary for sustaining the viability of the operations and ther - fore, there is no prohibition for engti

05-11-98—Xerox copy of application for Registration of Establishments employing contract labourers under contract Labour (Central) Rules, 1971.

11. Jn the result, an award is passed holding that^

M il 05-11-98—Xerox copy of letter from the Respondent to the Assistant Labour Com- missioner (C), Chennai.

M12 03-06-99—Xerox copy of letter from the Respondent to the Assistant Labour Com- missioner (C), Chennai,

the demand of the Petitioner Unions for employment of S/Shri Allimuthu and 40 other workmen mention- ed in the annexure to the Schedule of reference is not, justified. Hence, the concerned workmen arc not_ entitled to any relief. No Cost,4812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 20Q1/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART I I —S EC 3(ii)] M l3 Q5^08*20Q0—Xerox copy of notice of voluntary retirement scheme exhibited by the management.

M14 Nil—Xerox copy of application from 28 workmen opting to retire voluntary under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme announc- ed by the Respondent, Management's reply accepting their cessation of employment and full and final settlement receipt.

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 S.O, 2326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Chcnnui as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in . relation to the management of Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd, find their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14th August, 2001.

[No. L-29012/71/96-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 23rd July, 2001 Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 411/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No, 101/96) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

BETWEEN

Sri M. Chandrasekar 1 Party/Workman AND

The Managing Director, II Party Management M/s. Alugappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. Kilapaluvur, Appearance:

For the Workman M/s. D. Hariparanthaman & Ajoy Khose, Advocates For the Management : M/s. T.S- Gopalan & Co.

Advocates

The Govl. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dis- pute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the con- cerned Induitrjal Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-290I2/71/96-IR (Misc) dated 25-11-1996.

This rjference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 101/96. When the matter was pendinS enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file us I.D. No. 411/2301 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, w'th a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 25-02-2001 with their respeptive parties. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

This matter came up before me for final hearing on 14-06-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement,. Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, and upon perusing the documentary evidence let in on the side ilf the Management and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consi- deration, this Tribunal has parsed the following:

AWARD

The Industiial Dispute rePerred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sri M. Chandrasekar with effect from 2-9-1993 is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. The Industrial Dispute between the parties is briefly as follows:

The I party/Workman Sri M. Chandrasekar (hereinaller referred to as Petitionei) is a Science Po.t Graduate in Geology and also a Law Graduate.

4 8 13

Ihe Mines Managei On 8-2-1093 and inlonncd him about the faeis, The MiiKS Manner inloimedihe Peti'ioncr that the M.maginj, DiiOvtor was not inttrested in continuing the scivices ol the Petitioner and told to settle his accounts. The Mines Manager did not allow the Petitioner to sign the attendance register and did not proivde him work. He farther told the Petitioner that tic has no powers to allow him to report for work, since shmv unr-e notice has already been issued, only after getting pel mission from the Managing Director he ccukl allow him to work. But, thereafter trrf-re was no commmiic; tion fiom the Respondent to the Petitioner. The Management ordered forenxmiiy. Sii A. E. John, Foreman was appointed as Management Representative. Except the said Sri A.F. John, no other witnesses were examined for the "Management. For the Petitioner, he himself was examriud fnul nu-dkal certifica^s and bills were marked as his documents. Contrary to the evidence and materials on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his firdnigs dated 29-6-1993, which is biased and perverse. The Management mechanically accepted his findings without applying its mind, and issued a second show cau>e notice dated 9-8-93 as to why he should not be terminated from service. The Petitioner submitted his explana- tion dated 14-8-1993 and requested the Management to dirop the proceedings. But the Management dismissed the Petitioner from service by an order dated 2-9-1993. The absence of the Petitioner for work after submitted leave application cannot be termed as 'unauthorised iibieiwe'. Dismissing the Petitioner from service amounts to victimisation. Without taking into account the relevant documents, the Enquiry Officer had givun a perverse findings. There is no -evidence to prove that the leave appli- cations were lefused or "rejected. The 'letter'dated 19-I2-W2 alleged to have been sent to the Petitioner was returned on 30-1 2-1992'with an endorsement that the Petitioner was ottt of station. When the Peti- tioner reporUd foj work, after his leave-, he was not allowed to work. Before imposing the punish- ment of dismissal from service, the Respondent had failed to take into account the eight years of service of the Putitienct. The 'Petitioner raised an industrial dispute about his non-employment. As the Lubou : Commissioner was not able to b ing out any mediation, on his report of failure of conciliation, the Govt. has referred this matter to this Tr'bumil for adjudi- cation. Hence, the Tribunal may he pleasul to pass an award holding that the dismissal of the Petitioner from L-ervice is unjustified and dinct the 'Respondent/ Management to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and back wrges.

He was appointed by the II Party/Manugcmc (hereinafter referred to as Respondent as Geologist on 16-4-1986. The Respondent's mines is aii open limestone mine which is spread o\er to lti? acivs. The pelitionei was paid a meagre consolidated salary. He was in the service of the Respondent/Management for about eight years. During the first week of Oetober, the Petitioner fell ill and submitted a leave application seeking leave from 6-10-92 to 25-11-92. When the Petitioner was on medical leave, the Res- pondent sent an emergency telegram rcquseting him to repoit for duty as the officials from the Indian Bureau of Mines were visiting the Rsepondent's mines. Inspite of his ill health, since his presence was required ncecssary and important by the Manage- ment, the Petitioner reported for duty on 18-11-1992 to 29-lI-1992.This aggravated the health of the Peti- tioner and he was compelled to go again on medical leave from 30-11-1992 to 15-12-1992. The Petitioner submitted a leave application foi the same. The Petitioners morrrci also fell ill and suffered seveie heart-attack, therefore, he sought extension of leave upto 25-12-1992 by his letter dated 14-12-1992. When the Petitioner took his mother to liehy Hospital, the Doctor at Trichy referred hei to Tanja\ur hospital. From thcie, he had to take his Mother to MMC and Stanley Hospital at Madras. Since there was no improvement in the health of 'his Mother, he finally admitted her in Zimper Hospital at Pondichevry. There a cardiac suigeiy was peilormed to his Mother, and the pace maker was planted. Therefore, the Petitioner txiended his leave for 15 days from 24-12-1992, as there was nobody to look alto his Mother at the hospital a-nd to get her treatment continuously, the petitioner had to stay with His Mother at the hospital. Because of this, his health also got affected and he had to take treatment for him also. Only in these uicurns'tanees, the Respondent/ Management sent a show oause memo dated 8-1-93 stating that the Petitioner was taking leave conti- nuously and why disciplinary aclidn should not be taken against him. The Petitioner sent a reply dated 18-1-1993 giving reasons for taking leave under unforsecn and unavoidable circumstance, He had also enclosed medical certificate. The Management without accepting his explanation issued a charge sheet dated 1-2-1993. The Petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 13-2-1993 to the chargesheet reiterating the facts he had stated in his earlier letter dated 18-1-1993. When the Pctitionm went to the mines in person, he was not allowed to report for duty. The st.cuiity guard told the Petitioner that he could not allow the'Petitioner to enter into the mines without getting permission from the Management. He further told the Petitioner that all the officials were at'the factory, since the workmen were go;ng en strike Therefore, the Petitioner went to the factory and n"'*

3. The Respondent has opposed the averments of thu Petitioner in his Clann Statement would contend in their Counter that for the ptuposc of sourcimr the4814 THE GAZETTE OF INDiA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry> except the documents on the Respondent side, marked as Ml to M38 by consent of both the parlies before the Tumil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, no fresh oral or docmeruvry evidence had lot in on c'ther Mde. The, learned counse for the parties on either side had advanced their arguments.

5. The point for my consideration is :

''Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. in terminating

the services of Sri M. Chandri'sekar with effect

from 2-9-1993 is justified ? If not, 10 what

relief he is entitled ?"

Point :

The Petitioner Sri M. Chandrasekar was employed as Geologist in the Respondent Allagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of reporting the limestone deposits in the two limestone mines, 1aken on lease by the Respondent/Management, for the purpose of sourcing the raw material for their cement plant. The Respondent/Management had issued a charge sheet dated 1-2-93 to the Petitioner. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. MI3, In the charge-sheet, it is alleged that the Petitioner has sent six letters reques- ting leave on medical reasons and finally sent tele- giam dated 28-12-92 or extension cf leave for 15 days from 24-12-92. The xerox copies of the Petitioner's letters seeking leave on medical grounds dated 6-10-92, 26-10-92, 01-11-92 and 10-12-92 are E\. MI to M4. In between, he joined duty on 18-11-92 cancelling his leave applied for from 14-11-92 to 25-11-92. The xerox copy of that letter dated 18-11-92 is Ex. M5. Again by an undated letter he applied for leave from 30-11-92 to 15-12-92, The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M6. The Respondent/Management, after the receipt of the letter for the leave asked for under Ex. M6, sent a letter under Registered Post with acknowledgement, dated 3-12-92 informing the Peti- tioner that the leave asked for cannot be granted. The xerox copy of that letjer of ihe Management is filed as a record on ihe side of the Management The learned counsel for the Petitioner has not given consent for that 'etter stating that the Petitioner has not received one such 'etter. But the same has been marked in the domestic enquiry as Ex. M4. In that letter, the Petitioner was diiected to report for dity immediately. Again the Petitioner has sent a 'etter dated 14-12-92 for extension of leave upto 25-12-92. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M7. Then the Respondent/Management had sent a 'etter dated 19-12-92-by registered post with acknowledgement due to the Petitioner, directing him to report for duty on raw material for the cement plant of the Respondent/ Management, they have taken on lease two limestonc mines in Pudupakiyam, Ariyalur Taluk, Porambulur District. The Petitioner was employed as Geolosgist for the purpose of locating the limestone deposits and plan for optimum raising of limestone. After the year 1991, the Petitioner was nurturing a grievance that he was not adequately paid. Added to it, he was discretely helping other small mine owners in that area obviously for consideration. The Petitioner became indifferent towards work and at the slightest provocation, he stayed away from duty. By September 1992 he had absented for 50 days. On 06-10-92, he applied for leave on the ground of sickness for 14 days. By a letter dated 'nil' he again applied for leave from 26-10-92 10 31-10-92 on the ground of ill health. He applied for extension of leave from 01-11-1992 to 09-11-1992. On 10-11-92, he applied for further leave upto 25-11-1992. On l8-ll-92? he cancelled his leave and resumed duty. For the chronic ab.ence for duty by the Petitioner the Respon- dent sent a memo on 8-1-93 calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken for his absence without leave. He sent a reply dated 18-1-1993 asking I'or leave till the end of the January, 1993. The charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner for his misconduct of unauthorised absence. He gave a reply denying that charges. An enquiry was conducted, wherein the Petitioner was given opportu- nity to vindicate his stand. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 29-6-93 holding that the charge against the Petitioner was duly established. On 9-8-93, the second show cause notice propoing tei- mination was issued to the Petitionc. On 14-8-93, the Petitioner gave his reply. After considering the reprtsentation, the Rispondent has passed orders on 2-9-1993 terminating the services of the Petitioner. No medical certificate was produced by the Petitioner during the period October, 1992 and February, 1993. Mere submission of leave application for availing the leave to his credit would not entitle the Petitioner to sanction leave as a matter of right or as a matter of course. The leave applied for by the Petitioner was refused and the same was communicated. At no point of time, the Petitioner had produced any medical certificate. The Enquiry Officer was justified in holding that the Petitioner was guilty of the charge. The Petitioner wanted some monetary compensation after the termination of service. The Respondent could not agree for the same. The Petitioner was working as Consultant for many other limestone mines in Tamil Mrdu and Pondicherry. The Respondent has lost confidence in the Petitioner and therefore, it will not be possible to employ the Petitioner in the service of the Respondent. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award dismissing the dispute and rejecting the claim.

copy of tho same is Ex, M32. Ex. M33 is tho xerox copy of the appeal presented by the Petitioner to the Chairman of the Respondent/Management. Ex. M34 is the xciox copy of an order dated 5-11-93 by the Chairman of the Respondent/Management rejecting the appeal filed by the Petilijner. The Petitioner, rfter receiving the letter dated 5-11-93 from the Responded alongwith the cheque issued by the Respondent/Management for the dues, sent a n-ply dated 18-11-93 returning the cheque for Rs. 11,840/- staling that he has raised an industrial dispute bsfore the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). The xtrox copy of that letter is Ex. M35. Ex. M36 is the xerox copy of 2A petton filed by the Petitioner bJuK the Labour Enforcement Offlcjr, Trichy. The Rer-pjnd>jnt/Managemcnt have re it their remarks on the Petition fikd by the Petitioner. Tho xeiox copy of the covering letter dmed 30-12-93 is Ex. M37 and •he xerox copy of •he remarks submisted by Respon- dent/Management to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Trichy is Ex. M38.

or before 22-12-92. The xerox copy of tlie sarn^ is Ex. M8. Tha.. letter was, returned unservod with a. postal endorsement on the cover as 'not foi' ox copy of reply dated 18-1-93 sent by the Petitiorur for the m'mo under Ex. "Mil. For tho charge-sheet under Ex. M13( the Petitioner has given a written explanation dfted 13-2 9i. The xerox ccpy of the same if. Ex. M14. Ex. MI5 is the xerox ccpy of lctler dated 2-4-93 sent to the retired Deputy Com- mis;ioner of Labouw appointing him as an Enquiry Officer for the domestic enquiry. Ex, M16 is the xerox copy of letter dated 2-4-93 sent by the Respon- dent/Management to the Petitioner informing him about the appointment of Enquiry Officer. Ex. Ml7 to M23 are the xerox copies of the notices of dom -stic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Ex, M24 is the xerox copy of the proceedings of the enqui y conducted by the Enquiry Officer on different drtes. Ex. M25 is the written submission dated 21-6-93 filed by the Petitioner to the Enquiry Office with enclo- sures. Ex. M26 is the xerox cGpy of the report sub- mitted by the Enquiry Officer with his findings. In that report the Enquiiy Officer has given his finding that the charges levelled against the Pct'tiorer under the charge sheet dated 1-2-93 have been proved beyond doubt. Then the petitioner was issued a second show-came notice dated 9-8-93 by the Res- pondent/Management celling for explanation Fgainst the proposed punishment of termination from service. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M27. The Peti- tioner has submitted his explanation dated 14-8-93. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M28. The Res- pondent/Management had passed an order rtatud 2-9-93 terminating the Petitioner from s^.vice. It was sent by Registered Post to the Petitioner, Ex. M29 is the xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement of tho receipt of order of punishment imposed by the Respondent/Management urder Ex. M28. The Respondent/Mar.;igement has sent a letter dated 6-9-93 by RrgUeruI PuU cackling a cheque for Rs. 11,840/- in full settkmei-t of the dues to the Petitioner. The xerox copy of that letter is Ex. M30. That letter was returned uuserved wiih the p o s tj acknowledgement as 'not found, return to sender'. Th. xerox copy of that returned legisteied postal cover is Ex. M31. Again the Respondent/Manage- ment has sent a letter dated 5-11-93 to the Petitioner enclosing the said cheque That was also returned unsorved with the postal acknowledgement. A xerox

6. All the documents exhibited on the side of tho Respondent/Management have not been disputed by the Petitioner. But ro would contend that the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings in a biased and perverse manner and those findings were not based on documents and materials on record and that the Management mechanically accepted his findings without applying its mind. It is his further contention that he took leave only after submitting proper leave application and therefore, it cannot bo termed as 'unauthorised absence' and that he availed leave only on medical grounds due to his ill health and the ill health of his Mother and the Petitioner had produced medical certificates as documentary evidence for the same. It is not the case of tho Management that the reason for taking leave was not correct and the leave application for the Petitioner was not refused by the Management. It is his further contontion that the letter dated 19-12-92 said to have been sent to the Petitionor was returned with tho postal endorsement that the Petitioner was out of station. So, thoro is no sorvico of this letter and hence it could not bo termed as refusal of leave and the same has been communicatod to the Petitioner. It is not tho case of the Petitioner that the Manage- ment has sanctioned leave for the peiiod of his absence on various spells. A chargo-sheet has be on issued on 1-2-93 charging him with ihe misconduct of absence from duly unauthoriscdly for a long period. It is admitted that the Respondent/Management has conducted a domestic enquiry by a retirod officer of the Labour Department. It is seen from Exhibits Ml 5 to M24 a domestic enquiry has been conducted by the Respondent/Management to enquire into the charges levelled against tho Potitionor/Workmas 2668 GI'2001—164816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : S^PTEMBgR 8, 2001/BHAPRA 17, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] th<5 Managemint thn P^'itiomr has not tcjoinpd duty Tho Ioarned counsel for the Petitioner also has ad- mitted that the period subsequent to Ex. M12 is the pero.1 of unauiLo.iscd absence of the Petitioner/ Workman. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated that he has not attacking the enquiry as such. It is his further contention that the charges lovelled against the Petitioner in the charge sheet huve not at all been proved and hence the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in his roport that the charges havo been proved are incorrect, A perusal of the onquiry report Ex. M26, clearly shows that after analysing the entire oral and documentary evi- dence let in before him, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charges levelled against the delin- quent omployce, 1 ho Petitioner herein has been proved. So tho argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the findings 5f the Enquiry Officer in his report that the charge levelled against the Petitioner/Workman is proved, is. without any evi- dence and perverse cannot be accepted a, correct.

under Ex, Ml 3. In tho charge-shoot itself, it to olcarly stated that the Petitioner/Workman has applied for leave by his six letters and one telogram and that the leave requested by him for the periods 6-10-92 to 20-10-92, 26-10-92 to 17-11-92 and 30-11-92 to 07-01-93 have boon refused and thore is no application for leave beyond 7-1-93 and the Petitioner/Workman remained absent unauthoriscdly and without inti- mation beyond 7-1-93 and it amounts to serious mis- conduct. The proceedings of the enquiry Ex. M24 shows clearly that the Petitioner/Workman has taken part for tho entire domestic enquiry and has cros^- examinod the Management witness. Though tho Petitioner/Workman took tjmc to produce his witness and oxamino as defence witness on his side, he has informed the Enquiry Officer that he has no witness to bo examined. Tho Petitioner/Workman as a deli- qucnt employee has given a statement about his defence, in pursuance of the same, he was crosc- examincd by tho Management Repie^entative. Sub- sequently, the Petitioner/Workman has submitted his written submission to the Enquiry Officer with enclosure. Tho xerox copy of the same is Ex. M25. After analys-'ng the entire evidence and documents on either side and the material papers, ihe Enquiry Omcor has submitted his roport Ex. M26 holding that the charges mentioned in Ex. Ml3 charge-sheet have been proved. All these things go to stow the Petitioner was given every opportunity to vindicate his stand. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that ho has given his findings based on the documents and materiajs on record, Hence, it Cannot re said that the Enquiry Officer has given his findings without any basis and his findings arc biased and perverse. Under such circumstances, any intorftvence with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report by this Tribunal is unwarranted.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management has advanced an argument that unless the leave is sanctioned Or granted, it cannot be consi- dered that the absence from duty on submission of leavo application as an authorized one and ono can- not presume sanction of leave by ths Management merly by production of tho leave applicarion by the workman. L^avo cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This submission of the learned unct' for the Res- pondent/Management cannot be disputed as incorrecf. It is seen from the recoids that the Petitioner/W<; rk- man, who was absent for duty was recailod to ihc mine, on 18-11-1992 and he worked there upto 22-11-1992. From the records, it is seen that for the period f.om 6-10-92 to 25-12-92 for the abser-ce of the Petitioner/ Workman for duty except on 18-11^92 to 22-11-92, no medical certificate has been produced by him and the leave for such period has not been sanctioned by the Resp ndent/Management. It is also seen from re- cords that the Petitonor/Workman remained absont from 30-11-92 to 08-02-93, despite the leave he applied for was refused. No document has been filed by the Petitioner/Workman either beforo the Fnquiry Officer or before this Tribunal to show that he had sent medi- cal (ertificato for the leave he applied for and the same lias been sanctioned by the Respondent/Management Further for his averments in the Claim Statement that lie was not well and then his Mother was not well and he took hor to various hospitals and to Zipmor Hospital Pondiclierry and got operated, the Pe*i- tioner has not sent any documents in support of the same to the Respondent/Management. Ex. Ml to M4, lcavi applications have net been ^upp. tted by any medical certificate Ex. M6 also was not accom- panied with medical cctifca'e.All these things had 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has put forth an argument that the petitioner is not a habitual absentee and tho leave he applied for under Ex. Ml to M4 have been sanctioned by the Maragemert. But in the charge-sheet Ex. Ml3, it is stated that the leave applied for by tho Petitioner under Ex. Ml to M3 and for the period from 18-11-92 to 25-11-92 under Fx. M4 have been refused by the Manage- ment. It is admitted that vndcr Ex. M5 dated 18-11-92 the Petitioner had reported for duty on 18-11-92 and requested the Management to cancel the leavo he applied for under Ex. M4 from 18-11-92 to 25-11-92. In Ex. M14 itself, the Petitioner has admitted that when ho was away from his plac*, the letter sent by the Management might have gone to his house and in h s absi^ce it we.; returned undelivered, but he has mt refused to receive the same. Ex. Ml2 is the n,p'y of the. Petitioner to the Management letter dated 8-12-93 under Ex. M i l. In Ex. M i l, it is cloarly stated that inspite of receipt of letters frcm4817 10, In the result, an award is passed holding that the petitioner is not tntitkd for ery ck/rr, rs pi£5&d for and tho industrial dispute laiicd is" hereby dis- missed without cost.

(Dic.ated to the Stenographer, transcriLcd tiid typed by him, corrected and proi.ounced by me in the open court on this day the 23rd July, 1G01).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Prosiciing Officer been considered by the Enquiry Officer in his report. When the Enquiry Officer questioned the delinquent employee, the Petitioner herein, lie admitted before •him that he was satisfied with the enquiry proceed- ings. Under such circumstances, it is seen that the averments in the Claim StUpment that the Petitioner was denied fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case, which is against the principle of natural justice and it vitiates the findings as well as the dismissal order is contrary to the facts available in this case.

Witnesbes Examined:

On either side : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For I Party/Workman: Nil

For the II Party/Managemont

Ex. No. Dato Description

Ml 06-10-92 Xerox copy of representation from the Petitioner to the Management.

M2 26-10-92 Xerox copy of representation fi om the Petitioner to the Management.

M3 01-11-92 Xerox copy of representation from the Petitioner to the Management.

M4 10-11-92 Xerox copy of represcataiion from the Petitioner to the Management

18-11-92

M5

Xerox copy of representation from the Petitioner to the Management.

M6 Nil

Xerox copy of representation from tho Petitioner to the Management

14-12-92

M7

Xerox copy of reprcsonration from the Petitioner to the Management

19-12-92

M8

Xerox copy of letter from Manage- ment to the Petitioner

M9 Nil

Xorox copy of postal cover with remark 'not found'.

M10 28-12-92 Xorox copy of telogram from the Petitioner to the Management.

08-01-93

Mil

Xerox copy of letter from Manage- ment to the Petitioner.

18-01-93

M12

Xero copy of letter from the Peti- tioner to the Management.

Xerox copy of charge sheet.

01-02-93

M13

M14 13-02-93 Xerox copy' of letter from Manage- ment to the Petitioner.

02-04-93

M15

Xerox copy of letter from Mines Manager to Sri Palaniyandi, Dy. Commissioner of labour (Retd.)

02-04-93

M16

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the dismissal of the Pctitiner from service in the circumstances of the case is shoc- kingly disproportionate and totally excessive. The available materials in this case clearly show that the Petitioner/Workman was absentod himself unatho- risedty for more than three months. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management has argilcd that the proprty of the punishment under section 11A of tho Act Cannot be challenged before this Tribunal in view of the proved misconduct of the Petitioner/ Workman for a considerable long p^iiod of unau'h- rised absence of threo months. In the case reported as 2000(2) LLN 1018 between N.D. KAWADE AND ANOTHER and MAHENDRA ENGG. AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANOTHER, it Js held that "the misconduct of the habitual ab- sentees of the workmen when duly proved his dismissal from service is a justified one.' Tn a case reported as 2000 (3) LLN 269 it is held that "the dismissal of the workman after enquiry for unauthorised ab- sence from duty for 62 days after giving him a charge sheet and obtaining his explanation which was found to be unsatisfactory cannot be considered as unjusti- fied and ma!a fide and by way highly of victimization and it cannot be aid that it was highly disproportio- nate to the allegations levelled against him." Here in this case, the Petitioner being a Geologist, his ser- vices for thcRespondent/Managofficnt arc mines work is absolutely essential. When he happens to be a chromic absentee from duty, the Management cannot retain him in service and hence, it ib justified in dis- missing him from service. So, it cannot be said that it is shockingly disproportionate to the proved mis- conduct of unauthorised absence for duty continuosly for a considerable time. Under such circumstances, relief of reinstatement is not called for. From the facts available in this case, it is seen that the Respon- dent/Management has sufficiently compensated him by offering him a payment by way of cheque for Rs. 11,840/- as full settlement of his legal dues. So, under such circumstances, it can be easily concluded that tho action of the Management of M/s. Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of sri M. Ghandrasekar w.e.f. 2-9^-93 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.

Xerox Copy of letter from MiOeS Manager to the Petitioner.

10-04-93

M17

Xerox copy of notice of enquiry from Sri T. Palaniyandi to the Petitioner.

23-05-93

M18

Xerox copy Of letter fiom (he Peti- tionei to Sri T. Palaniyandi. 24-05-93

M19

Xerox copy of letter Sri T. Palani- yandi to the Petitioner.

Nil

M20

Xerox copy of telegram from the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer, 05-06-93

M21

Xerox copy of letter from Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner. 09-06-93

M22

Xerox copy of letter from tbo Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer. 09-06-93

M23

Xerox copy of letter from Enqury Officer to the Petitioner. 21-04-93

M24

Xciox copy of enquiry proceed- ings.

21-06-93

M25

Xerox copy of written submissions of the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer.

29-06-93

M26

Xerox copy of the findings of En- quiry Officer .

Xerox copy of show cause notice. 09-08-93

M27

14-08-93

M28

Xerox copy of explanation of the Petitioner to the show cause notice to the Management.

02-09-93

M29

Xerox copy of termination order with postal acknowledgement. 06-09-93

M30

Xerox copy of letter from the Res- pondent to the Petitioner.

M31 Nil

Xerox copy of postal cover and acknowledgement with the re- marks 'not found'.

05-11-93

M32

Xerox copy of letter from the Res- pondent to the Petitionoi with postal acknowledgement. 10-09-93

M33

Xeiox copy of letter fron Petitio- ner to the Management.

05-11-93

M34

Xerox copy of letter from the Mana- gement to the Petitonor. 18-11-93

M35

Xerox copy of letter from Peti- tioner to the Management. 01-12-93

M36

Xirox copy of notice of Labour Enforcement Officer, Trichy to the Management.

30-12-93

M37

Xerox copy of letter fiom the Management to the Labour En- forcement Officer, Trichy .

30-01-93

M38

• Xerqx copy of countor statement of Respondent/Management to the Labour Enforcement Officer,Trichy.

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 S.O. 2327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award o' the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Master Marine Services and their workmen which was received by the Central Government On 14-08-01.

[ No. L-31012/4/2000/IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S. N. SAUNDANKAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT 1/36 of 2000 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGE- MENT OF :

MASTER MARINE SERVICES The General Manager, 22, D, S. A( Bralvi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN The General Secretary, Nha-va Sevn Bunder Kamgar Sanghtana, 64, Shopping Centre, 1st Floor, JNPT Township, Uran, NAVI MUMBAI 400 707.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER Shri G. R. Naik

Advocate FOR THE WORKMEN No Appearance,

Mumbai, dated 27th June, '2001 4S19

ANNEXURE AWARD

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, NEW DELHI

Present : Rudrcsh Kumar

I. D. No. 103/92 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No, L-31012/4/2000/IR (M), dtd. 31-05-2000 and letter dtd. 28-8-2000, have referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred on it, by Clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. L-11012/5/92-IR (Misc) dated

28-10-92

G. M. Bhatnagar, 303-C, Pocket-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.

"Whether the action of the management of Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. in laying of? 58 workmen from 5-4-1999 to 16-4-1999 is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ?"

Versus

Regional Manager, Ground Service Department, Terminal II, Air India Complex, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi.

AWARD 2 Pursuant of the notices sent to the panics, management M/s. Master Marine Services appeared through their advocate Shn G. R. Naik (vide Exhibit 5). It is seen from the Rojnama notice wus sent to the union by this office dtd. 5-9-2000, however, no report was received though waited for long time. Tho management vide application (Exhibit 9) con- tended that reference be disposed oil as union is not interested. A fresh notice was sent to the union on 22-5-2001. However, though serwd (vide Exhibit 8). none appeared on behplf of the union. From thii it is apparent that union is not interested in prose- cuting the reference. Therefore following order is passed :

By aforementioned reference, the Central Govern- ment in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made over above this industrial dispute between the parties for adjudication, which reads as follows :

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution,

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, In-Charge Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Management of Air India in removing from service Shri G. M. Bhatnagar, Apron Suparvisor w.e.f. 10-5-90 is justified ? If not to what relief workman is en- titled 7"

New Dolhi, the 16th August, 2001

S.O. 23^8.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal, N, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Air India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-08-01.

[No. L-11012/5/92-IR(M)]

B. M DAVID, Under Secy.

2. In short the case of the workman is that he was appointed as Apron Supervisor in the Air India w.c.f. 21-10-81 in the ground services department and was confirmed on the said post on 1-5-1982; that in between the period 8-8-89 he had to face some extre- mely unfortunate domestic events, as his mother became seriously ill, besides his wife was unhealthy and daughter was also bed rieeden. There was no other male member to attend them; that during the said period on 9-1-89 his mother died and being the only male member in the family, he was required to discharge family obligations and bear other family responsibilities; that the aforesaid events prevented him to be on duty; that on joining his duty he was served with a show cause notice for being habitaual absentee from duty; that the workman replied the notice and explained the circumstances forcing him to remain out of duty; that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by the management by appointing an enquiry officer; that he appeared before the enquiry officer and partripated in tho domestic enquiry, stating reason of his absent due to domestic compulsions; that during the enquiry, he was4&iO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8* 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FART II—SBC. 3(ii)] pursuadod by theonquky officer as well the discipli- nary authority not to contest the charge to allow them to take lenient view; that guided by the consideration of taking lenient view the pleaded guilty of the charge, and that the enquiry officor as well the disciplinary authority did not provide opportunity to prove his bonafide or took into consideration tht stated reasons of his absence.

3. The Management on the other hand, has not disputed facts relating to status of the workman. It has been stated that there was no assurance to take lenient view. However, taking past lapses and punishments into concideration, the disciplinary authority found him habitual absentee from duty and passed removal order which has been impugned in this industrial dispute.

4. From the materials on record, produced by the Management, it is evident that a domestic enquiry was held and the workman with his defence coun- sel participated in the said enquiry. Also, it is on record that the workman had admitted his absence which was taken by the enquiry officer being without satisfactory justifications. However, the manage- ment drew conclusion of habitual absence without examining facts of illness of the mother and the ultimate death during the said period. It appears that there was no verificatory investigation before issuance of the charge-sheet. It was for the manage- ment to have asked for the evidence from tfae work- man to explain justification of such a long absence but it appears that the rflarmgumeht relied sofely upon his admission and held him guilty of the charge.

5. Admission of absence is not denied by the workman. Hib Confession should hr.ve assessed in light of his valid reasons and not in isolation to hold him guilty. Though the workman has denied to have admitted the charge on pui-suation or assurance of lesser penalty but there is no evidence other than the belated statement of the workman.

6. He was, assisted.by defence representative and there is no evidence lo give inference that the manage- ment had approached him seeking his admission. There were no circumstances justifying inference that the management had any motive to victimise him. Hcicc, the factum of voluntary admission can be disputed to be after thought pleas that the workman admitted charges under some assurances. In this backdrcp, the fairness of the enquiry can not quos- tioned. The workaman was fully aware about the consequence of his admission, and was assisted by his representative and there circumstances further pro- vide strength to hold that the enquiry Wae prope* and JWr.

7. HowcVT, the penalty of rer.oval, is, apprcntly, shockingly disproportionate. The workman had taken the plea that hi:> mother was seriously ailing and she ultimately died during the said period of ab:eice. Obviously, h<* bei.ig lnnc male member in the family was under obligation to dischaige his duties to departed soul. These facts remained un- rebutted in the written statement or prior to it during the enquiry. There was no verificatory investigation to infer otherwise. These factors, in totality must have weighed by the disciplinary autho- rity while passing penalty order. The perusal of the penalty order indicates that the Disciplinary Autho- rity was more guided by previous penalties. There is no material on record that the workman was ever informed in any minncf, that the previous penalties would be taken inio consideration so to provide opportunity to explain the circumstances. Every penalty in the past was distinct. If earlier penalty of absence was justified, this dot's not mean, the present absence explained by the workman and justitfied by the circumstances was also unsatisfactory. Accoi- dingly, the penalty of removal is not justified and needs interference.

8. Also, sub-clause (VI) of Rule 42 of the Dis- ciplinary Rules applicable to the workman does rot mention 'habitual'. This remark is not justified.

9. Accordingly, the order of removal is held sock- ingly disproportionate and is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the pu'iishmont is substituted by stoppage of two increments with perpetual effect and denial of 50% of the past wage?.

10. Thus, the award is as follows :

(i) that the workman is reinstated vfith 50% bock wages; and

(ii) that he is penalised with stoppage of two increments with pj.petual effect,

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 S.O. 23i-9.^In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central4821 Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus-trial Tribunal, Vishakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BPCL and tl.'tir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-08-01.

[ No. H-11021 /4/2001-TR (M) 1

B. M. DAVID, Undor Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT WARANGAL Present :

Sri V. Appalanarasimham, B.Sc, B.L., Judge.

Monday, the 7th day of February, 2000 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CIO of 1997 Between :

M. Kn>hna, S/o. Yecrakip, H. No. 16-9-280, Puppalagutta, Warangal. Petitioner AND

1. Senior Operation Officer,

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Limited, Warangal^506 002.

2. Chief Personal Officer,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Post Box No. 1212/1213, 11 Main Road. Anna Nagar, Madras—600 040.

3. Genera] Manager,

Bharat Pcti oleum Coiporar'on Limited, Bombay. — Respondent This Industrial dispute coming on before me for final henrirg t -i 24-1-20CO, upon perusing the claim putUon, Lointor and all other documents on record and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Satwath Rana, advocate for the rK.t;tionrr and Sri C. A. R. Shcshagir Rao, advocate for the respondents, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court passed ihe following :

through Employment Exchange to fill up the vacan- cies. The petitioner filed Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'bie High Court of A.P. directed the respondents 1 and 1 to continue the petitioner in service, if he is in service as on the date of the order i.e. 11-11-88. In anticipation of the said orders fijom the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., petitioner was prevented from performing his duties from March, 1989. The peti- tioner worked for more than 240 days continuously from 1985. Termination of the services of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25 F of I.D. Act. In W.A. No. 1304/91 filed by this petitioner, the petitioner was directed to approach the approp- riate court for necessary relief. Therefore this peti- tion is filed to set aside the oral termination orders and for reinstatement of the petitioner into service. The contribution of the Provident Fund in the Office of E.S.I. Corporation, Warangal would show the continuity service of the petitioner for more than 240 days and so the termination ordqr is illegal. Hence the Petition.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the respondents are as follows : The description of the first respondent is not properly given. Hindustan Petroleum Limited is a separate legal entity and Bharat Petroleum Corporation will not have any administrative authority over the Hindustan Petro- leum Corporation Limited at Warangal, The peti- tioner was engaged in the respondent corporation purely on casual basis, as per the work load or on account of shortfall in man-power. The services of the Petitioner are purely casual-in nature. Petitioner never worked continuously for more than 240 days in any period. Contribution of Provident Fund will not give any right to seek reinstatement. There are no merits in the Petition. The Petition is liable 'o be dismissed.

Documents filed by the b >th parties ar.' r c o- ved by this court for persual and appr.cia ion Arguments of pdvocatcs of both partu-'i .".re- heard.

AWARD

The petitioner filed this petition under section 2-A(2) of I.D, Act to ret aside the oral ter.rtimtion of the .service^ OL the p4itK.ncT £s Hc;ivy Vehicle Diivor in the- Office of the 1st respondent and for reinstatement of the pjtitionsr with all benefits.

2. The brief averments in the pctit'on fi'ed by the petitioner arc as follows : Petitioner was appointed as Heavy Vehicle Driver in Pitroleum Corporation of the re.-.p3n,de it in August, 1985. He was posted under the cont/ol of the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile there was proposal to call for candidates 5. The point for consideration is whuil cr p-lVoner worked as Heavy Vehicle Driver in Puiroleu.ni Corporation contii.uou-.ly for 240 d"ji prior to oral termination in 1989 ? If so, whether the petition is entitled for r^iii'tHcmc it V4S22_ THE pAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] found in tho Forms maintained by the E.S.I. [Corporation, in which the employer was described as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited only. In the letter addressed to the Coiporation on behalf of the E.S.I. Corporation, Warangal, it is, mentioned that petitioner worked for certain period in M/s. Bharat Petroleum, Corporation Ltd., Warangal. and certain othrr periods in M/s Hindus'an Pe'rolcum Corporation Lid Warangcl For this icason the objection taken on behalf of the respondents as to the incorrect description of the employer is not sustainable and is therefore rejected. The aver- ments in the counter are sufficient to believe that petitioner worked in the corporation for certain period on casual basis. The objection taken on behalf of the respondent on technical ground negatived, as not maintainable. Point is answered accordingly.

7. In the result, an P.ward is p"ssed by holding that termination of the petitioner by the corporation of the respondents is not in violation of Section 25-F of I. D. Act and so the petitioner is not entitled for any reinstatement into servico in the corporation of the respondents. This petition is dismissed accordingly. This award shall come into force within 30 days or from the date of its publication, whichever is earlier by virtue of the powers confirm to this court Urdor section 17-A of I. D. Act.

Dictated to stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me and given under my hand and seal of this court on 7th day of February, 2000.

V. APPALANARASIMHAM, Judge

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

No documentary and oral evidence is adduced

on either side.

relied upon the said extracts showing the the contribution of the Provident Fund collected from the wages of the petitioner when the peti- tioner worked as driver. In the shents of E.S.I. Corporation in forum No. 6. Number of clays worked by each worked arc noted in column No. 4 in {.he above said periods. As can be se^n from ihc Forims of E.S. I. corporation, petitioner worked for 8 days from 1-4-86 to 30-9-86, 29 days from 1-10-86 to 31-3-87, for 15 days from 1-4-87 to 30-9-87, for 42 days from 1-10-87 to 31-3-88 and for 34 days from 1-4-88 to 30-9-1988,. So for the entire period, from 1-4-86 to 30-9-1988, the petitioner worked for 128 days only. There is ro material filed by the petitioner to say that he worked till March, 1989. From the evidence on record, it can be believed that the services of the petitioner are discontinued w.c.f. 1-10-1988 on oral orders. In the twelve months preceding dt. I-I0-88, the petitioner also never completed continuous working of 240 days in the corporation. Petitioner also never completed working for 240 days continuously in the entire period fiom 1-10 86 to 30-9-1988, as per the sheets maintained by the E. S. I. Corporation for the workers for con- tribution of Provident Fund. On behalf of the E. S. I. Corporation, a letter was addressed at 29 4-97 to Hie 1st respondent for furnishing declaration Form in respect of the petitioner, as the petiiioner is found to have worked in the coipoiaticn frcm July, 1986 to March, 1989. The caid Liter would not prove the actual number of days worked by the petitioner in Bharat Petroleum or Hindustan Petroleum. The i.vc'crcc before this court is only on the effect ll r t ic woiktd for less than 240 days in the ertire peiicd of service ard also in the twelve months period prior to his oral termination, cith'i- on 1-10-88 or in the month of March, 1989. As can be seen from the number of days worked in d'ffercnt perieds, in the columns mentioned by the E. S. I. Coipo-ation, the petitioner worked only as casual worker on daily wages as and when the services a>-c requisitioned. He never worked continuously without any break in the entire period in twelve months preceding the oral termination. T.i. rjf JTO there is no violation of Section 25-F of 1. D. Act. Tho corporation has not violated the provisions of the I. D. Act i'i terminating the sci'vi Tes of the p titioner as he never completed working of 240 days continuously, as required Undv-i- Section 25 F & G of I. D. Act. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any reinstatement as Heavy Vehicle Driver in the corporation of the r spondents. The advocate for the respondents have taken objection as to the description of the 1st respondent, The name of the petitioner is4823 New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S. O. ?33O.--In pur-unnce of See* inn 17 ol' the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Cuntial Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur ;'••, shown in, the Annexure in the Indus- tral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ESIC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-08-2001.

[No. L-150I2/1/98-IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI R.P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR,

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 138 OF 1990 IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN

Sri Suresh Kumar Siromani S/o Shri Banshi Dhar 117/92 P Block Kakadeo Kaiipur.

and

Employees Stt'te Insurance corporation The Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corpoiation ESIC Building Kanpur.

AWARD

As the petitioner workman was approved for regular appointment as P peon w.e.f. 29-9-65 and he was placed on probation for a period of two years, his probation period expired on 29-9-67, hence after expiry of the probation period he became permanent employee and to his services could not b; terminated treating him as a temporary employee. It has been alleged that juniors to the petitioner have been retained in service and have been promoted from time to time but the services of the petitioner workman have been terminated arbitrary without any valid reasons. Tt has been alleged thai a charge sheet dated 6-10-69 was served on him but later on the same was dropped and the services of the concerned workman have bjen terminated by way of punishment without giving him opportunity of hi aring, hence tht termination order is illegal. It has further been alleged that on the basis of advise given by the advocate he filed a suit in the couit of Munsif City Kanpur, and the wmo was decreed against the management. The management filed first appeal against the judgement and decree and that appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the management filed second appeal before Hon'ble High Court but vitiniately that appeal was allowed by the Hon'be High Court and the judgement passed by Munsif and appellate court were set aside on the ground that petitioner should seek remedy under Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter the petitioner workman approached the officers of the Labour Department and consequently the matter has been referred by way of rufercne; to thk tribunal for decision according to law by the Appropriate Government under Sue. 10 of the Act.

1. Centi nl Government, Ministiy of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-l 5012/1/98/ IR (M)) dated 23-7-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication 1o this tribunal.

3. The management has filed written statement

with the contention that the concerned workman

was a temporary employee and his services could

be terminated by the competent authority in

exercise of powers given under regualtion 6(3)

Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff and

Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 (herein- Whether the action of the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Coiporation, Kanpur, in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Kumar Shiromani w.c.f. 21-1-71 and not paying back wages is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

after referred to as Regulations for the sake of

brevity). It has been admitted that a charge

sheet was served on him but proceedings of \o-

quiry) were dropped by the competent authority

and thereafter the impunged order of termination

from seivice was passed. It has been alleged

that the appointing authority was competent to

terminate the services of the petitioner under

rules, as his probation period was to expire on

5-12-72 hence the services of the coneerend work-

man could be terminated before the expiry of the 2. The workman filed statement of claim with the allegation that he was appointed as a peon in the scalr- of pay 70-1-EB-1-85 vide order no. K/Estt/I (I) dated 18-19/9/65 and joined the aforesaid post on 29-9-65. The aforesaid post was of regular and permanent in nature and he was approved for regular appointment w.c.f. 29-9-65 as a p.on vide office order No. K/ltSTT/I (7)/7O dated 5-12-70 and he had been working conti- nuously as a regular peon till 20-1-71 without any stigma His services have been terminated unlawfully vide order dated 16-1-71 w.e.f. 21-1-71. period of probation treating him to be a tern- 26C-R GT/2001—1748?4 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l porary employee. Jt lias been alleged thai ihe claim filed by the workman is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Jt has been admitted that the suit iilcd by the concerned workman i n the Court of Munsif Kanpi.ii¹ was decreed and appeal filed by the management was dismissed but the second appeal tiled before the Hon'blc High Court was allowed and the aforesaid judge- ments passed by civil Court at Kanpur wero. s^t aside with a liberty to the concerned workman to seek remedy under the piovisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The concerned workman filed rejoinder in which the facts alleged in the statement of claim have been leiterated.

5. The workman examined himself as w.w. 1 and filed 11 documents ext. M. 1 to M. 11. The management examined Sri R K. Srivastava Superintendent Vigilance Department ESI, Kanpur, as M.W. 1 and filed 3 documents which are copies of the relevant regulation of E.S.I.

6. I have heard the authorized representative for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

7. The authorized Representative for the workman has argued that the services of the concerned workman have been terminated by the appointing authority without any rhyme or any reason whereas his juniore have brcn retained in service, hence the impunged order of termination of services passed against the concerned workman is illegal and is violative of the right of equality guaranted to the concerned workman under Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. After going through the record of the case, I find force in this contention. The concerned workman has stated on oath that when his services were termi- nated many of his juniors such as Musafir Ram, Tank Bahadur Rana who were juniors to him and who are mentioned in Ext. W.2 were retained in services whereas services of the concerned workman were terminated arbitrarily. Sri R, K. Srivastava, M.W. I admitted in his cross exami- nation that juniors to the petitioner workman are already continuing in service whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated in exercise of powers given to the competent authority under Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations. He admitted in his cross examination that the reasons for terminating the services of the concerned workman have not been given in the written statement filed by the management and he was also unable to say as to why and on what ground the services of the concerned workman wc*e terminated. It is a settled principle of law as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India that every state action should be in- formed with good and valid reasons. In other words there should not be any arbitrariness in the state action otherwise the arbitrary action of the state shall be hit by Article 14 of the Consti- tution of India and shall become illegal. In this case there is no evidence on record to show that the concerned workman could be kept in a separate class in comparison to his juniors and the appointing authority has not discriminated against the concerned workman while terminating his services and retaining his juniors. If the concerned workman and his juniors were appointed regularly by the same order as contained in Ext. W-2, the services of the concerned workman could not be terminated while his juniors were retained without lawful and valid reasons. No reason has been shown by the management for terminating the services of the concerned workman. There is no evidence on record to show that he was unfit for the post which he was holding and his juniors had better service record. In these circumstances the impugned order of termination appears to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be quashed on 'his ground alone- In a similar case of the Government Branch press and another versus D. B. Balliappa AIR 1969 SC 429, the Hob'ble Supremo Court of India has held as under:

"Conversely, if the services of a temporary government servant are terminated arbitrarily and not on the ground of. his unsuitability, unsatis- factory conduct or the like which would put hi n in a class apart from his juniors in the same service, a question of iinf'iir dis;riraination miy arise notvviLrntaidin" the fa^t that in tei-minaling his services the appointing authority was purpo- rting to act in accordance with the t ^ n; ,iE the employment. Where a c'lirge of unfair discrimi- nation is levelled with specificity or improper motives arc imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the court the reason or motive which implied it to take the impugned action."

In the case cited abovo juniors were retained whereas the services of the respondent of that case were terminated. That termination order of the respondent of that case was quashed on the ground that it was hit by Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The management could not show that employee whose services were terminated could be placed in separate class than those of his juniors whose services had not been4825 terminated. The law laid down in the case cited above fully applies to the facts of the present case. 1, therefore, hold that the impugned order of termination of service of the concerned workman being aibilrary is hit by ihe provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

appointment. In a similar case of Om Prakash Maurya versus UP Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Lucknow, 1986 (2) SLR 651 S.C., the Hon'ble Supn-me Court has held that if the maximum period of probation provided under the regulation expires without there being z?ny extension of the probation period, after expiry of such probation period the employee shall be deemed to h^ve been confirmed.

9. The law laid down in the case citod above fully applies to the fr'cts of the present case. As Ihe concerned employee stood confirmed auto- matically in view of the law laid in the case cited above, the appointing authority could . not terminate his services troating him to be a tempo- rary employee. From this point of view also the impugned order of termination of service of the workman passed by the appointing authority. appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction. W he wanted to remove him from service he should have given him an opportunity of hearing on the charges which could have been levelled against him and thereafter only he could have removed him from service. In this case this has not been done. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order of termination passed against the concerned employee is illegal being passed in viloation of the principles of natural justice.

10. Jn view of above considerations, 1 hold that the impugned order of termination of services passed against the concerned workman is illegal, inoperative and is liable to be quashed,

11. The impugned order of termination of the service of the concorned workman is hereby quashed. The management, is directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages. The amount of salary oi arrears uf salary if any received by the concerned workman from the management under orders of the Hon'blt: High Court or any other couit in previous litigation shall be adjusted towards the back wages payable to him. The management is directed to make compliance of Miis awaid within a period of two months from the dtitt, of publication of the award in the official gazette.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 8. It has been contended by the representative for the workman that when the concerned workman was placed on probation of two years as required under Regulations and lie completed probation of two years on 29-9-67 he will deemed to have been confirmed on the post of paon and his services could not be terminated treating him to be a temporary employee. After going through the record of the case I find force in this con- tention. The workman has filed the letter/order dated 5-12-70 passed by the appointing authority which Ext. W. 2 on the record. This document shows that Sri S. K, Shiromani, peon was given regular appointment w.c.f. 29-9-65 and he was placed on probation for two years from the date of his regular appointment. Date of his regular appointment is mentioned in this order as 29-9-65. It is admitted case of the parties that he was appointed on 29-9-65 on temporary and ad-hoc basis and he continued in service till aforesaid order dated 5-12-70, was passed. Under Regu- lation 5 of the Regulations every employee who was appointed on regular basis was to be placed on probation for a period of [wo years. Rule 5 (3) of Ihe Regulations piov des that appointing authority may at its discretion cotii.t any period during which an employee has success- fully officiated in a p^st as a pjriod of probalio n in that post. The record shows that the concerned workman officiated on the post of peon from 29-9-65 and that is why he has been given regular appointment from tlut date and his offi- ciating services has been treated as period of probation in that post. As the concerned workman completed period of probation of two years on 29-9-67, he could be deemed to ha^e been confirmed on that post on this date specially when his probation period was not extended by the competent authority. According to Regulation 5 of the Regulations an employee cannot be kept on probation for total period exceeding 4 years on a post. Even if the probation period of the concerned workman eould be extended it could not have been extended for period extending 4 years. Thus the maximum period of probation if assumed to have been extended expired on 29-9-69. Thereafter, the concerned workman must be deemed to have been eon finned on the post of peon as he had s-'uccessfull> completed the period of probation from the date of regular4816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBERS 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART il—SEC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2331.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Bangalore as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by tbe Central Government on 14-08-2001.

[No. L-43012/6/97-IR(M)]

B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRJBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

Til Main, III Cross, TI Phase, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore.

Dated : 19th July, 2001

PRESENT :

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

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore

C.R. NO. 244/97

11 PARTY The Managing Director, Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Oorgaum, K..G.F.-563120

(Advocate-Shri A.S.

Bopanna)

I PARTY Shri S. Savaridass, Secretary, Bharat Gold Miners Employees Union, CITU, Marikuppam, K. G. F.—563119 (Advocate—Shri Sathyanarayana)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-43012/ 6/97-TR (Misc) dated 30-6-97 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bharat Gold Mines Limited in not regularising the services of Smt. B. Menagie is justified, if not to what relief she is entitled to?"

2. First Party is working with the Second Party management. She had a greivance that she is not regularised and therefore, this dispute is raised.

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

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

5. The case of the first party is that she was appointed as Casual Worker in BGML during year 1986 on compassionate grounds since her husband late Chandrakasan, Ex. PE No. 048432 died on 19-7-1985 while he was on duty as cage guard. She has passed SSLC, Teachers' Training Higher Grade and Typing and she being qualified the manage- ment has extracted work of the nature of Clerk/ Typist on a meagre amount of Rs. 700/- per month. She was repeatedly requested to confirm and to regularise her but nothing was done by the manage- ment. She also expressed her willingness to work as a teacher in one of the schools managed by the Second Party. She is put to great hardship and she has to maintain her family.

6. It is the further case that the dependents of those who died in similar circumstances many years after the death of the concerned worker's husband has given permanent nature of job as stated in para 6 of the Claim Statement.

7. The first party has statisfied the provisions of sec)ion 25B of the ID Act, 1947 and she continues to do perennial nature of job. Therefore the first party has prayed to pass award in her favour.

8. The ease of the Second Party is that the reference is not maintainable in law and facts. All the allegations made by the first party workmen are not correct. Prior to 1981 recruitments on compas- sionate grounds inspite of sons of employees who died in harness were made and subsequently there was surplus labours and hence there was ban on reeruti- ment for unskilled categories even on compassionate grounds.

9. It is the further case of the management that the then recognised union namely TNTLJC took up 'the case of Smt. Managi for appointing her as her husband died in the year 1985 and she was taken as Casual Worker.

- 10. The nature of job does not warrant 8 hours work and therefore on humanitarian grounds she was considered for a part time casual job and she is doing the said job for a period of 3 hours per day in respect of other cmployees.The job she was taken for is on part time basis although there was surplus employees in the company which is only with view to extend4827 some financial help for her. Even as on date there is no need to engage her and her service was not at all required but she was retained on compassionate grounds and therefore she is not entitled for ary regularisation. There is no nct-essit> ol u ^aya g casual worker on part time basis. The manageiiiciit has not adopted, the unfair labour prauiee ai,d the allegations are not correct. The management lus introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme because there was surplus staff. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. MW1 is examined on behalf of the manage- ment. His evidence is that prior to 1981 the company used to provide employment on compassionate ground only to the sons of a deceased working under ground and in the year 1982 this procedure was banned due to excessive manpower and other con- tingencies. He also said that the first party was taken on account or representation by the TNTUC Union. She was provided given job of helper to open office and cleaning the office and some other sundry works were also entrusted to her. Tt was given on compassionate grounds and she has not done a job of Typist or Clerk. He also states that the unit declared as sick.

12. Against this first party got examined as- WWI. Her evidence is that her husband was work- ing with the management and on 19-7-1985 when her husband was working under the mine inside he died due fatal accident. She is having 4 school going children and she has no other income. She was given job as Casual Labour in 1986 and even now she is wroking. She is not regularised.

13. In the instant case there is no documentary evidence at all. We have to consider the evidence .of MW1 and the first party workman. Jt is an ad- mitted fact that the husband of the first party was working with the management and died while he was working in the mine inside. She was given job on compassionate ground.

14. [n view of this 1 am of the poinion that the management can cosidcr her ease ior regulari- sation if any vacancy is there. The workman has stated in her cross examination that the appoint- ment order is in the Company office and the sam t is not filed. She also said that on account of lbice she was given job on c o m p a re rate tiourd. Her evidence is thai she was doing clciical and typing work but MW1 has denied this statement. MW1 is not cross examined by the first party work man. Now the management can contidcr her re£u- larisaiion if she is eligible and fulfills tequired quali- fication. Accordingly i proceed to pass the follow- ing ordei.

ORDER

Tho icferencc is allowed with a direction to tiie management to legularise the First party workman if she fulfils all the qualifications for any regulai employment as per recruitment rules. Accordingly the case is disposed of.

(Dictated to PA tiauscribed by her coirccted ard signed by me on 19th July 2001.

V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding O/ficer T§ fosfr, 17 *W*er 2 0 0 1-

ww. 2332:—sfteftfrr fspnr scrfafaw, 1947 ( 1 9 47 "PI 14) ^t s rm 17 % IPJWTOT *f %'ifta wt 14-08-2001 "PT srr^r g?rr "TT I

[*f. tTH-29 0 1 l /3 7/94-5Trf 5TIT ( ^ )J New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 SO. 2332.—In pursuance of Section 17 ol the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent.ial Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tiibunal, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Indusiial Dispt between the employers in relation to the manage- ment Kanhupur Stone Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Governmcnton 14-08-2001

[No. L-29011/37/94- IR (M)]

B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

Reference 86 of 1995

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Kanhupur Stone Mine of Shii Ali Murtaza Khan, Rajgarm and their workman.

Apprearanccs :

Oubehalf of the workman : None. On behalf of the employers : None.

State : Jharkhnnd Industry Stone Mine.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16th July, 200148"8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER ft, 20Q1/BHADRA 17, 1925 [PART tl—SLC. 3(ii)] AWARD

The Govt. of Jndia, Ministry of Labour in exeerisc 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 adjudi- cation vide their Order No.L-29011/37/94 I.R. Misc. dated the 28-4-95/2-5-95.

"Whether the action of the management of Kanhupur Stone Mine of Shri Ali Murtara Khan, Rajgram, in terminating the services of S/Shri Parbej Sheikh S/o Lokman Sheikh and Badal Sheikh S/o, Rakir Sheikh from August, 1992 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled 7"

2. In this reference neither of the party turned up before this Tribunal nor took any sicps. There after notices under regd. post were issued to them again and agian. But inspite of the issuances of notices to them they abstained from appearing be- fore this Tribunal and taking any steps. It there- fore leads me to an inference that at present no in- dustrial dispux is existing between them Under such circumstances, a 'No dispute ' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No, dis- pute' award presuming non-existance of any indus- trial dispute between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer,

"Whether action of the management through Project Manager, Raj. State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Limestone Division, Jaisal- mer in termination the service of Shri- Ratan Lai Sharma from May, 1994 is legal and justified, if not what relief to con- cerned workman is entitled to".

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S.O. 2333—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disput Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the. Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Rajasthan State Mines and thc:r workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-08-2001.

[No. T.-290P/101/95-IR (M)]

B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

48^94830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FARI II—SEC. 3i'ii)] New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S.O. 2334 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tho award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chand- garh as shown in the Annoxure in the Industrial D'spute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2001.

[No. L-30012/l6/92-IR(M)] B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHANDTGARH.

Case No. T.D. 74/93 Joginder Pal son of Late

Shri Chuni Lai, R/o Ward No. 2, H.No. 293, Govindpur, Jammu (J & K) —Workman

Versus The. Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 36 A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (J & K) —Management4831 APPEARANCES

For the workman : Shri Ashck Parihar with

workman and Shri Yog Raj

For the management : Shri paul S. Saini

AWARD

(Passed on 3rd July 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette notification No. L-30012/16/92-IR(Misc.) dated 15th of June 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the management of 1.0.C. Ltd., represented by its senior divisional manager I.O.C. Ltd., 36, A/B Gandhinagar, Jammu have violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act 1947? If so, to what relief the workman Shri Joginder Paul is entitled to ?nd to what effect?"

2. Today the case was fixed for arguments. Workman filed an application for witlidrawnl of the case stating therein that the settlement has been arrived at between the workman and the manage- ment and his claim has been satisfied by the ma- nagement. This fact has been verified and the work- man admitted that the settlement was arrived at by his free will and no undue influence or mis-represen- tation or coercion or fraud was exercised by the ma- nagement upon the workman. The rcf. of the ma- nagement also confirm the settlement. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Minis- try as settled and withdrawn. Appropriate Govt. be informed. Chandigarh 3-7-2001

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S.O. 2335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby published the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in ths Annsxure in ths Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management 2668 GI/2001—18

of I.B.Pi Ltd. and their workman, which was rece- ived by the Central Government on 14-08-2001

[No. L-30012/45/2000-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 33 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management the General Manager, M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd.

AND

Their workman.

Present :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma.... Presiding Officer

Appearance : On behalf of Management None. On behalf of Workmen None. State : West Bengal. Industry : Pctroliura.

AWARD

By Order No. L-30312/45/2000/IR(M) dated 11-08-2000 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10(l)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of IBP, Calcutta in not allowing the rate of HRA i.e. 22.5% to the staff working at Patna (Being classified as B.I. city by the Govt. of India at per with those of officer category is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

2. When the case is called out today, none ap- pears for either of the parties. It appears from re- cord that on earlier many occassions the representa- tive of the union did not appear. Since none appears for the union, nor any step is taken on its behalf for adducing evidence' it is clear thai the union is no longer interested to proceed with the matter. Advo- cate for the management is also not present to say anything in the matter.

3. Tn such circumstance, in the absence of any material for any decision in respect of the schedule under reference, this Tribunal has no other alter- native but to dispose of the reference by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

4. A "No Dispute" Award is accordingly passed and the reference is disposed of.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkaia

The :s.h July, :ooj4832 I5JE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADBA 17, 1923 [PART U-^-SEC. 3/ii)] New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 S.O. 2336.—In pursu-uice of Section 17 ot the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cuni-Labour Court, CHENNAI as shown in the Annexure, in the indust- rial dispute between the employers in relation to the Shev?|roys Bauxite Mines and their workmen which v,o)i received by fhe central Government on 14-8-200 H

[No*. I^43012|25'2000|IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy,

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LAROUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tiie-day, the 24 th July, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Kar li'kcyan, Piesiding Officer.

Indi">;al Dispute No. 575|2001 (In the ma'tcr of fhe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Tn- dus'rial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between Shri A. IJalak'-Is'innn and the Management cf Shevaroys Bauxite Mines, Salem".)

BETWEEN

S'> ; A Brlnkrishnan. : 1 Party|Workman

AND

Tlie Assistant General Manager : II Party|Managc-

ment.

Shc'artr/s Bauxite Mines, Salem.

AJVFA^.ANCF, :

For the Workman : Sn V. K. Nallamuthu, Au'horised Representative For the Manapcnr:nt : M|s T S. Gopalan &Ca.

Advocates.

TI-" Govt c/ Tndi.i Minis ry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause fd) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10- of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrie Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-43012|25|2000-IR(M) dated 30-3-2001. The Schedule of reference read} as under:—

"Whether the action of the Management of Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. in terminating the services o: the workman Shri A, Balakrishnan w.e.f. 26-3-99 is justified? If not, to whajt relief is he entitled?

On receipt of the order of reference from the Minis- try of Labour, Govt. of India, in respect of this indus- trial dispute between the parties, notices were sent to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal and to make their representation in respect of the referred dispute. The I PaityiWorkman appeared! along with his Piuthorised union representative, while the II|Management entered appearance through their counsel. When the matter was taken up for (he I Party[Workman to file the Claim Statement, it v>as represented on 17-7-2001, on either side, 1hat the matter is being settled between the parties and they will report the settlement in the ne^ct hearing. A joint memo has been filed for the settlement arrived at between the parties and an behalf of the Petitioner, it was requested to Rrant tima for filing the petition for withdrawal of this industrial dispute by the 1 Party' Workman.

2. In pursuance of the request made on behalf of the I Party|Workman, when the matter is taken up to the adjourned date 24-7-2001 i.e. to-day granting time for the I Partyj Petitioner to file his petition to withdraw this industrial dispute, the I Party| Workman, Mines Manager representing the II PartyjSheveroys Bauxite Mines, Salem the authorised union representative of the I Farty and the counsel for the II PartyjMana&c- ment are present before this Tribunal. A withdrawal memo has been filed by the I Party| Workman along with the receipt given by the I Party|Workman to the Management, ppknowledging the receipt of bank demand draft for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 (Rupees One Lakh Five thousand only). Th& Petitioner! Workman and the Management representative, who aire the signatories to the Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) of (he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 10-7-2001 filed along with joint memo vvere questioned with regard to the terms of the Settle- ment mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement. Both of them accepted as correct. The T Party I Workman requested this Tribunal to record this withdrawal of this industrial dispute aer the with- drawal memo, since he arrived at the settlement duly settled the dispute and had received the amount of Rs 1,05,000 mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement by way of a bank demand draft in full and final se'tlcmcnt of the Jaim raiccd in Ihe dispute mentioned in Industrial Dfsrvitc No. 575|200K pending on the file of this CGTT-Cum-Labour Court, Chennai. Both the parties to the concerned dispute ar, v.ell as Memorandum of Settlement present in the Ccrtirt requested this Tribunal to pass a Settlement Av/nrd, in v>w of the Memorandum of Settlement and in view of the withdrawal memo filed by the T PartvlWorkmpln. AccordintK the Memorandum of Settlement Hated 10-7-°001 and the withdrawal memo filed¹ bv th" I Pa^viWnrVnnan to withdraw th's in- dWrial dispute, in view of fhe settlement of industrial dispute against the Management, are recorded*.

3. In the result, a Settlement Awajrd is passed in respect of this referred industrial dispute between the parties in terms of the Settlement mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 10-7-2001 ' filed into Court. The said Settlement Memorandum \ and the copy of the receipt issued by the I Party Workman acknowledging the payment by the II Party Management by way of bank demand draft shall be appended to the Award.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and¹ typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th July, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 13(1) OF THE I. D. ACT, 1947 DATED : 10-7-2001

Parties to the Settlement:

Management of M|s. Shevaroys Bauxite Mines Yercaud and Thiru A. Balakvishnan, represented by Thiru V. K, Nallamuthu General Secretary, Shevroys General Employees Union, Yercaud.

Representing the management:

(1) Thiru. A. Muralidhaian Vicc-President (HR)

(2) Thiru R. Chandrasekaran

Manager Mines.

Representing workmen :

(1) Thiru V, K. NaUamuthu

General Secretary

(2) Thiru A. Balakrishnan

The Shevroys General Employees Union, Yercaud.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE Whereas an Industrial Dispute is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai (CGID No. 575|2001) regarding the non-employment pf Mr. A. Balakrishnan by the company for adjudi- cation. During the pendency of the above case, both the parties mutually held discussions on various dates for settling this crjse out of court. Finally today this 10th day of July, 2001 after protracted discussions both the parties arrived at an understanding and agreement to settle the dispute complete in all respect on the following terms,

Terms of Settlement:

(2) The parties agree that this amount of Rs. 1,05,000 (Rupees One lakh live thousand only) be paid in full and final settlement of the claim raised in the dispute CG ID No. 57512001 befoie the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tiibunal-cum-Laoour Court, Chennai.

(3) The management agrees to pay the said amount i.e. Rs. 1.05,000 on or before 23-7-2001 to the work- man Mr. A, Balakrishnan in lull and final settlement of the clalim raised in the above dispute, The work- man Mr. A. Balakrishnan agrees not to raise any claim or file any cajse|reference in future regarding the issues raised' in CG ID No. 575|200l and any other issue relating to' his employment or non-employment against the management The workmsin Mr. A. Balakrishnan agrees that he accepts the amount of Rs. l,05,OC0 in full discharge of all his claims agaiinst the company and that no further claim shall be lodgcd|made by him or on his behalf against the company, on the issue of his employment or non- employment or othervise in the company.

(4) The workman, Mr. A. Balakrishnan agrees, to withdraw this dispute bearing the No. CGID No. 575/ 2001 raised before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on or before 30-7-2001 and further agrees that this settlement be filed before the said court.

In witness thereof both the parties hither to have agreed and subscribed their respective signatures to this settlement on this 10th day of July, 2001.

Representing the Management

Representing the WYckmen (1) Sd/-

A. Muralidharan)

Sd|-

(V. K. Nallamuihu) (2) Sd/-

(A. Balakrishnan) (R. Chandrasekharan)

Witnesses

(1) Sd|- (M. Kandasamy) (2) Sd/-

(N, Subha)

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

• S.O. 2337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cuni-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Shevaroys Bauxite Mines and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2001.

[No. L-43012|26J2000|IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 24th July, 2001

On receipt of the order of reference from the Minis- try of Labour, Govt. of India, in respect of this indus- trial dispute between the parties, notices were sent to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal and to make their representation in respect of the referred dispute. The I Party|Workman appeared along with his authorised union representative, while the II Party|Management entered appearance through their counsel. After the Claim Statement of the I Partyl workman has been filed, who the matter was taken up for the II Party/Management to file their Counter Statement, it was represented on 17-7-2001, on either side, that the matter is bcjng settled between the parties and they will report the settlement in the next hearing. A joint memo has been filed for the settle- ment arrived at between the parties and on behalf of the Petitioner, was was requsst^i to grant time for filing the petition for withdrawal of this industrial dis- pute by the I Party/Workman.

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 570|2001

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudicaion under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between Shri S. Munusamy and the Management of Shevaroys Bauxite Mines, Salem.)

BETWEEN

Shri S. Munusamy : I Party | Workman

AND

The Assistant General Manager : II Party|Manage-

ment.

Shevaroys Bauxite Mines, Salem,

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Sri V. K. Nallamuthu, Authorised Representative.

For the Management : M|s. T. S. Gopalan&Co.

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 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-43012|26|2000-IR(M) dated 27-3-2001. The Schedule of reference reads as under:—

"Whether the action of the Management of Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of the workman Shri S. Munusamy w.e.f. 17-5-99 is justified? If not, to whait relief is he entitled?

2. In pursuance of the request made on behalf of the I PartyjWorkman, when the matter is taken up to the adjourned date 24-7-2001 i.e. to-day, grfanting time for the 1 Party | Petitioner to file his petition to withdraw this industrial dis- pute, the I Party|Workman, Mines Manager representing the II Party|Shevaroys Bauxite Mines, Salem the authorised union representative of the I Party and the counsel for the II Party | Manage- ment are present before this Tribunal, A withdrawal memo has been filed by the I Party|Workman along with the receipt given by the I PartyiWorkman to the Management, acknowledging the receipt of bank demand draft for a sum of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventyfive thousand only). The Petitioner/ Workman and the Management representative, who a|re the signatories to the Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) pf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 10-7-2001 filed along with joint memo were questioned with regard to the terms of the Settle- ment mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement. Both of them accepted as correct. The I Party| Workman requested this Tribunal to record this withdrawal of this industrial dispute as per the with- drawal memo, since he arrived at the settlement duly settled the dispute and had received the amount of Rs. 75,000 mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement by way of a bank demand draft in full und final settlement of the claim raised in the dispute mentioned in Industrial Dispute No. 570|2001 pending on the file of this CGIT-cum-Laibour Court, Chennai. Both the parties to the concerned dispute as well as Memorandum of Settlement present in the Court requested this Tribunal to pass a Settlement Awards in view of the Mcmonrnndum of Settlement and in view of the withdrawal memo filed by the I PartyiWorkman. Accordingly, the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-7-2001 and the withdrawal memo4835 filed by thg I Party|Workman to withdraw this in- dustrial dispute, in view of the settlement of industrial dispute against the Management, are recorded.

3. In the result, a Settlement Award is passed in inspect of this referred industrial dispute between the parties in terms of the Settlement mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 10-7-2001 filed into Court. The said Settlement Memorandum and the copy of the receipt issued by the I Partyl Workman acknowledging the payment by the II Party| Management by wajy of bank demand draft shall be appended to the Award.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th July, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Fresiding Officer MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE ID ACT, 1947 DATED : 10-7-2001

Parties to the Settlement: Management of Mjs. Shevaroys Bauxite Mines Yercaud a|nd Thiru, S. Munuswamy, represented by Thiru V. K. Nallamuthu General Secretary, Shervroys General Employees Union, Yercaud.

Representing the management :

(1) Thiru. A. Muralidhalran Vice-President (HR)

(2) Thiru R. Chandrasekaran

Manager Mines.

Representing workmen:

(1) Thiru V. K. Nallamuthu

General Secretary

(2) Thiru. S. Munuswamy

The Shervroys General Employees Union Yercaud SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE;

Whereas an Industrial Dispute is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai (CGID No. 570[2001) regarding the non-employment of Mr. S. Munuswamy by the company for adiudi-t, cation. During the pandfcncy of the above case, both the parties mutually held discussions on various date* for settling this caBe out of court Finally today this 10th day of July, 2001 after protracted discussion* both the parties arrived at an understanding and agreement to settle the dispute complete in all respect on the following terms. Terms of Settlement:

(1) The parties agree that the workman Mr. S. Munuswamy will be paid a lumpsum amount of Rs. 75,000 in full discharge of this claim for re- instatement in service with Back wages, Bonus, Leave wages, Retrenchment compensation and other fringe benefits as claimed in the dispute No*. CGID No. 570| 2001 pending before the Central Government Indust- rial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai.

(2) The parties agree that this amount of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) be paid in full and final settlement of the claim raised in the dispute CG ID No. 57O|2001 before the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribnual-cum-Labour Court, Chennai.

(3) The management agrees to pay the said amount i.e. Rs. 75,000 on or before 2J-7-2001 to the work- man Mr. S. Munuswamy in full and final settlement of the clajim raised in the above dispute. The work- man Mr. S. Munuswamy agrees not to raise any claim or file any ca|se| reference in future regarding the issues raised in CG ID No. 570|2001 and any other issue relating to bis employment or non-employment against the management. The workman Mr. S. Munuswamy agrees that he accepts the amount of Rs, 75,000 in full discharge of all his claims against the company and that no further claim shall be lodgcd|made by him or on his behalf against the company, oti the issue of his employment or non- employment or otherwise in the company.

(4) The workman, Mr. S. Munuswamy agrees to withdraw the dispute bearing No. CG ID No. 570| 2001 rau'sed before the Cenral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court on or before 30-7-2001 and further agrees that this settlement be filed before the said court.

In witness thereof both the parties Heither to have agreed and subscribed their respective signatures to this settlement on this 10th day of July, 2001. Representing the Management (1) A. Muralidharan i (2) R. Chandrasekhara

Witnesses: ' (1) Sd/-

Representing the Workmen

(1) V. K. Nallamuthu

(2) S. Munuswamay

(S. Munuswamy)

(M. KANDASAMY) :(2) SdA

(N. SUBHA)4836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER Sw 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of pcweis conferpd b} cif-urr (d) of n.t-fecticn (1) and si'^-'cction 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute / , 1947 (14 of tie 1947\ have referred the concc ci Industrial Dispute for i.djudicaticn vide P -V :

v.r.

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2001 S.0.2338, Tn pursuance 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-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer;- in relation to the management of Supdt. of Railway Mail Service and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2001.

[No. L-400l2/136/95-IR(DU)] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Thursday the 2nd August, 2001

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 400/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.58/96) (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 K. Bala- subramaiiiam and the Management of Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, Coimbatore.)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Balasubramaniani : I Party/Workman

AND

The Superintendent of ; II Party/Management Railway Mail Service, Coimbatorc,

Appearance :

For the Workman :

Sri M. Gnanasokar,

Advocate.

For the Management : M/s. C. K. Vis,! nu Priya,

Advocates

This leference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it wes taken on file as I.D. No. 58/96. When the matter Was ponding enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order trensfor of this caso from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from tbrt Tri- bunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 400/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal with a direction to appear beforo this Tribunal on 22-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal the countel on either side were present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 02-07-2001 upon persuing the Claim Sta'ement Counter Statement, o:hcr material papers on record, upon perusing the documentary evidence let in on either sido and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned COLJUCI on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consi- deration, this Tribunal has passed the following :

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of tho Management of Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, Coimbatore in dismissing Shri K. Balasubia- maniam, and ex, S,G. Mailman is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :

The I Party/Workman Sri K. Balasubraaniam (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) joined the II Party/Postal department tw Mailman on 30-6-1973 at at Erode sub-record office (RMS). The Peti- tioner has put in nearly 20 yearo of service. Cn 11-12-91, the II Party/Management. Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, Coimbcto/c Division (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) has ghen a charge memo alleging Jiat while the politic ner was working as Mailman in Eiodc RMS/Mail, on 5-?r9O has stolen the recorded delivery arlicel No. 53 dated 453T"

contents of the statement have" been re'tracted during" the course of enquiry. The other witnesses were also not directly related to the alleged charge. The petitioner during the enquiry has denied the charges. However, the Enquiry Officor in the enquiry report has held the charges were provrd. Therefore *he enquiry reports dated 21-2-92 and 22-3-92 am illbgal and the findings of the Enquiry Officer that there is no valid evidence as a base for the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry report, ? memo dated 19-11-92 was. issued to the Petitioner, The Petitioner has submitted an explanation to the said memo. Not satisfying with the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, the II Party/ManEgcment passed an order on 10-2-93 d'sm.sring the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner has Pled ?ii rppoaJ on 3-3-93 bofore the Appella*c Autlioiity tgp,inst the order of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority has mechanically rejected the f.pped v. ;;!•- out considering 'be various a^prc's raircd in the appeal. Both tho Dis'iplinary Authority and Ap- pellate Authority ought to have sren whether the charges arc provrd based on ovicence ind also The gravity of the misconduct frd (hc propo:(:crar-• of the punishment and also tin. 10 yiars of i nble- mished service put in by the Petitioner. Tf or^forc, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Tribunal m;i> be pleased to set aside the order of dis-ni^al date] 10-2-93 issued by the Disciplinary Authority which was confirmed by order dated 12-7-n? by tlie App,-]- late Authority and direct the II Po.y/Munar'iPLMit to reinstate the Petitioner in service with cc>'irinuiiy of service and back wage.¹-.

3. The averments in the Counter Sf.-ici.-cnt filed by the fl Party/Managtmcnt are brietlv as follows :

The Petitioner while working as Mailman in4*38 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PAUT II—SEC. 3(Ji)] finally It was taken on 2-7-2001. The learned counsel on either side have advanced their respective arguments.

5, The point for my consideration is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, Coimbatore in dismissing Shri K. Balasubra- tnaniam, an ex S.G. Mailman is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Point :

It is admitted that the I Party/Workman, Sri K.. Balasubramaniam the Petitioner herein was working as S.G. Mailman in Erode RMS/Mail on 5-8-90. It is alleged that on that day the petitioner had fraudulently taken away the recorded delivery article No. 53 a dated 4-8-90 booked at Nagapatti- nam HO containing lorry receipt (way bill) while passing through the post and with the help of docu- ments contained in the R.D. article took delivery of the goods which was sent to M/s. MU. RA & Sons, Salem by MRS, Agencies Nagapattinam, through TVS parcel Office. For this, a charge sheet dated 11-1?-91 was issued to the Petitioner. Subse- quently, that was cancelled and the fresh charge sheet dated 21-02-92 was issued to the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that after the 1 st charge sheet dated 11-2-91 was issued by the Respondent/Management to the Petitioner/Workman, there was no change in cir- cumstances, warranting the cancellation of the same and hence the cancellation of that charge sheet dated 11 -12-91 by the Disciplinary Authority by his memo dated 21-2-92 amounts to complete exoneration. He would further contend that once it is cancelled it is not open to the Disciplinary Authority to issue a second charge sheet for the same alleged miscon- duct.

disallow the defence assistant nominated, if he does not belong to the Headquarters of the charge sheeted employee or the place of enquiry. An enquiry has been conducted as per the rules and six witnesses were examined. The sender of the article had made of complaint regarding non-delivery of RD Articles and about the incident vide his letter dated 10-8-90 which was produced as a prosecution exhibit. M/s. M.R.S. agencies, Nagapattinam had lodged a comp- laint regarding non-reaching of R.D. No. 53 dated 4-8-90 containing lorry way bill with invoices to MU. RA sons, Salem vide letter No. A/10/136/90 dated 10-8-90. The said complaint has been marked as document No. 1 in Annexure III to the charge sheet. As per the direction of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem East Division, PW2 Mr. P. Rajendran enquired into the matter and submitted his report on 23-10-90. The statement given by the Petitioner before PW3 has been marked as one of the prosecution document and the Petitioner himself examined as witness before the Enquiry Officer and admitted that he had given the statement. The contention of the petitioner that the other witnesses were not directly related to the alleged charge is not correct. Witnesses 2, 3 and 4 are the depart- mental officers who have conducted the preliminary enquiry and witnesses 5 and 6 are the parties connect- ed with booking of recorded delivery article No. 53 of Nagapattinam and witness No. 1 is the party to whom the RD Article was addressed to. All de- partmental procedures have been duly followed as contemplated in Rules. Only after careful consi- deration of the Petitioner's representation in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has ordered the punishment of dismissal dimissal of the petitioner from service. The Appel- late Authority only after careful examination and consideration of the case in detail rejected the appeal and confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disci- plinary Authority. Only after affording all reason- able opportunities as laid down in Rule 14 of CCS (CC\) Rules, 1965, the Sismissal order was issued. Hence, the legality of the dismissal order is not dis- putable. Hence this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the petition with cost.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry by the Tamil Nadu State Indutrial Tribunal, docu- ments were marked with the consent of both sides, as Ex. Wl to W6 and Ml to M20. and when the matter was pending therefor arguments of the counsel on cither side, as per the orders of the Central Govt., this case has been transferred to this Tribunal for further adjudication. Subsequent to the case has been taken up here for the continuation of the en- quiry, at the request of the counsel on either side, the matt"r was being adjourned from to time for the counsel to advance their argument* and

6. The learned counsel for the Respondent would argue that the 1st charge sheet issued to the Petitioner dated 11-12-91 was cancelled on technical reasons and a 2nd charge sheet dated 21-2-92 was issued with a list of witnesses and annexure and there is no difference between both the charge sheets in mentioning the act of misconduct committed by the employee Sri K. Balasubramaniam and as such there is no difference at all in both the charges sheets and there is no variation and there is no new charge added in the 2nd charge sheet and there is no undue delay in giving the 2nd charge sheet. So the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard in his argument does not stand good. Ex. Ml is the xerox copy of the l?t charge sheet dated 11-12-91. Ex. M2 is the xerox copy of the acknowledgement dated 13-12-91 given by the Peti- tioner for having received the charge sheet under4839 on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practi- tioner i'or the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.

Provided that the Govt. servant may take the assiitance oi any other Govt. servant posted at any other station. If the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances oi the case and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits.

(b) The Govt. servant ma\ aho take the assistance of the retired Govt. servant to present the case on his behalf subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by General or Sp;cial order in this regard. It is seen from the records that the Enquiry Officer Ex. Ml. The Ex. M3 is the xerox copy of memo dated 21-2-92 issued canceling the charge sheet dated 11-12-91 on technical reasons. Ex. M4 is the xerox copy of the charge memo dated 21-2-92 issued to the Petitioner with aniiexiires 1 to 4 confining a list of documents and list cf witnesses. What that is omitted to be mentioned in annexures 1 and 2 as statement cj articles of charge framed against the Petitioner and the statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour respective ly ha\c been stattd in the 2nd charge sheet. Further, in annexure 3 of the 2nd change sheet, the further document as No 8 as one statement of the Petitioner dated 8-11-90 has been added as a vital document. So ihat was why a cancellation memo dated 21-11-92 cancelling Ml charge sheet was issued. So it cannot be said that the cane llation of the 1st charge sheet under the memo Ex. M3 amounts to complete exoneration of charge under Ex. MI. In Ex. M3 cancellation memo itself it is clearly stated that the earliei charge memo dated 11-12-91 stands canoelicd for technical leaons. Further it is seen from both the charge sheets that theiL is no variation in charge oi a new charge has tven added in the 2nd charge sheet ana there is no difference at all in both the chaige sheets, while men- tioning about the alleged misconduct of the Peti- tioner on 5-8-90. So under such circumstances, it cannot he said since the 1st charge sheet has been cancelled by the Disciplinary Authority, it is not open to him to issne a second charge sheet to the same misconduct.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would put forth a contention that the Petitioner's right to represent by his defence assistant against the charge hns been curtailed by the order of the Enquiry Officer and the rejection of the request of the Petitioner, the charge sheeted employee, in the enquiry by the En- quiry Officer is arbitrary and it is contrary to Rules. SO) it amounts to a denial oi i'air opportunity to the charge sheeted employee to put forth his defence effectively. The learned counsel for the Respon- dent had amicd that the arguments ol the learned counsel for the Petitioner on this aspect cannot be accepted as correct because the Enquiry Officer has given his decision by rejecting the request of the charge sheeted employee for engaging the defence assistant to defend him in the enquiry and he has givpn his rca¹ oning in his report after duly discussing the matter in detail and he has taken a decision only in accordance with the Rule 8(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 Ex. M8 is the xerox copy of sub-rule 8(a) & (b) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. It reads as follows :

committed an error in admitting the alleged eonfes- - sion statement Ex. P4 marked through PW3 and what and what that is available in this case is only hearsay evidence and none of the w'tro ses examined by the Management in the enquiry has directly con- nected the Petitioner to the charges and the goods were recovered and there was no loss to any- body. So under such circumstances, imposing the punishment on the Petitioner by dismissing him from service without considering his 20 years of un- blemished service is shockingly disproportionate to the charge and hence it is a fit case. Wherein this Tribunal can interfere with the punishment imposed by exercising its jurisdiction under section IIA of the Act and to award appropriate relief to the Pi tHioncr/ Workman".

9. The learned couns, 1 ("or the II Party Manage- ment would argue that "the charge sheeted employee the Pe-titioner hereing has submitted his explanation dated 21-3-92 for the charge sheet dated 21-2-92. U is marked as E\.M7. Now here in that expla- nation he has stated that his confession statement dated 8-11-90 marked in the enquiry as Ex.P4 was obtained f.om him under indue influence, threat and coercion. If really the said statement was obtained under coercion and threat, the Petitioner would not fail to mention the same in his'reply Ex.M7 which he submitted as an explanation afiei" one year and three months as his explanation to the 2nd charge sheet under Ex. M4. So it is only an after- thought of the Petitioner and it should not be believed. Further the non-inclusion of the cartman as a witness for the Management and non-examination of that witness before the Enquiry Officer by the Manage- ment cannot be considered as invalid, since he is not a material witness to establish the charge agahst Ihc charge she-ctexl employee, the Petitioner herein". ] Ie would further argue that "the proved miscon- duct of the Petitioner does not warrant any leniency in imposing punKhm Tit by the Disciplinary Autho- rity. The Petitioner being a responsible- staff for the Respondent/Pos al Department had committed the act of mi-.cond.uct by removing the recorded delivery article clandestinely whil in transition and thereby macL- w of that contents <>f recorded deli- very article, which is meant for the- consignee and took delivery of the same from the TVS Parcel office by impersonating him as a man of the consignee and hc.ee it is a serious misconduct and such a person cannot be kept in serviee inside the office of the Res- pondent and hence the Disciplinary Authority was correct in taking a decision in dismissing such a person, wtio has committed a grave misconduct. The gravity of the- punishment imposed for such a serious misconduct by the Di e.plinary Authority cannot said to be disproportionate and hence this Tribuna may not exeicise its jurisdiction under section HA 8. Tt is seen from the enquiry proceedings that deposition PWs Ex. MIO that PW1 Mr. Ramcsh is recipient of recorded delivery. The RD No. 53 dated 4-8-90 is meant for him. He has spoken ubout the non-delivery of the same and has also given statement on 22-9-90 and 21-1 1-90. PW5 one M. R. Rangaramulu Naidu of Nagapattinam of MRS agencies has spoken about the non-delivery of RD No. 53 doted 4-8-90 to the addrrss'r and ai out his giving compliant for the "imc to the Nagapat- tinam postal authorities on 10-8-90. Tn the cross examination also, it has stated that the addressee of R.D. 53 have infoimed him by writing that they have not received the documents contained inihat R.D. PW6 M.R. Rajagopal also has corroborated the evidence of PW5. So frorr this, it is seen that the consignor ard recipient have been examined before the Enquiry officer as Management witnesses. The departmertal officer who he's done the preli- minary enquiry has also been examined. The rele- vant documents listed as AnneAure2to chaige sheet (memo of charge) have been marked as Ex.MI4. From this it is ' evn that MRS agencies have sent a compliant daied 10-8-90 to the Postmaster. Head Post office, Nag;pat1inam with regard to recorded delivery No. 53 d-it d 4-8-90. Tt has b vn marked as Fx.P3 in the crqt'iry. Again they have sent a letter dated 9-8-91 to the Assistant SuporitencVnt Erode RMS, Erode and it is marked as P5. In the enquiry, they have submitted, xerox ccpy of document kept in the recorded d.livciy article. There is no dispute that the n corded delivery article was posted. It is seen from thr enquiry proceedings ihatthiruis sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner, tak- ing out the article from the recorded delivay article and took delivery of the article- from the TVS parcel office at Salem. T h ee was no dispute about the occurrence spoken to by the Management witnesses anel there was no contra evidence on the side of the Petitioner, charge sheeted employee. Ex. P4 mar- ked in the enquiry is the written confi ssion of the Petitioner dated 8-11-90 before the Enquiry Officer. Before ever the enquiiy has been conducted he has not retracted this confecsion give-n in writt'ng. Only after lapse of two yei'rs during enquiiy only he-had denied about this wiittcn confession. Through he has stated that Ex.P4 statement was obtained under coercion, he has admitted that he has not given any report to the higher authorities about the alleged coercion by the official to pet Ex. P4 confession state- ment from him. The learned counsel for the Petit'ontr would contend that "the entire piOMCution ease rest on the assut'en of the caitman, who wes not examined as witness in the enquiry and no stauni' it from the cartman also h< s been e brined and he.ue there is no e-videi ec !o eeir.ee ihc Petii'cni Jo the charges. Therefore, the findings of the Eneii'hy Officer is not based on any valid evidence and it is only p. rversc" He has further argued that "Enquiry Officer has.

of the Tndustiral Dispute Act to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authoity against the Petitioner/Workman to modifiy the same as a lesser punishment. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner need not bj accepted as correct."

10. A perusal of the entire records placed before me clearly establish that the arguments ad- vacned by the learned counsel for the Respondent can be accepted as correct as it is based on legal evidence available on the side of the Management during the enquiry. Only aftci considering all the materials both oral and documentaiy evidence placed before him. the Enquiry Officer has come to a proper conclusion that the charges levelled against the Petitioner, charge sheeted employee has been prov- ed and the Disciplinary Authority also after affording sufficient opportunity to the charge sheeted employee and also after considering the entire materials and the findings of the Enquiry Officer has come to the proper conclusion in awarding punishment to the Petitioner, delinquent employee. So under such circumstances, I find that there is no scope for this. Tribunal to interfere with the- punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority agaist the Petitioner/ Workman by exercising jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section IIA of the Tnduistrial Disputes Act Under such circumstances, I answer the point in the affirmative and conclude that the Petitioner concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Sr. Superin- tendent of Railway Mail Service, Coinbatorc in dis- missing Sri K Balasubramaniam, an Ex. S.G. Mail man is just, proper and legal and Ihe conceired workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Sfenographer, trancribed and typ^d by him, corrected and pronourcedby me imhe open court on this day the 2nd Augusi, 2001).

K, KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On cither side : None

DOCUMENTS MARKFD :

For 1 Party/Workman :

Date 20-06-92

Ex.No. WI

Dcicnplion Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Fnquiry Officer. 26-06-92

W2

Xerox copy of the letter from the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner.

W3 04-07-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry pro- ceedings.

04-07-92

W4

Xerox copy of daily order sheet No. 4.

Nil

W5

Xerox copy of representation of the Petitioner against the enquiry report.

W6 Nil

Xerox cc py of the appeal made by the Petitioner to the Manage- ment.

For the II Party/Management :

Description

Ex.No. Date-

11-12-91

Mi

Xerox copy of Memo No. CR/ K3/90.

M2 13-1T-91 Xerox copy of acknowledgement

of C O.

M3 21-02-92 XCJOX copy of cancellation of Memo No. CR/K3/90 of the charge sheet.

M4 21-02-92 Xerox copy of the Fresh charge

sheet Memo No. CR/K3/9O. 25-02-92

M5

Xerox copy of the acknowledge- ment of C O.

M6 Nil

Xerox copy of letter of the Peti- tioner to the Management.

M7 23-03-92 Xerox copy of letter of the Peti- tioner to the Management.

Nil

M8

Xerox copy of sub-rule 8(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Xerox copy of daily order sheet M9 22-04-92

No. 2.

MI0

Xerox copy cf deposition of PW 1 ,oPW 6

24-08-92 25-08-92 27-08-92 28-08-92

Mil 28-08-92 Xerox copy of the deposition of the Pc itioner.

10-08-90

M12

X'"-ro\ ccpy of le-tter No. A/10/ 136/90.

23-10-90

M13

Xerox ccpy of Fetter No. PR1/ (P)/ I S;'kn HO

M14 Nil

Xerox copy of Management exhibits.

Xerox copy of the enquiry re- 08-11-90

M15

port against the Petitioner. 28-04-92

MI6

Xerox copy of letter from the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer. 05-06-92

M17

Xerox copy of letter from Sri V.V. Shanmugham to tlv- Enquiry

Officer.

13-06-9?

M18

Xerox copy of letter from the Petitioner to the Enquiiy Officer. 10-02-93

MI9

Xerox copy of Memo No. CR/K3/ 90-order of the DN:ciplin;uy Au- thority.

M20 12-07-93 Xerox copy of Memo No. STB/ 20518/93-order of the Appellate Authority.

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2001 S.O. 2339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 14-8-2001.

[No. L-420I1/3/2OO0-IR/DU] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Prescn¹ :

Presiding Officer : Rudre^h Kumar

ADJUDICATION

1 D. No. 24/2000

BETWEEN

Shyam Narain S/o. Sri Badloo Kharetha Aishbagh Lucknow.

AND

Executive Engineer (Elect. Coord.), CViitral Klectric Division, Central Public Works Deptt,. GSI Campus, Aliganj, Lucknow.

By reference No. L-420I1/3/?0(X)/IR (DU) dated 15-3-2000, the- Central Govirnnunt m Ihe Ministiy of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of H-ciion 10 T.D. Act, 1947 made over lliis industrial dispute lviween Shy.im Narain S/o. Sri Badloo and Executive Engineer (Elect. COOK'..), Central Electric Division, Central Public Works Deptt, Lucknow for adjudication. The reference is re-produced as under :

"Whether the action of Control Public Work Deptt., in not promoting Shyam Narain, Khalasi to the post of Wiremon is legal and justified ? If not (o V,YL\ rcliifilc vvoikman is ci.litied 7" 1. Shyam Naiain, a Khalasi, was appointed on 4-8-86. His work and behaviour h;ul always been good. He was senior to Gulab Chand Mishra, also a Khalasi, working with the management who was promoted as Asstt. Wireman, ignoring his claim. Grievance of the workman is thai, denial of promotion to him in preference to his junior is arb.trary and against Riles, li is also averred in the claim state- ment that the post of Asstt, Win-man has since been redcsignaied as 'Wncmai ' fjom 18-4-1995 and ho is entitled to the said post wilh back w?gc? :.rd interest. on the arrears.

2. Management has not denied facls of the case. Mr. M. L. Rom, Executive Engineer, who appeared in person, admitted that two employees Gopal Bahadur and Gulab Chandra Misra were promoted on the post of Asstt. Wireman. Gulab Chand Misra was junior to the workman. This facL came to notice and the promotions were reviewed. Both the pro- motecs were reverted. Aggrieved by reveision, they approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allaha- bad. The said Tribunal by order dated 27-2-1997 stayed their reversion and ordered to maintain status quo. According to the management, the revertces are still working as wireman on the basis of interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. Thus, the facLs : That the woikman was senior to Gulab Chand Misra, and his non-consideration on promotional post of AsstL. Wireman, arc not denied. Management has not pleaded that the workman was otherwise disqualified on the ground of unsuitability. It is informed by Mr, Rora that the mistake occured inadvertantly, and it was not with a view to cause loss to anyone, Whei these irregularities came to notice, redressal measures were taken by reverting thr promotees. He aNo pointed out that the rever- tees are holding the post of wireman, consequent upon the interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and also on raLsiLMation of the pOit of Asstt. Wireman to WiRiruui.

4. Thus, on the basis of admitted f.icls, (he woik- man was eligible and uititled to the post of Asstt. Wireman on the date, his junior Gulab Chand Misra was promoted and in all fairneis in preference to him. His non-consideration, was, definitely a serious lapse on "he pnri of ihc management. The management recognised this mistake and reveited the piomotees4843 but no evidence is given that the workman was con- sidered for promotion at the time of reversion. Posts of Asstt. Wireman were also available. Action of the management, thus, can not bj ji'.tified b xc - rev - sion orders were posscd, without i.onsi<' i,;. p o , - tion of the workman. The conti-ntion of 11. m.¹ [ < ment, that the revertces nre holdirg p on\ t nn /">,L on account of interim order of the CY-ntial Adminis- trative Tribunal, in their favour is also not correct. The Tribunal ordered to maintain status qu'i but not to treat them wireman, a higlur post in higher seal-. The management should have treated them AstU. Wireman, notionally, and should have paid the last salary of the said post. By treating them 'Wireman' in higher scale, the management acted arbitrarily without realising the consequential loss to the work- man and those similarly sitinted, Management filed copies of orders dated 7-11-2000, showing recti- fication of this mistake. Rectification of mistake by the management, however, docs not give relief to the workman whose due promotion was denied unjastly since 18-4-95, causing loss of benefits arising on redesigination of the post of Asslt. Wireman to Wireman.

5. In the circumstance^, the action uf the manage- ment in non-considering promotion of the workman from the date his junior was promoted, was unjusti- fied and illegal. The workman, being senior to Gulab Chand Misra is entitled to promotion on the post of Asstt. Wireman from 18-4-1995 and further, on the pjst of wireman, consequent upon redesign nation of the posts.

Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the ease, the award is as follow :

A. that the workman Shy am Narain is entitled to promotion as Asstt. Wirema-n from 18-4-1995;

B. that consequent upon merger of the

C. that the workman, is, also entitled to differ- ence of wages from 18-4-1995 as per rele- vant rules.

Lucknow :

27-11-2000 RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Olficcr New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

S.O. 2340.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubncswar as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Archaeological Survey of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-42012/197/98-JR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Ofiicer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESHWAR

PRESENT •.

Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhu banes war.

Tr. industrial Dispufe Case No. 196/2001 Bhubaneswar, the 2nd August, 2001 BETWEEN :

The Management of Archaeological Survey of India, Horticulture Division No. 4, Lewis, Road, Near Ravi Talkies, Bhubaneswar, Distt. Khurda.

— 1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workman Shri Satyabadi Behera, S/o. Jogi Bohera, At. Akachalia, P.O. Sangalai Sasan,

P.O. Pipili, Distt. Khurda. —2nd Party-Workman APPARANCI-S :

Mr. Sunakar Pradhan, For the 1st Party- Foreman, Management. Horticulture Division No. IV, flhubaneswar.

Shri Satyabadi Behera. —For himself

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)4844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(h)] ot sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42012/197/98/fR (DU), dated 24-12-1998 :—

"Whether the action of the management of Aichaeological Survey of India in refusing to engage Shri Satyabadi Bchera is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to 7" 2. The parties to the reference are the Manage- ment of Archaeological Survey of Tndia, (hereinafter called as the 1st Party Management) and Shri Satyabadi Bchera (hereinafter called as the workman).

3. The case of the 2nd Party Workman is that he was engaged under the Management as NMR in the year 1986 on monthly wages (w Rs. 1,455/- per month, According to him he was discharging his duties in the maintenance of garden, plants and lawns. He rendered continuous service till 20-2-1996, He along with co-workmen filed a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization. All of a sudden the Management refused employ- ment to him without compliance of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Dispute Act. It has been further pleadfd that the principle of Jast come first go has not been followed. According to the workman after their dis-engagement the 1st Party Management gave employment to 20 such workmen in their place which is contrary to law. As per the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal ihough the gradation list was prepared on 31-10-1997 it was defective and was made without application of mind. The woikman laised an Industrial Dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. As the case was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Asstt. Labour Commissioner refused for taking any action so the workman moved ihe Hon'blc High Court of Orissa in OJ.C. 3703/98 wherein the direction was given to re-consider the matter. In compliance to the said direction reconciliation was resumed and on failure of the same, the present reference has been made. 4, The workman has challenged his removal from service and has claimed reinstatement with back wages and other service benefits with effect from 21-2-1996.

5, The Management in 1hcir written statement has challenged the averments made in the claim state- ments. It is pleaded that, the workman was a seasonal casual worker. His engagement was being required on the availability of works in different gardens. It has been further plendcd that the workman has not completed 240 days continui ', o,l; in a year. It has been further pleaded on behalf of the Manage- ment that in the garadation list the name of the workman finds place at SI. No. 47. It is stated by the Management that as per the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal they have prepared the seniority list and given engagement, Denying the allegations of the violation of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as pleaded by the workman, it has been pleaded that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. On the pleadings of the parties the following iss ues were settled :

1. Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India ,n refusing to engage Shri Satyabadi Behera is legal and justified ?

II. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to 7

FINDINGS

7. ISSUE NO. I :

The workman has examined himself as a solitary witness in support of his case. Though in his claim statement ho has stated that he was getting Rs. 1,455/- per month he has deposed on oath that he was getting monthly wages (a Rs. 240 - per month and he has got Rs. 1,500/- when his service was terminated. It is his version that the Management has terminated his services without serving any notice and several workmen junior to him wero allowed to continue in the employment. He has admitted, to have filed a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, On the other hand the Management has examined one witness who was staged that the workman was en- gaged as a casual labourer on daily wages basis and he vvas being paid under muster rolls. He has proved the muster roll which has been exhibited in this case as Ext. A where'n payment of Rs. 150/- has been reflected to have been made to the workman for working six days from 8-10-1991 to 14-104991. This witness has also proved the engagement list which has been exhibited as Ext. D in this case showing the engagement of the workman. The copy of the Order of Central Administrative Tribunal has beon filed which has been exhibited in this case as Ext. C. It transpires from the evidence that the present workman and his friends were- raised a plea for their regularization before the Cential Adminis- trative Tribunal. Direction was given for preparation of the seniority list and for engage- ment of seniors. The workman has challenged the seniority, list prepared by the Management bir¹ f ailed io produce any evidence for i.s corrcc- aon The gradation Us I which has been exhibi.ed4845 as Ex'.-B rcflrc's l a' 'he numler of dais vvorkcd by him in diffcrcn year s'arting from 1987 to 1997. No where he has completed 240 days. After considcraiion of ihe evidence adduced by both the parties J am of the opinion that the engagement of the workman was casual in nature depending on the availability of the work. So in that case he has got no right for notice or compensation before termination of his serv'nc as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Ac+.

8. As [ have- already stated the workman has failed to give evidence in support of his conten- tion that tho gradation list prepared by the Management is defective. Even if it is accepted for argument sake and his contention is true it is open to him to agitate the fact before the Central Administrative Tribunal, The workoan has failed to place the materials to establish his seniority over the persons so there is no scope for him to complain on violation of Section 25-G of Industrial Dispute Act. 9. While submitting written argument the workman has placed reliance in the case of Air Tndia Limitcd-Versus-Dharmendcr Kumar, reported in 2000(87) FLR 654. The case of M/s. Scooter India Ltd.-Versus -M. Mohammad Yaqub reported in 2001 LAB. 1. C. 71 and the case of Samishta Dube Versus City Board & reported in 1990 LLR 460. The facts of the case* stated above arc different from the facts of the prosent case. Fn Samishta Dube's case it was held that the principle of first come last go should bo adhered to in the matter of letrenchmem. The position of Jaw is not disputed. It is indeed difficult to find fault that the Management in dispensing the services of the workman whose position in the seniority list is at 47. In the other case botweon M.C.D. Versus P. K. Jain & Others, the workman had worked for three years and in that case it was held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act would be applicable in the case of retrenchment. Tn the instance case the engage- ment is less than 240 days. The facts of the above cited case stated by the work are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. After con- sideration of the materials placed T am of the opinion that the refuel of the employment to the 2nd Party Workman is neither illegal or unjustified. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the Management,

10. TSSUE No. fl

Tn view of my above findings in respect of Issu-5 No. I, f hold that no relief is admissible to the 2nd Party Workman (Shri Satyabadi Behera).

II. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAl. Pjcs<"njB ( ffi

[No. L-42O12I257'99-1R(DU)I KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

TN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Reference No. 7(C) of 2Q00.

PRESENT :

Shri K. Sarma, LL.B., Presidinc Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. In the matter of an Industrial Dispuie between : The Management of Fditor-cum-Sr. Correspondent Yajana (Assamese), Publication Division.

Versus

Their workman Sri Munna Kr, Das.

Date of Award : 25-7-2001.

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute has been referred to by the 'Government of India, Ministry of Labour under section JO of the Industrial Dispute Act vide order No. L-42012|257|99'IR (DUI dated 2-3-2000 to adjudicate Mie dispute arising between the manage- ment of Editor-cum-Sr. Correspondent Yojana TAssame.se) Publication and their workman, Sri Munna Kr. Das out of termination of his service as helper in the office of the Yojana of the Assam Unit, Publication Division, Ministry of I & B, Nowzan Road, Uzanbazar, Guwahati. The leferrine an tho-4346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] rily has Inimcd the following issue to decide the matter of controversy between the parties :

"Whether the action of the management of Ynjana Assamese, Publication Division, Guwahati in terminating the seivices of their workman Sh. Munna Kr. Das w.c.f. 1-0-99 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

On receipt of reference, this tribunal has regis- tered this case and issued notices to both the parries calling upon them to file Uicir written statement, addl. written statement and documents if any and also to adduce oral evidence in support of their case, in response of which both the parties have appeared and filed their written statements, addl. written state- ment mid documents and also adduced oral evidence.

After recording oral evidence, arguments advanc- ed by the lejrned advocate, for both the parties are heard.

The workman case as appeared in the mateitals on record is that workman Munna Das was appoint- ed as helper in the office of Yojana (Assamese) Unit,> Publication Division, Ministry of I &. B, Nowzan Road, Uzanba/ur, Guwahati vide appointment order No. YAJtiS'II'lOi97 2fi7 dated 1-8-97 whih is e\ t. 'B' in this case on daily wages basis @Rs, 48 psr day making paj merit at the end of the month. Before appointment the authority concerned has issue requi- sition to the local 1-mployment Fxchange in response to which employment authority has forwarded the name of present workman alongwith some other candidates for selection of the post of driverlhelper on the daily wage basis. On receipt of name from Employment Exchange, th? management has held an interview filing the candidate for the interview vide cxt. 'A' calling letter and thereafter having found him qualified, the workman was appointed as helper on wage basis as stated above vide ext. 'B' appoint- ment letter and the workman joined on 7-8-97 by submitting joining report cxt. 'C\ It is to be stated that the wnrknir.n in course of his duty as helper was ordered to work as chowkidar vide order dated 31-3-99 which is cxt. 'D\

The workman after appointment has discharged his duty to '!•.• besi of his abilities till 31-3-99. It is to be mentioned that the authority being satisfied with I he pcrinrmanee of the workman has issued a certified ext. 'E' on 20-7 -99 appearing his duty. But 31-3-99 the workman was suddenly terminated from the service by the management vide order No. A-1203416 97 dated 25-8-99 w.e.f. from 1-9-99 without any prior notice and without assigning any reason thereof.

The workman, thereafter being at a loss what to do, has filed a i\,prcientatkm before the concerned labour authority who has tried to settle the matter amicably by holding conciliation between the parties, but having failed to settle the matter, the labour authority has submitted failure report to the appro- priate Government who ultimately referred the matter* to this tribunal for adjudication with the above men- tioned issue.

The management, on the other hand, by filing written statement has contended inter alia that the workman Munna Das was engaged on wage basis in order to meet the exigency of woik as per direction nl the superior authority as there was no regular vacancy against the post of driverjbelper etc. As he was appointed as, casual helper for the official Mobil Van lor want of regular vacancy, the question of his uguiurisalion docs not arise, It is also contended that as the workman was engaged as casual worker I* >n d?.ily wages basis for performing job of casual nature, it is implied that his engagement is temporary anil shall be terminated at any moment without showing any reason. This being the nature of engagement, the terminated of workman from his scviee does not require any notice and accordingly he was released from I he service.

I have heard the argument advanced by learned advocate for the both the parties.

The learned advocate for the workman has sub- mitted that Ihe workman has completed 240 days of work in a year and hence he is entitled to regulari- sLition. ft is further contended that the termination oi the wojkman after completion of 240 days of ser- vice without (.omplyino with the provision of law laid down of Section 25(F) of the I. D, Act is pure- ly illegal and order of termination needs to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned advocate for the workman has referred to case law AIR 1981 SC P. ]?51

The learned advocate for the management has contended that the engagement of the workman was casual in nature and hence his termination did not require any notice nor compliance of provision of Section 25 (F) of the 7. D. Act and order of termi- nation is quite legal and justified.

After hearing arguments of both the parties, 1 have carefully gone through entire material on record in- cluding oral evidence adduced by the workman. Management has not adduced any oral evidence but has submitted some documents alongwith the written statement. From the material on recoid any thing is clear that engagement of workman on casual basis has not been denied by the management. It is also established from the material on record that work- man h.is completed 240 days of works in a year, Tt is also established from his evidence that the Mobil Van where workman was working is still functioning and have milure of work against which workman was engaged is perennial in nature, The management has not shown any reason about dismissal of the workman. It is also settled principle of law that even daily rated workman if he completes 240 days of work in a year can not be terminated without complying with Section 25(F) of I.D. Act which requires services of one month notice with a salary of one month. In the instant case the management has totally ignored the aforesaid provision of law which makes the order of termination illegal in the eyes of law. As Ihe workman has completed 240 days of work in t. year and his work is perennial in nature, his termination without any justified reason •ind without complying with Section 25 (F) of the I' D. Act can not be said to justified and can not be allowed to si and in the eyes of law.

In the result, order of termination is held to be illegal and it is accordingly set aside. This reference4847 AND

is ciccodingiy 1 Wild icccidingly

K SARMA, Presiding Officei

Their workmen, represented through General Secretary, Regional Re- search Laboiatory Workers Union, Bhubanebwar. • 2nd Party- Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. C. Bastia, Advocate, Bhubanes- war. • • For the 1st Party- Management.

Shri S. B. Nanda, Advocate, Cuttack. For the 2nd Party-Workmen.

AWARD

New Dclh", ihe 16th August, 2001

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of "ib-section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the fo]>ow'ng dispute for adjudication vide their Order No L-4201H8 97-IR(DU) dated 7-11-1997 :—

l. Th^ c?"-" of the 2nd Partv-workmen may IT- aitcd ii brief. The 1rt Pfirtv-Manaae- r"ent ;" "itnated in the cmit?i ritv of Bhub- Tiesv°r It is OT" of the- s e v r i! Laboratories <-< t un in the- country under the suspices of /•"on"' -¹ of Scientific and Indnstri?] Reseirch. Tbr- K* Partv-M^rjgrrempnf is n nerminent ^s+ M''phmfnt fim^ioni¹i° since mid sixties. 7 b" rT-j- cbiV^t of t^p 1st Partv->/fptif)rre- nor¹*" ir *o i"v" nid " id "''sistoncp +o the ertab- ik'-ftpot^, " ,^1 fi^7^nrtrnnrii. nf Tnrtiirt-ri^] pro- i,--/-^ o* ^ '•h rrw iprl oM " h^th"r spon^or- H ^v -sMi-)¹'" or priyafe or joint sector, im- r r o v m o nt oc inH;<^no>TS tcchnr>¹O°i':><;. Tt has 2668 GI/2001- 2)4848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ditions and security of service to which they are profusely entitled to.

got workshops, laboratories libraries, insti- tutes, plants and machineries. This institute has hostels, quarters, play grounds, parks and all that a developed industrial under- taking. It is further pleaded that the 1st Party-Management has on its rolls perma- nent officers and stall on the managerial, commercial, administrative, technical and supportive side numbering about 200. They get all service benelits as par with the Govern- ment employees. The workmen numbering 140 who were party to this reference stated to have worked continiously since several years and most of them were working for 5 to 17 years without interruption and in most casei in the same jobs repetitively and continuous- ly. Their recruitment and subsequent engage- ments arc by and for the 1st Party-Manage- ment. They were engaged in permanent and perennial jobs of the 1st Party-Management and worked along with regular workmen. Their work is being controlled and supervised by the supervisors [officers of the 1st Party- Management. Their wages were being paid by the 1st Party-Management. It has been further pleaded in the claim statement lhat, though lately some insidious efforts are made to give these workmen the appearance of contract labour in reality such attempt being unfairly made is sham and is only a paper arrangement. It has been further pleaded that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days continously. As they were kept in a precarious position with very lately pay- ments they could not raise any objection individually. Thereafter they formed the workers Union and represented to the 1st Party-Management for their regulariza'ion. As their prayer was turned down they raised dispute before .the I abour Commissioner and in failure of the re-concilliation the matter was referred to the Government of India (Ministry of L-ibour) who in turn have mnrV this re- ference as stated above.

Ci On the n'^ndin"^ of t'ie nirties trie foii,v>'inrr i(.tii^ have be,->n settled for c^n- s'rierition " —

1 w i w h er the reference is n i i i- 4. Tt has been further pVaded that some of the workmen after serving for a number of years being fruVr.iled with the ndminis- tration nnd exploitative ;niitude of the 1st Party-Mam "ement left their iobs. They have prayed Min* to n.'";s nn awird with ap- nronri-'tr direction to the 1st Par/v-Mnrm"c- nirnt to r e c l a me Iho workmen retrospectively fi-o'Ti the dntc of oo'-nnVtion of nnc ve;ir US rotittni'O'is service, to trr-i nt ihem emi;il w-'iffes .'Mid service eond'tion fnr enn-'i worV^rs re- *ivirr..^t!ve1v .-mrl nil ntiirr T i n s e n n e n r hi re- I'efs with t-'v^nrd +o their wvjes, cfrvi^e con-

2. Whether the employees involved in the dispute are employed by the Regional Research Laboratory 7 3. Whether the activities of R.R.L. arc permanent and continuous in nature ?

4. Whether the workmen involved in the dispute are working continuous- ly for 5 to 17 years ?

5. Whether the induction of contractor| contract system subsequently by the management of R.R.L. is unfair and sham and is only paper arrange- ment ?

6. Whether the practice adopted by the management of R.R.L. amounts to unfair labour practice ?

7. Whether the action of the manage- ment of R.R.L. in not regularizing the workmen as per Annexurc-I or list enclosed even after completion of more than 240 days of service till 26-3-95 is legal and justified ?

8. To what relief the 3 workmen are entitled ?

7. On behalf of the 1st Party-Management, two witnesses have been examined. The Union has examined only one witness and num- ber of documents have been exhibited in this case.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. I

8. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Party-workmen has sub- mitted that the 1st Party-Management can not challenge the reference as not main- tainable as it has not been pleaded in their pleadings i.e. in their written statement. Ac- cording to Mr. Nanda no comments has been made in Para—1. 2, 3 & 5 of the claim state- ment and the contents of Para-4 of the claim statement has been admitted by the lsl Party-Management. Now the 1st Party- Management can not take a pica that the re- ference is not maintainable on the ground that the 1st Party-Management is not an In- dustry and the disputants are not workmen and that there is no relationship between the emplover and employee. In his support he has submitted that if there is- no denial in the written stniemcni on nnv assertion o[ facts coni.lined 'a the plaint, such facts asserted must be deemed to have been admitted by the doctrine of admission by non-traverse. Besides the above submission it has been fur- ther submitted on behalf of the 2nd Party- workmen that, if the 1st Party-Management being a research institute it can come under the definition if Industry. Reliance has been placed by him in the case of Bangalore Water Supply—Vrs.—A. Rajappa, reported in AIR ll)?8 SC 548. Inviting the attention of the Tribunal that the evidence of the Manage- ment Witness No. 1 it has been submitted that in view of his admission that the Manage- ment is a registered and principal employer under the contract Labour act applicable to industry and so the Management comes under the definition of industry.

9. On the other hand Mr. Bastia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Party- Management has submitted that the organiza- tion of the 1st Party-Management does not carry out any trade business or commercial activities and research results are not sold for money. So the organization being a re- seaich institute docs not come within toe definition of Industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act. He has placed reliance in the case of Physical Research Laboratory-Vrs.-K. G. Sharma report in 1997 (2) LIJ 625 (SC).

JO. I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Nanda. that, the 1st Party-Management has admitted that it is an Industry. Even though no comment has been made to Para—1, 2, 3

'We ;nv, therefore, of the opinion (lint Physical Research Laboratory is not an industry even though it is4850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FXRI II—SEC. 3(ii)l carrying on the activity of research in a s>stcmatic manner with the help of its employees as it sacks thai element which would make it an organization carrying on an activity which can be said to be analogous to the carrying on of a trade or busi- ness because it is not producing and distributing services which arc intended or meant lor satisfying human wants and needs, as ordinari- ly understood".

and thereafter it was referred by the Central Government under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act to this Tribunal and when no protest has been made by the 1st Pany- Management, the plea taken by the 1st Party- Management that the organization of the 1st Party-Management is not an Industry should not be accepted. I am unable to accept the above submission made on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union. No doubt the reference has been made by the Givernment of India under the provisions of the Industrial Dis- pute Act to answer the reference by the Tri- bunal. While reference is made both the parties are being intimated to file their claim statements before the Tribunal. On receipt of the statements from both the parties the Tribunal after hearing the parties frames issues and after taking both oral and docu- mentary evidence answer the reference. Opportunities are being given to the both the parties to place their case before the Tri- bunal to assist it to answer the reference. There is no bar that, no party can take any stand while filing the written statement though it was not raised at the stage of conciliation. Admittedly when the Government of Tndia makes reference the parties are not heard. In this case on receipt of the copy of the claim statement from the 2nd Party-Union, the 1st Party-Management has filed their written statement wherein they have taken the stand that the reference is not maintainable be- cause the organization of the 1st Party- Management does not come under the defini- tion of Industry. So in my opinion even if no stard was taken by the 1st Party-Manage- ment before the reconciliation oflicer th.it Ihe organizatiin of the 1st Party-Management does not come under the delinition of Industry, it cannot be binding on the Tribunal to accept that the 1st Party-Management has admit* :d that the Organization is an Industry.

12. As per my above discussion. T am ot the opinion that the 1st Party-Management i.e. Regional Research Laboratory is not an Industry. So the reference made under sec- tion 10 the Industrial Tribunal Act is not maintainable. Henc", this Tssu<- No. I is ans- wered in favour of the 1 s< Party Manage- ment.

13. ISSUE NO. IT & IV :

workmen including salary, designation furnish- ed in the list enclosed to their charter of docu- meius at Ext.-D have been furnished by the Union and they do not have any paper to show about the correctness of the particulars a^ regard to the designation and salary furnish- ed in the said list. Alter hearing both the parties and perusal of the documents avail- able this Tribunal, I am of the opinion that, the 2nd Party-Union has failed to place the evidence and materials to prove that they were the employees employed by the 1st Party- Management and they have worked conti- nuously for 5 to 17 years. On the other hand the case of the 1st Party-Management that they were working under the contractor M[s. Expert Service appears to be probable. Hence these two issues arc answered in favour of the 1st Party-Managtment.

14. ISSUE NO. III. V & VI :

1 am not inclined to express any opinion in respcel of these issues as there is no reference in this regard while making reference.

15. ISSUE NO. VII :

In view of my findings in respect of Issue No. II & IV I am of the opinion that the 2nd Party-Union has failed to establish (hat they were working for more than 240 days till 26-3-1995. I am unable to accept the sub- mission made on behalf of the 2nd Party- Union that when the reference has been made stating thai the workmen have worked for 240 d.Tys would be presumed that they have worked for 240 days in a calendar year fill 26->1995. The Tribunal is free to answer the reference and the terms of reference will not be binding on it. The reference has been nude on the following effect : —

'Whether the action of the management of Regional Research Laboratory is not regularizing the workmen as per Annexure-I of list enclosed even after completion of more than 240 days service till 26-3-1995 is leg;)I and justified ? If not what re- lief the workmen are entitled to ?" Only one witness has been examined on bchalt of the 2nd Party-Union in support of their case that, they were employed by the 1st Party-Management and they have worked continuously for 5 to 17 years. RLKMCUC: h. been maae to the Ext. 5. 9, 11, 12, U, i~, 16, J7, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 28 w.iich hiw been admitted on admission oi boih die parties to support the case of tnc 2nd Party- Union that there was direct maser and servant relationship between the 2nd Party- Union and the 1st Party-Management. Mr. Nanda, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union has submitted that the deposition to witness examined on behalf oi' the workman at Para-9, 14 & 25 has not been shaken in the cross examination and so this Tribunal can safely come to the conclusion that the workmen were working under the direct control of the 1st Party- Management Mr. Nanda has further submit- ted that when the reference has been made indicating that the workmen have worked for 5 to 17 years, it would be presumed that each workman has worked for more than 240 days continuously in the Organization of 1st Pary-Managemcnt. He has invited ihc attention of this Tribunal the evidence of the Witness No. 1 examined on behalf of the work- man who is supported the case of the Union. On the other hand Mr. Bastia has submitted that the reference has been made for regulari- zation of 140 persons as per the list enclosed. This dispute was initially raised by the so called Regional Research Laboratory Workers Union on 16-11-1995. According to the 1st Part]'-Management as on the aforesaid date all the 140 persons were wirking under the Contractor namely Mjs. Expert Service. They have been working under the contractor since 1995. Now only 85 persona out of 140 per- sons have taken part in the proceeding, nothing positively known about the rest 55 persons. It is not known whether they were working under M's. Expert Service or else- where. Much emphasis has been given in Exl- D. a letter 16-11-1995 written by the Secre- tary Regional Research Laboratory Workers Union wherein the demand was put up for re- gularization before the Asst. Labour Commis- sioner (Central). In that letter it was clearly mentioned that, the workers were working under the job contract basis and the Manage- menJ insisted them to obtain a Labour licence. This fact has been admitted by the wifne.ss examined on behalf of the workman. This wit- ness has admitted that the particulars of the

in my opinion, because i!: has been mentioned that even after completion of 240 days has been mentioned the Tribunal is not bound to accept that each worker has completed 240 days service till 26-3-1995. A^ T h;"'e ahv.'idv stated in view if mv findings in res- pect of Issue No. II & IV, I nm of the opinion48 .V T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : S E P T E M B ER S, 2 0 0 1 / B H A D RA 17, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3 ( i i )l the 2nd Party-Union has failed to establish that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days. This issue is also answered in favour of the Management.

16. ISSUE NO. VIII :

In view of my findings in respect of Issue No. T to VII. the workmen are not entified any relief.

17. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001 S O 2143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Jn- duslrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the In- dustrial Tribunai-cum-Labour Courl, Guwahati, us shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Commander Station Headquarter (Defence) and their workman, which wus ieceivcd by the Centml Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-14O!2;44|49-1R(DUV| KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Oflicu

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUS I RIAL TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Reference No. 35(C) of 1999

PRESENT :

Shri K. Sarma, IX.B.,

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between : The Management of the Commander Station Headquarter (Defence¹) Rangiya.

Vs.

Their wodman Smt. Jhum.: " • ilha-i,

Date of Award : 23-7-2001

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute has been referred to by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, vide order No. L-14012[44|99-TR(DU) dtd. 19-11-99 to adjudicate the dispute arising between the management of Com- mander Slation Headquarter (Defence) Rangiya, and their workman, Smt. Jhuma TJardhan out of termina- tion of her service w.e.f. 13-10-90. The referring authority has framed the following issue for the purpose of adjudicating the matter of controversy between the parties .

"Whether the action of the management in termi- nating service of Smt. Jhuma Bardhan W.te.f. 13-10-90 is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" On receipt of reierence, this tribunal has registered this case and issued notices to both the parties calling upon them to file their written statement, addl. written statement and documents, if any, and also to adduce oral evidence in support of their case, in res- ponse of which both the parties have appeared and filed their written statement, addl. written statement and submited document. The workman has adduced her own evidence as W.W.I and management has not adduced any oral evidenc;.

After completion of recording evidence arguments advanced by the learned advocate for both the parties are heard.

The case of the workman as revealed from the material on reeoul is Lhat the workman was appointed as post of Civilian Switch Board Operator on tempo- rary bas's at Raneiva under Station Headquarter (Defence) on 15-5-85. Tt is be mentioned that the name of the workman was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange, Guwahati for the purpose of appearing before the selection board to be held by the management. Accordingly workman alongwith 10 others were selected and appointed after due medical examination. The workman joined in her job on 1-6-85 and MPCC then she was continuously working till 12-10-90. It is aisti contended by the workman in her written statement that as she fell sick she could not attend her duty on and from 13-10-90 and thereafter also could not attend her duty due to her advance stage of pregnancy for which she wias admitted to N. F. Railway Hospital at Maligaon on 29-3-91 from where she was discharged on 1-4-91 after delivery of a child. As she was no' in a posi- tion to attend her duty immediately after delivery. She took rest and thereafter to attend her duty jn the month of May, 1991. It is further stated in her written statement lhat the management did no allow her to join her duty stating that she was terminated from her service. But. no formal termination letter was served on her. As the workman was not allowed to join her duty even after repeated request, he having left with no other alternative has raised the Industrial Dispute.

The irmivi'jement on the othcrhand, by filine written statement, has contended that workman was appointed purely on temporary basis on wage basis 4S5T

as contended by the managem?nt, for which she was released. As the dispute is raised by the. workmen, it is her duty to establish that her claim is genuine to this satisfaction nl th- tribunal 11> yrnnl jppropiiaie relief.

In view of the aforesaid fac and circumstance of duiing the period of operation Rhino and after closure of the operation, she was released from her duty. It is further contended that workman has never in- formed the management ax to her illness nor about her pregnancy nor any application was filed seeking leave. In view of this the question of illegal termina- tion by the management, as alleged by the workman does not arise.

the case, I find it difficult to answer the issue in favour the Workman and accordingly I refrain from doing the same.

In the light of my above discussion, I hereby dis- pose the reference finally without answering the issue in favour ot the u o ^ m u n. Prepare dii award ac- cordingly

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer I have heard the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the workman who has mainly contended that the workman has completed 240 days of service continously in a year and as such she oan not be ter- minated by the management without complying with law laid down in Sec. 25(F) of I.D. Act. It is further ^cntended that vhon the workman completed 240 days of work continously in a year, she accures the status of a temporary workmai and can not be terminated without following aforesaid provision of law, it is further contended that work done by work- men, is permanent in iriturc and requires technical skill and her inrtial appointment on wages basis without appointing her as regular employee is nothing but unfair labour practice and her subsequent termi- nation without reasonable ground has further aggriva- tcd tli'.' situation Considering all these aspect, he submits for reinstatement of the workman with all back wages,.

The learned advocate for the management, on the otherhand, has made his submission in the light of the contention raised in the written statement.

T hive carefully considered the submission raised by the learned advocate for both the parties find perused the record. From the persual of the material on record, I find that the workman was continuously working till 13-10-90, but due to illness or pregnancy, whatever reason it may be, she can not attend her duty since aforesaid date and went to |oin on 1-4-91, but management did not allow her to join. But from the persual of the material on recoid. T donot find any documents in support her contention that she has applied for leave. Tn view of thi * the cause of absent of workman since 1990 to 1-4-91 can not be ascer- tained Moreover. The alleged Icmiination done bv the management on 1-4-91 i>. the day on which the workman was not allowed to join her duty by Ihe management, but present Industrial dispute was raised by the workman in the year 1999. Tt is not known why workman was sleeping on her right for 8 to 9 years. It is true that there is no pacific time limit under I.D. Act, 1947 for the purpose of raising anv industrial dispute, but ruffe of equity demands that a-ny claim seeking any relief in the Court of law should be raised without unreasonable delay. Tf there is reasonable delay it should be properly explained to the f.nfi(-fnction of the authority concerned. There is •i well known maxim that delay defeats equity. This being the principle of enquiry and law T find that long delay of 8 to 9 years in raising the industrial dispute has made the case of the workman cloudy as to it penuincsc-si whether she voluntarily remains absent from duty or her engagement was purely temporary4854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 8, 1001/BHADRA 17, 1923 [FART TI—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001 S.O. 2344.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 33 C of the Indus'nal Dispmes Act, J947, (14 of 1947), the Central Govun- ment hereby makes the following further rmendments in the notification of ,he GovernmcrT of India in he MinisTy Labi ur, Employment and Reriabili^a'ion (Department of Labour & Employment) No. S.O. No. 271 dated the 14th January, 2001, namely:

In the Table annexed to the said notification, for serial No. 3 (b)(c)&(d) and the entries relating thereto, the following entries shall be substituted, namely:—

For serial No. 11 and the entries relating thereto, the following entries shall also h,> inrlndod • —

The districts of Satna, Rewa, Chattarpur, Labour Coiut, Jf balpur constituted under Section

Parma and Sidhi are brought under the jmi^diction of CGIT, Jababpur.

7 of the said Act, by the Notifies tion of the Govt. of India in the Kite Ministry of Labour jnd Employing No. S.O. No. 441, dated the 29th January, 1965 For serial No. 2( and the entries relating thereto, the following entiles shall also be included;—

The districts of Muraina, Bhind, Gwalior, Datia and Tikamgaih are brought under the juris- diction of CGIT, Kanpur

Labour Court, Kanpur constituted under Section 7 ol'the said Act, by the Notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S^ 11025/3/75- DKT-A dated 26th September, 1975.

(d) For serial No. 22 and the entries relating thereto namely;-

Labour Court, Lu.know constituted undfT Section 7 of the said Act, by the Notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of ! Labour S.O. 2611 dated 1 30th August, 1999. i

The districts of Muraina, Hhirid, Gwalior, Datia, Tikamgarh, Satno, Rewa, Chi'ltarpur, Panna and Sidhi may be excluded From the jurisdiction of CGlT-eum-Labour Court, Lucknow. The district of Haridwar is brought under the juris- diction of CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow

[F.No. Z-130H/1/97-CLS.1T] KRTSHNA SIIARMA, Under Secy.

Krinted by the Manager, OHM. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064

iind Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054 2001