This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. L—33001/99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 37] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER, 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may bo filed as a separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(other than the Ministry of Defence)

2742 GI/2001—1

(4855)4856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—S?c, 3Ctf)l MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001 S.O. 2345.—In exercise of 'he powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification No. L- 110H/1/91-NSG dated 19-11-1991, the Cental Government hereby appoint the officers mentioned in column (1) of the treble b low, b-jing officers equivalent to the rank of Gazctted O^kvrs of Government, to be estate officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercWc the powers conferred, and perform the duties impssed on estate officers by or vi e'er the s^-id Act, within the local limits of tb^it n>psctive jurisdiction in rcspoct of the public p.wnites in specified in the conespondmg ei'tries in column (2) of the said tabli\

TABLE

Disig-^a io^ of ' h-

r fficer

Caiegorips of public pu- mi^es and local limits of jurisJit h^n

(2)

S.O. 2?46.—In exercise of the powers confered by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Cri- minal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Bireshwar Nath, Advocate, Lucknow a Retainer Counsel of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeals, revisions or other proceedings arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establish- ment in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court.

[No. 225/28/2000-AVD.II] Nitioral Swrnty Guard Pi^mi'-f^ a" Samilkha

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

G'ifi.p C minrnrier 52, Sp -i il Action G ox p, Simalktvi

National Security Guard p cmi c-s at Palr.m

Group Commander Electronic Support (J aKp, PaliJin

Nitioanl Suev/ity Guard p cmiiL-s at D^lhi except Samrilkha and Palam

G oi-p Comimn<'in (Admini triUDii) Directorate, National S-vviity Guald

4 SqiuJ-on C n urnnd'. National SecirTy Guird (Construction Sqmdroi') piemis-s .it M,"\cvr S ation H^adq".'irt;r, District. Girgaop M,.¹ nesai

[F N >. L-3005/6/2000/NSG/Pcrs-IIll

A. BHATIACHARYYA, Undei Sccreiry (Pcrs-III]4857 MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 2347.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Punjab National Bank, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees six crore only on Unsecured Redeemable Bonds in the nature of Promissory Notes bearing distinctive numbers from 3000001 to 3003000 of rupees ten lakh each aggregating to rupees three hundred crore only, to be issued by the said Bank.

[No. 37/2001-STAMPS-F. No. 33/48/2001-ST]

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S.O. 2348.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in the Table below, being gazetted officer of that Government, to be the estate officer for the purposes of the said Act and the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officer by or under the said Act, within the limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the categories of public premises specified in the corres- ponding entry in column 3 of the said Table.

TABLE

Designation

Categories of the Public premises and local limits SI. No. of the officer

of jurisdiction

Commissoner,

Central Excise,

Delhi-I.

Bungalow Number B-21, Hillside Road, Pusa, New Delhi i.e. the earmarked flat meant for the incum- bant in the post of Director, Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi.

[F. No. 213/7/2001-Ad. VIII (EC)] RUSHMA KATARIA, Under Secy48S8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER J5, ?.QQl/8fjADRA 24, 1923 LPA&X U-^SSfi, 3 0 )] Department of Economic Affairs " (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 2349.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 19+9 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on recommendation of the Re- serve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to The Cuddapah District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette upto 31 March, 2003.

[F. No l(34)/96-AC] L. C. TOORA, Under Seey.

New Delhi, tins 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 2350.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Sectio.1 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS) rend with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on lccommendaticm of the Reserve Sank' offntifa," hereby declares that tfy

[K No. l(18)/200l-AC] L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S. O. 2351.—In pursuance of clause (ca) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 read with Sub- section (2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Harinder Pal Singh, Special Assistant, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala as a director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Patiala for a period of throe years with effect from 4th September, 2001 to 3rd September, 2004 and thereafter until his successor is appointed or three years more which eve*: is earlier, or till he ceases to to a workman employee-of State Bank of Patiala, whichever event occurs the earliest.

[F. No. 15/2/2001-IR]

G. R. SUMMAN, Dy. Secy.

4859

Securities) Act, 1992, the Central Government hereby) appoints Shri D. K. Tyagi, IAS (MT : 81), presently Director, Department of Economics Affairs, Bankiog Division, New Delhi as Custo- dian under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 on deputation basis in the pay scale of Rs. 18400- 500-22400 from the date of his taking charge of the post till 15-01-2004.

New Delhi, the 4th September, 200)

[No. F. 4/3/94-SCS/VIG.]

SHEKHAR AGARWAL, Jt. Secy.

S. O- 2352.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-rection (1) and sub-tection (2) of Section 6 of the Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964 (18 of 1964), the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri P. P. Vora, presently Chairman and Managing Director, National Housing Bank as Chairman and Managing Director, Industrial Development Bank of India for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 30th September, 2003 or until further orders, whichever is earlier,.

[F. No. 7/I0/2000-B.O-I.]

RAMESH CHAND. Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CP.V. Division)

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001

S. O. 2354.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

(Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the

Central Government hereby authorises Shri Bijencder

Kumar , Asst. in the CGI Ho Chi Minh City

(Vietnam) to perform the duties of Assistant New Delhi, the 4th Ssptembcr, 2001

Consular Officer with effect from 30-08-2001.

fNo.-T. 4330/1/2001-0)] S. O. 2353.— In oxercise of powers conferred by sub-aectioAO) of -section 3 Of the Special Court (Trial, of Offences) Relfclity .to I^nfaetjons m

Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons,)4860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART H—SIC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001

S. O. 235o.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of

the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948),

the Central Government hereby authorises Shri

Vinod Kumar Verma, Asst. in the CGI Istanbul

to perform the duties, of Assistant Consular

Officer with effect from 30-08-2001.

[No. T-4330/l/2001-(III)]

Y. C. NARANG, Dy.' Secy. (Cons) New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001

S. O. 2355.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of

the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948),

the Central Government hereby authorises Shri

Prabir Bhattacharya, Asst. in the E/I Copenhagen

to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer

with effect from 30-08-2001.

[No. T-4330/1/200MII)]

Y. C. NARANG, Dy, Secy. (Cons)4361 function under this notification shall be

bound by such directives as the Director

(Inspection and Quality Control) may give

in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 5/1O/2OO1-EI&EP]

RAJ SINGH, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2001

S.O. 2357.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality

Contro\ and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the

Central Government hereby recognises for a period

of three years from the date of publication of this

notification, Therapeutics ChemicsJ Research Corpo-

ration, Vizag, located and having their registered office

at Door No. 28-8-69 Satyanilayam, Raja Ram Mohan

Roy Road, Visakhapatnam-530 001, as an Agency

for the inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-I)

specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry of

Commerce Notification number 3975 dated 20th

December, 1965 prior to export, subject to the

following conditions, namely :

(i) that Therapeutics Chemical Research Corpo-

ration Vizag, shall give adequate facilities to

the officers nominated by the Export Inspec-

tion Council in this behalf to examine the

method of inspection followed by them in

granting the certificate of inspection under

Rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

(Group-I) (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) that Therapeutics Chemical Research Corpo-

ration, Vizag, in the performance of their4862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER M, 20OJ/"HM>RA 24, 1923 [PART H^Sfec. 3(fi)J IRfew Delhi, the 2$th August, 2001 S.O. 2358.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rules (3) of Rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964 the Central Government hereby recognises for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification Quality Services & Solution Private Limited, Flat No. 109, First Floor, Khalap Minsion, Vasco-da- Gama, Goa-403 802 having their registered office at "Sai Shraddha", 'C Wing, Station Road, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai-400 083, as an Agency for the inspection of minerals and ores Group-1, namely iron ore, specified in the Schedule to the Ministry of Commerce Notification Number S.O. 3975 dated 20th December, 1965, prior to export subject following conditions, namely :

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE

(i) that Quality Services & Solution Private DEVELOPMENT

Limited, shall give adequate facilities to the (Department of Women and Child Development officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under Rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores (Group^I) (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) that Quality Services & Solution Private Limited in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control) may give in writing from iti^e lo ime,

[F> No, 5/11/2OO1-ET&EP]

RAJ SLNGH, Dy. Secy New Delhi, the 28th August, 2001 S.O. 2359.—In exercise of the powers conferred under section 13 sub-section 4 of the Im-aoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Central Government hereby appoints the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CB1) of and above the rank of Inspector of Police to act as "trafficking police officers" for the purpose of investigating any offence under the said Act or under any other law for the time being in force dealing with sexual exploitation of persons and committed in more than one State and they shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the functions us are exercisable by special police officer under the said Act with the modification that they shall exer- cise such powers and discharge such functions in relation to the whole of India.

[ F. No. 2-27/20QI-GP ]

R. K. OtfHA) Dy. Secy.

4861

2742GI/2OO1—24864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPAPA 24,1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)] 4865 4866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24.1923 (PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 486"4868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 4869 4870 THEGAZETreOFINDIA:SEPTEMBER15,2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 [PARTII—SEc.3(ii)] 4871 :~12GI/2(XM—":

4872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

4X7 ^•S74 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: SEPTEMBER 15.2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 (PARTn—SEC. 3 (ii)] 4875 4876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART D—SEC. 3 (ii)] 4877 4878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 487) 2742G1/2001-4THE GAZETTE OF INDIA- SEPTEMBER 15,200lBHADRAPADA24,1923 rPARTll—SEC.3(h)] 4W0 4881 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 4882 4883

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2001

S. 0.2360.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil through Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation ofViramgam - Chaksu, Chaksu -Panipat and Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System".

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in thc-Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sunil Sharma, Competent Authority, Salaya-Mathura Pipeline (Augmentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 33, Muktanand Nagar, Gopal Pura Bye- Pass, Jaipur-302 018.

48&4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

District: PALI

State: RAJASTHAN

Tehsll : BALI

N a me of the Village 1

Area Are 4 17

Hectare 3 0

NANA

Khasara No.

2

263

239

Sq.mtr. 5 42 94

P 17 12

233

07 00

0 0 0

10 34 23

211 223 222 221

220 219 217

0 0

216

06 17 15 05 16 12

199 200

0 0 0

193 194 184/4171 184

0 0 0 0

114

92 03 52 59 38 22 20 77 50 38 02 49

05 16 06 16 07 09 10

118 119

0 0

61 46 33

03 73

0 0 0 0

55 94

121 122 123 125 127

18 18 25 02 17 12

00 74

13 10

52 52/4094

0 0 0

49 42

0 0

91 22 46 12

41 506 546

13 12 26 29 02

0 0 0

08 73

547 548

04885 2 |

1 I

I 4 I 5

I ³ I

587 586 585 589 590 591 672 673 678 677 676 2875

CHAMUNDERI

2876

2871

2870

2863

2867

2866

2865

2864

2852

2846

2709

2707

2705

2700Min

2701

2671

2552

2551

2561

2546

2542

2541

1562

VIRAMPURA

1564

1565

04 04 13 06 07 01 17 05 01 31 12 06 04 01 00 02 03 02 03 04 27 17 08 13 19 10 26 03 29 20 11 28 00 04 01 08 05 03

1566

1759

14 81 47 57 67 82 18 26 00 96 23 96 42 45 22 85 61 41 07 16 17 03 13 00 50 47 65 19 60 99 85 80 20 83 82 77 71 46 47

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

014886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA24,192") [PART II—SEC 3 (n)] 1 I ²

I 3 I 4 f

1567 1569 1761 1762 1763 1767 1775 1790 1792 1793 1796 1874 1873 1801 1804 1806 1864 1858 1810 1857

1946 1947 1851

5 20 93 82 82 35 25 50 56 20 68 64 52 80 20 27 50 09 21 20 35 08 11 83 49 03 80 90 76 73 31 56 63 96 19 21 21 68 93 44

00 00 14 06 08 08 18 11 05 04 09 06 07 05 05 09 07 20 00 07 06 06 19 04 04 07 11 06 02 06 06 06 11 03 00 04 04 07 06

1850 1849 1848 1847 1844/4716 1844 1842 1840 1839 1837 1836 1830 1831 2004 2005 2006

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04887 1 I 3 I 4 BHANOAR

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

46 25 53 78 49 09 03 27 85 81 65 89 47 31 20 72 08 68 99 77 86 46 20 90 16 15 07 11 20 20 30 60 54

2 2011 2010 2022 2024 2028 1381 1380 1382 1378 1377 1373- 1372 1303 1293 1292 1290 1289 1250 609 610 613 978 978/1 977 976 980 981 960 959 961 958 957 956 948 888 871 869 868 859

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07 01 10 12 08 12 11 00 12 12 10 01 16 05 00 06 10 13 09 15 04 05 01 00 04 19 07 10 00 00 01 05 07 14 11 06 04 03 02

23 96 70 68 71 09 2742OI/2001—5iX88 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15.2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (ii)J ¹ I 2 | I 5 I ⁴ 860 04 05 04 856 847

846

00 06 845

04 841

05 840

07 831

00 830

07 00 00 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 05 0 0

829 822 807 804 805 801 800

03 0

01 04 792 793

0 0

06 0

03 0

791 783

00 636

782

01 0

00 638

00 637

0 0

01 03 781 780

0 0

00 0

639

04 778

08 775

06 644

05 646

04 648

05 649

05 650

06 653

05 658

04 663

664

669

04 11 0

15 33 75 78 63 75 07 22 20 01 74 20 99 96 20 68 13 81 24 59 20 41 87 69 09 12 50 09 73 13 12 50 55 70 52 81 71 92 424889 1

KUMTIYA

4 07 07 03 21 00 03 11 10 00 04

KOTHAR

BERA

670 671 683 682 681 57 56 55 54 51 52 50 49 47 48 22 21 20 19 17 822 820 790 792 793 799 794 795 785 1267 1282 1281 1268 1280 1269 1279 1270 1278 1271

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00 00 04 01 02 03 02 02 03 01 01 09 04 03 07 00 02 07 25 02 00 00 01 02 00 03 01 03 00

5 90 59 61 21 51 24 48 75 20 75 44 40 58 12 24 06 73 47 77 11 33 48 91 71 80 45 09 17 46 38 20 64 40 27 20 64 40 54 204890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001 BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2

4 07 01 07 04 03 02 03 09 01 16 01 05 07 00 00 00 06 08 16 15 05 08 00 08 06 02 12 03 02 11 11 14 07 16 22 26 10 41 12

5 67 24 22 10 71 99 19 23 24 71 04 40 80 20 78 72 70 39 45 51 09 73 58 78 95 67 03 25 00 16 54 16 87 58 01 66 31 40 18

1274 1273 1251 1252 1248 1247 1246 1244 1240 1236 1224 1223 1221 1222. 1212 1206 1209 1208 1202 717 719 711 689 710 696 697 698 622 625 624 623 620 619 559 564 565 563 528 527

I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W1 ¹ I 2 I

I 3 I 4 I 5

441

21 07

26 85

0 0

11 10

35 70 76 88

499 500 513 785 797 797/1 Min

0 0 0

852 853

00 05 08 23

53 72 82 42

851

0 0

876

0 0

877

849

22 18 30

847

63 63

846 842 841

0 0

01 02 14

13 84

935

3669/4767

3669/4768

0 0 0

42 22 20

3669

3670

14 49

03 27

3671 3672 • 3674

0 0 0 0

16 65 97

3676

3678 3677

0 0

3740

06 05 15 15

3742

3741

0 0 0

21 07

43 84 28 27 55

3741/Min 3749

39 00

43 20

3752

3751

3754

3755/4964

3773/1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 07 12 53 09

10 68 26 91 184892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPAD A 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] I ⁵ I 2 I 4 I 1 I I " 16 0 3773/2 58 08 10 0 3773 13 47

38 00

0 0

3790/4748

3790/4963

849 BHATOOND

13 02 12

89 29 22

0 0 0 0 0

10 43

834 835 842 516

518

18 13

19 37

530

528 527

20 98 51 21

544 525

0 0 0 0

549

00 06 13 12 03

13 91

551

0 0

05 05

552 553

18 79

554 555

90 39

05 06 06 06

0 0 0 0 0

92 43

573 571 572

59 00

798

23 85

792 793

0 0

789 669

12 14 ' 06 01

670 671

14 53 49 83 82

0 0 0 0 0

02 05 34 72

686 685 674

0 0

43 42

675 677

0 0

06 00 07 16 71

753 7044893 1 I

I 4 ,

I ³

! 2 ,

703

707

243

242

244

42 79 58 96 79 15 20 40 51 95 59 20 25 47 24 29 35 00 20 78 18 71

08 30 07 04 04 15 00 00 03 01 00 00 12 03 03 07 00 07 00 08 03 03 00 04 07 01 00

248 249 251 253 252 254 255 261 260 267 268 266 280 281 286 290 285 298 299 300 144 301 143 303 304 142 141 140

1078

1079

1089

1090

1092

1094 158

BEEJAPUR

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05 09 01 00 06 09 09 13 15 30 06 10 00

33 49 35 59 40 80 69 63 20 07 52 43 33 24 99 71 35 734894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART H—SEC. 3 (ii)l ¹ I 2

159 156 257

258 145 148 142 330 407 331 372 402 373 379 377 621 623 695/1 695Min 696 694 697 698 692 691 690 689 688 687 686 685 684 683/1 682/1 681 680/1 679 678 677

I 4 | 17 22 21 11 09 00 09 13 00 10 23 11 00 26 19 15 01 32 02 13 00 10 04 01 03 03 04 03 04 07 04 02 04 03 04 04 07 02 03

5 25 17 20 20 75 20 33 45 20 46 80 87 22 59 67 55 34 73 25 52 20 40 43 46 67 60 37 47 28 20 34 90 43 64 04 16 23 60 13

I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -IX')?

I 2 |

I 3 | I 5 1 I

I 4 I

36 84 52 15 64 16 85 43 66

04 03 04 03 07 04 03 01 08 '

PADARLA

05 05 05 04 05 11 06 07

99 59 15 56 21 23 27 80 92 39 20 44 26 77 51 90 24 93 34 65 SEWARI

28 51 33 24 61 01 21 73 22 72

00 00 00 14 09 09 05 00 06 01 08 08 08 08 05 04 03 08 05 15 12 00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

676 675 674 673 672 671 670 669 553 550 544 543 542 541 538 536 531 529 530 367 366 18 21 25 24 26 27 29 218 217 216 312 311 314 324 315 320 176 177

2742GI/2001—648% THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2(X)1 BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PARI II—SEC 3 (n)l 1 I 2 BARWA

I 4 | 10 16 12 13 15 05 07 08 08 09 04 04 03 05 05 05 04 26 01 17 05 05 06 05 06 07 06 08 00 39 09 09 10 03 18 06 12 09 00 00

I 5 40 06 87 49 76 66 67 71 58 23 49 42 73 46 29 27 22 36 08 20 75 59 37 53 50 80 63 28 37 02 10 52 27 64 72 70 87 75 56 20

I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

171 78 83 84 498 499 500 503 545 507 609 513 514 515 516 517 518 597 598 643 958 957 956 955 954 952 951 950 882 881 878 875 870 871 509 510 505 424 426 4204897 1 I 2 I I 5 I 4 | 427 491 490 488 487 486 477 479 480 478 481 482 653

1094

1095 813 810 812 816 815 823 824

1075

1074

I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

63 42 20 41 52 41 43 84 21 20 13 35 64 24 73 36 24 49 30 26 81 19 28 11 28 66 11 40 41 55 73 08 64 43 54 55 07 23 03

20 04 00 07 08 07 01 08 01 00 12 00 03 06 10 02 00 01 09 00 00 12 07 06 02 10 06 10 02 04 02 02 03 01 07 04 13 04 12

1073 830 833 834 835 729 730 718 737 735 745 744 743 756 7424898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (u)]

PATAWA

LUNAWA

SESLI

I 4 | 06 00 31 06 21 15 10 07 00 01 05 08 08 04 00 01 00 07 00 00 00 26 00 00 06

I 5 45 23 07 37 49 35 31 92 90 02 13 71 02 07 20 38 48 00 40 75 20 36 20 40 56 44 80 48 73 20 35 82 72 22 67

, 06 03 17 03 07 08 22 07 02 21 17 02 18 07

I 3 | I 2 | 757 0 0 758 31 0 0 182 183 0 184 0 0 185 0 200 0 210 0 201 210/1 0 0 205 0 204 0 769 0 773 0 774 0 768 0 775 0 759 0 758 0 776 0 777 0 815 0 818 0 811 0 810 0 965 966 0 967 0 0 968 0 969 0 974 0 840 0 962 0 963 0 958 0 959 0 960 845 0

19 26 89 274899 1 I

PUNADIYA

I 2 | 846 847 947 856 854 860 507 531 523 524 522 517

362 364 363 367 340 338 334 333 244

KOTBALIYAN

I 4 | 00 02 09 14 16 08 08 10 10 00 00 09 00 10 00 08 01 42 11 08 04 19 12 00 16 14 05 11 06 19 17

21 07 02 05 10 08 00 06

245 250 249 260 261 281 286 287 1045 1057 1056 1060 1077 1076- 1075 1074 1109 1110

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I 5 20 86 13 56 12 45 39 83 69 36 20 78 91 77 62 79 95 09 96 06 60 50 63 58 70 48 36 42 41 07 05 58 16 45 92 58 92 64 484900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 1 I

I 2

I 3 I

1113

1114

1112

1117

5 59 20 12 32 62 95 72 98 40 85 81 02 15 33 10 90 46 20 61 32 66 46 62 26 86 94 34 77 82 37 SADALWA

10 02 32 99 29 77 97 20 20

I 4 | 10 00 05 03 17 03 03 02 06 06 05 06 06 09 11 01 05 02 01 00 17 05 17 14 01 12 00 19 14 01 04 02 03 02 04 03 01 00 00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1176 1126 991 990 980 983 982 985 725 726 729 730 723 734 735 697 700 690 657 642 655 644 649 648 646 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 241 4'JOl1 I 2 I 4 | 05 06 00 10 04 13

239 238 236 237 213 216/313 216 217

TEEPRI

MUNDARA BHEETWARA

220 196 182 181 180 161 153 152 144 145 493 485 484 473 470 469 468 467 466 1 34 347/1 343 278 935 934 942 897 894 893 892

I 3 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09 09 09 10 10 06 02 39 21 01 00 22 45 31 29 33 10 06 07 07 07 08 00 18 55 27 47 18 00 05 06 00 04

I 5 20 76 24 94 88 78 04 49 82 14 66 10 11 72 71 04 20 80 44 20 64 15 21 18 93 80 67 27 20 33 25 79 29 49 48 74 99 20 884902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001 BHADR APAD A 24,1923 PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2

5 53 79 20 01 31 31 42 18 03 38 05 82 20 40 98 68 21 71 02

59 - 50 24

4 I 01 08 00 01 08 06 09 06 03 01 01 05 01 00 02 04 10 06 07 05 07 01

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

891 890 889 990 991 760 773 111 778 779 780 784 783 785 788 787 792 794 797 801 802 803

INo. R-25011/33/2001OR-T1 S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.

4"r

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001

s. o. 2361.— In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), and in supersession of S.O. 1063 dated 12th April, 1999, the Central Government hereby authorises Shri V.P. Pathak, Joint Director, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh on deputation to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to perform the functions of the competent authority for Mumbai- Manmad Pipeline Extension Project and Bina-Jhansi-Kanpur Petroleum Pipeline Project under the said Act within the territory of the districts of Barwani, Khargaon, Dhar and Indore (in respect of Mumbai-Manmad Pipeline Extension Project) and the districts of Sagar, Tikamgarh and Datia (in respect of Bina-Jhansi-Kanpur Petroleum Product Pipeline Project) in the State of Madya Pradesh,

[NoR-310l5/17/<)8OR-ll|

HARISHKUMAR Under SCL\ 2742GI/2001—74904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15.2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PARTII—SEC 1(11)] 4W4 49117 4908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II— SEC. 3 (ii)] 4909 4910 THEGAZETTEOF1ND1A:SEPTEMBER15,2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 [PARTIJ—SEC. 3(ii)l 4911 2742GI/2001—8-W12 !HLGAZFTTEOFINDIA.SEPrrEMBER15.2()01BHADRAPADA24,1923 [PART 11—Sue J (n)| -wn

New Delhi, the 12th September. 2001

S. 0.2362.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat & Chaksu-Matbiira sections of Salaya-Mathura pipeline System" ;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sunil Sharma, Competent Authority, Salaya-Mathura Pipeline (Augmentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 33, Muktanand Nagar, Near Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302018.

4914 Illl ( , \ /( n i .m INDIA ShPTEMBRR 15. 2001 BHADRAPADA24.1923 [PART II—Sue. 3 (ii)l

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Viratnagar District: Jaipur State: Rajasthan

Area

N a me of Village

Khasara No.

Hectare 3

Are 4

Sq.mtr. 5 Surpura

10 22 48 07 30 20 75 27 60 20 38 45 71 84 61 22 10 13 45

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o • 0 0 0 0

01 00 00 11 03 02 02 06 06 02 01 08 00 15 16 07 04 04 10

675 685 686 687 697 698 699 700 693 788 785 783 784 601/995 596 555 554 551 552

Khatolai

74 75 77 01 92 96 19 86 89 30 64 17 50 96 63

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0

14 19 11 10 03 03 04 03 03 03 02 05 16 05 04

1133 1134 1241 1240 1238 1237 1236 1235 1234 1233 1182 1184 1185 1173 11724915 1 ¹ 4 09 04 10 08 11 01 01 00 11 03 06 11 00 05 00 03 07 10 04 08 04 00 01 03 13 00 03 02 03 03 09 10

5 77 24 95 80 12 58 02 21 29 87 16 50 86 52 26 87 67 00 90 39 84 20 76 03 39 20 73 42 30 30 13 78

2 1171 1170 1146 1149 1148 1151 1111 1110 1102 1104 1105 1097 1096 1093 1094 1091 1090 1052 1014 1015 1011 1017 1018 1019 969 970 1020 947 946 945 942 929

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bhabhru

2140 2139 2138 2137 2133 2132 2131 2128 2129 2181 2182 2183 2186

05 05 04 02 07 07 08 00 02 08 00 02 01

91 69 58 10 48 70 65 20 75 69 20 40 36

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04916 THEGAZETTEOFINDIASEFTEMBER15,2001BHADRAPADA24,1923 [PARI II—SFC 3 (ii)| 1 2

3 J

2184 2185 2195 2194 2204 2205 2230 2231 2228 2225 2223 2260 2261 2262 2264 2275 2274 2272 2271 2270 2323 2324 2325 2316 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2335 2388 2382 2386 2385 2392 2396 2403 2438 2430 2431 2432 2434 2433 2750 2747 2748

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 I 00 10 04 03 06 06 10 01 08 06 00 02 02 02 06 05 00 06 04 01 06 01 02 01 02 03 01 01 02 07 - 00 00 07 05 09 15 05 02 00 06 07 04 00 03 01 01

5 58 08 51 85 93 40 25 82 90 05 88 15 97 45 49 72 20 22 90 76 88 60 75 38 56 96 55 87 56 48 66 48 53 50 74 05 12 42 20 90 21 07 44 55 03 984917 1 j 2

2745 2767 2766 2786 2786/4616 2787 2785 2783 2782 2780 2778 2846 2845 2850 2887 2886 2884 2916 2917 2925 2927 2924 2929 3012 3007 3002 2950 2951 2953 2954 2955 2975 2974 2973 2960 2972 2963 2968 2964 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1027 1026

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I 4 06 04 00 06 02 05 03 03 02 06 12 02 01 02 04 08 06 10 04 04 01 02 04 13 00 31 00 02 05 04 06 12 06 06 00 10 04 03 19 05 09 00 08 05 00 04

5 2\ 40 20 56 79 56 85 33 81 88 60 97 10 42 64 88 38 29 29 56 55 02 19 42 20 84 98 64 02 83 82 27 55 30 53 95 45 95 53 15 66 20 77 83 42 054918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15,2001BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 I ⁵ J [ - 2 1032 1033 1031 1034 932 933 935 936 938 941 875 874 876 877 866 865 852 853 854 848

j- _ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 03 00 03 06 04 04 04 00 05 02 07 01 08 07 10 02 05 06 01 02

06 86 86 66 95 79 84 20 01 31 43 62 20 10 01 68 50 38 14 64 Dhani Qaiskan

679 680 682 691 690 892 693 698 699 597 596 595 599 600 601 511 512 513 515 516 518 519 520 177 173

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00 09 06 01 04 04 12 • 06 00 03 02 04 02 07 07 03 03 02 03 06 00 01 00 03 02

63 13 71 68 51 73 10 50 60 63 37 29 86 92 43 74 52 97 08 16 28 24 77 38 04 49)91 4 02 00 00 02 02 03 01 12 00 00 01 02 07 05 04 00 01 01 16 01 09 00 05 06 00 07 06 12 01

2 174 175 184 171 185 170 169 163 164 162 166 160 159 157 158 150 100 149 148 147 115 106 114 112 111 119 120 124 123

I ³ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 70 55 53 31 53 63 32 47 74 68 54 27 56 40 59 35 12 98 56 35 00 20 04 98 40 02 84 99 76 Bahdoda

349 354 355 367 356 366 365 426 428 427 422 417 418 411 408 405

42 19 09 09 11 00 05 03 02 00 05 04 03 02 03 02

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

39 70 19 08 95 20 72 41 28 20 12 29 67 60 11 ^5 2742GI/2001—94920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. SEPTEMBER 15,2001 BlTADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—Sv.c. 3 (ii)J 1 ² [ 404 403 399 400

4 02 03 06 01

5 20 38 83 17

0 0 0 0

Hanuman Nagar

3774 3777 3778 3779 3746 3745 3721 3744 3735 3722 3723 3726 3727 3552 3537 3554 3536/3874 3529 3517 3519 3524 3522 3494 34fl5 3463 3479 3478 3459 3455 3454 3452 3273 3272 3271 3270 3269 3262

43 92 38 48 67 85 58 11 20 35 90 07 96 94 70 87 79 44 24 07 70 80 44 69 18 02 98 68 07 57 68 13 46 31 44 47 34

12 10 06 07 02 02 05 02 00 06 09 04 07 26 09 03 18 00 09 04 07 08 00 08 04 04 04 09 10 09 09 04 04 05 00 03 09

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bani Park

1274 1279 1266 1265

0 0 0 0

53 23 04 69

00 05 07 074021 1 2 "1264 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1289 1291 1288 1204 1198 1199 1171 1170 1169 1188 1201 1409

4 00 06 05 05 05 05 05 00 08 04 04 01 08 00 05 08 00 03

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

J 5 45 38 17 28 50 50 14 20 72 07 76 32 67 20 11 52 44 96 Bagawas Ahiran

04 04 00 05 06 04 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 01 04 01 00 00 06 01 01 00 10 09 00 08 01

1159 1156 1158 1157 1111 1113 1109 1108 1107 1121 1122 1102 1104 1100 1098 1094 1097 1096 1090 1091 1068 1067 1070 1032 1031 964 966

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 15 20 17 33 13 55 06 41 27 20 20 47 05 70 50 25 25 98 05 76 20 06 18 20 22 984922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15,2001 BHADRAPADA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (n)l 1_

5 36 63 07 50 22 16 85 18 55 90 42 20 25 61 43 42 77 37 30 31 30 93 80 35 41

4 j 03 03 04 00 00 03 01 05 00 04 00 00 05 01 00 02 00 03 00 03 00 13 10 01 13

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 960 958 948 946 944 943 934 935 936 937 904/2210 906/2209 905 866 869 867 838/2202 839 864 838 840 837 817 829 827

Taliyara

36 41 25 20 99 48 34 13 70 20 62 46 05 20

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09 03 03 00 03 01 00 08 05 00 01 00 03 00

1915 1916 1917 1990 1995 1996 2016 2015 2018 2017 2038 2039 2040 2042

[No R-25011/32/2001 0R-1J S CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Sec>4923 4924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24. 1¹)2j IPART II—SEC. 3fiDl 4925 t926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4927 2742GI/2001 —104928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SFC 3(n)| 4929 • 9 30 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : S E P T E M B ER 1 5, 2 0 0 1 / B H A D RA 2 4 , 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )i 4931 4932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—Stc. 3(ii)] Name of Village Survey/

Area MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Gat No. Hectars Are Sq. Mts.

New Delhi, the 4lh September, 2001

l.Kulthe (Contd. ) 134/2

0 02 05

138/B/4

0 23 78

0 24

138/B/3

138A

0 33 11

Cart Track

00 74

137/1

0 06 76 S.O. 2363.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum products from the Panewadi (Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manglya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

137/2

0 52 45

Road ODR-102 0 00 78

6/11

0 47 58

Drain

0 01 82 And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such extension pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user inthc land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

7/2/1

0 04 00

7/2/2

04 50

7/1-3

0 01 50

7/1-2

0 10 00

7/1

0 05 47

Drain

0 01 21 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rights of user in the land described in the said Schedule;

0 20 98

0 00 22

62/2

0 17 50

62/4

0 17 50

62/3

0 17 24

30 73

2. Mandal

Cart Track 0 00 53

72/1 1 0 27 84 Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within, twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prahlad V. Kachare, Competent Authority, Mumbai Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd,, 1 st Floor, Scva Complex, Opp. Gurudwara, Mumbai Agra Road, Dhule424001 (Maharashtra).

72/2 /

SCHEDULE

73/1/1

Tehsil: Dhule District: Dhule State : Maharashtra

73/1/2

0 33 85 Survey/

Area

Name of Village

73/1/3 73/2 L

Gat No. Hectars

Sq. Mts,

Arc

73/3/1 f

0 10 00

l.Kulthe

152/A1

73/3/2

152/A2/2

0 10 00

73/3/3 '

152/A2/1

0 04 50

Drain

0 02 46 0 04 50

152/2/1

Road, VR-124 I 0 00 42

48 00

152/B/l

74/1 v

152/B/2

74/2

0 04 30

1521 Mill

74/3 k 0 11 69

145

74/4 I

0 00

Cart Track

74/5 J

144

Canal

01 06

01 80

143

0 44

22 0 04

Kanoli Nalla

Drain

0 00 55

0 02

134/14933 Name of Village

Name of Village

Survey/ Gat No. Hectars

Area Arc Sq. Mts.

; Survey/ Gal No. Hectars

Area Arc Sq Mts.

02 05

2.Mandal(oontd.) 121/1

28 1.1

2. Mandnl(oontd.

121/2

0 01 14

3. Borkund

Cart Track

0 21 60

85/1 \

212

85/2 /

211

01 19

Drain

210

12 47

214/1

19 90

87/1 N 87/2 L

214/2 A

56 87/3/1 i

214/2B

11 76

215/A/l/l

18 83/A 1 si/I? r

06 70

215/A/B/l/l

215/A/1/2

0 16 81

42 104

48 54

215/B/1/2

06 101

0 06 70

215/AB/l/l

0 05 00

102/11/2

0 05 70

215/B/1F

05 00

102/11/1

17 42

Bori River

0 06 50

102/10

251

18 00 102/8

247

0 20 16

4. Borkund

(Ratanpura)

10 99

102/7

246/1

01 00 0 10 00

102/6/4

246/2

10 0 01 00

102/5/3

0 01

Road

62 0 02 00

102/6/2

245/1A

245/1B

66 0 76 19

245/2

282 Pt.

31 112/1 s 112/2 1 112/3 r> 112/4 J

Road, SH-15

04 0

11V1

281/2B

Road VR-149

16 18

281/2C

0 20 00

116/1

281/2

0 12 60

116/2

^°J

Cart Track 0 01 80

06 88

116/3

0 50 76

285/2

116/4

286

0 04 86 0 06 88

116/5

River

28 81

118PI

614

Zodga Borkund 0 02

615

60 Road.

612/3

135

0 10 56

12 24

612/4

Drain

Road, VR-155 0 02 134

0 33 04

617

46 Drain

0 00 51

619

15 12 0

120/1

03 82

607

0 13 0 14 00

120/2

606/1

50 120/3

0 14 004934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Name of Village Survey/

Name of Village Survey/

Hectare

Sq. Mts.

Hectars

Area Are Sq. Mts.

Gat No.

Area Are

Gat No.

606/2

0 50

95/1A/1 \

5. Dondvad

4. Borkund

Cart Track

95/1 A/2

(Contd)

(Ratanpura)

603/1 x

95/1B

0 00 14 (Contd.)

95/2

. 0

604 I 603/2 j

95/3 95/4 J

05 0

Road, ODR-J

628

0 33

13 65

02 52

Drain

0 01 17 602/1 ^

0 19 05

602/2 > • 0 27

602/3 J

80/2/A-l 80/1A/1

0 0

6. Vinchur Budruk

06 55

80 44

03 78

Drain

00 40

0 17

629

0 00

0 25

580

82/1A

0 05

14 67

59/2

5. Dondvad

82/1B

0 05

65/1

0 12

82/2

0 11

10 50

92 65/2

0 10

Cart Track

65/3

0 10

109/1/1 >

0 00

Canal

109/1/2

0 01 02

67/1

109/1/3

01 86

67/2

109/1/4 ; \>

0 06

71/1

97/1

0 01

71/2

0 06

9112k

0 01 04 0 06 56

71/3

97/2B/1

0 02

06 56

71/4

97/2B/2

0 02

70/1

0 14

Canal

0 00

05 0

98/1/1

02 70/2

98/1/2

0 02 72/1 I

98/2/1

0 04 00 72/2/1

98/2/2

00 72/2/2

0 04

100/1

0 11 72/2/3

100/2

11 17 72/2/3

100/3

72/2/4 j

11 > o

02 75

101/1A

72/2/5 f

101/1B/1

0 01 72/3

101/1B/2

0 01 72/4

101/lC/l

0 01 72/5

101/1/2

0 02 72/6

101/1D

0 02

Drain

101/1A

0 03

0 14

92/1

Drain

0 00

0 15

92/2 493 ^ Name of Village Survey/

Name of Village Survey/

Area Hectars

Area Are Sq. Mts.

Hectai^

Sq Mts.

Gat No.

^rc

⁰ 00 6. Vinchur

7. Shirud-contd.

Drain

S.H.211

9(.

837

)

06 11

)1 48 00

61 ⁰r

19 44

90 i5

y °

00 y0

⁰

65 789

89 01

⁰

03 55

r •

02 0

i- * ⁰r

83 821

0 00 18

86 15

62 r

0 01 01

00 18

}•

00 24

01 80

!•

⁰ 06

80 01

18 76

102/1/1A Bk (contd.) Drain Railway Cart Track Cart Track 0 7. Shirud 791/1 842/1A 842/1B 791/2 842/2 790/1 790/2 Drain 55/1 790/3 790/4 55/2 Dram 44/1 Cart Track 788/1 44/2 788/1B 44/3 44/4 788/1C 788/2/2 44/5 }• 805/1A 44/6 805/1B V- 54/1 805/2A 805/2B 54/2 Drain 54/3 Drain RoadODR-113 0 Drain 53/1 772/1 53/2 772/2 65/1A 65/1B 65/2 Drain 66/1 Cart Track 822/1 66/2 822/2 66/3 825/1 Drain 825/2 71/1 825/3 71/2B J' 0 825/4 68/1A 825/5 68/IB 839/1 68/2A 839/2 68/2B Road VR-1 18 0 68/2C 838/3 68/3 840/1 Drain 840/2 840/3 \- ↩

06 2742GI/2001—114936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Name of Village Survey/

Hectars

Area Arc Sq. Mts.

Gal No.

7. Shirud (Cont.) 78/1A 'I 0 09 36 78/IB /*

Cart Track 0 0 1- 44 906

16 20

0 28 80 77/1 } 77/2 I 77/3 J 130/2 s

31 130/3 L,

. o

130/4 J

Cart Track

01 44 8. Visrane

01 Drain

59 57/1 \

57/2/1 1 0 94 89 57/2-2 [

57/3 *

Shirud Visra

00 49

ne 0

Road

0 29 72

0 04 72 49/1 ^ 49/2 f 48/1 ^

48/2 b 0 07 75 48/3 J

360

9. Vclhane Bk.

03 326

0 68 40 324

0 00 20 327

0 00 20 Drain

0 01 323/1 1

60 323/2 /

Drain

0 05 40 322/1

0 16 20 Road, MDR-

•43 0

98 293/1/1 -^

293/1/2 iJ

0 30 24 294/1 ^

40 68

. o

294/2 L 294 Pt. J

303/2/1 -

W3/2/2 L,

. o

303/2/3 j

Name of Village Survey/

Area Are

Hectars

Sq. Mts.

Gat No.

10 9. Velhane" Bk 303/2/4

0' 02

(Conld.)

Drain

304/1

304/2 } °

306/1

88 306/2

29 306/3

306/4

48 307

0 06

Cart Track 0

88 Pt. 0

Cart Track 0

Drain

1 °

74/1

14 74/2

74 Pt.

Road ODR-112 0

40 23

30 15/1

15/2 } °

14/1

40 14/2

14 14/3

14/4

0 04 Drain

24 12/1

12/2 } °

0 04 Drain

86 44

0 22 10. Tanda

01 Cart Track 0

Kundanc

21 45

20 46

05 47/1 1

47/~

02 ijrain

67/1

56 67/2

52 67/3

67/4

84 68

0 02 Drain4937 Name of Village Survey/

Area

Name of Village Survey/

Gat No. J tiectars Are Sq, Mis.

Hectare

Area Arc Sq Mts.

Gat No.

10. Tanda

71/1 T

11. Anchade

0 0

Kundane-

(Contd.)

71/2 J

contd.

70/1 \

0 0

36 96 56

Drain 73 72/2

70/2 )

62 0 0

24 50

0Q 03 07 03 13

Drain

Canal 74/1 1 74/2 J

⁷⁵ V

75 Pt fDrain

109/1/1 \

109/1/2 1

Drain

109/2 r>

109/1/3 J

Drain

Car Track 0

00 108/1 \

33/1 ^

108/2 f

33/2 J

107

25 20

30/1 }

104

30/2 J

Drain

103

12. Vajirkhede Drain

06 102/1 \ 0 20 52

12 102/1 V

Road MD R-42 0

Drain

11, Anchade 84 Pt.

13. Chinchkhedt ; Drain

03 0

84 Pt.

31 59

48/1 \

Drain

48/2-1 [

> 0

48/2B [

Drain

48/3 J

Road MDR-43

49/1 1

17 ¹ ° >

81/1 \

49/2 J

81/2 J

50/1 1

^ o

77/1/1 \

50/2 J

77/1/2 1

25 77/2 r

Drain

00 77/3 J

Cart Tracl

t 0

6 1 /1 N

74/1 \

17 82

61/2 1

> o

74/2 J

61/3 J

76/1 ,.

00 76/2 1 0 20 16

62/1A 1 0

76/3 r

62/1B J

76/4 J

RoadODR-110 0

02J<>-8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24. 1923 IPARI II—SEC 3(n)] N.iinc of Village Sun c^ /

rlcclars

Area Arc 5q Mis Gat No

Matne of Village Sur\e\/

Hectars

Area Are ~Sq Mts Gat No0 15 22 0 Drain 37 13 (, Inn. likhcck 16 Mukti 21 63/1 ] 15 12 262 0 (Contd) 01 ni n (Conid ) 0V4 J" 00

72 Cart Tuck

()\ 18 64/1A

0 34 20 07/] A \

0 31 67/1A-2 J "

60 Drain

14 Amdad

92 22

25/1-1 \ ,

25/1-1B/1A

2VMB/IB

08 25/2A-1A

2V?F.

2 5/2 A/2

2V1-1C

2V2A/1B '

Drain

30 Carl Track

04 1" Bhiuilianc 7V1B

36 78/1 ^ 0

05 78/2 i

00 Drain

85 81

68 i Mukti

2z4/l ^

224/2 y

O'jin

0 02 23 73]

09 23//1

14 233/1

22 234/1A \

2<4'1C I

02 34 Road, VR-23 0

43/1-1 .

17 Kas\ihir

43/1-2

43/1-3

0 44 43/1-4 43/1-5 1^

43/2-1 ,

43/2-2

43/2-3

43/2-4

43/2-5 '

18 Nandalc Khurd

56/1 ^| 56/2 j

NH-6

51/1/1 ]

51/2 /

10 50

49/1 1

11 49/2 I

0 03 48

52/1 ^i

75 52/2 ^ > 0 05 S2/3 J 53/1 •-)

> 0

53/2 ^ 53/3 J

56 37

19 30 38

40/1-1 \

0 16 40/1-2 [

> 40/1-3A I" 40/2 J

01 64 39

2 44/1D/1A r" 2 54/2 j

260 I v "60'2/2 I

34 260/2/3 r* 0

56 260/2/4 J

06 261

03 Drain

01 29

35 30/1 v

0 08 97 30/2 |

> 30/3 I" 30/4 J

53 27

0 18

0 ↩

20 254939 Name of Village Survey/

Area

Hcclars Are Sq. Mts.

Gat No.

Name of Village Survey/

Hectars

Area Are Sq. Mts.

Gat No.

18 Nnndale 24 0 12 96 6/1/D2 03 Khurd'Contd. N.H. 6 Ro< id 0 96 6/1/B2 I

0 07 74 71/1 .

71/2

71/3

60 71/4/1

00 99

6/1D1 L

01 80

6/2 | 6/3/1 J Drain

441/1 }

20. Ambode

71/4/2

71/5 '

60 72/1

56 72/2/1 . y °

Cart Track

74 77

82/1

- °

82/2

83/1 .

83/2

83/3/1

> o

83/3/2

83/3/4 '

Road, VR-75 0

Kanheri River 0

0 19 84

80 19. Nagaon l/l/Al

Khurd

1/A2 ^

1//A3

1/C2

1/C4

1/B

0 35 46 l/C/1

1/D/l

1/D2/B

1/D2/A

l/C-3

1/1A2

1/1-A3 '

7/1

7/2A

55 7/3 1

6/1A |

6/1B-1 6/1/C J

14 04 441/2 ^ 0

441/3 J

442

35 10

449/1 ,

46 30

449/2 1

449/3/1 p*

449/3/2 J

17 49

463

462/1 -\

24 65

462/2 L

462/3 j

04 32

Drain

466/1 \

466/2A L

53 77 466/2B J

00 46

Car Track

01 63

Drain

474/1 \

44 47

474/2A 1

474/2B r*

474/2C J

00 48 Drain

03 60 Drain

475/1 V 0

475/2 J

484/1 x

40 484/2A L

484/2B J

00 40 Drain

0 69 62 476

0 01 42 Drain

395

15 59

Drain

36 3%

04 397

214940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Name of Village Survey/

Name of Village Survey/

Hectars

Area Are Sq. Mts, Hectars

SqTMts.

Gat No.

Area Are

Cart Track

21, Satams-contd

00 66 20. Anibode- contd.

22. Mohadi

0 43 62

Drain 165/1 I

(PraDangari)

0 0

00 59 398/1 N 398/2 398/3 [> 398/4 f 398/5 J

165/2 f Drain

00 399

0 37

166/1 "L

54 77 0 0

93 25

) 0

16 25 00

0 00 90 0 37

90 80

21.Satarne

0 47 70 0 02 16

166/2 J Cart Track 162/1 \_ 162/2 J Cart Track Drain

72 50 0

00 04 66 0

00 31 38

86 70

0 00 54 0 00 59

0 37 38 400 Road, VR-51 171/1 \ 171/2 f Road Drain 173 172/1 1 172/2 f Drain 174

13O/A-1/2 Cart Track 128 129/1 \ 0 09 90 0 0

43 70

02 20

129/2 f Drain

0 01 26 0

125

0 44 10 0

Drain

00 90

0 01 80

Mohadi Road 80/1 .

217 216 Cart Track 167 Dram Road, VR-13 166

0 0 0 0

00 62 03 01 16 38

0 44 64 0 0

88 45 10 24 44 38 64 26 88

00 11 00

80/2/1 80/2/2 k 80/2/3 f 80/2/4 ' 81/1 -| 0 07 74

94 98 47

0 0 0

19 00 48

0 08 46 0 36 72

81/2 J 83/1 ^| 83/2 f 78

12 16

0 02 88 0

19 98

Drain

0 00 54

0 35 10

0 24 48

52 40

0 00 90

86 Cart Track 72/2

0 05

0 23 76 0 20

48 52

0 25 56

0 03 09 0 01 44

25 20

0 25 38

Road, VR-43 71 70/1 "^ 70/2 J

0 44 82

16 79

60/1 x 60/2A L 60/2B f 59

0 03 71

[F.No. R-31015/13/2001-OR-II]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

90 34

153 Drain L54 Can Track 152 Cart Track 93 214/1A -\ 214/2 U 214/1B J 213/1 V 213/2 J Road,ODR-92 0 76/1 \ 0 76/2 J* 77 78/1 \ 78/2 y Drain 64/1 64/2-1 64/2/1/1/1-1 64/2/2/1/2 64/2/2/2 64/2/2/1-1-2 64/2/2/1/1-2 64/2-2/1-2 72 63

0 0

27 20 mi4942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 TPART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 4943 2742GI/2001—124944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 4945 4946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24. 1923 [PAKT II—Str 3(n)l 4947 4948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(n)l 4949 New Delhi, the 4lh September, 2001 S.O. 2364.— WhPreas it appears to the Central Government that it is ricccssary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum products from the Panewadi (Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manglya (Indorc) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears that for the purpose of laying such extension pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right ofuscr ofland described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rights of user therein;

Any jjerson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may. within. 21 days from the date on which the copies of the Ga/cttc of India containing this notification arc made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right to Shri Prahlad V Kachnrc, Competent Authority. Mumbai ManmadPipcIine Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at camp office at 1 si Floor, Ashapuri Plaza, Ravalgaon Naka, Malcgaon Camp, Malegaon-423 105 (Maharashtra).

Name of Village Survey/Gat No.

Hcctars

Area Are Sq. Mts 2. Jalgaon (N) 482

0 33 26 483

0 34 30

82 476/1

476/2

0 24 12 452

0 01 98 Road, VR-80

384

451

0 05 36

450

12 95 448

0 13 12 443

0 14 08

Drain

09 00 431/1

0 08 99 431/2

430/2

55 429

0 08 62

0 03 12 428/1

0 03

428/2

0 03 13 428/3

13 428/4

0 03

SCHEDULE

Tahsil: Malegaon District: Nasik State¹ Maharashtra Name of Village Survey/Gat

Hcctars

Area Arc Sq. Mts.

No.

0 24 94 1. Chondi

0 12 71 20/2

0 12 72 20/3

0 12

20/4

0 02 97 Drain

0 66 09 50 A

0 33 38 51/2

44 52

0 05

Drain

28 54

0 17

0 22

75/1

61 75/2/2

0 36 85 100

0 42 46

49 29 99/1

0 .

0 00 40 Cart. Track

0 12 93 427

426

0 00 51 425/1

0 15 22

0 15 22 425/2

0 41 60

02 88 416/1 \ 416/2 f Village Road-70 0

417

0 24 91 457

0 00 57

418

67 387

0 24 97 388

0 32 50 386

0 03 68

01 80 Road, ODR-24 0

36 389

0 00

380/1

18 00

0 08 43 380/2

0 07 01 379/]

0 07 00 379/2

99 378

0 12

09 12 377/1

0 09 12 Mill

102

09 654950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fiDl Name of Village Survey/Gat

Name of Village

Area

Survey/Gat No.

Hectare

Area Are Sq. Mts.

No.

Hectars Are Sq. Mts Drain

0 02

4. Ghodegaon— 89/5

2. Jalgaon

0 06 15 0 00

(contd.)

Road

0 00 60 3.Kalcwadi

0 12

43 0 07

69 A 1

35/1

12 0 07

35/2

69 A 2

12 24 0 06

69 A3

35/3

0 12 24

69 A 4

01 32

69 A 5

Road

0 12 24 0 08

78/2

0 18 90 0 33

78/3

18 90 0 00

0 24 48

Cart Track

0 00

Drain

0 02 31 Cart Track

Cart Track

0 00

76/1

0 12

76/2

186

76/3

12 62 0 32

79/1

183/1

0 15 13 0 09

202

182/1

5. Varhanc

0 16 76 0 09

182/2

0 34 66

6. Mchune

60 0

53/1A

182/3

53/IB

178/3

0 5 60

0 11 55 0 24

53/2

178/5

54/2

169

0 17 54 0 72

Road, VR-117 0

SukhiRrver

23 Road VR-69 0 02

55/1

4 Ghodegaon

08 50

55/3

25/1

0 28

56/1/1

20 25/3

0 05 0

04 20

56/1/2

32/2

32/4

30 47 0 12

20 51 0 12

32/5

13 0

Road

0 24 67

Road, SH-16 0

0 00 03

10 92

106/1/3

107/1

0 15

0 ^2

108

1) l>8

109

04 39

Drain

0 20 84

110

89/1

111/1

0 06

89/2

0 21 27

111/2

0 06

89/3

08 00

124/A/l

89/4

154951 Name of Village

Name of Village Sur\c>/Ci,'"

Sq Mis Survey/Gat No.

Hectare

\rc.i Arc' Hcctars

Area Arc Sq. Mts.

0 08

0 21 124/1A/2

7 Chandanpuri 1X5

6. Mchune—

216/1

(contd.)

Cart Track

0 15 40

215

186

0 05 214

Road MDR-23 0

0 00 88

213/1

0 00 16

183

212

0 12 21

180/2/2

0 14 22

210/2

01 08

Cart Track

0 17 48

210/1

176

209

20 06

178

0 06

208/1

0 01 20

179

0 15

208/2

175

0 17 00

0 05

208/3

173

0 13 44

0 10 65

203

172

0 22 08 204

0 13 39

171

205

0 16

11 37

151

206

158

Cart Track

02 35

0 18

156

188

0 13 48

0 01 15

Drain

Road, VR-14 8 0

150

0 32

0 03 78

188 Pt.

148

00 47

0 04

0 328

0 18

329

00 90

Cart Track

330

16 04

0 21

136/1

0 17

331

09 49

132

332

0 09 85

133

343

0 31 81

119/1

0 17 342

0 19 05

0 08 20

119/2

338

0 08 72

0 08 20

119/3

339

0 03

0 08 55

120/1

337

07 76

89/1

0 340

0 24 44

0 00 53

89/2

0 03

Drain

0 00 52

89/3

0 00

Cart Track

0 30 05 194

7. Chandanpuri

45 193

0 36 83

Cart Track

00 192

0 23 46

0 02

Drain

0 06

8 Yesgaon Budruk 124

73 191

0 00 41

131/1

0 03 37

19 I/A 1

0 18 19

131/2

191/2 J

132/1

0 10

188/1

0 10 08

132/2

188/3

10 30

133/1

0 30 37 2742O1/2001—134952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 IPART 11—SEL 3(ii)| Name of Village Survev/Gat

Area

Name of Village Survey/Gat

Area No

Are

Hectars

Sq. Mts

Hectars Are Sq. Mts

No.

19 26 8. Yesgaon 133/2

10. Savandgaon

106

0 15 18

109 A

06 Budruk

133/3

(contd.)

109B

00 (conld.)

Road. MDR-20 0

134

19 48

117

0 14 0

51 135

Drain

0 09

M6/1

142/1

13 50 0 09

142/2

12 136/2

19 00

142/3

136/3

143

50 136/4

14 0 09

147

136/5

09 51

246

64 136/6

17 0

06 66

57 72

245

Girna River

243

9. Maldhe

0 01 08

Drain

07 74

242/1, 242/2 242/3

1 J-0

241

109/A-l 1 109/A-2/1 J

0 00 59

Cart Track

108

"" 0 u

19 30

Drain

107

00 21

254

106/A

0 26 30

0 32 94

255

106/B

0 15 28

0 03 02

Drain

104

0 03 33

0 04 50

256

10. Savandgaon

259

05 04

10 50

43/1

260/1

0 10 50

43/2

260/2

0 14 48

43/3

260/3

20 70

264

0 02

Road VR-3

0 07 92

263

0 22 65

52A

32 40

262

0 02

26 0 02 34

11. Sayanc Budruk

44 00

239 240

238

0 04 02

197

0 28 26

196

0 20 66

04 06

Road, VR-102 0

0 10 30

01 38

Canal

0 01

33 82

195

0 01 34

194/1

10 0

10 40

0 10 31

194/3

0 10 08

188

0 05

189

Road

13 50

171/1

0 13 50

171/24953 Area Name or Village

Hectars Arc Sin -ey/Gat No

Zr\ Mis

SO 11 Sa\ anc 171/'!

0 05 50 Budruk

171/4

0 00 36 (conLd)

Drain

170

41 94

15 73 169/1

0 09 60 168/1

0 06 90 168/2

0 00 72 Drain

7] 158

01 ,

02 64 Drain

157

10 54

0 01 05 Drain

0 14 28 12 Malangaon 278/1

278/2

0 14 28

277

10 66

0 19 19 279

0 00 90 Cart Track

0 00 80 Canal

281

284

05 40 30 A/5

0 14 22

30 A/6

07 18

0 16 2X 297/1/1

0 16 28 297/1/2

01 94 Road VR-154 0

0 74 70 10A/1

02 f anal

18 72

0 06

101/1

07 00 101/2

0 07 00 101/"!

100

19 87

<)9

17 14

Canal

Road

36 52 9S

0 15

0 27 17 Name of Village

Area

Are Survey/Gat No

Hectars

Sq Mts 90/1

12 Malangaon

0 10 00

00 90/2

(contd )

90/3

0 10 00 90/4

0 03 00 90/5

0 07 00

26 90/6

0 04

0 31 32

30 96 85

02 16 Road, VR-220 0

434

0 03 15 13 ChikhalOhol

0 02 34 Canal

Stale Highway 19

0 05 76

00 433/1

0 12

0 12 00 433/2

0 18 94 433/3

0 01

Drain

524

0 12 40 523

0 12 96

88 435

0 11

436

00 438

0 12

1 1

88 471/1

471/2

469

19 36

467

0 50

t 0 01

Road VR-20S

465

463

0 03 81

07 53

464

0 14

483 A

483 B

0 14 78 484 A

0 10 00

484 B

0 06 72 485/1

486/1

97 486/2

00 72 Road, VR-207 0

54 401/1

0 04

0 04 53 401/2

9]/A

0 26 00 •>1/B

0 01 03 Drain

0 08 43 400/1

0 08 43 400/2

39 375

04954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24. 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(n)l Name of Village Survey/Gat

Area

Hectars

Sq Mts No

Are

374/1

08 10 13 ChikhalOhol

(Contd)

374/2

0 08

374/3

0 08

374/4

371/1/1/1

0 01

371/1/2

44 Road

0 01

372

0 33 93

0 19

371/1/2

0 08

14 Nalc

175/1A

00 I75/1B1

0 08

0 08 00 175/1B2

175/2

0 30 00 11/1

11/2

11/2/2

0 32

11/2/3

11/2/4

11/2/5

Road

0 28 88 12

0 18 81 n

28 16

15 12 26

20 27

0 05 62 29

0 11

94 35

0 18

16/1

36/2/2

18 00 36/2/1

01 10 Road VR-156 0

13 40/1

0 07

40/2

40 39/1

04 45

39/2

38 45 47

75 48/1

48/2

75 48/3

0 07

07 74 48/4

Name of Village Survey/Gat

Area

Hectars Are Sq Mts No

02 16

Road

219

02 52 15 Devarpade

0 46 27 218/1, 2 & all parts

0 21 " 198

0 14 00 197/1A

02 00

197/2

02 00

197/3

197/4

05 00

197/5

04 39

196

01 27

199

0 00

Drain

200

189/A1

30 68

189/A2

10 00

0 41

203

Drain

Kanoli River

186/1

186/2

186/3

28 16 187

03 43

184/4

06 20

184/1

12 40

184/2

40 184/3

04 50

184/3/1

04 50

184/3/2

183

18 60

0 00

182

18 49

174/1

18 50

174/2

35 06

175

176

04 18

168/1

09 00

04 88

168/2

168/3

0 09 00

169

07 02

166

165

75 42

1644955 Name of Village Survey/Gat

Area

Name of Village

Survey/Gat

Hectars

Area Are Sq Mts No.

No.

Hcctars Are Sq. Mts.

0 00

03 15. Devarpade Drain

16. Bhilkot

150/1

0 17 22 (Contcl.)

155

(Contd)

0 04

Dram

16 Bhilkot

0 07 00

152/1

0 19

45/1A-1

0 07 00

152/2

0 08

45/1B

152/3

0 15 0

Drain

152/4

0 01

Road

0 17

44/1

0 02 27

153/1

0 18

44/2

02 27

153/2

153/3

0 15

81A

17. Gugalwad

81B

19 0

0 07

0 22

0 13

0 00

299

00 81

0 06 93

300

0 05

303/1

0 07

0 31

303/3

0 08 99

0 •

0 13 05

302/1

0 18

0 13

302/2

92/1

0 17 10

308

0 08

92/2

07 Road

309/1

0 07

309/2

' 0 01

Road, VR-2"

12 60

292

123

0 19 04

283

Drain

0 03

Drain

0 00

Cart Track

118

282/1

119A

0 10 86

282/2B/2

0 08

119/B

0 06

282/2B/3

120

281

0 02 0 08 82

139

123 Pt

280

0 30 0

0 6'

Cart Track

279

0 03 • o

Drain

Road, MDR-17 0

0 15 54

128

0 07 30

184

0 01

138/2

0 12 26

185

135

134

0 19 63

19 15

238

133

34 22

0 20

239/1

02 22

Road, ODR- 29 04956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA24. 1923 IPVRTII—SEC 3(II)| Name of Village

Area Survey/Gal No.

Heclars Are Sq. Mts

19 219/2

0 20

17. Gugalwad

87 242

0 20

(Contd.)

0 07

243/1

243/2

243/3

0 04 80 245

232/1

27 232/2

0 16

98 203

204/2

205

207

50 40

32 Drain

46 ^8

18, Palasdare

00 51 Cart Track

0 12 20 36/1

0 30

36/2

Cart Track

0 03

92/1

92/1A

0 01

92/2

0 11

93/]

82 91/2

0 11 21 88/1

0 08

88/2

00 87/1

04 10

87/2/2

87/2/1

0 04

87/3/2

Name of Village

Area Survey/Gat No.

Are

Heclars

Sq Mis

0 00

18. Palasdare

47 Drain

103

74 (Contd )

76 Drain

Cart Track

00 44

17 72 104/1

104/2

10 00

29 105/2

106

0 33 12

Drain

00 65 74/3

0 07 56

56 74/2

0 07

00 79 Road

0 31

118

56 120

0 45 36

11 54 132/1

0 11 55 132/2

18 76 131/1

75 131/2

130

0 18

127

129

0 09 89 128/1

0 09 89 128/2

00 90 Cart Track

166

167

171/1

0 25 00 173/1 A/1

00 175/] A/2

0 25

173/1/B

24 91 713/1B/1

0 36 00

[File No. R-31015/10/2001-OR-II]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy4957 4958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 fPART II—SK- 3(n)| 4959 New Delhi, the 6th September, 2001

S.O. 2J65.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public |ntaf est that for the transport of petroleum products from the Pane%adi (Manmad) terminal in the State of MaharasHtra,**n extension pipeline to Manglya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by the Bha,rat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central (fovernmeni that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user of land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUscr in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rights of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within, twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prahalad V. Kachare, Competent Authority, Mumbai Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 1st Floor, Scva Complex, Opp, Gurudwara, Mumbai-Agra Road, Dhulc-424 001 (Maharashtra).

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Shindkheda District: Dhule State: Maharashtra

Name of Village Gat/Survey Nos.

Hectars

Area Are Sq. Mts.

(5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

59 57

Panzara River 0

1. Betavad

00 63

Cart Track

0 09 17

688

689

0 12

722

0 01

0 24 73-

868/1 \

868/2 f

Drain

* 0 00 35

707

0 16

721

0 00

07 93

718

708

0 13 31

709

0 05 85

710

0 11

711

0 22 63 2742OI/2001—144960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(n)l Name of Village

Area Are

Hectars

Sq Mts Gat/Survey No

(2)

(4) (5) (1)

1 Beia\ad— (Conld)

0 20 74 704/1 1 704/2 f 624

23 47

2 Padhaxad

0 13 04 53

0 13 67 58

0 39 75

0 01 35 59/1 | 59/2 f

0 12 07 76

0 12 10

54 74/1 1_ 74/2 f

0 05 78 73

0 12 60 72

0 10 89 71

0 09 23 70

0 05 72 69

Road, VR-75 0 01 85

39 15

\ 0 >

177/1A 177/2A 177/1B 177/2/1/B 177/1B/1/2 177/B/2/2 177/2/1 Ml 1212

178/1 178/2

179

0 06 84 Road, MDR- 36 0 02 54 243

3 Pashtc

0 04 79 242/1 \

0 27 32 242/2 f

Canal

0 00 41 240

0 00 09

0 42 49 239/1/1 ^ 239/1/2 L 239/2 J

238

0 02 30 237

0 01 50 230

0 20 28 232

10 Name of Village

Hectars

Area Are Sq Mts Gat/Survey No

(4) (5)

(1)

(2)

3 Pashte— 231

71 233

81 (Contd)

111

0 06 61 112

15 114/1 \ 114/2 J

0 05 96 113/A 1 113/B J

0 16 74 117/1 \ 117/2 f

118/1

0 70 45 Cart Track 0 00 72

07 80 561

0 37 01 568/1 1 568/2 J

0 02 73 68/1 } 68/2A L 68/2B J

0 15 60 70

0 01 26 71

0 12 98

29 20

73/1/1 \ 73/1/2 73/1/3 S 73/1/4 f 73/2 J

0 17 20 63

Cart Track

0 00 71 4 Mudavad 241

0 15 20

31 11 242/B2 > 242/4 242/3 242/B1 242/2 J

33 33 243/1 Al ' 243/1A2 243/1B 243/2

0 13 50 237

51 75 235/1 235/2 235/3 235/4 235/5

14 70 234/1 234/2 y •4961 Name of Village

Name of Village

Hectars

Area Are Sq. Mts.

Gat/Survey No.

Gat/Survey Area No. Hectars Arc Sq. Mts.

(2)

(5) (3)

(3) (4)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

0 24

6. Malsar

233

4. Mudavad—

(Contd)

232

0 31

276

41 28

0 05

278

42/1 1 42/2 f

Drain

0 00

0 15

06 0 43

297

Road MDR-36 0

70 0 03

296

118

298

0 03

0 12

119/1A

00 72

Drain

299

34 0

0 00

Cart Track

0 37 03

119/1B

300

10 27

0 21

302

126/1 \ 126/2 J

312

0 13

0 25 0

311

15 22

122/1 \_ 122/2 f

Drain

0 03

0 35 25

126/3 1 126/4 )

0 23

648/1 1 648/2 J

163/1 1 163/2 J"

0 00 M->

Cart Track

0 18 01

0 12 08 653/1A \ 653/1B 653/2A k 653/2B [ 653/3 J

206/1A ^ 206/IB L, 206/1C J

Road VR-74

00 61

0 36

166/1

0 01 46

Drain

0 21 60

0 64

203/1 ] 203/2 f

653/1A \ 653/1B 653/2A S 653/2B f 653/3 J

200

654

43 20

201

0 01 23

Road, VR-189 0 00

Cart Track

02 23

0 11

5. Vadhodc

Road VR-55

0 18 00

0 39 13 25

0 00

199/1 \ 199/2 199/3 \ 199/4 [ 199/5 J

0 20 68

0 00

Drain

6"" 0 11 46

22/1 1 22/2 J*

0 24

198/1 ) 198/2 }~

0 08

[File No. R-31015/16/2001-OR-I11 0

Cart Track

00 54

HAR1SH KUMAR, Under Scc>4962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(II)] ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-l 1012/51/91-IR (B-3), dated, the 13/19-11-91

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Eastern Railway, in imposing the following punishment on the workman Shn K K Dutta was justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

(I) Reduction to minimum stage in the pay scale for 3 years with commulativc effect (u) Period from the date of removal to the date of MINISTRY LABOUR

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001 S.O. 2366.—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 No 2 Dhanbad as shown m the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2001

[No L-41012/51/91-IR (B-3)/(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B Biswas, Presiding Officer

In^he master of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( l H d ) o f t h el D Act, 1947

Reference No 157 of 1991

PARTIES Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway and their workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf %f the workman Shn D Mukherjee, Advocte

On behaltof the employers Shn S N Dutta, Advo- cate

State Jharkhand

Industry Railway Oated, Dhanbad, the 25th July, 2001 reinstatement I e 2-6-89 to be treated as L W P 2 The facts of the case as disclosed in the W S of the workman in brief is as follows —

It has been submitted by the concerned workman that he was served with a Major Penalty Memorandum SF-5videNo DSL/E/137/KKDdt 2-5-86 under Rule 9 of RS(D & A) Rules, 1968 and accordingly D & A proceedings was initiated against him but the charges levelled against him could not be sustained rather it was established that the basis of which the statement of imputation of misbehaviour/misconduct alleged against him and the article of charges were quite contradictory to each other As a result, the disciplinary authority without applying his own mind awarded the order of pumshment m contravention to Rly Board's letter No as under —The workman submitted that after exhausting all the administrative channels he filed a case before the CAT Patna Bench, Patna and according by a judgement was delivered by the Hon'ble CAT vide Registration No OA/275 of 1987 dt 6-4-89 and while abiding by the verdict of the CAT the charged employee submitted his appeal dt 11-11-89 to the appellate authonity with the request of personal hearing associating with his defence counsel After giving patience hearing the Appellate authority reinstated him vide Order dt 2-6*90 subject to the condition —

(a) His pumshment reduced to reduction to mini- mum stage of his scale when removed from ser- vice for three (3) years with cumulative effect (b) The period from the date of removal to the date he reported for duty should be treated as LWP

AWARD

The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d)ofthel D Act, 1947 has referred the follow- The concerned workman submitted that thereafter he submitted a review petition with a prayer for review the order in question But his petition was considered and rejected Finding no other alternative way the concerned workman by way of reference raised the present indus- trial dispute with a prayer for passing an Award for quash- ing the order of punishment keeping in view of the pro- cedural lapses in dealing with RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 496^

the workman Shri K..K Dutta was justified ? If nol, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

since the order of punishment has been issued in contravention of the Railway Board's letters noted be- low :—

(i) Reduction to minimum stage in the pay scale (i) CPO/E Roy, Calcutta letter No. E.308/O/Vol,

for 3 years with cumulative effect.

III dt. 25-6-86.

(ii) Rly. Bd's letter No. E(D&A) 70RG6-14

dt. 20-4-71.

(ii) Period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement i.e 2-6-89 to be treated as L.W.P."

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

(iii) Rly. Bd's letter No F(E)/57/FR-l/l

dt. 22-1-60.

(iv) CPO/E Rly, Calcutta's letter No. E, 308/O/Vol

XI dt. 29-6-87 (CPO SI. No. 140/87).

(v) Rly. Bd's letter No. E(D&A) 70 RG6/58

dt. 18-11-70.

(vi) Rly. Bd's letter No. E(D&A)/70RG6-l

dt. 02-6-70.

(vii) CPO/E Rly. Calcutta's letter No. E. 308/O/Vol.

XIII dt. 7-6-89.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W. S.

has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been sub- mitted by the management that at any rate in view of the decision of the Appellate Authority for reducing of the penally of the workman in appeal as per direction of the CAT the present application is not tenable. The manage- ment submitted that the Appellate Authority have sustantially reduced the punishment by their order dt. 28-11-89 on consideration of the appeal of the work- man. They further submitted the major penalty Memo- randum was issued to the appellant as laid down under rule 9 of D&A Rule, 1968 and thereby as per rule the necessary proceeding was initiated against the workman. The allegation made to the extent that the charges were unsupported and absolutely misconceived, misleading in view of the facts that the charges framed were supported by the fitter under the workman as well as FIC concerned. The management denied the fact that departmental authority did not apply the mind before imposing any penalty finding the concerned workman guilty, However, the management admitted that as per directive of the CAT vide order dt.6-4-89/12-4-89 in a case No. CA/275/87 the applicant submited his appeal dt. 28-4-89 to the Ap- pellate Authority and to the said appeal they in consider- ation of the directive of the CAT reduced punishment in- flirted on the workman. The management alleged that the application filed by the concerned workman is absolutely misconceived and misleading and made for the purpose of making unjust enrichment and illegal gain and for which the same is liable to be rejected.

4. The points for decision in this reference arc:—

5. The management in order to substantiate their claim examined two witnesses while the concerned workman examined himself as witness in order to establish his own claim. Considering the evidence of the concerned workman and the management there is no dispute to hold that by order No. DSL/E/137/KKD dt. 4-1-87 the concerned workman was removed from his service as disciplinary measure with effect from 15-1-87. Against the said order of removal the concerned workman preferred an appeal before the CAT Patna Learned Members of the said CAT after hearing the appeal quashed the order of removal passed by the management and the case was remanded back to the appellate authority for passing fresh order relying on the observation made in the body of the judgement. Thereafter the appellate authority of the management reviewed the previous order in view of the direction given by the CAT and passed another order Bearing No. DSL/ E/137/KKD dt. 2-6-89. The said order in course of evidence was is marked as Ext. M-3. By the said order the concerned workman though was found guilty was directed to be reinstated with immediate effect from 2-6-89 subject to the condition that his punishment reduced to reduction of minimum stage in his scale when removed from service for 3 years with cumulative effect and the period from the date of removal to the date he reported for duty should be treated for LWP. Against the said order the concerned workman made further appeal before the appropriate authority but his appeal was rejected vide No. DSL/E/137/KKD dt. 4-8-90 The said order during evidence was marked as Ext. M-6. The management also by letter No. DSL/E/137/KKD dt.5-4- 90 (marked as Ext, M-5) also communicated the concerned workman to the effect that there was no further scope of reduction in punishment. Accordingly the punishment should stand. It is the specific allegation of the concerned workman that no proper enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which he was found guilty and served with punishment. He submitted that without committing any offence he became victimised. Considering the records there is no dispute to hold that on the basis of enquiry report the concerned workman initially was removed from service. Against that order he preferred an appeal before the CAT Patna and the said order of removal was duly quashed by the CAT and the case was remanded back for fresh hearing. It is the "Whether the action of the management of Eastern Railway, in imposing the following punishment on4964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J the Court. No. explanation also could be given by the learned Advocate why the disciplinary authority in compliance to the specific direction of the CAT did not consider necessary to pass reasoned order. At the time of heanng I have also failed to peruse the relevant papers relating to the enquiry in question and also relating to further hearing of appeal. Unless and until the charge which was brought against the concerned workman is established and also until and unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry held by the concerned Enquiry Officer was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice there is little scope to uphold the order of punishment inflicted upon the concerned workman. I find no hesitation to say that the disciplinary authority though inflicted punishment upon the concencd workman did not consider necessary to justify the same at the time of hearing of the reference. As such under the circumstances I should say that the punishment inflicted upon the concerned workman was not only illegal and arbitrary but also it has violated the principles of natural justice and for which the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the result, the following Award is rendered:—

"The action of the management of Eastern Railway, in imposing the following punishment on the workman Shri K. K. Dutta was not justified. Consequently, the concmed workman is entitled to the following relief:

(i) The management is directed not to make any reduction to minimum stage in the pay scale for 3 years with cumulative effect.

(ii) The management is further directed not to treat the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement i.e., 2-6-89 asL.WP."

The management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India.

B, BISWAS, Presiding Officer contention of the concerned workman that though he preferred an appeal before the appropriate authority no such hearing was done by the appellate authority in his person and he could not get any opportunity to make his submission. He was also not served with all papers before he was punished for the second time by the disciplinary authority. It is with utter surprise I noticed that the management in course of hearing has failed to produce a single scrap of paper relating to the departmental enquiry held against the concerned workman by the E O. Even the management did not consider necessary to produce the chargeshect which was given to the concerned workman. The concerned workman has specifically challenged the legality and validity and propriety of the enquiry in question. He submitted that Chargesheet given to him was based on false allegations. Therefore, onus lies absolutely on the management to establish to the effect that no chargesheet was given falsely to the workman and the enquiry was held maintaining all propriety and legality and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble CAT Patna in the judgement clearly observed that the order of removal was quashed as it vas not at all a reasoned, order, and quashing the order it was directed that the appellate authority should furnish copy of the enquiry report and the statement of witnesses recorded by the E.O within one month from the date of receipt of the order after which the applicant will filed a supplementary Memorandum of appeal within 15 days The appellate authority should give a personal hearing to the applicant and dispose of the appeal after giving detailed reasons meeting all points rcaised in the supplementary mamorandum as well as the appeal petition No evidence is forthcoming before this Court on the part of the management that hearing of the appeal by the disciplinary authority was taken up complying with the strict directions of the CAT There was scope on the part of the management to produce all relevant papers in support of their claim but they did not consider necessary to do so The management in course of hearing examined two witnesses but they also did not disclose anything to this effect in support of the management No reasoned order is also forthcoming before the Court in the matter of finding the concerned workman was found guilty. The letter marked as Ext M-3 does not clearly speak if full opportunity was given to the concerned workman at the time of hearing It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that without giving any opportunity to hearing and also without passing any reasoned order in view of the directions of the CAT the disciplinary authority has further inflicted punishment on him illegally and arbitrarily and for which it has violated the principles of natural justice Learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing has failed to give any satisfactory explanation for non-production of relevant papers before4965 New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001

S.O. 2367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Railway Electrification, Kota and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2001

[No. L-41012/67/87/D (2) B/TR (B-l)J

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer "Whether the action of Executive Engineer-II, RE, Kota is justified in terminating the services of Shri Dutia S/o Sh. Laxmidhar, Casual Khalasi under PWI/RE/ KOTA w.e.f. 20-2-85 (A.N.)? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Later on the proceedings in the above case were withdrawn by the Central Government and transferred to this Tribunal vide order No. L-41012/67/87/IR (B-I) dt. 28-8-2000.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

CASE NO. CGIT 67/2000

REFERENCE NO. L-41012/67/87/D(2)B

Dated: 20/3/1989

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karamchari Parishad

Kota

APPLICANT UNION 1. The Executive Enginccr-II

Railway Electrification,

Kota.

2. The Chief Project Manager

Railway Elcctrificatioin,

Kota.

. ...NON-APPLICANT ATTENDENCE

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was engaged by the non-applicant No. 1 i.e , Railway Electrification, Kota on 22-11-82 and granted scale rate from 22-5-83. On 21-10-84 he was not taken on duty. Later on he was implicated in some false and fabricated case by the non-applicant for alleged misbehaviour and misconduct resulting into his illegal termination vide order dt. 20-2-85. He had served the non-applicant for more than 240 days in the year pre- ceding to the date of termination of his services. However no pay in lieu of notice or retrench- ment compensation as required under 25(F) of the Act, 1947 was paid to him, He had served the non-applicant for more than 360 days and was entitled for grant of temporary status. However, no charge sheet for alleged misconduct was issued to him and thus no enquiry was conducted against him under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred as Rules 1968). It was prayed that he be reinstated in service with continuity in service, back wages and all other benefits.

For the applicant: Shri A.D. Grower. Advocate

For the non-applicant; Shri Shyam Gupta Advocate

Date of Award: 4-7-2001

The non-applicant in reply stated that the appli- cant was engaged on 22-12-82 and he was granted scale on 1 -7-83. It was denied that the applicant was not taken on duty on 21-10-84. It was stated that the applicant had worked from 22-12-82 to 20-2-85 in various spells of period for which he was paid, It was denied that the applicant was implicated in false and fabricated cases and his services was illegally terminated. It was stated that the applicant was removed from establishment by the competent authority for proved charges of serious misconduct in compliance with the Rules laid down by the Railway administration dt, 5-8-82. It was also stated that removal of the applicant doesn't fall under the defi- nition of retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of sec- tion 25(F) of Act, 1947 are not applicable. It was de- nied that the applicant had worked for more than 360 days as continuous service,

AWARD

The following industrial dispute was referred by the Central Government vide order No. L-41012/67/87/D- 2(B) dt: 20-3-1989 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal New Delhi for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1947) for adjudication.

The applicant filed rejoinder to reply reiterating the facts mentioned in the claim. On behalf of the non- applicants affidavit of S.K.Asthana and S.C. Srivastava were filed. The learned representative of the applicant was given opportunity to cross examine them on their affidavits. In the form of documentary Evidence copy of the statement showing service details of the applicant marked M-I copy of instructions regarding retrenchment4966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24. 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)l marked M-2 copy of order of removal from service marked M-3 copy of proceedings regarding show-cause notice marked M-3 (ii) copy of the order regarding re- fusal for reference marked M-4 and copy of the show- causc notice marked M-5 were filed.

On behalf of the applicant the applicant filed his own affidavit. The learned representative of the non-ap- plicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit.

Heard arguments of the learned representative of the applicant and the advocate for the non-applicant and perused the record. It is not disputed that the applicant had worked in establishment of the non-applicant as ca- sual khalasi from 22-12-82 to 20-2-85. The statement showing the service details of the applicant marked M-l shows that the applicant had worked in the establishment of the non-applicant for more than 240 days in the year preceding to the date of termination. It is not disputed that no prior notice of one month was given by the non- applicant for terminating the service of the applicant. The order of removal of the services of the applicant dt. 20-2-85 marked M-3 doesn't show that pay-in-liew of notice and compensation as required by the section 25(F) of the Act, 1947 was offered to him at the time of terminating of his services. All that the order states that the applicant should present himself in cashier office (RE.) Kota for receiv- ing payments which will be arranged within 48 hours. No details of the amount were given in the order. The offer to collect dues within 48 hours doesn't fulfil the require- ments of section 25(F) of the Act, 1947.

The learned counsel for the non-applicant has con- tended that the applicant was removed from service on account of proved misconduct and, therefore, termina- tion of his service docs not fall under retrenchment. It is admitted by S C. Srivastava, Assistant Superintendent examined on behalf of the non-applicant that no charge sheet was issued to the applicant and, therefore, no en- quiry was conducted against the applicant under the Rules 1968. The learned counsel for the non-applicant has con- tended that the applicant had not completed 360 days of continuous service for grant of temporary status On the other hand the learned representative of the applicant has contended that the applicant had completed 360 days of service and 30 days break in service (including 3 day's unauthorized absence) has to be ignored as break in ser- vice for the purpose of determining 360 days of continu- ous service. The statement marked M-l shows that the applicant had worked for more than 360 days from 22-12-82 to 20-2-85 and his break in service during the above period doesn't exceed 30 days. The applicant thus acquired temporary, status for having worked continuously for more than 360 days and as per Rule, 2005 of the In- dian Railway Establishment Manual he acquired the rights and benefits admissible to temprorary railway servants including the benefit of Rules, 1968. The applicant's services couldn't, therefore, be terminated without mak- ing any enquiry under the Rules, 1968 for the charge of misconduct. It is thus proved that the applicant services were terminated without making any enquiry under the Rules, 1968.

Thus the services of the applicant were terminated in violation of the section 25(F) of the Act, 1947 and in the alternative against the principle of natural justice and, therefore, the termination of the services of the applicant is held to be illegal and unjustified. The applicant has not stated in the claim or in his statement that he has re- mained unemployed since the date of termination. In view of these circumstances the applicant will not be entitled to back-wages. He will be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service.

The copies of the Award may be sent to the Central Government under section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd/-

Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001 S.O. 2368.—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/Labout Court, Lucknow as shown in the Anncxure 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 20-8-2001.

[No L-41012/171/98-IR(B-])l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer4967

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESIDING OFFICER : RUDRESH KUMAR

ADJUDICATION I.D.No. 134/2000 Ref. No. L-41012/171/98-IR(B-I) 7-5-99 BETWEEN

Mata Prasad, S/o Ram Garib, Vill. & P.O. :Panhauna, Rae Bareli (U.P.)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow

3. The management on the other hand, has denied engagement or appointment of the workman by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway or any officer representing the railway establishment. It is further stated that the workman was kept as Chowkidar by the Managing Committee of the Institute at Charbagh, Lucknow. The workman did not implead Honorary Secretary, Railway Institute at Charbagh, Lucknow as party in this claim. It is admitted that Institute building was provided by the Railway to Managing Committee for being used and grant in aid was also given, but in no way the management of the Institute was under the railway establishment or its employees were paid by the railway.

4. The Honorary Managing Committee handed over this building to Railway Protection Force in the year 1992 for residential purposes, and the Institute ceased to function. As a result, the workman went out of employment.

AWARD

By reference No. L-41012/171/98-IR(B-I) dated 7-5-99, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) of section 10 of the ID, Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Mata Prasad S/o Ram Garib, Rae Bareli and Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow for adjudication to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur but later transfer to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow,

The reference is produced as under :

"Whether The Action of the Management of Northern Railway in Terminating the Services of Shri Mata Prasad was legal and Valid ? If not what Relief workman is entitled to ?"

2. It is alleged that the workman, Mata Prasad, was appointed by the Railway management, w.e.f. 30-12-82, on the post of Chowkidar; that he was assigned duties in the Northern Railway Institute, Charbagh, Lucknow; that he was performing 12 hours shift duties to look after properties of Northern Railway management; that he had been availing facilities of free pass, medical, bonus, uniform and leaves as railway rules given to all railway employees; and that he was also provided railway accommodation. The workman further alleges that despite continuous service from 30-12-82 to July 1994 in which he completed more than 240 days in each calandar years, his services were terminated abruptly in August 1994 without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Relief of reinstatement with back wages is sought by the workman.

2742GI/2001—15

5. The management has disowned liability of the workman to absorb him in its services pleading that he was never engaged by the railway establishment and so can not claim right of employment. It is further pleaded that 2(oo) or section 25(F) of the I.D. Act, is not applicable in this case.

6. In the claim-statement, an illustration of Prabu Das has been given in whose favour CGIT, Kanpur made ' an award, treating him as railway employee. The management filed writ petition against the award before the High Court, By order dated 4-5-98, the High Court stayed operation of the award dated 28-12-97. The management has further stated that the High Court rejected application of Prabu Das under section 17-B I D. Act, treating non-existence of relation of master and servant.

7. Parties adduced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims and counter claims.

8. Factum of engagement of the workman as Chowkidar by the Secretary of the Institute, and his continuous service as such are not disputed. The only question remains, whether the Chowkidar of Railway Institute may be taken to be a railway employee, casting liability of employment over the railway,

9. In All India Railway Institute Employees Association through the General Secretary Vs Union of India through the Chairman Railway Board, the Hon'blc Supreme Court in Civil Write Petition No 1389/87 held as follow. :

"On the faces placed before us which we have discussed above, we are also not persuaded to hold that there is relationship of employer-employee between the railway administration and the employees engaged in the institute and clubs. Neither law nor facts spell out such relationship. If^968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2ool/BHADRA 24, 1923 {PART II—SBC. 3(n)J the present sendee conditions of these employees .i. • unsatisfactory, the remedy lies elsewhere." 10. All the points raised in this claim statement were dealt with, in the saidjudgement of the Apex Court. After analysing facts, rules regulations the Hon'ble court held that the watchman and other categories of employees directly engaged in the institute and clubs, can not be treated as railway employees. The workman failed to show that the above said decision has been dissented or overruled. Accordingly, this Tribunal is bound to follow law laid down by the Apex Court.

11 The workman admittedly was engaged by the managing committee. No doubt he was given certain facilities like pass and medical facilities etc. but grant of such facilities would not entitle him to claim status of railway employee As observed earlier, the Apex Court had already deliberated on the issue and held in categorical terms that employees of the Institute arc not railway employee Hence, there arise no question of termination of services by the railway management and he (workman) is not entitled to any relief,

12 Award as above.

Lucknow 14-8-?()0J

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 S.O. 2369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of th* Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of \%7), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in Ihe Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Jet Air Ltd and their workman, which was received by the Central Go\crnmcnt on 16-8-2001

[No. L-11012/149/2000-lR(C-I)] N P KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT kOLKATA

Reference No. 44 of 2000

Parties Employers in the relation to the management of M/s. Jet Air Limited.

AND

Their workman

PRESENT•

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

t)n behalf of . Mr. D. Chatterjee4 Senior Executive Management Personnel & Administration.

On behalf of • None. Workmen

State • West Bengal. Industry: Airlines.

AWARD

By order No L-11012/149/2000 (C-I) dated 18th October, 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 M/s. Jet Air Limited, Calcutta in terminating the services of Shri Sckhar Sarkar w.ef. 16-6-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

2 When the case is called out today, none appears for the workman and no step is taken on his behalf to proceed with the case. Representative of the management slates that since the workman has not taken any step in the matter, the management has nothing to say a "No Dispute" Award may be passed. It appears from record that in spite of several opportunities the workman did not file his statement of claims. It is accordingly clear that tiic workman has no interest left in the matter.

3. In such circumstance, in the absence of any material what-so-ever for any decision in respect of the schedule under reference, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose of the matter by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

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

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer4969

AWARD

The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, in excrnsc of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following disputt to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/12/91-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the Nil,

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 20st August, 2001 S.O. 2370.—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 (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-20012/12/91-IR(C-I)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of Ara Colliery of CCL, P.O. Kuju, Dist iia^aribagh by retiring from service of Shri Larku Mahto, Cat III Pump Khalasi w.e. f. 6-2-1990 is justified ? Tf nut, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?" 2. The case of the concerned workman in brief ab per W.S. is as follows ;—

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Prcsciding Officer

In the mailer of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d)oftheI.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 118 OF 1991

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Ara Colliery of M/s CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES .

On behalf of Sh. C. Prasad, Advocate the workman

On behalf of • B. Joshi, Advocate, the employers

State Jharkhand

The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that the action oflhe management for superannuating him on 6-2-90 was illegal and unjustified. He submitted that the management has acted against the provision of the Certified Standing Order of the company and also has made serious discrimination in the matter of making correction of his date of birth in spile of giving due notice. The concerned workman submitted that his date of birlli in service record was wrongly recorded by the management and in violation ofthe provision of Ccrlilioi Standing Order. He submitted that his date of birth in -nu record of the C M.P.F. authorities was recorded -i-_ 6-2-40 and accordingly his superannuation at the age of 60 years will be on 6-2-2000. Bui the management illegally and arbilraily superannuated him from the service on 6-2-90. Inspitc of getting scope to correct his date of birth in the service record relying on the records of the C.M.P.F Accordingly the concerned workman has prayed for passing an Award for his reinstatement in the service with full back wages and olher benefits.

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st July, 2001 3. The management on the contrary after filing \\ S cum-rcjoindcr have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W S The management submitted in the W.S. that the concerned workman was previously employed as Pump Khalasi at Ara Colliery The said colliery was previously under private sector owned by a private owner. It's management was taken over by the Central Govt in view of the order issued by the President of India with effect from 3 1 - ' - /" and it was subsequently nationalised with effect from 1 -5-73 The management submitted that they follow the norms in the matter of maintenance of service book of each worker under them The service book of LUCII employee was opened after nationalisation of the collieries and the date of birth of the concerned woiK ruin was4970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] recorded in the service book and also in the Form B register according to the data supplied by them. In the year 1987 as per decision of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industries the service excerpt was given to the concerned workman in duplicate containing his personal particulars/bio-data including his date of birth and he was required to return one copy thereof to the management with objection in the event of any entries therein not being correct. The concerned workman after receiving the service excerpt handed over the duplicate copy to the management without raising any objection relating to his date of birth as 6-2-30 recorded in the service book and Form B Register. Accordingly before the date of superannuation notice was duly given to the concerned workman informing the date of his superannuation and thereafter he was superannuated from his service with effect from 6-2-90. The concerned workman after the date of superannuation has raised this dispute which docs not appear to have any basis. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award to reject the claim of the concerned workman.

4. The points for consideration in this reference

rt-i \s ,

"Whether the action of the management of Ara Colliery of CCL P.O. Kuju, Dist. Hazaribagh by retiring from service of Sri Larku Mahto, Cat. Ill Pump Khalasi w.e.f. 6-2-1990 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

5. DECISIONS WITH REASONS

information given by the concerned workman. Date of birth and other particulars were also recorded in the Form B Register as per provision of the Standing Order, Thereafter in the year 1987 the management in view of the decisions of the JBCCI issued service excespt in duplicate to the concerned workman wherein his date of birth was recorded as 6-2-1930, After consulting the service excerpt the concerned workman retuAied back the duplicate and at that time he did not raise any objection. A copy of the service excerpt during evidence was marked as Ext. M-l and the I D. card issued in favour of the concerned workman was marked as Ext. M-2, from the service excerpt and copy of the I.D. Card it exposed clearly that the date of birth of the concerned workman was 6-2- 1930. It is the specific allegation of the concerned workman that date of birth was wrongly recorded but in support of his claim he has failed to file a single scrap of paper. Even the concerned workman in course of hearing and also in the W.S. filed by him did not raise any objection relating to the receipt of the service excerpt issued by the management in the year 1987 as per JBCCI decision. It is seen that after the date of his superannuation he raised this dispute. There was scope on the part of the concerned workman to agitate this issue following the provision of the Standing Order immediate on receipt of the service excerpt but he did not consider to do so. The concerned workman during cross-exmination admitted categorically that the date of birth recorded in the service book by the management was according to the particulars furnished by him. When this admission on the part of the concerned workman is forthcoming before the Tribunal, there is little scope to ignore the same, unless and untill the concerned workman is able to produce authentic document to show that the date of birth recorded in the service recorded by the management as 6-2-30, was wrong. The concerned workman also has failed to assign any reason why after the date of his superannuation he raised this dispute. After careful consideration of facts and circumstances, there is reason to believe that the concerned workman has raised this dispute only to get benefit of his service illegally and arbitrarily. I have failed to find out an iota of evidence relying on which there is scope to draw any conclusion that the management superannuated the concerned workman on 6-2-90 illegally and arbitrarily and without following the principles of natural justice and accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered ;—

"The action of the management of Ara Colliery of CCL P.O. Kuju, Dist, Hazaribagh by retiring from service of Sri Larku Mahto, Cat. Ill Pump Khalasi w.e.f. 6-2-1990 is justified. Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

The workman in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as witness in the instant case while the management adduced two witnesses in order to substantiate their own claim. From the evidence of the concerned workman it transpires that he was superannuated from his service in the year 1990. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute relating to his superannuation on the ground that the management superannuated him prematurely by 10 years. During cross-examination the concerned workman has failed to disclose his exact date of birth. He also admitted that for the first time he raised the dispute relating to his age. He also admitted the fact that he was superannuated from service ac per entry relating to the particulars of his date of birth etc. furnished by him. It is the specific claim of Ihe management that previously Ara Colliery was under the management of private owner and after nationalisation in the year 1973 the service book of the concerned workman was opened along with others and particulars in the service book relating to the personal credential of the person concerned were recorded according to the

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer4971 SCHEDULE

"Whether the workman is justified in claiming that he was illegally terminated by the management of Ara Colliery of M/s. C C L. on the basis of wrong entry of date of birth in service records ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman as per W. S in

brief is as follows :—

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.O. 2371.—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, (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001,

[No. L-20012/51/95-IR (C-I)]

N. P, KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

SHRIB. Biswas,

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an industrial dispute under section

The concerned workman submitted that he was appointed by the management of Ara Colliery in the year 1976 as Mining Sirdar and at the time of his appointment he filed original sirdarship certificate to the management wherein the date of birth was recorded as 21-8-36. The said Sirdarship certificate was issued to the concerned workman by the D.G.M. S. in the year 1968. He submitted that in all statutory records date of birth was mentioned as 21-8-86 and his accordingly his superannuation was due on 21-8-96. The management ignoring his date of birth recorded in the Sirdarship certificate issued a notice of superannuation to him on completion of 60 years on 2-4-94. On receipt of the letter of superannuation be raised his voice for illegal and wrongful superannuation but to no avail and as a result he submitted petition before the ALC(C) Hazaribagh for settlement of the dispute but that too yielded no result. By this time he was retired illegally, arbitrarily and wrongfully prior to his actual date of retirement Accordingly the concerned workman raised industrial dispute by making this reference. The concerned workman has prayed for passing an award holding to the effect that the superannuation was not only illegal, wrongful but motivated and he is entitled to get salary with other consequential benefits till the date of his actual superannuation i.e. 21-8-96. 10(l)(d)ofthcI.D Act, 1947.

Reference No. 45 of 1996

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Ara Colliery of M/s. CCL and Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

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

On behalf of the employers: Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

State : Iharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th July, 2001

AWARD

3. The managefflenXor^the contrary after filing W.S. - cum-rejoindcr have denied aH cTafrns-afld allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W S. It has been submitted by the management that the workman has no nghl to claim to the effect that he was illegally terminated from his service if he was superannuated on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service records of the company. The management submitted further that the case of the concerned workman was not a case of termination rather he was superannuated after completing the age of 60 years Referring this fact the management further submitted that an industrial dispute by an employee can be raised under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act, 1947 over the issue of dismissal, termination or retrenchment and in no other cases an individual dispute can be converted into an industrial dispute Accordingly the management submitted that the present reference for an individual dispute is liable to be summarily rejected on preliminary issue. The management submitted further thai the date of birth of the concerned workman was entered in The government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/51/95-I.R. (Coal-I) dated, the 19th March, 1996.

4972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fim

the service sheet and recorded as 2-4-34. The date of birth recorded in the Form B Register was also recorded as 2-4-34 and the same date of birth was recorded in the C.M.P.F. record maintained by the C.M.P.F, and in the service excerpt issued to the concerned workman as per JBCCI circular. Disclosing all the facts the management further submitted that there was no variation in the date of birth entered in different registers of the company and as such no question arose for correction of his date of birth by sei ing him to the Apex Medical Board. Moreover, the concei "d workman did not raise any dispute recording his age in t " service sheet, in the service excerpt and in the CMPF during the entire period of his service. He only raised the present dispute after his superannuation challenging the date of his superannuation The management submitted that as per provision of Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946, the Model Standing Order or the Certified Standing Order is absolutely clear that the date of birth recorded in tf$ service record of the company is the sole evidence for deciding the retirement of concerned workman. Several circulars were also issued by the management and by JBCCI setting out th£ guidelines for review of the date of birth correction of the date of birth in the service record with the help of medical board in case of any dispute. Inspite of getting opportunitiQg the concerned workman did not raise any dispute for correction of his date of birth from the date of his appointment, till the date of his retirement and even after his retirement he did not raise any dispute. His only claim is that his retirement was illegal to the effect that date of birth recorded in the service records was not correct. Accordingly the management disclosed that delay in raising the dispute not only defeated the remedy but also extinguished his right and for which at this juncture he is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, Ihe management has prayed for passing an Award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

4. The points for consideration in this reference

are;— ___.-----'"

"Whether ifig workman is justified in claiming that he was illegally terminated by the management of Ara Colliery of M/s CCL on the basis of wrong entry of date of birth in service records ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

certificate on proper receipt and the receipt during his evidence was marked as Ext, W'3. Learned Advocate for the management on the contrary raising strong objection against the document submitted that the document does not justify if it was actually deposited to the management in connection with his service. From this document I also do not find any official stamp relying on which it can be said that the same was duly received by the management, As such genuinity of this document relating to the deposit of the certificates has come to a question, However, it is clear considering his evidence that th.p concerned workman did not submit the relevant certificate at the time of his appointment in the year 1976. It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that his date of birth, warding to the Mining Sirdar certificate was 21-8-36 and naturally his date of superannuation was I \ -8-96. Relying on the Mining Sirdar certificate marked as Ex.1 W-l the concerned workman submitted that the management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him with affect from 2-4-94 and as a result of which he was deprived of snjoy ng his SQTvice period to the tune of 2 years and 4 months approximately. "Learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing submitted that whenever any workman is entered into service his date of birth is recorded in the Form B Register which has been considered as authentic document in the matter of not only for recognition of age and also in respect of other matters. Learned Advocate for the management submitted that several circulars were also issued by the management as well as by the JBCCI seting out the guidelines for review of date of birth and correction of date of birth entered in the service record of the company with the help of medical board in case of any dispute. In this connection not only learned Advocate for the management but also the concerned workman referred to JBCCT circular No. 76 of 1988. Referring the said circular it has bcci inted out that the said circular has clearly clarified how to -ect of date of birth at the time of review with the hci, if Matriculation certificate or statutory certificate like Min± Sirdar certificate etc. if authentic documents are not available Learned Advocate for the management submitted that all the procedures for review of date of birth could be followed if any workman files representation within a reasonable time. Learned Advocate for the management referring the evidence of the concerned workman submitted categorically that the concerned workman did not submit any representation to this effect prior to his superannuation. WW-1 i.e. the concerned workman during his cross-examination admitted clearly to the effect "I never filed any case for correction of the date of birth entered in the Form B Register as 2-4-1934." Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of the concerned workman that though he raised this industrial dispute after his superannuation did not consider necessary to raise the same before the Management well ahead before his superannuation. Learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing categorically submitted that in the year 1987 service excerpts were supplied not only to the concerned workman but also to all the workmen under the management, 5. The concerned workman in course of his evidence disclosed that he was appointed as Mining Sirdar in Ara Colliery in the year 1976 At the time of his appointment he submitted his Mining Sirdar certificate, gas testing certificate and first aid certificate, wherein his date of birth was proper recorded. It is the specific allegation that the date of birth appearing in the Mining Sirdar certificate was not duly recorded by the management while he was appointed as Mining Sirdar. From the evidence of the witness i.e. the concerned workman, I find further that on 6-11-87 he deposited the Mining Sirdar certificate and gas testing 497^

rectification of the date ofbirth cannot be entertained at all In the said decision Their Lordships of the Appex Court held that correction of age sought by an employee at the fag end of service is not permissible. Decisions reported in 2000 (85) F.L.R. 1938 also will support the claim cr the management in this regard. In the said decision. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court also held that correction of age sought at the fag end of service on the basis of Matriculation certificate cannot be accepted.

6. Referring the decisions referred to above and also considering the evidence of the concerned workman learned Advocate for the mangement submitted categorically that date of birth of the concerned workman recorded in the form B Register is to be considered as conclusive and final and as the concerned workman did not raise any dispute well ahead of his date of superannuation he is not entillcd to get any such relief relating to the rectification of age. I have already discussed above in details about the claim of the concerned workman and I consider that at this juncture there is no scope to entertain any such claim. In the result the concerned workman is not cntitlled to get any relief. Accordingly the following Award is rendered :—

"The workman is not justified in claiming that he was illegally terminated by the management of Ara colliery of M/s.C.C.L on the basis of wrong entry of date of birth in service records Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.O, 2372.—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 (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No L-20012/150/96-IR(C-I)l In the said service excerpts the date of birth of the concerned workman was duly recorded. But inspite of getting knowledge of his date of birth as per service excerpts he did not make any representation to the effect and therefore after the date of his superannuation the concerned workman cannot agitate this issue. It is clear from the submission of learned Advocate of both sides and also from the evidence of the concerned workman that the concerned workman did not raise any dispute over his date of birth so long he remained in the service, From register Ext. M-l it transpires clearly that the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 2-4-34. Relying on the Mining Sirdar certificate the concerned workman submitted that actually his date of birth was 27-8- 36 and that certificate was duly shown to the management at the time of his appointment. However, to this effect I do not find any evidence that at the time of his getting appointment the said certificate was actually produced before the management. Referring clause B(i) (b) of Implementation Instruction No, 76 Learned Advocate submitted that Mining Sirdarship certificate or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager has to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic .The Mining Sirdar Certificate during evidence of the concerned workman was marked as Ext. W- 1. The certificate was issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Board of Mining Examination and Chairman of the Board of Mining Examination. From this certificate I do not find any endorsement on the part of the Manager relating to the certification of the date ofbirth of the concerned workman. It is seen that the concerned workman was appointed under the management at Ara Colliery in the year 1976 while he passed Sirdarship examination in the year ] 968, i.e. long before getting his appointment under the management he obtained this certificate. Therefore, the concerned workman cannot avoid responsibility to establish the authenticity of the date ofbirth in question particularly when it is seen that during his entire service tenure he did not arise any such objection. The concerned workman during his evidence admitted that though other workers of the management received service excerpts he did not receive any such. The explanation given by the concerned workman appears to be not sufficient. No reason has been assigned when all the workmen received service excerpts from the management why he did not perceive the same. There was no reason to believe that he was not served with any such service excerpt. Therefore, the pica taken by the concerned workman I consider is not cogent enough to accept. It is the specific contenion of the concerned workman that his superannuation was illegal and wrongful. If it is taken into consideration that it was illegal and wrongful the course was open to the concerned workman to agitate this issue well ahead of his superannuation fixed by the management. On the contrary remaining himself silent all through after only getting his order of retirement he raised this dispute which definitely is not tenable in the eye of law, Learned Advocate for the management referring the decisions reported in 1994 Lab I.C. 2498 submitted categorically that such dispute relating to the

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer4974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PRESENT

ANNEXURE

On behalf of management On behalf of workman

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

SHRI B, Biswas, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an industrial dispute under section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 86 of 1997

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL and Their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman • Shri Surcndra Pandcy, Organising Secretary, R.C.M.S,

ShriD. K Verma, Advocate. On behalf of the employers ;

Industry: Coal

State: Jharkhand

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th July, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 10(1 )(d) of the I D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-20012/150/96-1 R (C-I), dated, the 24th July, 1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Lodna Area of M/s. B.C.C. L. in dismissing the services of Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas, Miner Loader is legal and justified '' If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled ?"

2. In this reference both the parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed a Memorandum of settlement under their signature I heard both the parties on the said settlement and I do find that the terms contained therein are fair, proper and beneficial to both the parties. Accordingly I accept the said settlement and pass an Award in terms thereof which forms part of the Award as annexure.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

FORM—H

See Rule 58

Memorandum of settlement arrived at between the management of BCCL, Lodna Area and Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas, Ex-Miner/Loader, Bagdigi Colliery 1, ShriH. Surin,

1. Shri Surendra Pandey, Personnel Manager, Lodna Area.

Organising Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh.

2. Shri RB Singh,

2. Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas Sr. Personnel Officer, Bagdigi Colliery.

Ex-Miner/Loadcr, Bagdigi Colliery.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas, Ex-Miner/Loader of Bagdigi Colliery was dismissed from the services of the company for the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence in the y ear 1992. Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas appealed before the management for the reinstatement in service which was approved by the competent authority vide letter No. BCCL: PER. IR: REINSTATEMENT ; 2000 : 5218 DATED 25/26- 7-2000 of General Manager I/c (P&IR), BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad.

Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas has been allowed to be reinstated on the following terms and conditions TERM AND CONDITIONS

1. Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas has been found medically fit to perform his duties.

2. No gratuity and PF has been withdrawn by Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas.

3. Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas has not gone for any Court/ Conciliation case on this issue, if any the same will be withdrawn.

4. Shri Ram Chandra Rabidas will discharge his duty with full loyality and devotion to the management, 5. His identity must be established by the unit concerned.

6. No wages, what-so-ever, will be paid or claimed by the person concerned from the date he reported absent followed by dismissal and subsequently be reinstated. The period of idleness till the resumption of duty shall be treated as dies-non however the continuty of service will be allowed for the purpose of gratuity.

7. Shri Rabidas will be allowed at 'Badli' Piece Rated Worker.

The dispute is resolved once for all.

(H SURIN) Personnel Manager, Lodna Area

(SURENDRA PANDEY) Organising Secretary, RCMS

(RAM CHANDRA RABIDAS) Ex-Miner/Loader, Bagdigi

(RB SINGH) Sr. Personnel Officer, Bagdigi4975 New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.0.2373.—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, (No. II), Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-20012/167/94-IR (C-I)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 73 of 1995

PARTIES ;

Employers in relation to the management of Tisco Ltd., and their workman,

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman ; Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union.

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th Julv, 2001 2742GI/2001--16

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) ef the ID, Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute t<*this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012 (167)/ 94-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 19th April, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Jamadoba Colliery management of M/s. TISCO in denying employment to the dependent of late Basisthmuni Pandey, Ex-Timber in violation of NCWA-II provision is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. The instant industrial dispute has been raised by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad over refusal of employment of the son of deceased workman Basisthmuni Pandey on the ground stated therein. The case of the concerned union as per W.S. in brief is as follows :—

The union in the W.S. submitted that Basisthmuni Pandey was a permanent Timber Mazdoor of Jamadoba Colliery, The concerned workman i.e. Basisthmuni Pandey was declared unfit by the company's medical board and accordingly on the ground of unfitness his service was terminated by the management with effect from 24-3-1982 and thereafter the said workman died on 9-8-1982. It has been submitted that before his death the concerned workman submitted a representation before the management for employment of his dependent son on the ground of medical unfitness as per provision of NCWA and also as per policy decision of the management, but his appeal went in vein. After the death of the concerned workman on 9-8-1982 his wife submitted a representation one after another for providing employment to the dependent of the deceased worker. But the management did not pay any heed to her representation though in the letter issued by the management dated-14-4- 1992 they assured employment of one dependent of the deceased workman. As a result an industrial dispute was raised by way of making reference.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned union asserted in the W.S. It has been submitted by the management that the concerned workman did not disclose the name of the dependent whose employment is required and for which they submitted that the reference in question is not sustainable in the eye of law for the same. The management admitted that the deceased workman Basisthmuni Pandey was a Timber Mazdoor at Jamadoba Colliery having his Ticket No. 2624. He was employed on 19-5-1961 and was discharged from his service on medftal ground on 24-3-1982. The management submitted tlat4976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)]

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

acccording to the company's procedure each and every employee working in the company is entitled to get one of 1 ii i, impendent enrolled in the Employees Dependent Register for providing him employment in the event of any vacancy caused in the colliery. They submitted that the deceased workman during the tenure of his service also enrolled his son Shri Baleshwar Pandey as his dependent in the employees dependent register for providing him employment against future vacancies. It is submitted further that no right has been conferred in the Company's scheme for automatic absorption of the dependent of an employee immediately after completion of 15 years of service. The employment of the dependent of an employee is subject to the condition of availability of vacancies and according to the seniority amongst the employees on the strength of total period of service put by him. As the company's scheme for employment covers each and every employee without any discrimination amongst themselves the same has been considered to be more favourable than t"o any other scheme for employment of dependents under the NCWAs and the ipana^ment has been allowed to continue to provide employment to the dependents as per its own scheme and not as per the provision of NCWAs. There is specific agreement and arrangement with the recognised union to continue with the existing scheme of employment of dependents and to apply the same uniformly to each and every employee without any discrimination. The management further submitted that in course of advancement of technology and planning provision for giving employment to the dependentson has been squeezed and for which it has become difficuft to provide employment to the dependent to each and every employee immediately after completion of 15 years of service by an employee It has been further submitted that the sponsoring union after accepting such awards as per agreement has no right to raise the dispute one after another over the self same issue in the Tribunal. Therefore the present reference is obviously without any merit and the demand of the sponsoring union is liable to be summarily rejected The management further submitted that asperthe Company's Scheme the name of Baleshwar Pandey lias di • ly been enrolled as the dependent son of late Basistmuni Pandey and his case will only be considered when his him will ausc. As per the rank of seniority his turn will come and he will be provided with employment against some vacancy Accordingly the demand of the sponsoring union to provide employment of deceased workman according to the provision of NCWA is without any merit and the same is liable to be rejected.

4 Now the points for consideration in this reference

are •

5. The management in course of hearing examined one witness in support of their claim which they have relied on in the W. S. The concerned workman, however, did not examine any witness in support of the claim. Considering the evidence of the management witness and also considering the facts disclosed in the W. S. filed by the union and the W. S -cum-rejoinder of the management I find no dispute to hold that the deceased workman Basistmuni Pandey was a Timber Mazdoor at Jamadoba Colliery and his Ticket No. was 2624. He was employed on 19-5-61 and was discharged from his service on medical ground on 24-3-82. It has been admitted by the management that as per Company's procedure each and every employee working in the company is entitled to get one of his dependent's enrolled in the employees dependent register for providing him employment in the event of any vacancy existing in the colliery. The management further admitted that the deceased workman during the tenure of his service enrolled the name of his son Shri Balcshwar Pandey as his dependent in the employees dependent register for providing him employment against future vacancy. It has also been clearly submitted by the management that as there is a standing agreement between the union and the management about the provision for making employment of dependents son they have their seperate entity and for which they arc not supposed to abide by the provision as laid down in the NCWA in the matter of giving employment of dependent son It is the specific claim of the union that as per provision of NCWA-II the son of the deceased workman is entitled to get a job under the management and in support of this claim the learned advocate for the concerned workman referred to provisions 9-4-2 and 9-4-3 of NCWA-II. I have consider the provision and I find no dispute to ignore the submission of the learned advocate in this regard. Rule 9-4-4 of NCWA disclosed categorically that one dependent of the employee would be provided cmplo> ment but in case of TISCO, the same would be subject to their existing practice Learned Advocate for the workman in course of hearing did not deny the existence of any agreement between the management and the union in the matter of providing employment to dependent son. Therefore, the question which is arising here whether inspite of existing agreement in between the concerned workman and the management of TISCO, the provision as provided in NCWA-II is applicable or not. Rule 9-4-4 of NCWA is clear on this point Therefore, there is little scope to challenge this aspect However, there is scope to say that as per standing policy the management will provide employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman subject to the condition that the name of the dependent is enrolled in the company's register Here in the instant case there is no dispute to hold that the name of the dependent son of the deceased workman was duly enrolled while the deceased workman was in service. It is seen that the concerned workman had to receive his termination order from the management after exerting service for more than "Whether the action of Jamadoba Colliery management of M/s TISCO in denying employment to the dependent of laic Basistmuni Pandey, Ex-Timber in violation of NCWA-II provision is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"4977 harness. The management in course of hearing has failed lo produce any statistics before the Court actually how mam vacancies accrued during last 19 years and how mm i vacancies were filled up from the employees dependent:. In absence of any such statistics there is reason to behe\o that the management taking the plea of technical progress is trying to avoid the employment of the dependent son of the deceased workman. As there is specific assurance to provide employment to the dependent son of the dcceiir, workman the management cannot avoid responsibility (/-, discharge their duties. I consider that awaiting for 19 year:, continuously is too much, and I do not believe that within such long period no such vacancy accrued where the dependent son of the deceased workman could not be provided.

6. Considering all aspect carefully I hold that the claim of the union for providing employment to the son of the deceased workman stands on cogent footing and following the principles of equity and natural justice he should be provided with job by the management. In the result, the following Awrard is rendered :—

"The action of the Jamadoba Colliery management of M/s. TISCO in denying employment to the dependent of late Basisthmuni Pandey, Ex-Timber in violation of MCWA-II provision is not justified. Consequently the dependent of late Basisthmuni Pandey, Ex-Timber Mazdoor is entitled for employment under the management.''

The management of M/s. TISCO is directed to \ rovide employment to the dependent of late Basisthmuni Pandey Ex-Timber Mazdoor as directed above within three months from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette ol India.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 20 years as he was declared medically unfit and it is further seen that immediately thereafter he died, It is the contention of the union that not only the deceased workman during his life time submitted representation before the management for providing employment of his son but also after his death his widow also submitted representation to consider her prayer in the matter of providing employment to her son. From the letter marked as Ext. W-2 it appears that the management acknowledging the receipt of the said representation assured to provide employment of one of the dependent of the deceased workman when his rum will arrive. The said letter was written on 10/14-4-92. It is seen that nine years have already elapsed but the dependent of the deceased workman has not yet been provided with any employment. No evidence is forth coming before this Tribunal about waiting list and also turn of the dependent of the deceased employee for getting his employment. MW-1 during his evidence disclosed that under the scheme the question of consideration of appointment of dependent arises only after service of 15 years, by the employee. This witness further disclosed that the name of the son of the deceased workman was duly enrolled in the register of the management. It is also disclosed further that such type of appointment depends on the basis of seniority and against vacancies. Disclosing this fact this witness submitted that the turn of the son of the concerned workman is yet to come. This witness was examined in the month of April, 1998 and after his evidence three years have already elapsed but the position remained in the dark whether the turn of the concerned workman has come or not. Here one thing has to be taken into consideration realying on the principles of natural justice. It is seen that the deceased workman did not get any scope to complete his service tenure on medical ground and for which he was terminated from his service. It is further seen that within few months after termination from service the said workman died. Therefore the claim of the deceased workman shall not be equated with the claim of other workman who have been retired from service after completing their service tenure. Principles of equality and natural justice should be followed in such cases. There is no dispute to hold that the deceased workman rendered his service for the benefit of the management and practically he was terminated due to his medical unfitness. Therefore, the claim of the deceased workman and the claim of the others who have been retired in natural course should not be tagged together. It is a fact that the management never denied of giving any service to the dependent of the deceased workman but it is their submission that he will have to wait for his turn of employment. It is seen that the concerned workman died about 19 years back and before termination he enrolled the name of his dependent son for his employment. It is very hard to believe that after a lapse of 19 years the management failed to provide any employment to the dependent of the deceased workman, Definitely the management as per agreement is liable to follow the principles but simultaneously the management cannot ignore the cases with priority basis where the workman died in

S.O. 2374.—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 Tnbunal, (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in4978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-20012/210/92-fR (C-I)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

allowed to join. As a result he returned back from Bhagaband Colliery to Gopalichak Colliery, The management of Gopalichak Colliery did not allow him to join there on the ground of his transfer. In this way he loitered for 3/5 months for his joining at Gopalichak Colliery and Bhagaband Colliery. Accordingly the concerned workman raised this industrial dispute by way of reference and prayed for passing necessary award so that he may be allowed to join his post at Bhagaband Colliery.

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

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

Reference Nri. 62 of 1993

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/S BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY ; Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th July, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the ID. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/210/ 92-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 19thMay, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not allowing Shri Ramashish Bhuia to resume his duty is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman as per W, S, in

brief is as follows :—

3, The management on the contrary after filing W. S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and the allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. Tire management submitted that the concerned workman was a Miner/loader at Gopalichak Colliery in the year 1984. Thereafter by office order dt. 11-2-84 the said workman along with 24 others were transferred to Bhagaband Colliery from Gopalichak Colliery. In pursance of the said order of transfer other workmen were released from Gopalichak Colliery on 16-2-84 with a direction to join their new assignment. But except the concerned workman other joined to the place of transfer. On the contrary the concerned workman without joining to his new assignment left for his village. After about 7 years of transfer the concerned workman and the sponsoring union placed demand before the management to allow the concerned workman to join his duties. It has been submitted further that the sponsoring union at the time of placing their claim did not submit any paper to establish that the concerned workman is that person who was transferred from Gopalichak Colliery to Bhagaband Colliery by order dt. 11-2-84. It has been submitted further that the concerned workman inspite of receiving the order of transfer did not join new assignment at Bhagaband Colliery. As such he was not a workman of Bhagaband Colliery at any point of timc.Thc present dispute on behalf of the concerned workman could be considered if he was able to prove his genuinity. Neither the union nor the concerned workman submitted any authentic document relying on his whereabouts from 1984 to 1991. The management submitted that whenever a workman leaves his employment with own volition for a period of more than 3 years it should be presumed that he abandons his service voluntarily. As the concerned workman abandoned his service for 314 years and did not keep any communication with the management it is conclusively established that he had abandoned his service with his own volition for the reason best known to him. The management further submitted that the post remained vacant for a long period and they made its arrangement to fill up the vacancy. As the concerned workman did not carry out the order of his transfer and abandoned his service he lost his right to claim for his employment. Accordingly, the management has prayed for passing an Award to the effect the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief and for which his demand should be rejected.

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

The concerned workman in his W. S. submitted that originally he was an employee of Gopalichak Colliery and thereafter he was transferred to Bhagaband Colliery along with other workers. After receiving the said order of transfer he reported for duty at Bhagaband Colliery but he was not4979 ¹ 'Whether the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not allowing Shri Ramashish Bhuia to resume his duty is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

application to the authority seeking permission to join his duties at Bhagaband Colliery He also admitted that other employees who were also transfered to Bhagaband Colliery along with him by the same order of the management also joined there. Considering the evidence of the concerned workman it is clear that he did not submit any application when he was not allowed by the management to join there on the basis of transfer order, Onus absolutely lies on the concerned workman to establish that after receiving the said order of transfer he went to his new place of posting and reported for his duty. Unless and untill this fact is established there is no scope to uphold his contention. The concerned workman admitted that he took attempt for his joining at new place of posting for 3/4 months. Thereafter when he failed to join there he left for his native place. It is clear considering the evidence of both sides that after a lapse of long years the concerned workman has raised this dispute. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming before the Court why he kept himself mum for such a long period, In course of evidence the concerned workman also has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that he is that person who received the order of transfer from Gopalichak Colliery to Bhagaband Colliery. As such the question of genuinity of the claim of the person in question comes to light and the concerned workman also cannot deny his responsibility to establish the fact that he is Ramashish Bhuia who was an employee of Gopalichak Colliery and by order of transfer was directed to join at Bhagaband Colliery. The claim of the management cannot be wiped out, untill and unless the concerned workman is able to substantiate his claim beyond all reasonable doubt It is not expected that the management for years together will wait for the workman for his joining There are some norms which the management follow to maintain the administration properly. It is seen that the concerned workman acted as per his choice which cannot be accepted at all.

6. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman has failed to justify his claim with all satisfaction. 1 consider that the management did not commit any illegality in disallowing the concerned workman to join his duty in view of the facts which they relied on I consider that by doing so the management did not commit any illegality and impropriety. There is also no scope to say that the principles of natural justice was also violated by the management. Under the circumstances, the following Award is rendered :-•-

L'The action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery of BCCL in not allowing Shri Ramashish Bhuia to resume his duty is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.''

B, BISWAS, Presiding Officer 5. The concerned workman in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as witness. The management on the contrary also examined one witness in support their claim. There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman Ramashish Bhuia was originally an employee of Gopalichak Colliery, There is also no dispute to hold that the said Ramashish Bhuia along with 24 others received an order of transfer from the management and by the said order they were directed to join at Bhagaband Colliery by 15-2- 84. It is the contention of the concerned workman that after receipt of the said order of transfer he went to join his duties at Bhagaband Colliery but he was not allowed to join there and for which he returned back to his original place of posting. At Gopalichak Colliery the authority also did not allow him to work. In this way he loitered hither and thither for 3/4 months but thereafter as he could not join there he left for his home. It has been disclosed by the concerned workman that the management intentionally did not allow to join there. On the contrary the management submitted categorically by adducing evidence that after receipt of the order of transfer the concerned workman at all did not return to the place of posting i.e at Bhagaband Colliery, with a view to resume his duties. On the contrary he left for his native village and remained there till 1989. Thereafter in the year 1991 the sponsoring union of the concerned workman placed demand for allowing the concerned workman to resume his duties but neither the sponsoring union nor the person concerned could be able to establish his identity. As a result, the management has raised question if the person who is demanding for job is the original person i.e. Ramashish Bhuia. The management further submitted that according to the procedure of the management if an employee abandoncs his service for more than 3 years it should be deemed that he has left his service. The management further submitted that as the post remained vacant for a long period they filled up the same by recruiting independent workman. As such at this stage the claim of this person finds no basis at all. Now the point for consideration is if actually the management disallowed the concerned workman to resume his duties even on the basis of his order of transfer. It is the specific contention of the management that after receiving letter of transfer the concerned workman never attended the office of the management to report for duty. However, it was rebutted by the concerned workman The concerned workman in course of his cross-examination, however admitted that he never submitted anything in wntting before the authority of the management that he was not allowed to join his duties at Bhagaband Colliery The concerned workman during his cross-examination admitted that he did not submit any4980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.O. 2375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. II), Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-2OO12/233/94-IR(C-D] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

DHANBAD

Present; Shri B, Biswas,

Presiding Officer

Tn the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d)oftheT.D Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 22 OF 1996

BETWEEN

PARTIES; Employers in relation to the management of Block II Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of the workman: Shri D. Mukherjce, Advocate and Shri K. Chakravorty, Advocate.

: ShriB. Joshi, Advocate. On behalf of the employers

: Industry: Coal.

State: Jharkhand

Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th July, 2001 the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 233/94-I.R. (Coal-I), dated the 27th February, 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Union for revision of the date of birth of Shri Abhi Mahanti, Quarry/Miner Loader by the management of Block II Area of M/s. BCCL is justified ? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled T

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

The concerned workman in his W. S. submitted that he was originally appointed as permanent Miner/loader at Benedih Colliery on 28-1 -73. At the time of appointment his age was in the Statutory Form B Register recorded as 27 years as on 6-12-74 i.e. the date of birth was recorded as 6-1247. Thereafter the concerned workman was transferred to Nudkhurkee Colliery in the year 1975 and during his service there the management of the said colliery served him service excerpt wherein his date of birth was also recorded as 6-12-47. He further submitted that his date of birth in other records also was recorded as 6-12-47. The concerned workman submitted that as per decision taken by the Central Consultative meeting with all Central Trade unions it was agreed upon that the entries recorded in the service excerpt shall be final if not objected to. Inspite of the aforesaid fact the management illegally and arbitrarily issued notice of superannuation with effect from 1-12-93, Against that arbitrary decision of the management in the matter of his superannuation with effect from 1-2-93 he raised his objection but the management did not consider necessary to do the needful in the matter and accordingly finding no other way he has raised this industrial dispute resulting reference to this Tribunal.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W. S, -

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of cum-rcjoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W. S. It has been submitted by the management that date of birth/age recorded in the Form B Register maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act read with Rules 77 of the Mines Rules becomes conclusive so far the age of the concerned workman is concerned for the purpose of time of Management submitted that was superannuation. The service record of the conccred workman was statutorily maintained according to the provision of law, the correctness of the entries made therein cannot be challenged at the fag and of his retirement or after his retirement. The management submitted that service particulars of the concerned workman maintained by the Block II Area upto 21 -2-92 indicated that the date of birth of the concerned workman was 31-1-33 but the said date of birth was permed through and 6-12-47 was recorded by manipulation and the concerned workman relying on that date of birth which was recorded by way of manipulation4981 has demanded for correction of age by raising the present dispute. The management further submitted that the concerned workman during his service period did not raise any dispute regarding the correction of age and has raised the present dispute only in 1933 when he received his letter of superannuation with effect from 31 -1 -93. It has been further submitted that as the concerned workman has already been superannuated with effect from 31-1-93 the present reference for revision of date of birth does not and cannot arise. The management submitted further that the concerned workman worked at Kcssurgarh Colliery and was subsequently transferred to Eenedih Colliery and at the time of his superannuation he worked at Block II Area. It has been alleged by the management that taking advantage of transfer from one colliery he did manipulation and got his date of birth entered as 6-12-47 in some of the records subsquently and relying on the same has raised this industrial dispute. Accordingly the management has submitted their prayer for passing Award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4, The points for my consideration in this reference

are:—

"Whether the demand of the Union for revision of the date of birth of Shri Abhi Mahanti, Quany/Muier Loader by the management of Block II Area of M/s, BCCL is justified ? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

5. The concerned workman in order to substantiate

Form B register the age of the concerned workman was 40 years as on 31-1-73. The Form B register during evidence of MW-1 was marked as Ext. M-l. This witness disclosed that the concerned workman was superannuated on the basis of entry made in the Form B register. During cross- examination this withncss i.e. MW-1 admitted that he was not present when the Form B Register in respect of the concerned workman was filled up. The Form B Register was written actually after nationalisation of coal industries. The Form B Register Ext, M-l/1 shows clearly it was prepared by the management of Nudkhurkee Colliery on 29-6-86. It is the contention of the concerned workman that he was transferred to the said colliery in the year 1975. According to the contention of the management Form B register contains the service particulars of the concerned workman and it is filled up when the concerned workman entered into his service. If this fact is taken into consideration the management cannot exonerate their responsibility to explain why entries in the Form B rcgi ster in respect of the concerned workman was filled up on 29-6-86 particularly when he was transferred to that colliery in the year 1975 i.e. after nationalisation of the collieries. From another Form B register Ext. M-l it transpires that age of the concerned workman in the same was recorded as 40 years. No date of birth was recorded there. From the copy of this Form B it cannot be ascertained actually when and in which colliery under the management the same was prepared. The question which has been cropped up here is how exact date of birth 31-1-33 was recorded in the Form B Register marked as Ext, M-l/1 while his age in another Form B recorded as 40 years. It is not the case of the management that exact date of birth in the Form B Register Ext. M-l/1 was recorded according to the particulars furnished by the concerned workman on 29-6-86. Therefore, the management cannot avoid responsibility to clarify actually how they have got that date of birth of the concerned workman. The management in course of hearing admitted that to avoid dispute in future in respect of age and other service particulars service excerpts from Form B register were supplied to the concerned workman. A copy of the service excerpt of the concerned workman during evidence was marked as Ext. W-1. From Ext. W-1 it transpires that the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 6-12-47. This service excerpt was prepared on the basis of Form B Register. The management did not deny in course of hearing the genuinity of the service excerpt issued to the concerned workman. The same was also issued on 18-3-86 i.e. prior to preparation of Form B Register (Ext. M-l/1) on 29-6-86. Therefore, it speaks clearly that this Form B Register Ext. M-l/1 was prepared subsequently suppressing the original Form B register where the date of birth of different workmen including the concerned workman were recorded Apart from the service excerpt the concerned workman also relied on the service particulars issued by the management under signature of the Manager, Benedih his claim examined himself as witness while the management also examined one withncss to rebut the claim of the concerted workman. From the evidence of the concerned workman it transpires that initially he was appointed at Benedih Colliery as Miner/Loader. At the time of his entry in the said service his date of birth was recorded in the Form B Register as 27 years as on 6-12-74. Thereafter from Benedih Colliery he was transferred to Katras. This witness i.e., the concerned workman further submitted that during the tenure of his service, service excerpt was supplied to him by the management and according to the service excerpt his date of birth was recorded as 6-12-47. In other relevant records namely the C.M.RF. and I.D. card his date of birth was also recorded as 6-12-47. But inspitc of all these facts the management issued notice of superannuation with effect from 1-2-93. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that the said notice of superannuation issued by the management was not only illegal and arbitrary but also against the principles of natural justice. The management on the contrary submitted that the claim of the concerned workman relating to his dale of birth finds no basis at all. Relying on Form B Register the management submitted that according to the4982 THE GAZETTEOFINDIA SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PARTII—SEC 3(II)] relating to his age, the management had the scope to send the concerned workman before the Apex Medical Board for verification of his age but inspite of getting opportunity the management did not consier to do so On the contrary the management arbitrarily and whimsically ignoring the representation of the concerned workman superannuated him with effect from 1-2-93 The service excerpt supplied to the concerned workman, his I D Card and salary and service particulars are quite different in relation to the Form B register in respect of the age recorded therein It is the claim of the concerned workman that to wipe out such discrepancy and anomalies immediately he brought the matter to the notice of the management On the contrary as the management became very much adamant they putting the allegations of manipulation and malpractices superannuated him illegally and arbitrarily

6 After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I find sufficient ground to hold that the management acted illegally and arbitrarily though all the documents were supplied by the management to the concerned workman apart from Form B Register Therefore, it was the responsibility of the management to decide which document was genuine in the matter of recording the age of the concerned workman but they did not consider to do so The management in course of hearing has failed to establish the allegation in the matter of malpractices and manipulation brought against the concerned workman for which I do not rely aspersion made by the management against the concerned workman On the contrary in view of my discussion above there is reason to believe that it was the management who made some mischief in the matter of recording the date of birth in the Form B Registers Therefore, considenng all aspects carefully I hold that the management not only acted illegally and arbitrarily but also did not follow the principles of natural justice in superannuating the concerned workman inspite of receiving his representation relating to his date of birth I, therefore, hold that the claim of the concerned workman stands on cogent footing for which he is entitled to get which he has prayed In the result, the following Award is rendered —

"The demand of the Union for revision of the date of birth of Shn Abhi Mahanti, Quarry/Miner Loader by the management of Block II Area of M/s BCCL is justified Consequently, the management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service immediately considering his date of birth as 6-12-47 The management is also directed to pay all his dues (wages etc) from 2-2-93 till date of his reinstatement"

The management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India

Colliery dt 21-1-92 From the said service particulars it transpires that date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 6-12-47stnking down the date of birth as 31-1-33 It is the allegation of the management that taking advantage of the transfer of the concerned workman from one colliery to another he did some manipulation and got his date of birth entered as 6-12-47 and in some of the records subsequently prepared and relying on the same he raised this industrial dispute The management has brought specific allegation against the concerned workman relating to the manipulation of date of birth But mspite of claiming so the management has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to that effect It is seen that service particulars of the concerned workman Ext W-l was prepared and duly signed by the Accountant/Bill Clerk, Time Keeper, leave clerk, LTC Clerk, PM/Dy PM and Manager/Superintendent If the contention of the management is taken into consideration there is reason to believe that all the officials who signed the salary service particulars stood by the side of the concerned workman in the matter of manipulating his date of birth If it is so done in that case there is reason to believe that each and every staff of the management are unreliable and untrustworthy, which I think is unbelievable Salary and service particulars was issued on 21 -1 -92 while service excerpt was issued on 18-3-86 These two documents find a long gap between each other The service excerpt echo the date of birth of the concerned workman recorded in the service particulars The service excerpt was prepared prior to the Form B Register which the management relied on Ext M-l/1 I have already discussed relating to the gemunity of this Form B Register Ext M-l/1 There is no dispute to hold that the service excerpts is taken into consideration as authentic document where particulars of the concerned workman arc recorded It is the contention of the concerned workman that immediately when he received notice of superannuation with effect from 1-2-93 he made his representation but the management did not give any importance to the same for which he was illegally superannuated with effect from 1-2-93 Learned Advocate for the management on the contrary submitted that at the fag end of the service the concerned workman raised this dispute Moreover the concerned workman has already retired from service and for which his claim cannot be entertained at all The notice of superannuation was given some months before the date of his superannuation Naturally it was not possible on the part of the concerned workman to submit any representation raising dispute of his age because of the fact that he had no dispute in his mind relating to the same This concerned workman relied on the service excerpt and salary and service particulars apart from his ID Card and other official records recorded relating to is date of birth and also date of his superannuation The dispute appear to be very gross in nature Naturally when after receipt of the notice of superannuation the concerned workman raised dispute

B BISWAS, Presiding Officer 498"

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of General Manager, Kustore Area No VIII of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Kustore, Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri B.P. Singh, Driver is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the concerned workman according

to W,S. submitted by him in brief is as follows :—

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.O. 2376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No II) , Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-20012/274/92-IR(C-I)J N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(l)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 89 OF 1993

The concerned workman in his W S. submitted that on 26-5-87 the management relying on mere suspicion issued a chargesheet with the allegation of theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the company's business or property. The main contention of the charge was that he did not distribute coal entrusted to him by the management to the workmen for their domestic use. On the contrary it was unloaded in the Brick Bhatta of Mahcndra Lai at Ragnibasti near Bhuli Basti. It was further alleged in the said chargesheet thai on the same day at about 12 O'clock the aforesaid coal was recovered with the help of A.K. Trivedi. On receipt of that chargeshect the concerned workman submitted his reply denying all the allegations in question. The concerned workman further submitted that the management ignoring his reply appointed one Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry relating to the allegation based on the chargesheet and the Enquiry Officer without making any proper enquiry found his guilty and submitted his report before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority also relying on such biased and irregular report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissed him from service illegally and arbitrarily. The concerned workman submitted that the said order of dismissal was against the principles of natural justice and accordingly he has prayed forpasssing an Award directing the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages,

BETWEEN

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the Management of South Jharia Colliery of M/s. BCCL and then- workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers : ShriR.C. Jha, Advocate.

State; Jharkhand - Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th July, 2001

AWARD

The management on the contrary after filing W. S, - cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. Ii has been submitted by the management that the concerned workman along with Kailash Singh Munshi were deputed to distribute coal for domestic use to 19 workers under the management at Kustore area under Bhuli Township as per Challan No. 57798 dt. 25-5-87. The said coal weighing about 8 tonne was loaded on truck No. BH-1935. Thereafter the concerned workman was by way of theft, fraud and dishonest intention inscad of distributing coal to the workers unloaded the same at Brick Bhatta of Mahendra Lai at Rangunia Basti for illegal gain. It has been alleged by the management that the concerned workman not only took attempt to misappropriate the property of the company but also had clear malafide intention to deprive the poor workers from their legitimate claim of essential commodities to maintain their livelihood. The said coal was recovered on the same day at about 12 O'clock with the help of The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012 (274)/92-I.R, (Coal-I), dated, the 9th July, 1993.

2742GI/2001--174984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PART II—SEC.3(U)] Shn A.K. Trivcdi, S 1 (WW) Bhuli township. The management further submitted that the concerned workman in his reply to the chargesheet given to him admitted this fact of misappropriation of coal which was handed over to him for distribution amongst the workers. It has been further disclosed by the management that the concerned workman for wrongful gain not only misappropriated the property but also intended to deprive the workers from their legitimate claim of essential commodities to maintain their livelihood. The management further submitted that as the reply to the chargesheet was far from satisfactory, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to take up enquiry in the matter The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry maintaining legality and propriety During the enquiry the allegation which was brought against the concerned workman as per Chargcshccl was established. The management further submitted that the concerned workman committed misconduct for his act and thereby violated specific provision of Standing order applicable and on jusi and proper ground maintaining propriety and natural justice he was dismissed from service The management further submitted that in dismissing the concerned workman no illegality or impropriety on their part was committed Accordingly the management have prayed for passing an Award to the effect that the order of dismissal of the concerned workman wasjustificd, valid and proper and he is not entitled to get any relief which he has prayed lor

4 In course of hearing a preliminary issue was raised if the domestic enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer was legal, valid and also it was done in accordance with the principles of natural justice My Prcdcccssor-in-officc vide order No 51 dt. 12-5-99 held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper as in course of hearing learned Advocate for the concerned workman did not challenge the fairness of the domestic enquiry

5. The points for decision in this reference are .—

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Kustore Area No VlIIofBCCLPO Kuslorc,Dist Dhanbad in dismissing Shri B P Singh, Driver is justified⁷ If not, to what relief the workman is entitled¹⁷"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

with the enquiry report dismissed him from service. The order of dismissal during evidence of MW-1 was marked as Ext. M-7. The chargesheet given to the concerned workman and reply of the chargesheet given by the concerned workman also during evidence of MW-1 were marked as Ext. M-2 and M-5. It is the specific allegation of the management that on 25-5-87 the concerned workman was deputed to distribute 8 tonnes of coal amongst the 19 workers at Rangoni Basti near Bhuli Basti. The said coal was loaded in Truck No. BHW-1935 along with Challan bearing No. 57798. The concerned workman thereafter left the office of the management with that truck loaded with coal along with Kailash Singh a Munshi It has been alleged that instead of distributing the coal to the workers the concerned workman with dishonest intention misappropriated the coal and unloaded the same at the Brick Bhatta of Mahendra Lai and thereby committed serious misconduct violating clause 29.2 of the Certified Standing Order. 1 have considered the reply given by the concerned workman which during hearing was marked as Ext M-5. In para-1 of the reply the concerned workman admitted that on 25-5-87 he was deputed on his duty with truck bearing No. BHW-1935. In para-2 he also admitted that at that very time one Kailash Singh Munshi and Pntam Singh, Driver were with him. In para-3 he further admitted that the said truck was loaded with coal for distribution at Bhuli township. In para-4 the concerned workman submitted that according to the instruction of Pritam Singh coal was unloaded but he cannot say where the said coal was unloaded though according to his opinion it was a place at Bhuli Township. Admitting all these facts the concerned workman denied the other charges brought against him. Therefore, considering the reply of the chargesheet it is clear that on 25-5-87 the concerned workman was directed to carry 8 tonnes of coal for its distribution amongst the workers of the management at Bhuli Area by a truck No. BHW-1935. It is the contention of the concerned workman that he unloaded the truck under instruction of Pritam Singh but during enquiry inspite of getting opportunity the concerned workman did not examine Pntam Singh to establish the veracity of the claim. Further it is clear from his submission that through he was entrusted to distribute coal amongst workers of Bhuli Town area he did not do so On the contrary he unloaded the coal at a place under instruction from Pritam Singh. This very admission of the concerned workman shows clearly that violating the specific instruction of the management he acted illegally. During enquiry Mr. A.K. Gaur Superintendent of Mines, Shn A.K. Trivedi, S.I. (W/W), Shri S P Singh, P.M. and also the concerned workman and Kailash Singh were examined. A.K Gaur during giving his statement disclosed that on 25-5-87 through Challan Bearing No. 57798 and Truck No. BHW- 1935 coal was sent for domestic use of the employees at Bhuli Township This witness confirmed that the concerned workman and Kailash Singh were deputed to 6 It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was a Driver under the management The specific contention of the concerned workman is that the rnnnagemem issued ,i false chargesheet against him with f.ilsc allegation He submitted that in response to the chargesliccl he gave his reply but inspitc of giving reply the management being dissatisfied appointed one Enquiry Officcrto hold enquiry Thereafter the said Enquiry Officer illegally and arbitrarily conducted the said enquiry and found him guilt) and submitted his report before the appropriate authority and the appropriate being satisfied4985 into consideration that it will be an example amongst the workers to make them disciplined and to remain honest and sincere. T have considered all the relevant papers of the domestic enquiry including reply of the concerned workman and also heard learned Advocate for the management, I am satisfied that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer properly and with all fairness It has also been established that the concerned workman was directly involved in misappropriating and property of the management for his personal gain without their knowledge and consent.

The offence committed by the concerned workman is very serious in nature and definitely his act created disfaith and distrust in the minds of the management As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the management did not commit any illegality or impropriety in dismissing the concerned workman from service for his serious misconduct. 1 do not find anything contrary to say that the said order of dismisal issued by the disciplinary authority was against the principles of natural justice. In the result, the following Award is rendered .—

"The action of General Manager, Kustore Area No

VTfl of BCCL, P.O. Kustore, Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri B.P. Singh, Driver is justified. Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief."

B.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer distribute the said coal amongst workers on that date. Shri A.K. Trivedi SI. (WW) during giving his statement disclosed that on 25-5-87 at about 1.30 P.M. he received information from Madan Singh of Rajapur Colliery to the effect that B.P. Singh and Kailash Singh had been engaged on selling coal to Mahendra Lai at Rangoni Basti whjch was brought in a truck No. BHW-1935. On getting information he rushed to the spot and found the truck there. He also found coal dumped there but the concerned workman by that time fled away from the spot. Accordingly he arranged for a guard and informed the matter to the Dy. Manager (Administration) Bhuli Township. Thereafter different officials came there and ultimately the said coal was re-loaded and it was taken back to Rajapur through Truck No. BHW-9085. Shri Kailash Singh and B.P. Singh were examined by the Enquiry Officer and they made contradictory statment. It is seen that the concerned workman was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but inspitc of getting that opportunity no incriminating material came out relying on which there is scope to say that the witnesses on the part of the managements made false statement before the Enquiry Officer, I have considered the enquiry report submitted by. the Enquiry Officer carefully and I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the same. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after considering all papers and report issued the dismissal order against the concerned workman vide letter dt. 18-12-1990/3-1-91.

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.O. 2377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. IT), Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

|No. L-20012/278/90-IR

N P. KESVAN, Desk Officer4986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PART II—SEC.3(il)] ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2)

ATDHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(l)(d) of the LD. Act, 1947

to the Apex Medical Board for determination of his medical fitness. After medical test the Company's Medical Board on 25-8-84 declared him medically unfit and accordingly on the basis of their medical report he submitted his representation before the management for employment of his dependent son Shri Aidit Ram as per provision of NCWA-in but the management ignored his prayer illegally and arbitrarily and also without following the principles of natural justice and thereafter superannuated him from his service. Accordingly the concerned workman has prayed for passing an Award directing the management to provide employment to the dependant son of the concerned workman with retrospective effect.

Reference No. 57 of 1991

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the

management of CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Workman :

None

On behalf of the Employers :

Shri B. Joshi, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dhanbad

Dated, the 31st July, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the ID Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/278/90-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 19th March,

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of Central Coalfields Limited management in not offering employment to dependent son of Sn Adit Ram under para 9.4.3 of NTCWA-III after he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board on 25-8-84 and which was duly approved by the Competent Authority of CCL Hqrs, is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman in brief

is as follows:—

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum-rejoinder has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been submitted by the management that the date of birth of the concerned workman was 16-10-24. The concerned workman was superannuated with effect from ] 6-10-84 by letter dt. 26-9-84. It has been admitted by the management that the concerned workman was sent for medical examination along with others as per provision of Mines Rule, 1955 and he appeared before the Medical Board on 25-8-84. The Medical Board finanlised the report on 25-9-84 and sont the same to the management of different collieries on different dates. By that time the management issued a notice of superannuation of the concerned workman with effect from 16-10-84. The management submitted that the report of the Medical Board relating to medical fitness does not automatically terminate the service of a workman. Before terminating a workman from his service, his conditions relating to permanent disablement as well as nature of job being performed by him are considered and the management takes the final decision if the particular workman can be retrained in service or may be terminated. The management submitted further that the concerned workman was a Munshi performing Clerical Job and the nature of diseases dctcched was not of such nature which could abstain him to perform his clerical job. The management allowed him on the job till the date of his retirement and he received his payment upto the date of retirement. The management submitted that the demand for employment of dependants cannot be made as a matter of right and any provision contained in service rule, agreement or circular conferring a right on a workman to get his dependant employed becomes ultravires the Constitution of India and no workman employed in a public sector undertaking can demand for his employment. Such employment can only be given on compassionate ground The provision of NCWA can only be utilised to aid in deciding the existence of compassionate ground for providing employment to the dependant employees. It has also been submitted by the management that in no circumstances a retiring employee can get such benefit as he completed the full term of his employment and gets all the benefits under the management including giatuity, provident fund etc. at the time of his The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he was a Ivlunshi at Karketta Project of M/s. CCL for a long period He alleged that as he was a member of the concerned union il i. management was very much dissatisfied with him and was on the look out to victimise him in any manner. He submitted that on the ground of his ailment he submitted several representations to the management for his medical examination but the management continuously ignored his prayer. However, subsequently the management sent him4987 retirement. It has been disclosed that the services of the concerned workman was not terminated by the management on medical ground and for which the claim of the concerned workman finds no justifiable ground. In die result, the management has prayed for passing an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. The points for consideration in this reference

are :—

"Whether the action of Central Coalfields Limited management in not offering employment to dependent son of Sri Adit Ram under para 9.4.3 of NCWA-III after he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board on 25-8-84 and which was duly approved by the competent authority of CCL Hqrs, is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

there was no reason on the part of the management to terminate him from service. Clause 9.4,3 of NCWEA-III speaks clearly "The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of emplolyment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned," It is seen that the concerned workman continued his work till the date of superannuation in spite of his medical fitness. It shows therefore clearly that his unfitness was not so fatal that he was debarred to carry on his service till the date of his superannuation. The management also did not terminate him from service. On the contrary after the date of superannuation he has received all the benefits accrued from the management. Therefore, on careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances, there is sufficient reason to believe that application of provision of 9.4.3 which the concerned workman has claimed finds no basis In the result, the concerned workman's claim for employment of his son docs not stand on cogent footing and for which he is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is randcred :—

"The action of Central Coalfields Limited management in not offering employment to dependent son of Sri Adit Ram under para 9.4.3 of NCWA-III after he was declared medically unfit bv the Medical Board on 25-8-84 and which was duly approved by the competent authority of CCL Hqrs, is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief ?"

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 5. The concerned workman in spite of getting scope did not consider necessary to adduce evidence and accordingly the management did not consider to adduce his evidence to counter act the claim of the concerned workman. It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that he was suffering many diseases and for which he was unable to perform his duties and on the said ground he submitted several representations before the management to send him before the Apex Medical Board for his medical examination and fitness. But the management did not pay any head to his request. To this effect in course of hearing the concerned workman has failed to submit a single scrap of paper. Naturally the claim of the concerned workman about submitting several representations before the management finds no basis. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was sent to the Company's Medical Board for examination of his medical fitness on 25-8-84. It is also submitted that the Medical Board declared him medically unfit and sent report to that effect. It is the contention of the management that the date of birth of the concerned workman was 16-10-24 and his date of superannuation was 16-10-84. He was sent to the Medical Board on 25-8-84 i.e. within a short period from the dale of his superannuation. The management further disclosed that they received medical report after 22-9-84 i.e. about one month before the date of superannuation. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was a Munshi, The management submitted that the work of Munshi is to carry on clerical jobs. The nature of ailment which the concerned workman was suffering from was not of so much in aggravated form which de-barred him from carrying on his work. Actually the concerned workman worked under the management till the date of superannuation and for which

S-O. 2378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central4988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PART II—St-c 3(u)J Govcrment Industrial Tribunal, (No II) Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No L-20012/311/99-IR(C-l)l

N P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO 2)

ATDHANBAD

2 In this reference both the parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed a Memorandum of Settlement under their signature. I heard both the parties on the said settlement and I do find that the terms contained therein arc fair, proper and beneficial to both the parlies Accordingly I accept the said settlement and pass an Award in terms thereof which forms part of the Award as Annexure

B BISWAS, Presiding Officer

FORM-H

(Sec Rule—58)

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d)oftheID Act 1947.

Memorandum of Settlement Arrived at Between the Management of Lodna Area of M/s BCCL and their workman represented by KJMP union on 26-2-2001

Representing Workman/Union

Representing Management

1 Shri UP Singh,

1. Shri Dudcshwar Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Lodna Area.

Mishra, Branch Secretary, REFERENCE No. 30 OF 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s BCCL and their workman.

KIMP Bagdigi Colliery Branch

2 ShriSKSinha,

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Workman:

Personnel Manager, Lodna Area.

2. ShriLalluBouri Ex-Cableman, Bagdigi Colliery SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

ShriD.Mishra, Branch Secretary, KIMP Bagdigi Colliery.

On behalf of the Employers : ShriD.KAfcrma, Advocate

State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd July, 2001 Shri Lallu Bouri, Cableman of Bagdigi Colliery was absenting from his duty without information/prior permission of the Competent Authority from 30-10-95 In the past also he had been absenting from duty without information/prior permission. Accordingly he was issued charge sheet by the disciplinary authority vide No. BCCL/ BC/PER/CS/14 dated 1-3-96.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No, L-20012/311/ 99-l.R. (C-I), dated, the 28th January, 2000

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of Bagdigi Colliery of Lodna Area of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Laloo Boun from the services of the company w.e f 3-6-96 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitiled ?"

That he also submitted his reply on 2-3-96 and stated that his children was sick he immediately rushed to his native place and was getting treatment from a private doctor Bakura. He also admitted that he could not inform the management which was his mistake. He also prayed and requested for resumption of duty The disciplinary authority did not find the reply of the concerned workman as satisfactory and ordered for domestic enquiry The enquiry was conducted in which the concerned workman also participated. During the course of enquiry it was also revealed that during his service period particularly 1991 and onward he had been issued nine charge sheets for unauthorised absence. The management had warned/ suspended him on several occassions against the charge4989 sheet and was allowed to resume duty This time the management gave though on the past conduct of the concerned workman and decided to dismiss him from the service and accordingly he was dismissed.

The matter was raised as an Industrial Dispute by

reporting duty to the Project Officer Bagdigi Colliery he will file a separate application for withdrawal of his case which is pending before CGIT No. II, Dhanbad The said application will also be witnessed by responsible union representatives of KIMP not below the rank of Branch Secretary and Treasurer.

4 That, after signing this settlement their remains

nothing to subsists

Shri BN Sharma, Vice-President, KIMP which was registered under file No 1/146/98-E-5 dated 8/23-10-98. The conciliation was failed and FOC was sent by the ALC(C), Dhanbad to the Hon'blc Ministry and the same has been referred to CGIT No. II, Dhanbad vide order No. L-20012/ 31 l/99-lR(C-l) dated 28-1-2000 The schedule of the same is as under.

That a copy of the settlement shall be filed by the management before the Hon'ble Tribunal CGIT No. II, Dhanbad also a copy of the same shall be sent to the ALC(C), Dhanbad for getting it registered under the law ic I D. Act, 1947.

Management side

Workman s side

"Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of Lodna Area M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Lallu Bouri from the services of the company w e f 3-6-96 isjustified if not; what relief the workman is entitled?"

Shri UP Singh, Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Lodna Area.

Shri Dudheshwar Mishra, Branch Secretary, KIMP Bagdigi Colliery Branch Since the Hon'blc CGIT No II is closed and till date we have not received any notice in this regard from the Hon'blc Court the matter is pending.

SK Sinha, Personel Manager, Lodna Area.

Lallu Bouri Ex-Cableman, Workman concerned

Witnesses (1)

Signatures llligeble

Signatures illigeble

(2)

The case was in the meantime, represented at HCCL Hqrs, where the General Manager I/c(P&IR), BCCL, Koyla Bhawanvidchis letter No. 1787 dated 18/21-3-2000 intimated lhat Shn Lallu Bouri, Cableman, Bagdigi Colliery may be re- instated subject to certain conditions. Again General Manager I/c (P&IR) intimated vide letter No. 399 dated 29/ 30-1-2001 that the competent authority has agreed to re- instate Shn Lallu Bouri with the fact lhat he lias withdrawn his PF money and not gratuity so he may be re-instatcd on the following terms and conditions as per earlier letter No 1787 dated 18/21-3-2000.

Accordingly Shri Lallu Bouri, Cableman of Bagdigi Colliery is hereby re-instatcd on the following terms and conditions on which both the parties agreed to

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1 That, Shn Lallu Bonn will submit his joining report lo the Project Officer, Bagdigi Colliery within a penod of 15 days from the date of signing of this settlement

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 2. That he shall not be paid nor he will claim for wages or other conscqucnted benefit for the period from the date he reported absent followed by dismissal and subsequently the actual date of re-instatement i.e. the date on which he will report for duty to the Project Officer, Bagdigi Colliery

3 That. Shri Lallu Boun will discharge his duty with

devotion loyahty after his rc-instatement

S.O. 2379.—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 lndustnal Tribunal, (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

It was also agreed by both the parties including the workman namely Shn Lallu Bouri that before

[No. L-20012/341/91-IR(C-I)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer4990 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PARTH—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CT^OTTiAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO 2)

ATDHANBAD

PRESENT,

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(l)(d)oftheLD. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 172 OF 1991

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management

of TISCO Ltd. and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Workman •

Shri S.N, Goswami, Advocate

leaving behind Kusum Gowalin his legally married wife as his legal heirs or successor as deceased had no issue. After the death of said Chhatu Gope his widow Smt. Kusum Gowalin submitted her representation for getting her service under the management taking the ground that her husband served the management continuously for 36 years and for which she is entitiled for employment in the colliery in place of her deceased husband according to the policy of the mangement as also as per provision laid down in para 9.4.2 of NCWA-III. It has been alleged that in spite of submitting representation her prayer was ignored by the management and for which being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the action of the management the union raised this industrial dispute resulting reference to this Tribunal. The concerned union accordingly has prayed for passing an Award directing the managment of Sijua Colliery to provide employment to Smt. Kusum Gowalin in place of her deceased husband Chhatu Gope on the strength of completion of more than 36 years of service and in the light of the provision of employment according to para 9.4.2 of NCWA-III.

On behalf of the Employers:

ShriB. Joshi, Advocate

State • Jharkhand Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th July, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012 (341)/ 91-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the Nil.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Jamadoba Colliery Group of M/s. TISCO Ltd. in denying employment to Smt. Kusum Gowalin dependent of late Chhatu Gopc Ex-employee of Sijua Colliery is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The case of the union who have raised the instant Industrial dispute on behalf of Smt. Kusum Gowalin, wife of late Chhatu Gope Ex-employee of Sijua Colliery as per W Sm brief is as follows :—

3. The management on the contrary after filing W. S.- cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned union asserted in their W.S. It has been submitted by the management that late Chhatu Gope was appointed on 17-4-50 as workman of Sijua Colliery and he expired on 7-5-86. The concerned workman is claiming employment in the capacity of dependent of late Chhatu Gope ascertaining her right as per provision of NCWA-in. The management submitted that they have their own scheme on employment of the dependent of workman which is more favourable than the provision of NCWA-ITI relating to the employment of the dependents. As per the said scheme such employees who are desirous to get their dependants employed on the strength of their service have to get two of their dependent's name enrolled in the Employees' Dependent's Register as first and second choice if they have completed 15 years of service. In the event of vacancy employment is offered to such employee whose name is registered in the Employees Dependents Register in order of length of service of the Guardian employee. The management further submitted that they arc running the Mining industry and employment on female are prohibited inside the mine. Accordingly the management has prescribed male dependents to be employed in the collieries and does not entertain any female dependent of a workman. It has been further submitted that as per the provision of Section 46 of Mines Act no woman shall be employed in any part of the mine which is below ground and in any mine above ground except between the hours 6.00 A.M. to 7.00 P.M. The management further submitted that there is very limited scope of employment of female on the surface and it is difficult to create vacancies for The prima facie case as per W.S. is that Chhatu Gopc was a permanent employee of Sijua Colliery under M/s. TISCO Ltd. as onsetter. He joined his service on 17-4-50 and died in harness on 7-5-86 i.e. after completion of service of 36 years. It has been submitted that Chhatu Gopc died 499] engagement of female dependents on the surface. It is submitted that every year a large number of workers become entitled for getting their dependent enrolled in the ED R. after completion of 15 years of service and most of them will prefer to get their wives enrolled as their dependents both from the point of view of economic and future considerations. It will be impossible to accommodate so many female dependents on a few surface jobs available for women workers. The management further submitted that they had a joint discussion with the recognised unions from time to time and taking into consideration ofvarious facts have*prcscribed the persons who are considered to be eligible for enrolment as dependent in the E.D Register. The management in consultation with the recognised union namely R.C.M.S. following its own procedure of employment of dependents and not following the provisions of NCWA-III because of the fact that the scheme of employment of dependent is more favourable than Uic provision of NCWA. It has been submitted by the management further that late Chhatu Gope during his life time did not nominate any of his dependent for employment in the colliery. He did not get any one eligible person to be enrolled as his dependent and as such no dependant of late Chhatu Gope could be appointed by the management. Disclosing this fact the management submitted further that the concerned lady is not eligible for employment as dependent of late Chhatu Gope as per the company's procedure and she cannot claim employment under the management Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award holding that the action of the management in denying employment to SmL Kusum Gowalin is legal bona fide and she is not entitled to get any relief.

4. The points for consideration in this reference

are:—

"Whether the action of the management of Jamadoba Colliery group of M/s. TISCO Ltd. in denying employment to Smt. Kusum Gowalin dependent of late Chhatu Gope Ex-employee of Sijua Colliery is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitilcd?"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

circumstances one dependent of the deceased worker is liable to get work under the management. It is the contention of the union that Chhatu Gope died leaving Smt. Kusum Gowalin as his only legal heiress as he had no issue. Accordingly as per the provision of the management Kusum Gowalin is entitled to get job on compassionate ground. It has been further submitted that after death of Chhatu Gope his widow i c Kusum Gowalin submitted a representation before the management for his employment but it was turned down. It is the contention of the union that in spite of specific provision and policy adopted by the management one dependent entitled to get a job subject to fulfilment of the condition. But in the instant case in spite of fulfilment of condition Kusum Gowalin i.e. the widow of late Chhatu Gope was deprived of getting any employment under the management The management on the contrary submitted that they are running mining industry and for which employment of female are prohibited inside the mine Accordingly the management always prescribed male dependent to be employed in the collieries It has been further submitted that apart from this fact as per provision of Section 46 of the Mines Act no woman shall be entitled in any part of the mine which is below ground and in am mine above ground except between 6 00 A M. to 7 00 P M It has been further submitted that on the surface there is very limited scope for employment of female workers and it is difficult for the management to create vacancy * n enagagement of female dependents on the surface and for which the case of Kusum Gowalin could not be considered The management also denied the fact of adopting the polic\ as laid down in NCWA-UI which was agitated b it, concerned workman. It has been submitted that thev na\ their own policy in the matter of recruitment of employees dependents and that policy was set up on the basis of joint discussion with the recognised union and that also h,is been reflected in the NC WAs Taking into ground that the policy adopted by them arc far better than the policy of NCWA in the matter of employment of dependents During evidence the minutes of the union meeting held with the Executive Director (RM) on 10-2-94 was marked as Ext M- 2. Letter issued by Joint General Secretary, RCMS w.is marked as Ext. M-4 I have considered both the document s and it is clear that as per Joint meeting management held the right to consider employment of female of deceased employees Joint General Secretary in his leuer l^reui unconditionally that the existing employment rules wen- more favourable and should continue to be enforced Management by their letter E.\t M-3 have assigned icawm for rejection of the prayer of Kusum Gowalin, widow of Chhatu Gope in the matter of her employment It is i.m that late Chhatu Gope served under the management foi continuous 36 years. As per own policy decision ol thi. management dependent of the deceased cmplmws accrued nght to get an employment under the management It is contention of the management that in such cjses itu concerned employees are required to enroll names oil heir 5. The management in order to substantiate thcirclaim examined two witnesses on the contrary on behalf of the union none was examined. There is no dispute to hold that late Chhatu Gope was an employee under the management and he worked there as onsetter. He was appointed under the management on 17-4-50 and he died on 7-5-86. According to the service record the said Chhatu Gope was due to retire on 27-7-86. Therefore it is clear that approximately about 3 months before his superannuation he died. However, there is no dispute to hold that he worked under the management for more than 36 years According to the management policy in such

2742GI/2001 -184992 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

S.O. Z380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-20012/366/97-IR(C-i)]

N. P. KESAVAN, D"k Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Shri B Biswas, Presidinhg Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (l)(d)oftheI,D. Acts, 1947.

Reference No. 139 of 1998

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the managment of JoyTampur Col- liery of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman ; RamRatanRam,

Secretary, Bahujan Mazdoor Union.

On behalf of the employers : ShriD.K.\ferma, dependent in the E D R. after completion of their 15 years of service The management further submitted that in the 'nsTant case Chhatu Gope did not enroll the name of his wife as dependent for getting her employment in case of his death and for which though claim accrued they could not consider her prayer. The management also submitted that the scope of employment of female workers in service is very limited and under exceptional cases such prayer is considered because of the fact that there is no scope to provide employment under mine. The letter has also restricted categorically. Submission made by the management cannot be wiped out or brushed aside at all. It is true that due to death of Chhatu Gopc claimed for employment of his widow accrued but that claim which was accrued could not be considered as a matter of right before giving employment. Some important aspects are also to be considered carefully. It is also to be looked into if there was any vacancy at the relevant time on the surface to provide employment. No evidence is forthcoming before this Tribunal on the pail of the union if any such vacancy existed on the surface at the time of submitting representation by the widow of the deceased. The management for obvious reason did not consider the claim of the widow of the deceased as her name was not enrolled in the E.D R. The Majority of the Union has adopted the policy set out by the management in the matter of employment The management has assigned reason for rejecting the prayer of the concerned union as the management maintains its independent policy which has also duly reflected in the NCWA-II and III. There is scope to say that the policy adopted by the management based on cogent footing and has been accepted as good policy, As such at this stage after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the decision of the management in the matter of rejecting the prayer for employment of the widow of deceased workman Chhatu Gope. In the result, the following Award is rendered: —

Advocate.

STATE: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal,

Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd July, 2001

AWARD

"The action of the management of Jamadoba Colliery group of M/s. TISCO, in denying employment to Smt Kusum Gowahn dependent of late Chhatu Gope Ex-employcc of Sijua Colliery is justified. Consequently she is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I. D Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-20012/366/97-I.R(C-I), dated the 24th April, 1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether The Action of the Management of Joyrampur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sh. Gobardhan Bhuiya, Ex-M/Loader from the services of the company w.e.f. 5-3-92 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman tnti.i *H''" 49V i

3 Shn Gobardhan Bhuia lias not gone for aw (YM^ ' Conciliation case on this issue, if any tht- WIM^ will be withdrawn

4. Shri Gobardhan Bhuia will discharge his dui v with full loyahty and devotion to the management

5 His identity must be established by the nnii

concerned

2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W.S. Subsequently when the refer- ence was fixed for filing documents by the parties, a Memo- randum of settlement was filed under their signature. I heard both the parties on the said settlement and I find that the terms contained therein are fair, proper and beneficial to both of them. Accordingly I accept the said settlement and pass an Award in terms thereof which forms part of the Award as annexure.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

FORM-^I

6 No wages, whai-so-ever, will be paid or claun i by the person concerned from the date he rcportul absent followed by dismissal and subsequently be reinstated.

(See Rule—58)

Memorandum of settlement arrived at between the MANAGEMENT OF BCCL, LODNA AREA AND SHRI GOBARDHAN BHUIA, EX-MTNOR/LOADER, JOYRAMPUR COLLIERY.

7 The period of idleness from the date oi unauthorised absence till the resumption of dut> shall be treated as dies-non However, the continuity of service will be allowed for tin- purpose of gratuity only

PRESENT

8. The dispute is reserved once for all.

On behalf of the management:

(MADHAVA CHAKRABORTY) 1. Shri. H. Surin,

Personnel Manager, Lodna Area

Secretary, RCMS Joyrampur Colliery

(H SURI) Personnel Manager, Lodna Area

2. Shri AP Singh,

(GOBARDHAN BHUIA) Miner/Loader, Joyrampur Personnel Manager, Joyrampur

(A P SINGH) Personnel Manager, Joyrampur Colly

On behalf of the workman •

1. Shri Madhav Chakrabortty,

Secretary, RCMS, Joyrampur

2 Shri Gobardhan Bhuia,

Ex-Miner/Loader, Joyrampur

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 Shri Gobardhan Bhuia was charg * sheeted vide Charge sheet No. BCCL/A/91/2778 dated ; 12-91 for unauthorised absence from duty and after concluding domestic enquiry into the charge sheet and on proved misconduct he was dismissed from the services of the company vide letter No BCCL/A/92/46 dated 19/28-2-92 w e.f. 5-3-92 Shri Gobardhan Bhuia appealed before the management for his reinstatement which was approved by the competent authority and communicated to us vide letter No. BCCL ; PER: IR : REINSTATEMENT . 2000 : 5071 Dated 20-7-2000 of General Manager I/c (P&IR),: BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad

Shn Gobardhan Bhuia has been reinstated on the

following terms and conditions :

TERMS AND CONDITION

1. Shri Gobardhan Bhuia has been found medically

S.O. 2J81.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers m relation to the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2001.

fit to perform his duties.

2. Neither Gratuity nor PF has been withdrawn by

fNo L-34()]2/6/96-fR(M)] Shri Gobardhan Bhuia.

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

4994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24,1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present ; Sri C. Sambasiva Rao, M. A. B.L.

CHAIRMAN, Industrial Tribunal and Presiding Officer, Labour Court: Visakhapatnam

Ref. No. L-34012/6/96IR (Misc.) Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India dated: 31-3-97.

I. T. I. D No. 9/97 (C) Dated 16th Day of September, 1999.

BETWEEN

Workman

Sh. K Annayya Sastry, Kranti Nagar, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

AND

The Chairman,

Management.

Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. -35

This dispute coming on for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Raghunadha Rao, advocate for work- man and Sn D V Subba Rao, advocate for management Arguments hears and up on perusing the material papers on record, the court passed the following :

AWARD

into service 3 workmen who are removed from service for absence as the co-workmen went on strike for such serious action those 3 workmen arc Bangaiah, Guru Murthy and Waddadhi Rama Rao. The contents of sick certificate are not considered. It was alleged Port Medical Officer opinion was not obtained or the sickness certificate for the absence period, Enquiry was not conducted explaining the consequences of the workman is skilled. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust is condoning the absence of 200 workmen which is 10% of employees force. This is the first disciplinary action for removing him service in the Port Trust history from 1933. He was not paid any House Building Advance to save his service to facilitate the FA & CAO to recover from salary, When Asst. Labour Commissioner interveined there is no comment from management. He is capable of discharging various duties in the Traffic department. Only on account of Traffic official along the Traffic Manager causing mental tourture resulted in the absence. For the 4th time the Traffic Manager succeeded in removing him from service. He was questioning Traffic Manager because of thousands of rupees lost On 18-12-95 Traffic Manager indulged in irregular remittance of needed papers pointed out by the workman. Traffic Manager managed a report against workman with back date 6-12-85 as if it is real and it could be sent to Traffic Manager on 7-12-85. Even though the work spot is 100 ft. away from the Chamber of Traffic Manager for the enquiry on charges framed he arranged favourable subordinate official instead of other department officials. The refusal of taking eye witnesses who are supporting the workman resulted the loss of Rs. 20,000 next attempt he created one more. The enquiry report is not proved and thus by Traffic Manager caused loss of Rs.30,000 so his status be resorted with back wages and countinuity of service.

1. On a reference made by the Central Government U/Scc.l()(l) 2A(d) this matter is coming for consideration before this court to pass an Award.

2 The reference is "Whether the action of Management, Visakhapatnam Port Trust in terminating services of Sri K. Annaiah Sastry Tally clerk we f 2-1 -91 is justified'' If not what relief the workman is entitled t o"

4. This is opposed by filing by counter by management denying some allegations. It is admitted this workman is a permanent employee worked from 5-3-69 till 2-1-91 on which day he was removed. Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust is the head of the institution and Traffic Manager is the disciplinary authority. There is no question of partiality and misuse of power. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment after following procedure and after conducting enquiry as per rules. The Chairman as appellate authority confirmed the same on merits. The allegations of workman was taken into service after removal who got on strike did not show the factual back ground The facts of the case was different from the present case. The question of non-observation of formalities and not following the rules are not correct. On 18-1-90 he was informed about the enquiry and imputation of misconduct by sending memorandum of charges. It is clearly mentioned that he is absent from duty from 11-9-89 to 12-12-89 unauthorisedly and asked to submit explanation in 10 days. He received charged memo on 3 After receiving the reference the workman submitted the same submission made to the Government. The allegations are the petitioner was a tally clerk in Traffic Department of Port Trust and he is a permanent employee. He rendered service for 22 yrs from 5-3-69 to 2-1-9] remove*, from service w.e.f. 2-1-91. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust who is the Head of the Department, the Traffic Manager in the status of disciplinary authority illegally removed him from service. There was partiality in his case just 15 days earlier to this issue the same discipline appellate authority took back4995 wokman assesserts, no enquiry was conducted, A glance at the traffic department salary bill of the Traffic department in any month of any year which is available in FA and CAO will show the absentees whose salary was reduced under the item without pay for the absence. The management did not have experience of removal of any HB A paid workman. D. Naresh Kumar was the representative of management told on 6-11-96 in the conciliation before Asstt. Labour Commissioner by mentioning 'no comments'. For removal of workman with back date N.P. Satyanarayana, Asstt. Foreman are compelled to make a report to fulfil his desire of removal releaved by trust board member, and another section officer of the Traffic Manager. In the submission filed in the papers of correspondence four times after removal from service removal was confirmed date is 30^1-91, butalreadyc"nfinnedon3-ll-93. No mercy appeal lies under regulations date 15-3-95, On the case of top dignitaries in similar issues like the present incident during the end of 1980, Shri R.K. Gonela who is IAS Officer Chairman removed CME Employees but reinstated with back wages 2 yrs. after removal. The authority also managed in passing the removal order. Any workman should be healthy, both physically and mentally, in discharging his duties. Previously on account of sickness were allowed to attend duty by retaining him. His absence cannot be utilised by management as misconduct and misbehaviour by the management if it is not satisfied about his fitness for 2nd medical opinion he has to be sent. Hence he be granted the reliefs.

6. After those proceedings arguments were submitted and validity of domestic enquiry was upheld as there is valid domestic enquiry, consequent upon that under Sec. HA arguments were addressed by both the parties by making documents Ml to M24 for management and Exs. Wl to W4 for workman.

19-1 -90 but did not submit explanation. After waiting for 2 months no reply was received, on 23 -3 -90 he was informed of the enquiry proposed to be held an enquiry officer was appointed. It is intimated on behalf of the management Sri B.S. Reddy could appear as presenting officer, The enquiry was fixed on 2-9-90, He received the charge memo and admitted the charges. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges of delinquent were established. He did not submit explanation to the show caurt notice but admitted guilt in the course of enquiry report furnished to him and thereafter on 2-1-91 removal order was passed. He appealed to the Chairman on 15-2-91, chairman considered his matter and on 20-4-91 on dismissal order of the Chairman, he was given opportunity where also he admitted his guilt. No sickness certificates were produced at any time, when he went on leave or even during enquiry, he has not produced anything. No sickness certificate was reported, no sickness certificate was produced. He signed the proceedings admitting the guilt, The question of denying opportunity does not arise the allegation of Traffic department favouring 200 workmen who are regularly absent is also denied. The allegation that no workman was removed for absence is irrelevant. Merely because house building advance is still due it does not mean his unauthorised absence cannot be considered. For recovering those amounts the management still take necessary steps. The allegation that his absence is on account of torture by traffic manager is also not correct. It shows lack of respect to departmental superiors and attributing bad motives. Even in the past also the workman was charged for similar absenteeism but the management was extremely considered. He absented from duty without prior sanction. The allegation that traffic manager received a report with back date sent on 6-12-95 is totally irrelevant. They are not taken into consideration for issuing the present memo dated 8-1-90 for hi s absence from 1 -1 -89 to 12 -12-89. It has nothing to do something happened in 1985. The reference to earlier enquiry reports is totally irrelevant. There are no merits in the case.

7. As per Ex. Wl notice was given about holding enquiry against the workman on 28-2-86. The relevant documents and list of witnesses were also supplied along with articles of charges. He was asked to submit explanation in 10 days and he should intimate whether desires to be heard in person. It is alleged in this charge sheet the petitioner was instructed by the Shed foreman to effect delivery of paper rolls to the concerned after comparing the marks and number of paper rolls with import application and bill of entry but the instruction of the shed foreman were not paid heed and delayed the issue of gate passes to the loaded lorries, leading to delay in effecting delivery, and he also misbehaved with consignee without giving delivery. On that enquiry was held and report was submitted. In the enquiry report it is stated the charge is proved but it was not considered as misbehaviour. Another proceeding is Ex. W2 where there was some report with regarding to issue of passes and misusing of fascimile of the commandant CISF on the Dock entry pass. In that report 5. Again a rejoinder is filed by workman on 8-7-98. The management admitted about taking back 3 workmen who arc removed from service. A question was raised how this petitioner was permitted to attend duty after absence without surrenderence of joining report with the help of sick and pay certificates. The non-submission of fitness certificate is not true, The receipt of sickness certificate can be found in the dock books January, 1990 to March, 1990 and few foremen and dock inspector is not tampered, in the pocesscs of forwarding to traffic establishment section. At about 16hrs, 2-7-90 when he was running ina hurry to get his salary Sri B. S. N. Rcddy, Dock Inspector, who is presenting officer stopped him at main gate and forcibly brought to the chamber of Asstt, Traffic Manager(s) and enquiry officer Satyanayana Rao also sat together like discussing an emergency issue, still the4996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was given and enquiry was held and it was held there was no malafidics. Ex. W3 is with regarding to GPRF account mistake in entries. Ex. W4 is a paper cutting with regard to the Supreme Court Judgement that after cutting the salary no dismissal can be made. Ex. Ml is the notice of unauthorised absence dt. 12-10-89 where it was mentioned about the absence of workmanfrom 11-9-89 to 12-10-89. Ex. M2 is another notice for the absence from 16-10-89 to 10-11-89, Ex. M3 is another notice for absence from 10-11-89 till 12-12-89 on that a notice was issued as charge sheet under Ex. M4 directing to submit explanation in 10 days and opportunity was given for oral hearing also. The annexure shows the three absent reports sent under Exs Ml to M3. Ex. M5 shows about absence from 11-9-89 to 12-12-89 No sickness certificate was submitted. No leave application filed for absence. He is in the habit of frequent absence of duty unauthorisedly submitting sick and fit certificates issued by private medical practitioners, to cover the absence period at the time of joining duty causing inconvenience and dislocation of work and he is careless and irregular and charged with serious negligence and carelessness duties, as mentioned by Traffic Manager who signed it. The next document is Ex, M5 itself is with regarding to absence from duly from 11-9-89 to 12-12-89 which is also a copy earlier documents which was received and acknowledged by workman on 19-1-90 under Ex. M6, Ex. M7 is an order passed by the Traffic Manager appointed K. Satyanarayana Rao to enquire into the matter. Under M8 enquiry report was submitted along with the answers of the workman in the preliminary enquiry examination. In that the workman admitted he received a memo dt. 23-3-90 understood the contents and he admitted the charges framed against him in the charge memo, so the finding is given against the workman. Detailed report of the enquiry officer is Ex. M8. After that report he was asked to submit his representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed within 15 days and acknowledgement is Ex M10 dated 22-11-1990. On that under Ex. Ml 1 he was removed from service after consideration of the report. It was intimated under Ex. M12 acknowledgement giving time of 45 days to approach the appellate authority. Under Ex. M13 the salary from 2-1-9] is ordered to be not to be paid. Ex. M14 is the submission made by the workman to the Chairman by way of appeal and Ex. M15 is the order passed dismissing the appeal and acknowledged by workman by M16. Subsequently also some memorandums were submitted by the workman to consider his case which are Exs. M17 to M23 and orders thereon.

medical practitioner which is presented by Quay Foreman to forward to dock inspector and in his turn to establishment section. He was paid salary for 10 days in Sept. 1989 and 23 days in Feb., 1990 for the rest of the period he did not receive salary. He underwent without payment of salary for the entire period of absence. The fact when the workman was taken into service after long absence of his leave, application of leave and sick certificate may be assumed to have been submitted Otherwise he would not be allowed to duty. The pay and accounts section treated the period of absence as leave without pay. He was sufficiently punished on sustained monetary loss. The traffic manager was not aware of the punishment which the workman sustained in the pay and accounts office which is one of the wings of the management. Remarks of the management in charge sheet that he is frequently absented, submitting sick and fit certificate of private medical practitioner to prove but his absence at the time of joining his duty causing inconvenience and dislocation of work, shows the management admitted the sick and fit certificates. If it is not satisfied with the private medical practitioner certificate, it would have referred to the Port Medical Officer for second opinion and there is no misconduct on his part. He refers to the other workman's absence and further submitted that no person can be prosecuted twice under Sec. 300 Cr. PC. to Article 20(3)of Constitution of India and 26 of General Laws as it amounts to jeo pardy. He is relied upon the reported judgment of 1999(2) ALD 28. It is a case where unauthorised absence of driver for one week, reinstatement is ordered as fresh candidates, Finding punishment to the shockingly disproportionate to gravity of the charges direction was given for reinstatement with continuity of service and also consequential benefits but back wages were denied from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement in Management of APSRTC Vs. N. Sankarayya by their Lordships Vcnkataramircddy, ACJ and V Bhaskar Rao, J. Similar is to the effect of another judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ginraju Sarma 1994 Supp. (3) 755, in a case where the workman who was deputed to undergo a course of an electrician sought leave for 10 days on 10-12-82 which was granted, but, he sent a telegram for extcntion of leave for another 12 days rejected, but he joined duty on 22-12-82 where their Lordships held minor penalty should be imposed setting aside the major penalty. Another reported judgement relied on by the counsel in 1998(6) ALT 373 Where there were charges for leaving headquarters without permission and failure to report at headquarter hospital for review. They are not so grave so to entitled punishment of dismissal or removal from service. It is not a case of corruption or misconduct involving moral turpitude. Suspension is held to be unsustainable and reinstatement was ordered. Another reported judgment is relief upon in 1998(6) ALT 238 m G. Mutyalu Vs. Managing Director, APSRTC. In that case the charge against the workman is that despite of his arrest and detention that he did not inform his supenor 8. In the written arguments submitted for the workman repetition is made in the pleadings It has also come to the light in the arguments that the workman did not attend the duty from 11-9-89 to 5-2-90 for a period of 148 days and not 11 -9-89 to 12-12-89 (93 days) as charged by the management. He reported duty filing leave letter on medical grounds with sick and fit certificates from private4997 officer about his arrest and no second charge need be framed in view of the first charge Another reported judgment relied upon b> the counsel 1999(2) ALD 96 which is the same judgment reported in 1999 (2) ALT 28

9 While countering these arguments the learned counsel for the management submitted that this is not for the first time the workman absented from duty Not less than 10 times for unauthorised absence without applying leave and not producing proper medical certificate enquiry was held, but out of compassionate he was not removed from service Even m this case the workman himself admitted about his absence from duty without leave and an explanation was called for he did not dispute about that fact It is his case that he suffered long time illness and could not attend to duties Even in his rejoinder or in his submission laid in the written arguments he could not say as who is the doctor that gave the certificate to him and what was the disease he suffered from, if really he applied leave some matenal should be filed by him to show that he submitted his leave application for particular day and fitness certificate and he obtained the certificate from a particular doctor So it is a case of fallaous negligence in discharging the duties by the workman and it is also not shown in any representations and pleadings that he is in the habit of maligning others, without justifying his own absence So workman himself admitted about his absence and opportunity was given He admitted the absence unauthorised and not submitting any explanation about his disease and reasons for absence By submitting the belated explanation for the purpose of case cannot be accepted In the reported judgments relief upon by the counsel for the workman are not the case where the workman was frequently absented without leave and rnspite of warning allowing to serve by joining duty during the earlier periods as in the case of present workman Hence in those circumstances, it is a special case, no mercy can be given and reference is to be answered against the workman The question of double jeopardy is not there is this case

made that he suffered with mental depression by the learned counsel for the workman But when that is questioned by the court he could not answer whether the treatment that was taken by any specialist doctor of mental disease or as to what was the type of mental depression he suffered from Hence pnmafacie has to be taken that the charges levelled against the workman with regard to his absence of duty for 93 days is clearly established in this case No doubt, the management did not lay the necessary papers before the court about the previous enquiry for absence from duties But the intimation on the charge sheet clearly indicates about the absence from duty without leave and without producing medical certificate That was not questioned the explanation but admitted by the workman But it was proper to look into the papers of the earlier proceedings by the Tribunal those papers are not submitted by the management Hence it is held that the management is justified in taking disciplinary action against him on the ground of proof of charges for unauthosed absence But with regard to the gravity of the punishment imposed, this court feels that it is a fit case where following the rulings relied upon, considering the 22 yrs of service of the workman, a liberal view should be taken in this matter Though in normal course the courts not inclined in reference matters to interfere with the findings on proof of charges taking action by the management but m exceptional cases where the punishment is shockingly beyond proportionate certainly the awarding of punishment whether justified or not can be looked into by the Industrial Tribunal Keepmg m mind that principle, considering long term of service, inspite of the conduct of the workman was reprcshcnsible, still this tribunal feels it is a case where reinstatement has to be ordered but the period from the termination of service will the dale of passing the award the workman is not entitled to any financial benefits including various monetary benefits For the period for which he was not paid salary for unauthonsed absence also he is not entitled to any financial benefits but there shall be continuity of service It is unfortunate that the workman in this case does not show the required discipline expected of him as an employee and it will be in the fitness of things that he should not resort to make valid allegations and mudshngs against co-employees, and the benefits got by them This Tribunal fondly hopes the workman hereafter will not resort to such deeds

10 On a careful and respective contentions and the reasons it is a serious case of lapse on the part of the workman who went on unauthorised absence and no explanation given at the earliest stage for his unauthorised absence It is not the case of the workman that he sent a leave application along with the medical certificate much prior to reporting to duty Only on the date of reporting duty even as per his case, he produced fitness certificate and leave application obviously this fitness certificate which is disputed as not submitted by the management, is not even explain either m the earlier stage or at the time of enquiry or in the rejoinder filed by him or in the written arguments, as to who is the doctor that treated him and what is the disease he suffered from A famt attempt was

11 In the result, the reference is answered, though the management is justified in imposing the punishment against the workman the nature of punishment imposed is held to be beyond proportion to the infraction of duties It is further answered that the ends of justice would be met by awarding the punishment of not granting the financial benefits for the period of absence of duty for 148 days from 11-9-89 to 5-2-90 and subsequently dismissal till4998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA24,1923 (PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex. M14: 15-2-91: Appeal letter of workman,

Ex. M15 :30-4-91; Appeal order by appellate authority.

Ex. Ml 6. Postal acknowledgement.

reinstatement, he is not entitled to any financial benefits to like salary and other emoluments and also other incindental benefits, but there shall be continuity of service, within 30 days from the date of passing this award by notification by the Government, he shall be reinstated into service. Accordingly reference is answered,

Ex. M17 : Representation letter addressed to Management by workman.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under m^ hand and seal of the court this the 16th day of September, 1999.

Ex. M18: Letter of Management regarding appeal for review of order of removal.

C. SAMBASIVARAO, Presiding Officer Ex. M19 : 13-2-95 : Representation to management by workman.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Ex. M20: Letter of management mercy appeal.

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

Ex. M21: Letter of management by mercy appeal, FOR WORKMAN • NONE FOR MANAGEMENT: NONE

Ex. M22 : 8-3-96 : Representation to management by workman.

Ex. M23 : 30-3-96: Letter of Management

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR WORKMAN : Ex-Wl : 28-2-86 : Memorandum/charge sheet issued by the management.

Ex. M24 : 9^-96; Letter of management.

Ex. W2 : 25-3-88 : Memorandum/chargesheet issued by management.

Ex. W3 : GPF A/c slip for 1989-90

Ex. W4: advertisement.

Documents for Management : Ex, Ml : 2-10-89 : Unauthorised absence intimation,

Ex, M2 :10-11-89 : Unauthorsed absence intimation.

Ex. M3:12-12-89: -do-

Ex. M4 ; 18-1-90; Memorandum/charge sheet issued by management

Ex. M5 : Memo of charge sheet issued by management rcg. unauthorised absence.

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 Ex. M6: Acknowledgement

Ex. M7:27-3-90 : Order of the management.

Ex. M8 :17-9-90: Enquiry proceedings.

Ex. M9 :29-10-90 : Memo/show cause notice.

Ex. M10: Acknowledgement.

S.O. 2382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management M/s. DHANA REDDY & CO, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-08-2001.

Ex. M i l: 2-1-91: Removal order,

[No. L-34011/11/96-IR. (M)] Ex. Ml 2 : Acknowledgement.

B. M. David, Under Secy.

Ex. M13 :4-1-91: Removal order, 499-1

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT : VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Shri C. SambasivaRao, M.A., B.L., Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated: 23rd day of September, 1999 5) SnRamunaidu

6) Sri K. Ramn

7) Sri R, Appalanaidu

8) SriG. NookaRaju

9) Sri B. Demudu Babu

10) SriB.Ramana

I.T.I.D. (C) 3/97

11) Sri P. Satyanarayana

REFERENCE NO. L-34011/11/96-IR (Misc)

Dated: 31-12-1996

BETWEEN:

General Secretary, Port and Dock Stevedores Union, D, No. 14-25-32A, Dandu Bazar, MaharaniDCta.

Visakhapatnam-5 3 0002

12) Sri N. Gurumurthy

....Workman

AND

The Managing Partner, M/s. Dhana Reddy & Co., 23-23-2, Beach Road, Thamson Street, Visakhapatnam-530001 ....Management This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Rama Rao, Authorised representative for workman and Sri Y. V. Sanyasi Rao and Sri Y. Ramesh, Advocates for management, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the Court passed the following .

The management did not establish the fact that there- was no sufficient work in the company nor the workman were terminated on disciplinary grounds, if there \\ .is misconduct on the part of the workmen Even assu m ing that the workmen were discharged, it was not done as per the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 19-17 The management is liable to give one month notice, or one month pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation. The management has to follow iLe reported judgement of Mohan Lai Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd (AIR 1981 SC 1253-1981 (II) LIJ 70(SC). Inference of retrenchment can be drawn from the facts that the management stopped provident fund contribution nnd failed to observe procedure in Sec. 251" as decioc tl ;-i The Mgt Handicrafts Handloom Export Corporation of India Ltd., Vs D D. Gupta (1987 Lab-lC 1268 Delhi).

AWARD

(1) This is a reference made by the Government of India under Sec. 10 (1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The terms of reference is as follows • "Whether the action of the management of M/s. Dhana Reddy & Company Stcvedors, Visakhapatnam, in terminating the services of 12 Dumper Drivers (List enclosed) without following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified?

If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

(2) The avcrnments in the claim statement filed by the workman arc as follows • It is submitted that the management abruptly resorted to stopping the following 12 Dumper Drivers from attending their duties from April, 1995 without assigning any reasons for their stoppage and continuing their juniors in the said company for the reasons not known to the workman.

1) Sri M.B. Mutyalayya

2) SriB. Baburao

3) SriT. Simhachalam

4) Sri M. Chinna Rio

2742GI/2001- 19

The management neither closed the company nor declared lay off and did not follow retrenchment of the workmen in accordance with the provisions contained under Chapter V-B sections 25K, 25M, 25N and 25-O of I.D. Act, 1947. It has been functioning very well bj employing newly recruited workers who arc junior most to the workmen It is also submitted that the management after having attended for conciliation on three occasions on 11-6-96, 1-7-96 and 15-7-96, evaded amending subsequent joint discussions fixed by the conciliation officer on 23-4-96, 14-5-96, 3-6-96, 2-8-96, 19-8-96, 2-9-96,13-9-96 and finally on 20-9-96. Hence the action of the management is highly unjust capricious and illegal.

3) For this the management filed a couiuci denying die allegations made in the petition. It denied th.it it engaged the 12 dumper drivers whose names arc mentioned in the claim petition and also denied that they are working since 15 years. It is submitted that the transport work is being carried on by M/s. Chitta Transports which employed dumper drivers and carry the transport work hcyond tru. Visakhapatnam Port limits and to destinations ar off fro-n Visakhapatnam Port. The transport work is not confined only to Visakhapatnam Port limits and not confined to onl> loading and unloading of ships at Vishnkhapatnam Port It submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between the respondent and the workers in the claim petition and it did not stop the work of then¹ The I.D. Act is not necessary as the management is not ar.

.SOOO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industrial establishment within the meaning of I.D. Act. "f denied thai the joint meetings held on 11-6-96, 1-7-96 and 1' 7-96 by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Labour (t cntral) It submitted that the workman union served a charter of demands to RACL (Central) to which the management replied raising objections principally on two grounds that the appropriate Government is the State fivcr/itncnt and not the Central Government and the rtmiirx r rim crs arc not workers coming within the purview of the Dock Labour Board Act and the second one is as the; i" wasa settlement entered into between the union and ihc management of Chitta Transport under Sec. 18(1) of the I D Act there does not exist any industrial dispute within the meaning of I.D. Act to proceed further. The copy 0 r sell lement dated 28-6-96 was also filed before the forum and Ihc said forum stated that it does not have the power ;o adjudicate the matter Further the management did not attend the meetings but on account of the fact that the •jppropriate Government is not the Central Government and (hat the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour docs not have thejunsdiction to deal with the matter and more 30 when he chose to adjudicate on the issues involved. It is further submitted that the transport workers working on the lorries ;nz not workers within the meaning of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 was wrongly relied 1 tpon by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. It is further submitted mat the Hon'blc A P. High Court also explained ihc scope of the said Act in a recent decision. There are a number of employees in other concerns of stevedoring in Visakhapatnam Port and elsewhere getting the transport work done through carries who are not governed by the provisions of Dock Workers etc., act and who are not touched by the Asstt Commissioner of Labour. There is not only dcscriminalion on the part of the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour in the matter, but also acted in contravention of the provisions of law. It is a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act and is not a juridical person. Hence the reference is not maintainable. The persons mentioned in the claim statement arc not the employees of the management and there is no relationship Octwecn the management and the workman. Hence there nrc no mci its m the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(4) In the above pleadings the workman was examined as WW1 and Exs Wl to W7 arc marked. For management MW1 and MW2 are examined and Exs Ml 1r> ]vnt) are marked Through court Ex Cl and Ex, XI d'jun.ii'uts arc marked

O)The points for consideration arc .

I) Whether the reference by the Central Government on the rccommcdaUon of the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Central), is\i

2) Whether dispute cannot be raised against the respondent as contended by it?

3) Whether the management respondent is the em- ployor and the 12 workers are the employees of the respondent or they are only employees of M/s Chitta Transport Company?

4) Whether the workers entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits?

6) On the above pleadings MW2 one B. Trinadha Rao, Managing Partner of Chitta Transport Company is examined, He stated that he was employed in the management company from 1991 to 1993 as transport supervisor and he know the 12 persons/workmen. The workmen were engaged by the Dhana Reddy and Company as daily wage workers as and when there is work upto 1993 to operate transport service. After 1993 himself and two others started a partnership firm by name Chitta Transport Co. and that time there was agreement between Dhana Rcddy and Company their firm. He admitted his signatures on Ex. M3 as a Managing Partner of the firm, From 1993 the workmen working with their firm and Dhana Reddy Co., has nothing to do with their services but it paid some compensation to all those workers while transferring the transport company in his presence. The receipts are filed under Exs. M3 to M13. He admitted that these workmen working with his firm and the payment made by them towards insurance of these drivers to New India Insurance Company under Ex. XI as also P.F. contribution was made by their firm under Ex. M28, M27 and M29. The settlement made by them is under Ex. Ml, He deposed in his cross-examination that he was aware of that a dispute between the Dhana Reddy and Co., and these workmen are in that connection there were some criminal cases were registered and investigations made by the Harbour police.

Whereas MW1 deposed that he was aware of all the facts pertaining to the relationship of workers and the management. Ex. M2 is the registration of Dhana Reddy and Co., Partnership firm. In March 1993 the operation of trucks was under the management of this firm. This firm was given to a contract of Chitta Transport Agency and an agreement was entered into that effect between the management and the agency under Ex. M3. The drivers and cleaners are suppliers by that agency from the date of agreement. The mangemcnl of Dhana Reddy Co., has nothing to do with the appointment services and consequent disputes between these workers and the agency The accounts of all the workmen about 100 in number were settled when the agreement was entered into between agency and management with regard to operation of trucks. He deposed that they obtained stamped receipts from the workers to that effect including the present 12 workmen which are filed under Exs. M4 to M13. He also deposed that there is no relationship between the workmen 500 j and the management He denied that they opened accounts in Andhra Bnak to deposit the amounts of workers towards contribution of provident fund He deposed that as per the Provident Fund Act the principal employer has to effect deduction of employer and employee contribution and since the Chitta Transport Agency failed to do so they have not attendant on the representation of the Commissioner and deposited the amount under the challen original of Ex M26 for an amount of Rs 1,32,375/ The P F Commissioner issued a notice to Chitta Transport Agency under Ex M27 and M28 He denied that they received representation by the workers that they contribute provident fund but Chitta Transport Agency was received the same and the Commissioner did not agree for that representation He deposed that the State Government is enforcing the Contract Labour Act Provisions but not the Central Government He deposed in his further chief examination that the management Dhana Reddy & Co, is covered by Employees Provident Fund Act and on 13th December, 1985 an order was issued covering their company by that Act The copy of it is Ex M30 In his Cross examination he deposed that he was a Chartered Accountant for the last 2 and half years he was working with the management and he does not know personally the details of services of the workmen which is the subject matter of this reference He deposed that he does not know who are the workmen covered by Ex Ml agreement dated 28-6-96 He admitted that K Ranga Reddy representing Dhana Reddy and Co , singed this agreement under Ex Ml The date of purchase of stamp on which Ex Ml is executed on 18-4-91 The agreement was signed by both the companies on 1-4-93 and this document is not a registered document In Ex M4 to M13 a mentioned was made that in full settlement of all claims that agreement was arrived but details of various heads settlement were not mentioned He deposed that he does not know on what basis the benefits were calculated in these documents Under Ex M14 and M15 the total figure was given but there are no details how the figures were arrived at He deposed that at the top of Ex M23 he wrote endorsement for his convemence as Dhana Reddy and Co , He demed that Ex M27 was issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to their company He denied that one K Ranga Reddy is an employee of Dhana Reddy and Company He stated that person is only a lorry supplier of the company

papers are under Exs Wl to W3 He deposed that - <."' time of stopping form work he was drawing Rs 14"* ter month and from July, 1994 to Dec , 1995 Rs 120 " ere deducting towards P F contribution in every moittu \,v the management Sometime the amounts were withdrawn by the management stating that they have to deposn ihc same with the Regional Provident Fund Commissionei but he understands that these amounts are not properly deposited by the management He made verification at Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's Office ami i memo was issued by that office which is filed under fcx W4 He deposed that the management asked to stop the work from May, 1995 The management ni"< tied tht same orally and no reasons were assigned while terminating his services and no notice was given or one month pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid He deposed that he joined in Dhana Reddy and Company and removed by that company only but not any other company like Chitta Transport or Nav Bharu Company In his cross-examination he deposed that he did not produce any documentary evidence except those produced before the court about his employment with to Dhana Reddy and Company He denied that they are net registered as workers with Dock Labour Board •. deposed that one Baditha Bojila Tnnada Rao is a snpenisoi incharge of vehicles m Dhana Reddy and Co , who came to the court to give evidence He denied that all the nppcr lornes are operated by only Chitta Transport to.iieitn and not the management Ex W4 was not issuei . n name or does not even sign it He deposed in his n I chief examination that he signed on the letter addres \i Regionel P F Commissioner under Ex W5 and he ai not know the details of the settlement of Ex Ml ^ deposed that Dock Labour Board is attached to Port lYiist whereas the management is a private company He deposec that the Port Trust Authorities want permit them to enter the premises of the port unless the gate pass is produced by them and that the same was given to him through the management The original gate pass is Ex W6 This workman name is Simhachalam and the full naniv. of Simhachalam is not mentioned in Ex W6 He depu * that he can sign in English and the signature on Ex i< ') is not his signature but bears his name The signature i." the deposition earlier signed by him, Ex Cl is not his signature He denied that he received Rs 900 and issued the receipt in full and final settlement of his claim unck^ Ex M10

Whereas the workman deposed as WW1 stating that he worked with Dhana Reddy and Company as Dumper driver He also said that about 225 to 250 workers are employed by the management company who were paid when he joined service in 1990 on a consolidated pay of Rs 750 per month He was discharging the duties of loading and unloading the goods by using the vehicles He said that their services were been rotated on 4 to 5 dumpers trucks owned by the management and the relevant

Ex Cl is the signature under the earlier part of the deposition Ex Wl is the reference to a lorry No AP ^¹X 7926 of K R and Sons was that of Dhana Reddv and Company It is shown as Ex Wl, so also W2 and W3 documents in the same wav Ex W4 is the name of Sri N Gurumurthy who is the 12th workman in this petition F s W4 official visit was made on 18-11-98 by the work ILL t o t h e PF organisation The 12th workman said to 1 m"00? THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 fPART II—SEC. 3fif)l & Co., for issue of dumpers/lorries daily dock Entry permit book. An amount of Rs 300/- is sent along with it towards the cost of the book. Ex. M21 show final list of staff dumpers vehicle and names. Ex. M22 to M24 are the accounts copy of Chitta Transport Workers Supply Contractors Agency. Ex. M25 is balance sheet as at 31st March, 1993 of M/s V. Dhana Reddy & Co, Ex. M26 is the receipt of P. F. Organisation towards E.P.F. contibutions paid by the management through SBI, Ex, M27 is .the letter addressed to EPF organisation by MW2 who represented by M/s Chitta Transport dated 2-6-98 for which the letter dated 30-3-95 by the MW2 under Ex. M28. Ex. M29 is the letter by Employees P.F. Organisation to the union, and copy is sent to M/s Chitta Transport. Ex. M30 is letter addressed to V.B.V. Rcddy, partner of M/s. V. Dhana Reddy & Co., for applicabiltiy of the employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme framed thereunder to M/s V Dhana Reddy & Co. Ex. XI is the New India Assurance Company Limited policy and the name of the present workmen also are marked in it.

been addressed under Ex. W5 seeking information from the Divisional P F Commissioner mentioning that Dhana '-loddy anu company deducting the amounts towards P.F. contribi: ion It is also requested to arrange for issue of certified copy of receipts of such amounts, as recovered irom this M/s Dhana Reddy & Co., or M/s Chitta Transport • ;d Co, That letter was dated in August, 1998. Ex. W6 is the P.F. deposit for March, 1995 and on the second sheet of Ex W6 there is a stamp of M/s Chitta Transport workers si ipply contractors Agency. Ex W7 is a proceedings which ;- signed by the management Transport Incaragc Sri B. Trin.idha Rao and P. V. Raman Treasurer of the union, representative of workmen union. It was issued on 16-7- 97. In (hat it is mentioned that the workers namely G. Nagr.aju, G. Salyanaryana and G. Paradesi informed that thev have already joined in service w.e f, 1-4-97 and they aje contin-ing in employment, The management has also paid them Feb., and March, 1997 saleries as well. They k've olso confirmed that the remaining three employees namely G. Raju, G. Satyanarayana and D. Mutyala Naidu ver. also taken inio employment w.e.f, 1-4-97 and also seceived Feb. and M^rch, 1997 salaries together, In the conciliation for illegal termination this Ex. W7 was filed.

It is argued for the management M/s Dhana Rcddy & Co. that the Asst, Labour Commissioner assumed that the drivers and cleaners involved in the reference are Dock workers within the meaning of the Dock Labour Board Regulations and hence Central Government is the Appropriate Government. WW1 admitted in his evidence that they arc not registered as dock labour workers. As per the decision in 1994 (1) CLR 187 Bombay in Irkar Shahu and Another Vs. Bombay Port Trust the status of these 12 workmen is only that of drivers and cleamers under DRC the management in the I D. Therefore the appropriate Government is the State Government, Hence the reference by the Central Government is without jurisdiction, No Industrial Dispute can be raised against partnership firm. The management relied upon another decision of 1990( 1) LLN 5 3 3 (Bombay) in Navbharat Press Nagpur Vs. Nagpur Union of working Journalists, It submitted that these workers are the employees of Chitta Transport workers supply contractors agency as per the agreement dated 1 -4-93 between the Dhana Reddy and Co. and the Chitta Transport undcr Ex. M3 and so they are not entitled any reliefs under Sec. 25FF of the I.D. Act. It also argued that under clause III (ii) of Ex. M3 Chitta Transport has to pay the wages and other legal entitlements and is alone responsible to discharge all legal obligations in respect of these workmen. The management also relied upon another decision of 1992(3) ALT 649 in G. V. M. Reddy Vs. APSRTC and stated that as per Sec. 25FF Chitta Transport having agreed to take these workers, the continuity of service is protected as per Cl. Ill (ii) of Ex. M3, Dhana Reddy & Co. is not liable to pay retrenchment compensation as can be seen from the proviso to Sec. 25FF. It argued that there is no relationship between the workmen and the management. As per MW2 also the workmen are Ex. Ml is terms of agreement under Sec. 18(1) of me Industrial Disputes Act on 28-6-96 between the h onagemcntofM/s China Transport under Miss. V, Dhana ^ old) company and workmen represented by the Port and D- k stc odors workers union on charter of demands Ex. M? is the registration of firm of V. Dhana Rcddy & Co. t?x. M^ is the registration of firm of V. Dhana Reddy & <^o F,x M3 is agreement between M/s Chitta Transport workers supply contractors Agency, Maddliapalcm, V' 1 dm, the 3rd workman in the petition Ex. Ml 1 ii the receipt of one K Ramunaidu the 5th workman in the petition. Ex. Ml 2 is the receipt of one K, Ramu the 6th ^orknw i in ihc petition. Ex. Ml 3 is the receipt of one B. MutyfT^yi the 1st workman in the petition. Ex. M14 to Ml9 arc the accounts copies of the workmen payments under the above receipts. Ex. M20 is blank form No. 83 issued for passage of vehicle under Port Area and the copy of the letter enclosing to it is the letter of V. Dhana Rcaddy5003 the employees of the Chitta Transport only. As can be seen from the list of workmen appended to the Ex. XI, these 12 workers names are also included which is sent by Chitta Transport and hence the workers are only the employees of Chitta Transport. Ex. M26, the EPC challan for payment of Rs. 1,36,375/- Ex. M27 towards EPF notice as alro Ex. M28 and M29 also show that the employees are the Chitta Transport. Exs. M4 to Ml 3 arc the receipts show the employer employee relationship betwen the DRC and these workers came to an end w.e.f. 31-3-99. The management submitted that only WW1 gave evidence but rest of the workers did not enter the box and WW1 cannot speak on behalf of the rest. WW1 denies his signature in Ex. M10 and he even denied his signature on his deposition in court. The management submitted that the type of evidence placed on behalf of the workmen and also submitted that Wl, W2 and W3 do not establish any employer-employee relationship between the management and the workmen as also W6. WW1 admitted that no appointment orders and no termination orders issued by the management and they are not in possession of any material to establish the relationship between the management and the workmen, The management finally submitted that what Dhana Reddy & Co., meant is that w.e.f. 1-4-93 i.e., even before the dispute was raised these 12 workmen ceased to be the employees of DRC. So the union miserably failed to establish and substantiate its claim.

1848; since the management is associating with the activities of Dock Labour Board in carrying out transport business, it is well within the ambit of Central Government and the Central Government is the appropriate Government to refer the dispute. Hence the provisions of I. D. Act arc very much applicable to the management whether it is in the name of M/s V. Dhana Reddy & Co. or Chitta Transport. It is further argued that the workmen worked with the Dhana Reddy & Co., and terminated by that company without assigning any reasons and there is nothing to do with the partnership concern of M/s. Chitta Transport in this dispute. It is also submitted that as pei Sec. 2(a) of the I. D. Act the dispute concerning a Major Port meaning a dispute between a contractor of the Major port and his workmen in such a dispute appropriate Government in such a case is the Central Government. He relied upon a judgement in 1974 APHN 114 of the Continental Construction (P.) Ltd., Vs. Government of India and others in this regard. He also relied upon another judgement of 1976 ALT48(NRC) 1976 (1) APLJ 33 NRC 1976 APHN 217 of The Continental Construction (P) Ltd , Vs. Government of India stating that Sec. 2a(i) that private company engaged in construction of break waters and jetties at the Visakhapatnam Port-Dispute raised between the workmen and the company, the Central Government is competent to refer that Dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. It is also argued that the management suppressed the details of employment of these workmen taking advantage of non-issuance of appointment orders, salary covers and termination orders etc. It was categorically denied by the workman T. Simenanchal in his deposition as to signing on any papers before ACL (C) with regard to enhancement of salaries, granting of leaves etc. and he deposed that they joined only in M/s. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. only but not M/s Chitta Transport or any other company. Hence the management want only avoided issue of order of appointment or termination order or monthly pay slips with a view to escape from the legal obligations. The workman further argued that in the cross-examination of MW1 he categorically admitted that he does not know the workmen covered by Ex. Ml agreement dated 28-6-% and the Ex. M3 is an unregistered document which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. It was only a fabricated document with a view to escape from the . liability of the management. It may be observed that four workers in this. I D. has signed in the Ex. Ml settlement and the workers signed at serial numbers 3 and 7 arc only the workers of M/s Chitta Transport. MW1 could not clarify the details of benefits stated to have given vide exhibits M4 to Ml3 and he has confirmed that the gate passes under Ex. Wl, W2, W3 and W6 are kept in the custody of the management. MW2 also admitted that he knew these workmen 4 to 6 of the years prior to 1991 and that there are disputes between the woiitmen and the management with regard to wages. He also admitted that when disputes were raised by the workmen, the The definition of 'Industry' U/s. 2 (j) of the Act means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer, directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature) " Hence the management comes under the definition of 'Industry'. The workmen submitted arguments stating that their union served a charter of denands dated 17-4-96 and also claimed settlement of dues to the workmen and addressed letters dated 17-4-96 and 4-3-96 to Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam over which the management raised two object one that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government and there was a settlement on area into between the parties. The workman submitted that the settlement arrived under Sec. 18(i) of the ID. Act, 1947 is with regard to the issues pertaining to other workers working with M/s. Chitta Transport under M/s. V. Dhana Rcddy & Company but not the 12 workman in this dispute. As such, it cannot be pleaded that there was a settlement under the said Act Hence Ex. Ml has no application to the present dispute, It is further.argued that it is an activity of the Dock Labour Board established u/s 5 A of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act,5004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] managements and no point of time the management informed about the same to the workmen. There is no evidence regarding the transfer orders issued to these workmen to join and continue with the services of M/s Chitta Transport against the agreement under Ex. M3 and the same is admitted by MW2 in his cross-examination. It is the burden of the management to show by producing the documentary evidence about their workmen appointed and how many workers were transferred to M/s Chitta Transport and to what the liabilities i.e., wages and the other benefits are payable to the transferred workmen. But the management did not show any positive evidence to defend Ex. M3 and the said Ex. is created only to escape from the legal liability. It is submitted that the definition of 'industry' as defined U/Scc. 2(j) and the definition of 'factor' in the definition of Sec. 2(M) of Factories Act amply establish the management is within the ambit of the definition of Industry and the same is held in the Bangalore Water See Ways Board Case by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence it is admitted by the work done by the workers in this dispute is a systematic activity which is perinnial in nature and hence it is definitely an Industry as defined under the Acts. It is also submitted that Exs. M22 to M30 are admittedly maintained by M/s. Chitta Transport Agency are selfsame documents and workmen arc not aware of these documents at any point of time and they are only created by the management to deny the relief. Tt is further submitted that M/s Chitta Transport Agency also did not produce the muster rolls, acquitance register etc. of these workmen in particular and others in general, because as per the statutory law, the important registers should be maintained by the employer and failure to maintain such registers which is mandatory requirement an adverse inference may be drawn against the management and in favour of the workmen. It is also submitted that the management established that more 100 workmen under this special provisions of Sec. 25K r/w Sec. 25N of ID. Act will apply in this case i.e., to say 3 months notice, 3 months wages in lieu of notice with prayer permission from the appropriate government arc mandatory requirements. But in this case all these mandatory provisions were not complied with. Hence the oral termination order keeping out of employment of the workmen is highly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and bad under the cannons of Industrial Law. With regard to the arguments of the managements of the under document M4 to Ml3, it is submitted that the management obtained signatures on blank revenue stamps affixed papers by misleading the workmen and the particulars mentioned in so called documents were only filled behind the back of these workmen and they are not aware of any contents mentioned in the said documents. On the other hand the management failed to adduce evidence by calling this scribe or alleged witness to substantiate their defence. In fact, these workmen are not aware, who has filled in the particulars mentioned in the alleged documents M3 to Ml4 management brought new workmen and in that connection there were some criminal cases which were registered and investigated by the police. It is also argued that Ex. M20 is nothing but a blank permit for entry of lorries/dumpers issued by VPT, These pass books are only kept in the custody of management as evidence from the deposition given by MW1 These documents cannot be filferred or tempered by any of the workmen in the managment and therefore it goes to show that Ex. Wl to W3 and W6 are only issued by the management at the lime of allocation of duties on the dumpers, It is further argued that the management failed to maintain the muster rolls of the workmen violating the duty cast upon the managment to maintain the same as per Sec. 25D of ID. Act and also failed to observe the procedure contemplated u/s 25-B, 25-D, 25F, 25G and 25J of I.D. Act. It is further argued that the management indulged in unfair labour practice by retrenching the workmen in this dispute by way of victimisation by committing the acts provided in the fifth schedule under items l(a) (b), 5(a), (b), (c), 6,7,9, 10,11, 14 & 16 of unfair labour practices. The counsel for workman relied upon a decision of ATR 1981 SC 1253- 1981 (II) LLJ 70 (SC) and also 1987 LAB IC Delhi of the MGT of Handicrafts Handloom Export Corporation of India Ltd., Vs., D.D. Gupta. It is also submitted that even assuming that these workmen were employed by M/s China Transport from 1 -4-93 as per the Agreement under Ex. M3 the management has an obligation to pay the compensations P.F., Gratuity etc. as a 'Principal employer'. The counsel for the workmen strenuously stated that these workmen arc entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The workmen further argued that the management did not choose to challenge the notification reference made by the Central Government dated 31-12-96 but all of a sudden, the management argued that the reference itself is bad so it is an afterthought and such contention is at correct in as much as the management agreed to defend their case before this court under the said notification. Hence the reference is valid and the court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. They relied upon a judgement in 1979 Supreme Court 1356, Sec. 10 Clause (4) and Sec. 15 jurisdiction of Tribunal—Tribunal cannot got beyond the terms of reference Held in this case the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the I.D. is limited to the point specially referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental thereto and ihc Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference. The workers do not know about the alleged agreement under Ex M3 and the understanding reached between the so called M/s Chitta Transport and the management. It is further submitted that there is no issue before this court that whether the workmen are the workers of M/s V. Dhana Reddy & Co., or M/s Chitta Transport Agency and who arc liable for the illegal action. Hence the colourable creation of M/s Chitta Transport Agency is only a victimisation and unfair labour practices. The workmen are not aware of the so called alleged transfer of the two5005 and who has witnessed the alleged payments. Hence the management failed to follow the mandatory requirements U/s. 25-N of the I.D. Act and hence the workmen are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them.

particular provisions of law under the Industrial Disputes Act in the face of documentary evidence pioduccd the respondent is a partnership firm and the partnership firm as such has no legal entity to claim the benefits, In Partnership Act a dispute cannot be raised against the firm which is not legal entity in the eye of law under the I.D. Act, so necessarily the reference has to be made by the partners of the firm even though this objection was raised long back an effort was made by the workmen.

Coming to the conclusions in the matter as per the definition under Sec. 2(a) (i) in case with regard to appropriate Government which has to be made a reference in relation to any industrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Qentral Government or in relation to an Industrial Dispute concerning Dock Labour Board and in case of that the Central Government is the appropriate government. Under sec. 2(ii) in relation to any other Industrial dispute the appropriate Government is the State Government.

It is no doubt true Ex. Ml is an agreement entered into by the majority of the union members representing the workmen working with the respondent company at a time when it was taken over by MW1, partnership firm. Ex. Ml shows the management settlement was signed between the management and the union and these 12 workmen that they are not bound by it as they are not parties. But before accepting this argument it could be seen that whether there is any other evidence on record to show that these workmen are aware or not aware of any such settlement and they acted on behalf of the management. It is no doubt true as contended by the workmen representative that M4 to Ml3 are not the figures which reflect the compensation payable to the workmen but the factum of receiving the amount under those receipts by the 10 workmen out of these 12 workmen is not disputed. It is not the case of the management that they paid these amounts towards the settlement of claim either u/s 25F or u/s 25FF.

In the reported judgement in 1994(1) CLR 187 of Irkar Shahu & Anr. Vs Bombay Port Trust & Ors., it is held that the scheme of 1956 does not cover the work performed by these petitioners since it is not the work ordinarily performed by the General purpose Mazdoors registered under the scheme of 1956. In that judgement in W.P. No. 752/92 by Their Lordships of division bench it is observed that work ofloading and unloading cargo from truck after goods arc cleared by customs whether they entitled to entry permits, the said work is done by workers covered by clearing and forwarding scheme of 1983 and as such in view of clause 39 the members of petitioner are not entitled to do that work. It is also held in this judgement the scheme of 1956 does not come under the claim of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. Considering that aspect these workmen who are not directly employees falling under the definition of Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Act, 1948 or employees of Dock Labour Board cannot be treated as employees falling under the Central Scheme. It is an industry carried on by Central Government and so in so far the relationship between the workmen and the management is concerned in this case who is a stevedor firm their services are not under the purview of a Central Government to treat the Central Government as Appropriate Government to refer the matter Hence on the first point raised by in the reference cannot be made by Central Government and recommendation made in this regard by Asst. Commissioner of Labour cannot be sustained

The arguments to the contra submitted that having participated the management cannot questioned also cannot be sustained.

But some amounts were paid to them. The amounts were received by the workmen on stamped receipts and what contention understood by the workmen how to spoken by the workmen themselves. WW1 though denied the signature on the stamped receipt issued by him it can be hardly accepted. A belated argument is sought to be raised by the counsel for the workmen that they do not know the contents. But it does not mean that he did not receive the amounts. The other workmen were not examined to deny or to say the correctness or otherwise of the receipts issued by them under Ex. M4 to M13. Apart from these receipts which arc filed the ledger accounts and the audit accounts also produced showing these documents were made by the management to the petitioner. So in this context though conveniently it is sought to be evidenced by Ml is not at all binding on these workmen has to be denied especially when all the representatives of the union signed the terms of agreement between the management and the workmen Though Ex. M3 is a document which is binding on the workmen, the fact remains that the documentary evidence shows the contributions paid to the workers towards P.F., treating them as workmen of M/s Chitta Transport Agency is also taken for these vehicles mentioning the names of the individual workmen who are attached to various vehicles along other workmen and the amount as policy was paid on 21-9-94 by Chitta Transport Co. Though M3 is not (7) Point No. 2 : In the reported judgement of Navbharat Press Nagpur Vs. Nagpur Union of Working Journalists reported in 1990 (1) LLN 553 (Bombay) DB observed that a partnership firm is not a legal person within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. So under the5006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] X Series

Ex. XI Schedule forming part of the policy numbers (Group JPA)

Documents marked for workmen :

Ex. Wl 3-2-95 daily permit for lorries dumpers.

Ex. W2 6-2-95 daily permit for lorries dumpers,

Ex. W3 4-1-95 daily permit for lorries dumpers.

Ex.W4 18-11-95 visitors slip of employees' provident fund organisation.

Ex.W5 Letter addressed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Visakhapatnam by the petitioners. "

Ex. W6 19-2-92 Entry permi workshop part of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust.

Ex. W7 16-7-97 Minutes of Joint discussions held bet- ween the Management and workers.

Documents marked for Management:

Ex. Ml 28-6-96 Memorandum of settlement arrived between management and workman,

Ex.M2 12-6-68 Acknowledgement of Registration of firm.

Ex.M3 1-4-93 Agreement between M/s. Chitta Trans- port workers supply contractors Agency Vs. M/s. Dhan Reddy & Co.,

Ex.M4 12-2-93 stamped receipt amount of Rs. 900/-.

binding on the workmen it cannot be said that by virtue of MM30 that it is Ex. M3 is a manipulated document. Under Sec. 25FF compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertaking is provided under the proviso the workmen's services are transferred by the management even the service of the workmen is not interrupted by the management, the self same conditions are applicable to the workman are not less favourable to the workmen and new terms under the new employer and the terms of such transfer undertakes liable to pay the amount in case of retrenchment compensation on tfVe past service and is not been interrupted by the transfer Sec. 25FF cannot be applied, Under Ex. M3 clause 3 (2) the MW2 on behalf of the contracting firm has taken up the responsibility of payment of wages and discharges of legal responsibilities towards employees appointed by the early management and it also further undertaken a responsibility under clause (3) the dispute between the workmen employees under the first party in operating the vehicles, the second party cannot be liable. Thus, when the interruption of workmen protected adquately and the proviso 25FF is directly complied with the virtue of agreement under Ex. M3 and the workmen having received the amounts towards service done by them to the management having received the same and now cannot say having nothing to do with the Chitta Transport Company and it is still the respondent which is liable to pay the amounts and they are the employees of the Dhana Reddy and Company.

Ex, M5 12-2-93 stamped receipt amount of Rs. 3150/-.

Ex.M6 12-2-93 stamped receipt amount of Rs. 3150/-.

Ex.M7 12-2-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 3150/-.

The question of retrenchment by the management does not arise in this case as their services are still continuing. They are not entitled to any compensation or other benefits against the respondent/management.

Ex.M8 12-2-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 5250/-.

Ex. M9 12-3-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 3150/-,

Ex.MlO 12-2-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 3150/-.

Ex. M il

(7) In the result, it is held that the reference to this Tribunal by the Central Government treating it as Appropriate Government and can make a reference itself is bad under law and it is further answered that the workmen cannot be granted any relief even if otherwise the tribunal can decide the matter. Accordingly the reference is answered.

12-2-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 2100/-.

Ex M12 12-2-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 2,625/-.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 27th day of September, 1999.

Ex. M13 12-2-93 stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. 3150/-.

C. SAMBASIVA RAO, Presiding Officer

Ex. M14 Xerox copy of the Account book page No. 146.

Xerox copy of the Account book page No. 147.

Ex. M15

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Ex. M16 Xerox copy of the Account book page No. 148.

Ex. M17 Xerox copy of the Account book page No 149, Workman : Management:

Ex. Ml8 Xerox copy of the Account book page No 151 MW1 M.L. NarshimhaRao MW2 B. Trinadha Rao.

Xerox copy of the Account book page No. 152

Ex. M19

Ex. M20

Documents marked for 'C

16-4-99 Letter addressed to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust by Management.

Ex.M21

Ex. Cl Signature of WW1 i c, T Simhachalam in the deposition of WW1.

Xerox copy of the dumper staff full and final list.

5007

Ex M22

Ex.M23

Xerox copy of the Chitta Transport workers supply contractors Agency account Xerox copy of the Chitta Transport workers supply contract Agency Account

Ex M24 Xerox copy of the Chitta Transport workers supply contract Agency Account

Ex M25 Balance sheet as on 31-3-93 of M/s V Dhan Reddy & Co

Ex M26 21-9-98 Xerox copy of the challan of employee provident fund organisation

Ex M27 2-6-98 Letter addressed to B Tnnadha Rao by the Regional P. F Commissioner

Ex M28 7-10-98 letter addressed to A Rehman by the Asst PF Commissioner

Ex M29 30-5-95 letter addressed to B Tnnadha Rao by the Regional P F Commissioner

Ex M30 13-12-85 Xerox copy of the courrageintimatioa New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001 S.O. 2383,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of tlie Central GovenmerT Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown m the Annexure in i]-*; Industrial Dispute betvvcen the employ- ers in relation to *hc management of Bailadila Iron Ore Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government or. 14-8-2001

[No L-26011/8/86-D-3B]

B M DAVID, Under Secy Distt Baster (MP) Versus The General Manager, Bailadila Iron Ore Project, Dcpt No 14, P O Kirandul, Distt Bastar(MP) Non-appnvant

AWARD Passed on this 16th day of July, 2001 1 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide Order No L-26011/8/86-D-3B dated 11-5-88 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal— "Whether the action of the General Manager, BIOP, Dcp No 14, Kirandul in finally retiring Shn Pntam Mashi Master Shovel Operator with effect from 31-5-86 on the ground that he has a t t a i n ed t he a ge of s u p e r a n n u a t i on IC 58 y ea •, particularly when his date of birth entered in the records is 19-12-1931 (43 years on 19-12-74) is justified If not, what relief the workman con- cerned is entitled?

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JABALPUR

2 The case for the workman is that he joined as Sliov.il Operator Grade II in Kinburu Iron Ore Mines undei National Mineral Development Corporation on 5-8-1962 During the course of his employment, his services were transferred from Kinburu Iron Ore Mines to NMDC Bailadila Iron Ore Pioject where he joined on 16-6-64 At the time of entering into the service, he was aged about 28 years His actual date of birth is 15-9-34, but his dale ofbirth was wrongly recorded by the management in his service record On his repre- sentation the management got him medically examined by the medical officer to ascertain his age and on 19-12-74, his age was confirmed as 40 years by the Medical Officer At the time of entering into service, his age was 28 years and on medical examination, his age was confirmed about 40 years on 19-12-74 In this way his date of retirement comes to 19-12-92 and not on 19-12-89 He was illegally retired from service w ef 31-5-86 by the management which diserves to be quashed At the time of entering into service, he had submitted his original certificate as a proof for his date ofbirth Subsequently it appears that the management did not have any record of his date ofbirth and there- fore on the basis of medical examination, h a date of birth should have been entered as 15-9-T4

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/60/88

PRESIDING OFFICER SHRIKM RAI

Shn Pntam Mashi,

through Secretary, Baster Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (HMS), 2/B, New Colony, PO Kirandul, Applicant 2742GI/2001—20

3 The workman further alleges that he has been illegally retrenched by the management prior to the date of attaining his superannuation in violation of Sec 23-F of the ID Act, 1947 He should have been retired from service w ef 31-12-92 and not w ef 31-5-86 H; is therefore entitled to reinstatement with back wages for the period commencing from 1 -6-86 to 31 -12-92 He is also entitled to other monetary benefits available under rules5008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)| 4. The case for the management is that the workamn joined the project of NMDC on 16-7-64 on transfer from, Kiriguru Iron Ore Mines. Because of his continuous absence and irregular service, his name was struck off from the rolls of the corporation w.e.f. 5-4-74. Subsequently he was re- appointed at Shovel Operator Grade I in Dec. 1974. On being re-appointed, he was directed to be medically examined by the medical officer. On 17-12-84, he was medically examined by the medical officer and he gave his age as 43 which was recorded in the Medical Certificate Thereafter the management made a reference to Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine to furnish information regarding the date of birth of workman as recorded in the service record. The Assistant Manager of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine informed vide letter dated 11 -12-84 that the workman's date of birth was 1-6-28, It was also informed by the management that the workman had also worked in IME from 1943 to 1946, in Power Gas Corporation, Sindhi, from Jan. 47 to 53 in ACC, from 16-3-62 to 3-8-62 as Sr. Mechanic in Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine on 12-10-62. According to this information, the date of birth of workman was corrected as 1-6-28 in the service book. The workmen was informed accordingly on 20-5-84. On 12-8-83, the workman requested the management to record the date of birth as 15-9-34 on the basis of birth certificate issued by the Sarpanch of his village. If this date of birth 15-9-34 is accepted to be true, then it will be clear that at Liie n me of initial appointment his actual age was 9 years only. In this way prima facie this date of birth appears to be totally false which cannot be ascerted. The BKMS (HMS) Kirandul had also filed writ petition in the High Court of MP, Jabalpur praying that the order of retirement of the workman be quashed. The High Court dismissed this petition on merits. The workman was rightly retired from service w.e.f. 31-5-86 on the basis of his correct date of birth as 1-6-28, He is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

5. The following issues arise for decision in this case and my findigns thereon are noted hereinafter :—

1. Whether the workman was illegally retired from service w.e.f. 31-5-86?

2. Relief and costs?

6. Issue No. 1 :—The workman filed his date of birth certificate (Ex. M-IV) issued by the Sarpanch of Bitoch, Nagadia Punjab stating therein his date of birth as 15-9-34 and according to the workman, he joined his service as Shovel Operator Grade II in Kiriburu Iron Ore Project in 5-8-62 and at that time his age was about 28 years. No school certificate has been filed by the workman to establish his date of birth. The management's witness Shri G.B. Joshi has clearly stated in para 6 of his affidavit that prior to getting employed by the NMDC in 1962 the workman had worked in different organisations from 1943 till 1962. This statement has not been rebutted by the workman. In the light of this statement it is established that he had attained the age of majority in the year 1943 itself. In this circumstance, if his date of birth is accepted to be true as 1934 than at the time of appointment in 1943 his age appears to be 9 years only. In such a tender age, no person can be appointed in any sector This very fact belies his version regarding the date of birth as 15-9-34. On the other hand, the service record of the workman maintained in Kiriburu Project proves his date of birth as 1-5-28 which cannot be rejected without any sufficient cause. This date of birth has been maintained by the public sector undertaking according to the statutory provisions This fact is proved from the letter Ex M-I also which was written to the Personal Officer, Bailadila Tron Ore, Kirandul. This information was submitted on the basis of record maintained by the Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine. Hence the correctness of the date of birth of workman as 1-5-28 cannot be doubted. He was therefore legally retirtcd from Service with effect from 31-5-86.

7. Issues No. 2 :—In the light of my finding given on Issue No, 1, it is held that the workman was rightly retired from service w.e.f. 31-5-86 after attaining the age of 58 years. His correct date of birth was 1-5-28. He is therefore not entitled to the relief as claimed by him. 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 rules.

K M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001

S.O. 2384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govcnmcnt Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2001.

[No. L-22012/14/98-IR (C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer5009

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT

HYDERABAD

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

Dated :23rd July, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 5 OF 1999.

Officer on 18-12-1996 at 11.40 A.M. at the dispensary she was holding a broom and attending to the cleaning work. As such, the allegation that she left the duty without permission as alleged. Standing Order 25.34 is not applicable. The worker had put in 18 years of service and during her service there was no single remark against her. Even then the maximum punishment of 10 days suspension period imposed against her is unlawful. The enquiry findings are not correct. At the most the Management should have issued warning if at all there was any misconduct. Hence prayed to set aside the punishment in the interest of justice.

4. The Respondent-Management filed a counter and briefly stated averments are as under :

Between : Workmen of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudetn by Coal Mines Employees Union (HMKP), Panjagadda, Ramavaram, Kothagudem, Khammam District through its General Secretary Sri Bhupathi AppaRao Petitioner

AND

The General Manager (Personnel), The Singarcni Collieries Company Limited, Head Office Kothagudem, Khammam District.

...Respondent

Appearances:

Sri C. Niranjan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Sarvasri J. Parthasarathi, V. Han Haran and A. C. Sekhar Advocate for the Respondent

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by its letter No. L-22012/14/98-IR (CM-II), dt. 14-12-1998 referred the following Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) and 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. S.C.C. Ltd., Kothagudem in invoking suspension of services for ten days of Smt. B. Devudamma, Sweeper is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled ?"

Both the parties appeared and filed their statements.

The reference is bad in law. The issue is of an ad- mitted misconduct, that on 18-12-1996 the Additional Chief Medical Officer visited the dispensary at Ramavaram, belonging to the Respondent-Company and he found that the dispensary was closed. The staff consist- ing ofNursc, Clerk and Ayah, General Mazdoor and Scav- enger (worker herein) were standing outside the dispen- sary. The timings are from 7.30 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. and from 3.00 P.M. to 6.00 P M. The incident was at 11.30 A.M. The matter was reported to the Chief Medical Of- ficer at Kothagudem who issued the charge sheet to the above erring staff and explanations were c lied for and also from the concerned Doctor of the dispensary. An en- quiry was held. All the erring staff have admitted that they have closed the dispensary. It was their mistake and sought pardon of the mistake. Taking the lenient view, punish- ment of 10 days suspension was given to all the concerned staff. Infact the mistake was committted and the discipline showed by the staff is self-evident In the explanation they stated that due to the monkey menace the dispensary was closed which is hardly tenable. Further the contention that no inconvenience was caused to any patient, is not at all tenable. After giving opportunity in the enquiry, the En- quiry Officer submitted his findings The management was very considerate in retaining the worker in the same dis- pensary for over five years, on considering her request. Hence prayed to pass nil award in the interest of justice.

2. The workmen filed the claim statement and briefly stated the facts are as under :

5. During the preliminary inquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the domestic enquiry proceedings have to be set aside for the reason that as per the Section 76-B (xiii) of the Factories Act, the Welfare Officer cannot deal with the disciplinary cases and the En- quiry Officer happens to be Welfare Officer. It was found that the Enquiry Officer was not a Welfare Officer of the Respondent—Company and so the said objection was negatived. After perusing the enquiry record it was found that the enquiry was conducted duly following the proce- dure contemplated and that the worker also participated in the enquiry. As principles of natural justice was com- plied with. An Order dt 5-2-2001 was passed holding that the domestic enquiry proceedings are valid.

The worker herein Smt. B. Devudamma, Sweeper (Night Soil) Ramavaram Dispensary, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem was served with a charge sheet alleging that she left the workspot without permission during the working hours which is a misconduct under Standing Order 25.34, vide No. CHK/P/9239dt. 19-12-19%, was issued. An explanation was submitted and thereafter an enquiry date 1-1-1997 was ordered The Medical Superintendent suspended the worker for 10 days w ef 20-1-1997 to 29-1-1997, vide letter No CHK/P-338 dt 17-1 -1997. The worker raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer gave the dates of hearing on different dates and at last the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report on 29-9-1997 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and the Government is pleased to refer this dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal

6 The point for adjudication is whether the punish- ment of 10 days suspension period is justified or not ? 7. At the time of final arguments on the side of the Management Exs. Ml to M39 documents were marked which is the record relating to the enquiry proceedings.

3 Infact the worker was on duty and during the visit of Sri K. MukundaRao, the then Additional Chief Medical5010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 8. The bone of the contention of the worker is that the punishment of 10 days suspension period not treating as on duty is disproportionate punishment to the gravity of the charge as framed against her which was said to have been held proved as per the enquiry findings. The reply of the Respondent for the above contentions is that there is an un-equivocal admission by the worker herein and also the other staff as to their lapse in closing the entire dispensary and leaving the workspot at the time of the visit of the Additional Chief Medical Officer who went on surprise inspection and when the entire staff including the Doctor, was caught red-handed of their absence of the closure of the dispensary during the office hours, It is highly deplorable that the employees have not maintained proper discipline and the indisciplined act cannot be viewed leniently. Otherwise the Standing Orders would become a farce or mockery.

9. Ex. M20dt 19-12-1996 is the charge sheet issued to the worker herein alleging that during the inspection of Additional Chief Medical Officer on 18-11-1995 at 11.30 A.M. to the Dispensary atRamavaram, Singarcni Collieries Company Limited the said Officer had noticed that the Dispensary was locked at 11.30 AM. This worker along with the other staff of the Dispensary, namely Smt. S, Bharathi, Clerk, Smt. K. Sumathi Devi, Staff Nurse, Smt. D. Rajeswari, Ayah and Smt. Ch. Poshamma, General Mazdoor were found outside the dispensary and that the dispensary was closed even before the scheduled timing which amounts to misconduct as per Standing Order 25.34 which reads that "leaving the work without permission". An explanation was called for, for which the worker submitted her explanation stating that all the employees were available at the time of the visit of Additional Chief Medical Officer except that the doors were closed, all were present and that the doors were closed to avoid the monkey menace. The management has ordered a regular enquiry against this worker and other workers In the course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the statement of Dr. K. Mukund Rao, Additional Chief Medical Officer. So also the statement of the delinquent worker.

and if it so the imposition of punishment of 10 days suspension is warranted by issuing Ex, M24. It can be said that the worker being an illiterate was coerced to admit the facts as stated therein. The statement of Dr. Mukanda Rao, C.M.O. is different from that of the statement of the worker recorded. Dr. K. Mukund Rao categorically stated that all the workers were present and they were outside the Dispensary and when he went there he found the door was locked but he did not said that any of the employees left the spot. At the most they have closed the dispensary one hour early and about to leave the spot which may be a bad practice or indiscipline. It this case the worker has no control over the maintenance of the timings, and somebody will be incharge. After all, the worker is a sweeper who has to attend to the sweeping work. When the responsible person had closed the doors of the Dispensary, it is surprising how she can be put to blame. The duties of a Sweeper is to sweep the premises before the commencement of the work and see that the premises are kept neat and clean, For the simple reason that she was found outside of the dispensary, it is atrocious to find fault with her. It can be said without hesitation that her statement Ex. M24 was recorded as if she has committed serious mistake for the absence was not available at the workspot and sought for an excuse. The Findings given by the Enquiry Officer in Ex. M23 that the worker could not give any convincing reason for closing the doors of the dispensary and leaving the workspot without permission from her superiors is quite unreasonable. After all the worker being a sweeper, she cannot have any control over the opening or closing of the dispensary. A Sterio typed reasoning is given to all the workers. The reasoning given to this worker that the charges are proved beyond doubt is not sustainable. The management ought to have given a censor or warning for such a trivial lapse instead of holding a roving enquiry. It is also surprising that the worker was kept under suspension for 10 days. The suspension of the work warrants where public interest compels it. Generally an employees will be suspended so as to keep that employee from out of reach of the affairs of the office, so that tie public interest may not suffer in holding the inquiry, The lapse on the part of the worker is not a grave or serious misconduct which warranted her to keep out of employment for 10 days by issuing the suspension order. However, even after the enquiry proceedings, the Management ought to have exercised its discretion in issuing a censor or warning for the trivial lapse that was committed by this worker and other staff instead of giving the punishment of 10 days suspension which amounts to discontinuance of service for 10 days and loss of wages for 10 days. It can be said without hesitation that the action of the management in imposing severe punishment of 10 days suspension from duty besides loss of wages for the said period is arbitrary and not in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. It is necessary to interfere and modify the punishment. It is observed that a futile exercise has been made in holding an enquiry against all instead of taking action against the persons who were responsible in exercising control over the staff. The entire exercise is just make 'digging the mountain for a mole' and it is hoped that infuture the management will not waste good time 10. The Management witness has stated that at the time of his visit to Ramavaram Dispensary, he found this worker and other workers were outside the Dispensary and the Dispensary was closed. The General shift duty timings were from 7.30 A M to 12.30 P.M. and from 3.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. leaving the workspot without permission is misconduct under Companys Standing Orders. The worker is an illiterate and the affixed her thumb mark on the statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer in which the statement is to the effect that she admitted the charges, and that she was not available at the place of work and left the workspot without information/permission from the concerned authority by closing the Dispensary room. She is fully aware of duty hours and she admits that it was a mistake for leaving the workspot without permission from the concerned authority for which she pleads excuse The remaining documents pertains to other employees against who charge sheets were issued and also enquiry proceedings conducted. It is to be considered whether the misconduct is proved on the basis of evidence on record5011 and expenditure, on trivial lapses and drive the workers from pillar to post. 11. In the result, an Award is passed setting aside the impugned order of 10 days suspension of duty by modifying it to as censor for the lapse on the part of the worker and thereby the management is directed to treat 10 days suspension period as on duty and continuity of service and she is entitled for the wages for 10 days less the subsistence allowance paid to her. The Respondent shall issue necessary orders to the workers Smt. B. Devudamma, Sweeper (Night-soil) Dispensary, Ramavaram, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, within 30 days of the publication of this Award.

Dictated to the Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected by me and given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal, this the 23rd day of July, 2001.

, SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal-I.

Appendix of Evidence. No oral evidence held on both side. Documents marked for the Petitioner-Workman: NIL Documents marked for the Respondent-Management:

Mx.Ml 18-12-y6

19-12-96

Ex.M2

23-12-96

Ex.M3

28-12-96

7-01-97

Ex.M4 Ex.M5 Ex.M6 Ex.M7

11-01-97

Ex.M8

17-01-97

Ex.M9

inspection report suDmitted t>y Subramanyam to the Chief Medical Officer, Kothagudem. Charge sheet issued to Smt. K. Sumathi, Staff Nurse. Explanation submitted by Smt. Sumathi to Ex. M2. Enquiry Notice. Enquiry Report. Enquiry Proceedings. Furnishing the enquiry report calling for representation. Representation to exonerate the charge by Smt. Sumathi Devi. Order of suspension and permission to resume duty issued to K. Sumathi Devi by Medical Superintendent.

Ex. M10 • • Inspection report submitted by Subramanyam the Chief Medical Officer, Kothagudem.

19-12-96

Ex. Mil

Charge sheet issued to Smt. Poshamma. Genl. Maz.

Ex. M12

. . 7-1-97

Ex. M13 EX.M14 Ex. M15 Ex.M16

Explanation of Smt Poshamma to Ex. M i l. Enquiry Notice. Enquiry Report. Enquiry Proceedings. Letter of Medical Superintendent calling for the representation on enquiry report for Smt Poshamma. 11-01-97

Ex. M17

Letter of Smt. Poshamma to exonerate her from charge.

^ z - ^ . u ^ - a,

Ex. M18 17-01-97

20-01-97 Ex. M19

Ex.M20 19-12-96 Ex.M21

07-01-97 EX.M22 Ex.M23 Ex.M24 Ex.M25

Ex.M26 11-01-97

Order passed by Medical Superintendent treating suspension of Smt. Ch. Poshamma as not on duty. Representation submitted by Smt. Ch. Poshamma. Charge Sheet issued to Smt. B. Devudamma, Sweeper. Explanation submitted by Smt. Devudamma to Ex. M 20. Enquiry Notice. Enquiry Report. Enquiry proceedings. Letter issued to Smt. Devudamma calling for representation of the enquiry report. Representation of Smt. B. Devudamma to exonerate her from charges addressed to the Medical Superintendent, Main Hospital, Kothagudem.

17-01-97 Ex.M27

Ex.M28 19-12-96 Ex.M29

07-01-97 Ex.M30 Ex.M31 Ex.M32 Ex.M33

EX.M34 11-01-97 Ex.M35 17-01-97 Ex. M36

21-01-97 Ex. M37

24-09-97 Ex. M38

20-02-97 Ex.M39

Ex.M40 19-12-96

Order of suspension as not duty issued to Smt. B. Devudamma. Charge Sheet issued to Smt. D. Rajeswari, Ayah. Explanation submitted to Ex. M 28. Enquiry Notice. Enquiry Report. Enquiry proceedings. Letter calling for the representation on the enquiry report from D. Rajeswari, Ayah. Letter of Smt. D. Rajeswari requesting to exonerate her from charges. Order passed by the Superintendent (Medical) awarding 10 days suspension as punishment to Smt. Rajeswari. Representation submitted by Smt. D. Rajeswari to C.M.O., Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem. Representation made by the Coal Mines Employees Union to the A.L.C. (C) Vijayawada in the case of Smt B. Devudamma. Minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 24-9-97 before A.L.C. (C), Vijayawada. Letter addressed by C.M.O. to the Medical Officer, Main Hospital, Kothagudem. Charge Sheet issued to Smt. S. Bharathi, Clerk.

5012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24,1923 JPART II^-SEC. 3I

Ex. M41

Ex. M42 07-01-97

Explanation submitted by Smt. B. Bharathi, Cleric Letter enclosing the enquiry report calling for representation on the enquiry report.

Ex. M43

Enquiry Proceedings.

Ex. M44 17-01-97 Order of the Medical Superintendent suspending Smt B. Bharathi for ten days from 20-1-97 to 29-1-97.

11-01-97

EX.M45

Representation submitted by Smt. S. Bharathi to exonerate her from charges.

Ex.M46 * *

Representation submitted by Smt. S. Bharathi to the C.M.O., Main Hospital, Kothagudem New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001 S.O. 238S.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-01.

[No. L-22012/348/99-IR (C-H)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Between:

The Management of Chief General Manager, JagannathAreaofMCL.,P.O.,Balanda, DistAnguLPm-759116 ..1st Party Management

(And)

Their Workman represented through the General Secretary, Jagannath Colliery Labour Union, At/Po. South Balanda, DistAnguL(Orissa) ..2iid Party-Union Appearances:

Shri G.B. Mohapatra, Personnel •

Manager, MCL, Jagannath Area . .. For the 1st

Party-

Management None.

...For the 2nd

Party- Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers'conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-22012/348/99/TR (CM-IJ), dated 29-2-2000/7-3-2000.

"Whether the action of the management of Jagannath Colliery of MCL by deducting Us. 50 from the salaries of the workmen led by Sh. K.B. Sahoo, General Secretary of Jagannath Colliery Labour Union is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?

ANNEXURE

2. While making reference intimation was also sent to the Management and to the Union to file their respective Claim Statements before this Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the reference. The reference was made on 29-2-2001/7-3-2001. The Tribunal on receipt of the reference also issued notices to the parties. In spite of direction of the Tribunal and the Government of India (Mininistry of Labour), the Union has not made his appearance before the Tribunal and he has not filed the Statement of Claims. The Union also did not take any step to take part in the proceeding and to place his case before the Tribunal to answer the reference. Since, March 2000 the reference could not be answered in absence of the Union and for not taking any step by them.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present :

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 343/2001 Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 10th August, 2001 3. The above circumstances would suggest that no dispute exists between the parties and the Union has got no cause ofaction and that the Union has got no materials in support of his case.

4. Hence, no dispute award is passed and the Union is not entitled for any relief.

5. The refrence is answered accordingly,

S.K DHAL, Presiding Officer5013 New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

S.O. 2386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industiial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publihes the award¹ of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur as sS.own in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Goveinunt on 16-8-2001.

TNo. 1.-120111132,2000-111(13-11)] C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Sa\ena, Presiding Officcer

Reference No. 287J2000

THE ASSISANT GENERAL MANAGER

AND

SHRI VILAS KADUSKAR

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-12011 |132I2OOO-IR(B II) dated 21-9-2000 on following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Tndia, Nagpur in regard

Trday the workman Vilas Kaduskar has moved the ap- plication that he does not want to contest the case and has withdrawn his claim regirding thf* settlement of issue ot his appointment to Category-E on the basis of his seniorty. T' lv-*--"r '--i been submitted today by the workman • . •, ' .. l • representative Shri Vinayak Toshi for fr° withdrawal of hi-, claim Tn view of the above facts ^ "be 'ispute has been settled between the mpnappment and the workman. The withdrawl application is Uil ..vJ.

2742 GI/2001—22

The woikman is not entitled to any relit L claimed by him.

ORDER

I he workman Vilas Kaduskar has withdrawn his claim.

He is thuelVue not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

The leference is disposed of accordingly.

Dated :

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th August, 2001

S.O. 2387.—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, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in i elation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

i'No. L-12011 !20|2000-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 41|2000

Ref. No. L-12011l20l2000lIRfB-.IT) Dated 30-5-2000

BETWEEN

Punjab National Bank Staff Association, The Asstt. General Secretary, PNBSA 102 Patrika Marg, Civil Lines Allahabad (U.P.) 211001.

AND

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Arya Nagar Chowk, Jawalapur, Hardwar (U.P.) 249407.

AWARD

By reference No. L-12011 |20,2000llR(B-II) dated 30-5-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 I.D. Act, (14 of 1947) made over the industrial dispute between A^stt General Secretaiy, Punjab National Bank Staff Association, Allahabad espousing cause of Jaspal Khilhn and The Region- al Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Hardwar for adjudication. The reference is produced as under :

"Whether the artion of the Management in imposing the penality of 'Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect of Shn Jaspal Khillan, cleik, is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the work- Tan concerned is entitled to and from what date?"5014 THE GAZETTE OF !NDIA : SEPTEMBER 15 ">001 'EH\DRA 24, 1923 [PART II—Stc. 3(ii)] 2. Ihe woiknrm, J.'spal Khil! .n, vas. posit, 1 at extension countei M"yapiu of ihv Punjab Nationij Bank, a^ a Cleikj Cashiei in Novunbu, 1993. He u>rnnipii.\l toijeiv by di-.v.- nig Rs. 15,000 towaids loan ft cm ' ixed Deposit Ac.oim No. 3790 in the name of Smt. Ram Py.'u D<"> i and hn son Hem Chand. In this process, he made I ludulern s'lmatuii: of Smt. Pyau Devi and withdiew Ks 15,000 without ht> knowledge. On 7-7-1994. Smt. Ram Pya.i ain\ d at th countei to obtain lece'ot of he F D. "s h" s->n v > in, .i -• and was informed about the loan She staitcd civnc, Jaspil Khllan, sensint, trouble, v i''J'\v Rs. 45.000 f>om his joint account wi'b his mother Smt Kr^tuii Devi on 8-7-1994 and deposited Rs 15,000 n ih_- ..ccoiint of ?mf Ram Pyan. Hi" cv .lutt of illeg forging her signa- ture was taken to be a grave misconduct inviting c'iscinlinau enquiry and penal!y as rer piO\isions oara ]9 5(d) and 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement. V charge sh et v a-. issued to him and domes*'c enquiiy held

3. In the course of enquiiy, the workman d"n:ed allega- tions, Mr. G.K. Dora conducted domestic enquiry pciinst him. Enquiry Officei recorded, finding of not guiHv and sub- mitted his report to the Discipline y Authority

4. The Regional Manager and Discipltnu\ Authontv du! not agree with findings of the Enqu'iy Officei He, \idi letter dated 2-3-1998 issued a show cii.se no xe to (IT workman calling h'm to subm t his ten'*, w'diin 15 davs This Show Cause Notice detai'id points cf disagieement, as. under;

— "Enquiry Officer has held that Pia"emiiis Officei failed to piove that signatmes on loan documents were Fo'fed an.) tlii* repcii of the handvvnt'n? expei* leport simcly denies (hit The si<"iilure of Sim P i y a ri on MF 1 f D r y m e nt v o u c h c, d a ' ed 3 11 - * > •?

for Rs. 15,000) and MF-4 fappli'iiir ,i for D^m; "'1 Loan aid letter of I;en). Hindnrfin'j Fxn r i silent about v l v "; s'gni'ure t'l-sc can he" no' HI tuin 'hk in law. The Zonal Manager nl -ciut as Appel- late \utho' ,ty vide oidei dated 24-5-1999 rejected the appeal of the woiknirtti and agiecd with (nc punisLuicnL imposed bv thi¹ Ros^onal Managei \

\e^uev.d b> this, this mdustiial disp"'. ;• s been ra'sed, i>n liumcKMii giounds. ihe vvnikman ..bsiikd inidings of ssulit rei-eided b> "ih- Regional ^fanageliDisciplmaly Authority, but deferdrd h v J i n ^ of the Enqunv Officer. A pba has also been raised that the Regional Managei has no authority to act as Discipiipaiy A.uthonty. However, this contjoversy mav be answied agiiist 'he woikm m in view of delegation of po>\ei' ,,nd idmi tancc of the woikdian. who taking him to the D'sc-Iplinaiv Authontv hied ;ippe.4 wiihout questioning such authoiity

The management on the othei hand, laised preliminaiv object jn that ihis dispute h< s been duly whdlv espoused, as required under the revisions of I D. Act, 19 !7 and accord- ingly, it "s submitted, as what has been refeired to, by the appiopria'e government for adjudication, can not be termed as 'mdiistiiaf dispute' ,>s envisaged under 1he provision of fbe siid \ct. I he maragement also justifiedfindingsre- coided by the Disciplinary Authoiity *o be just and proper, in totaht> of l^e ficts and circumstanc-s.

Cominc lo (he preliminary objection, a dance over ibe defin'lion of 'Industrial Dispute' is necess.uv. Section 2(k) defines mdustiial dispute as follow :

"indistiial dispute" means any depute or difference betv cen employe! s and emDloyei>, or between emp- loye! s and woikmen, or between workmen and work- men, which is connected with the employment oi non-employment oi the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of anv peison." Th; AlR management has submitted thit the individual ca es cov.red by section 2-A of the Act. According to him, depute are not compiehended in above definition except th's dispute is not coveied by section 2-A of 'he I D Act as such lenedj lies n the civil couit

"""'vis submission is misconceived. Section 2(k) refers tn '(.'•spate or diffeience' between Natuie of dispute oi diffeience has not been specified, cmpiovmg that an indivi- dual disp ne n ,lso LOveied by this definition Section 2fk) also deals as who can espouse the cause arising due to dispute oi d'ffeience The section does net permit espousal of eanse b\ an individual like section 1- \, law is now settled, that any dispute or di^eience, whether individual or collective, if espoused bv the union or substantial mimber of workmen, becomes an industrial dispute and so covered bv the definition. The present cise of the woikman is es- poused by the union and so perfectly vthd. The pieliminaiv objection ques'!oning propiicty or reference on the above said around, is, this, has no foice and is tejected 2 9 - 1 2 - 1 9 98 b e f o re t he A r m e l h te 4 n i h o i - i tv In h: • T "" < ), h>5015 SCHtDULE

loan account without her knowledge is an accompli .nca iaci Likewise depositing of Rs 15000 b> the woikman in her account immediately, the matter came to notice give Uifcierce tint noce else thin the woikman '.'id illegally wiJndiew Rs 15000 Substantive pi oof is on the lecou that the work- man withdraw Rs 45000 fiotn his account and deposited Rs 15000 If he had not taken loan, what peisuaded him to deposit the money

W i ti lit <>-.i' i oi management of Central Bank f IrJia Nijnai iluoigli its Zonal Manager, Oriental build na C ntial Ba ik of India, Regional Office, Off B la t l a k e s, K^nipttee Road, Nagpui in not minting Spec.al M dical Leave to Sh N S M<.n li. piivva df'i 16 other workmen (as per Anne U'v. 1> of Cential Bank of India, Nagpur as ihe\ weie viet ms o jaundice due to unhygenic dn ilin; watv. movided to them is legal, proper and justified ° If not to what rel'ef are these workmen are Lntitled .o "

All the facts and circumstances, lead to uie ocJble pre- sumption that the woikman had illegally wuhdicw money ftom the account of Smt Ram Piyan In this back giound, the signatures on the documents h^ve to b>- seen Ihe Disci- plinary Autho lty rightly concluded ^iinst the woikman and passed punishment ordei The punishment, en the face of it is on lower side if \iewtd

Viewed so, the action of the management is justified in imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment against the workman There is no unjustificiaoi or illegality

In his i- eicee the d spute is on the point of granting of spec il m d c il leave 10 N S Manthapurwar and 16 others vvoikmei W'IO aie ailetxd (r be suffering from Jaundice Ibis ea"t \i.h iv.Cv.red m th s court and notice was issued to th r itiL> c", 24 11 99 Trie aff davit of the workmen were fl d in this eou t on 28 11 ^f'OO but after that both the parties absented on 1! 01 2C01

Awaid actoidmgly

7-8-2001

LUCKNOW

ToJcV Lo bot.i 'he parue-, aie absent Neither any re- Ditsen'dnvi, apoeaied from the side of the workmen to (.onuirt h eas^ noi fhe counsel for the management Y. M. Ing"¹ apptaiv-d lie cUo di 1 n >' submit the counter affidavit RUDRESH KUMAR Pn.siding Oi.ieu

"•in ih^ s'di. ot in iiiacpmv,nt

1 ' l l v . - '.

< *" V, It of p'OSf "lltlf 1

M l e l a t r on to t he i n a n ^. • " • m e nt oi C e n t r al B a nk of I n d ia a nd

'fn <••> - did not vtand tioss examination, their affidavits e 'nnot be i a ' in evidence The nidnj"errv.nt has als i not filed any counter aflldav t iSew Dtlhi tie 17th August, 2001 The aluv e < instances >1 evvs that the both the parties ii- i odin;; to piod ice tie c dence The workmen have fie'v-luie no prodi.ee>I << t ficfery evidence legarding their Sn view of th' aho\e« t icumsfarces when the workmen are L,VO dine to iiro\e then c{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}aim the reference should be disposed SO 2388—In pursuance of Section 1" of the lndusfiidl Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government hereby pubhsl.es the awjid of the Central Government 1 idustnal Inbunal L.'bou" Court, Nagpur as shown in the anntAUie in the industnal D spute between ihe emoloy^is ORt'f R thcr workman, wh ch was tcco'ed by thr Central Government on 16-8-2001 ! i re n i t{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} •> i cd of foi vVi.nt of piosecution as the [No L 12011/30'99 1R.B I!)l C CrANGADHARAN, Undei Seev c rkmen and thui union repic enlative have avoided to pio- nie v t i ,' "l\ ANNJrALRh 1. CT SAXtNA Presiding Officer D if d 2! 07 2001 41 K)RI Till C I NTRAT C OVERMVltNT 1NDUSTR1AI IRIBbNAI NAGPUR =i= Urrfr, 17 % \^ 2 0 01 P RE-SENT Shii B G Sixena, Piisilinj? Olhcei ^r -,r 2 «b9 i^rfftiT frerT- i-f?r!>n'T) 1 9 47 Rctoiencc No CG1T 8/99 ( 19 1/ TI 14) l7 $,rj 17 % ^q-Toj- i(i %??tq- Central Bonk of Indi i ANO Shu N S WiiniluFiiiw i A 16 olheis AWARD «T l h - 8 - 01 ft TTr 1 o.,7 4T I [i " - 1 ' n i l '] )ijc)Q-^il^r (cfT-11)] I ic O n t l il Govi lrnieiit, M./ustiy of Labour New Delhi p\ c\e c^ing the poweis eoiuened by clause (d) of Sub Section (I) and Sift Section 2(A) oi Sv.it on 10 of the Industrial u pniv. Act 194{{^{{FOOTNOTE 7}}}} his n l f r ud this dispute foi adiud cation d. oute No L 12011/30 99 HUB II) dated 12/16-08-99 on ici'owmy schedule ↩

5016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : S£P1£MBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Ddlu, the 17th August, 2001

S.O. 2389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, liM/ (14 ol 194/), the Cential Government Hereby publishes the av-aid ol the Central Government iiidusiuai inuuiial/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown m the annexuic in Hie lndus.ti.al Dispute between the employers m relation to the management of Bank ol Baroda and Iheii workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2001.

[No. L-12011/101/99-IR(B-lI)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Undei Secy.

ANNBXUKU

BEFORE THL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Pies.dnrs Officer

Rotciencc No. CG1T : 6/2000

Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baruda.

AND

Shri M. N. Sonkusaie.

AWARD

Hie Centiul Goycinment, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exeiciswg me powers coiJwreu by clause (dj of Sub Sect.on (0 and Sub Jsecnon 2(A) ol Stcfion 10 of the Industnal Dis- pute Act 1947 has retured this dispute lor adjudication vide order No. L-12011 lUJ/yy IR(B-ll) dated 13-12-99 on following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether tlie action of nianogement oi Bank of Baroda thiough his Dy. Geneial Manager (Mali. & Goa Zonei Pune :n not considering the application of Sri, M. N. Sonkusaie, fcr the appointment of Head Cashier Cat-'C m Kulu Branch against the Circulai No. RM/V&M, PD'ClR/90/42 dated 20-08-98 is legal, pi ope: and justified ? If not so what relief the said workman is entitled to 7"

The woikman M. N. Sonkusaie has submitted statement ot claim that he was appointed a.i Clerk-cum-Typist in Bank ol JJaioda vide uidei daied 17-04-84, His designation was Clerk-cum-lypist but he never worked as Typst He worked several limes as Cashier. He was sent for training for Cashier tor 2 days fiom 1-6-1995 to 3-6-1995. Theic was a clear vacancy ol Head Cashiui, Cal-'C ', he is therefore entitled for appointment as Head Cashier, C"t-'C in Kuhi Bianch of Bank of Baroda. The management of bank has contested tile care on this ground that those who are appointed with designation Cashier I lerk or Cashier have to deposit security amount at Hie time of joining. The workman was not appoin- ted as Cash Cleik or Caslnei so he is not entitled for appoint- ment as Head Cashier, Cat-'C. Those clerks who are holding designation of Clerks|CIcrk-cum-'lypist]A

Cash Clerk, He was not eligible for Head Cashier, Cat-'C and his application lor anjOiiinnt.nl oo this post was cancelled by the management,

Aivind Kalkar the another eluk examined by management stated that JVI. N. Sonkusaie vus appointed as Clerk-cum- fypioi on 17-04-84. He had not worked in Cash Department in Nasik, Those clerks who are appointed in cash department us Cash Clerk have to deposit security amount. He stated that JM. N. Sonkusare nas not woiked in cash department on the bank any time. He is¹ only woiking as a Clerk in the bank. This witness whs pi educed 1} the management and was cioss examined hy the counsel for tlie workman.

Fioni the above evidence and documents on record it is therefore clear that M. N. Sonkusare had not deposited any security amount which is obtained by the bank for the post of Cashiei or C ash Cleik, His 3 days training for Cashier as a routine matter and lor having this training he cannot claim the post of Head Cleik. As this workman had worked soin.- times for remittence of cash so ha waa sent for 3 u training. He wai sent in a routine manner and so he did not change his designation as Clcrk-cum-T\pist. Vide Letter No. BR/KOH1/STAFF/1004, dated 16-02-99 the Branch Manager had informed Shri M. N. Sonkusare that the matter was referred to higher authorities and they have instructed that M. N. Sonkusaie can not he alloted the duty of a Cashier as his designation was Ckik-cum-Typist. It is therefore clear that M. N. Sonkusare was not found fit and eligible for the post of Cashier. In these circumstances the management has rightly rejected his application for appointment as Hi;ad Cashier, C'at-'C. 'fhere is no illegality in the order of the management.

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of Baroda throufih it's General Manager (Mnharashtre and Goa Zone) Pune in not considering the application of M. N. Sonkusaie for tho appointment of Head Cashiei, Cat-'C is legal, proper-and justified. The workman is not entitled to any othci relief The reference is answered accoidingly.

H, G. SAXENA, Picsiding Officer Dated : 4-7-2001

have cousidercd the miiuments of both the paities and the evidence of iccord, Both the parties have submitted their written arguments through Ihcir advocates. The workman JVI. N. Sonkusare had submitted hit affidavit and he was cross examined by the counsel for mariogemcnt on 10-01-2001. From the side of management the statement of Arviud Katkar was recorded. He was cioss examined by the counsel for workman on 27-03-2001. S.O. 2390,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centui Oo\eminent hereby publishes the awaid of the Centr.il Government Indus- trial Tibunal[Labour Court, Bangalore a^ ohown in tho annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bink and their wiakman, which was received{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} by the Central Government on 16-8-2001, i'No, L-12012|J30|97-IR(B-Il)j In his statement the wurkman M. N. Sonkusaie admitted that he was appointed as Cleuk-cum-Typist. Still he is work- ing on the same post i,e. Clerk cum-Typist. He says that lie has taken the training of Cashier from 01-06-95 to 03-06-95. He had applied for the pen of Head Cashier in 1998 but he was not appointed as Head Cashier He also admits that he had not deposited cash security when he was appointed, He does not know whether any c;,sh security is taken bv the bank from those clerks who are appointed as Cachicr or C. GANGADHARAM, Under Secy. ↩

New Delhi, the 17th August, 20.') 1 ANNHXURH

BEFORH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTKIA1 TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LtANGALORE

Dated : 3rd August, 2001

PRESENT ;

tton'ble Shii V. N. Kulknmi 13. Tom., LLB., CPresiding Officer).

CGlT-cum-Laboui Court, Bangaloje.

C R. No. 243197

I PARTY:

The General Secretmy, Dhiirwad District Bank Employees Associa'ion, No 9, Corpoialion Bui.ding, Broadway, Hubii.

(Advocate : Shri Ram RPO)

II PARTY:

The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Personal Dcpaitmenl, Zonal Office, Raheza Towets, 4th Moor, East Wing 26-27, M.G. Road, Bangalore. (Aclvoccatc : Shi I Ramesh Upadhyayn)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exoicising the powers conferred of clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 jt the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this disputes vide order No, I.-12O12|I3O|97-IR(B-II) dated 23-6-1997 for adjudication on the following schedule ;

SCHEDULE,

"Whether the aclion of the management of Indian Bank in keeping the workman ShiI B. M. knshnamuithy under suspension for 15 ycais, denying him sub- sistence allowance and impoiinu; a punishment of reduction in pay and treating the suspension penod as suspension period only K proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what lHicf the said woikman is entitled ?"

2. First Patty was woiking with the management. First party was placed under suspension for 15 years denying his subsistence allowance and imposing a punishment of i educ- tion in pny and treated the suspension period as suspension period is not proper and therefore indii'-tiial dispute was raised.

3. Parties appeared and fili.il Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

* 4. The case of the first pnrty union in hiief is as follows :

5. The first pnity woikmun was kept under suspension foi uioiv than 1-1/2 deendes without any reasons. Fiist party joined the services -it Dhaiwad as Clcik and has been sei- ved the bank sincerely, honestly and deliijentiy. Some biased , legations weic made aRainst him and enquiiy was conduct- ed But thj same is not coircct. RegardIIIJI enquuv sn manv things are said alleging thai enquiry is not fail and •opportunity was not given. The fust pnrty workman filed a Wiit Petition before the Hon'ble High Com t of Karnataku as stated in the Claim Statement. The disciplinary pioceed- ings were not correct and the punishment is not proper. First pnrty union has prayed to pass award in ils favour.

ft, The case of the second piuly in brief is as under :

7. 'I he claim is not maintainable, l( is the case of the Second Paity that the Workman is promoted as an officer nnd is working as an Assistant Manager at Shimoga Bmnch. He is not a workman. Therefaie the dispute is not maintain- able. The workman was suspended fen mis;ippioprinlion

5 ) ,/ of the lunds deposited by the customer and a police comp- laint was also filed. The employee himself has admitted in his letter dated 27-7-1978 and 3-12-1990 and confessed to have committed tho acts alleged in his letter sent to head office on 5-7-1978 that he is awaie that the act committed by him is punishable. The charges were misappropriation of fnnds. The action of the management is correct.

8. Regaiding misappropriation, details are given by the management.

9. The punishment was awaided after departmental enquiry was conducted and charges were proved. The employee is not eligible foi subsistence allowance as alleged by him. For these reasons and for some other reasons the second party has prayed to reject the reference.

10. It is seen from the records that on 11th Nuvembei 1998 three issues were framed :

(1) Whether the fiist party proves that the Dharwad District Bank Employees Association had a re- presentative capacity to raise an industrial dispute?

(2) Whether the first paity proves that he is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947?

(3) Whether the Second Party nrov™ that they have conducted Domestic Enquiry in accordance with the settled principles of law and the Enquiry Officer followed the piinciples of natural justice? What Ordei?

11. It is further seen fiom the records that on 10th August 1999 fiist party union conceeded the validity of DE and thereafter the matter was posted for argument?.

12. 1 have heaid arguments in detail. I have perused the Written Arguments filed by the first party union.

13. Tn the instant case the first party union has conceeded the fairness of the domestic enquiry. Tn view of this, now this tribunal has little discretion that too for a punishment imposed by (he management heating suspension period and deduction in pay. Absolutely there is no matetrial before us to say the finding of the enquiry aufhorit/ is perverse.

14. For misconduct, (he management has alieady taken lenient view and minor punishment is imposed. There are no grounds to interfere with the minor punishment imposed by the management on the workman.

15. T am told that the workman has been promoted as an Officer and still woiking with the management, Absolutely there is no material to say (hat the report of the enquiry officei is preverse and the findings are n>>i correct, 16. I have carefully gone Ihiough the wiitten arguments nnd tho lists of citations given in this case. On peiusing the written arguments, it is clear that it is nothing but represen- tation nf Claim Statement and narrating the history of litiga- tion. Thcie is no merit in the dispute.

17. 1 have carefully gone through the citations given by (he learned counsel for the Second Party. Keeping in mind the piinciples held in the above decisions relied by the Second party and on facts I am of the opinion that the management is conect in imposing (he minor punishment.

18. Considering all this T am of the opinion that thcie is no men( in (his icfcicnce and I piocccd to pass (he following ordei :

ORDER

The reference is rejected,

(Dictated to PA transcnbed by her corrected :>nd signed by me on 3rd August 2001).

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer5018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2OO1/I3HADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. ?(ii)] New Delhi, the 17th August, 2001

S.U, 2391. In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustiial Tiibunal|Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Indusirial Dispute between (he employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was, received by the Central (ioveinmrnt on 16-8-2001.

fSo. L-12012|I83'89-lR(B-lT)]

C GANGADHARAN, Undei Secy.

ANNEXURE

EFORH THE CEN I'RAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANOALORE Dated : 2nd August, 2001

RESENT :

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

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C. R, No. 76198

I PARTY

The Gcneuil Secretary, Syndicate Bank Association, S.C. Road, Banualorfe-9 (Advocate—Shri A. Snnivas Alsc, Geneial Sccietary.)

; PARTY

he Chairman, yndicatc Bank, [ead Office, lanipal

Advoctite Shi i Ramesh Upadhyaya)

AWARD

1 The Central Government by excreisin>: Ihe rowers uin- •ned by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of ic lndustri.il Disputes \ct, 1947 has referred this dispute ide Older No 1-1 :<)12| H3|8'MR(B-1I) dated 25-7-1989 ior dedication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whclhei the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank in not entrusting the cash duties to the workman Mrs. Jacintha Gonsilves, clerk. Supre Maiket, ' HuMi Branch is iustified? Tf not, what relief the said workman is enMfltd to?" 2 The first natty Union v.oil in .n i, woiking wilh the econd Party. Hci grievance is thai she was not entrusted cash duties and therefore industrial dispute was mised and the competent authority lefeiied the dispute to this mbuDul.

3. Parties appealtd and iiled Claim S' Uement and Counter respectively.

'1, i'hc case of the first party union is as tjndei: —

5. Mrs. Jacintha G'onLisal ves was working as Clerk at the Second Pdily Bank and she was transferred to Super Market Hubli Branch on 8-6-1987.

fi. It is the turthei case of the Union thai management issued circular under lefcicnce No, 12R|iT']BC|PD|l8|rRS dated 18-4-1987 foimululiiiR the Rules :ind Regulations for periodical rotation of jobs carrying special allowance. Cashier job also carnes a special allowance of Rs. 189 p-.m. at the relevant time and the Circular No. 128|87 laid down the following proceduie for lotution of cashiers duties at Hie branches, Ihe union has Riven details as under:

"The cashiers duties shall be entitled by lotation once in every six months among the cleiks m the order of their Bianch Seniority. "I he entiustmcnt shall be by an older in wilting and in (he event th,c Senioi Clerk expiesses unwillingness or refuses to handle cash the same shall be lecoided and duties bhall theieupon be entmstcd to next senior most clerk. Unwillingness or lefus-al to handle cabh shall disentitle the Cleik concerned to claim the entrust- ment duiing the pailicular peiiod of six months and his|her chance will come only when lus|her tuin comes by rotation".

7. II is the furthei case of the Union that the Super Market Hubli Biunch was maintaining a panel for encrust- ment of cashiers duties and name of Smt, Jacialha Gonsalves was added to the panU as soon as the joined the branch on 8-6-198 7 and she was placed at place No. 21 in the panel. A cashier post fell vacant on 1-12-87 is Super Market Biantic, Hubli and the job was offered to Shri MV, Jagirdai. When lie icluscd|cleclined the job it was offered to Smt, Indira Kulkarni. When she also relused the job it was offered to her next scniormosi i.e. Sml. S. V. Kamalapur. Since Smt. S. V. Kamalapur uNo declined Ihe offer Shri Ashok L. Tibcli who was 2()lh man in the panel was olfeied with cashier's job with effect fiom 1-12-1987.

8. It is the fuilhei cas; of the first pa'ty union that when- ever the permanent cashiei poes on leave his|her job will be tempoiaiily entrusted to the next seniormost in the panel, The first party employee being the ncU senior most in the panel, she was entrusted with temper iry cashiei's duties on 10-12-19K7 and 11-12-19K7 i.e., when the permanent cashier went on leave.

9. It is the further c^se of the union lhal Iwo moie cashier's post fell vacant on 1-3-1983 at Super Market Hubli Branch. As per the senioiity lisllpanc] maintained by the br inch, cashier's ,ch was ollrrcd to Mrs Jacinlha CiOnsdlves, the fiist p.uly employee, who was listed at place No, 21 in (he panel, First party employee pcrfotmed cashier dirties on 1-3-1988 and however she was divested to the cashier's duhe, on 2^-\l/$S and hei job was OIT e annul olleied to Smt. Tndiia Kulkarni who declined the offer once on 1-12-1987.

10 It was the further case of the fiist paily union that Fiist party employee was the lone Association Member winking at Super Market Ilubli Branch at the rolevanl time. As she was the lone Association Member woikinij at Supeimarket Hubli Branch, she was subjected to iiumiliaiimi and hai-iss- ment at the bianch by the membeis 3f nvnl union and as pait of Ihe hdrussmcnl programme, d^i'y once entrusted as pei the branch seniority panel by the Loci I Management wns divested at the behest of lival union members.

11. Thi' case of Ihe Second Party in brief is as follows:

12. II is true that the Circulai 12R|87|RC detailing the pin- eeduie WHS issued. Then; was some quanes fiom the Branchs employees regarding the implementation of the slid chculiu' and then-fore the management issued one moic circular No. 0(132|SPC|PDTRD|R7 dated 30-9-1987.

II. 11 is tiuc th i< Ihe first party was trnnsfrned to Supei M.nkei Hubli Branch on 8 fi-ll)87. The vnd liKineh was mnintaininiT n p inel for enliuslment of cashiei duties and us per the guidelines contained in the circnl.i' dated 30-9-87, if a clerk joins the Br.itn.h duiinjj the cuntney of a panel,

50' 9

18 Manigement c\uiilii\J bhj J Dine >h P.u, Si Bruit h

M iPagci Hubh The fiist piity union has not adduced any evidence Ihetcafki the matter was posteu toi aiguments

19 1 have heaid both sides and 1 ha/e considered ell the

leli-v n* doeumtnts ind circulais

20 V1W1 has given detailed cvdenee about the pioceduie fcllowed foi entiustmcnt of cash work to the Cleiks Fheie is no leason to discaid h's evidence FiOm his e\idence it is cleai that the entrusatient of cash duty was propeily given and it was in accoidanee with the semoiuy panel p e pared by the bank IIL. IS CICSS e\ mimeJ at length but he has again stated the ptocediur- fol'ov\ed by th^ bank Ac- coidmg to the evidence of MW1 the name of the hi A party woikmm does not come at SI No 21 at ill

21 I hive carefully puused the ci eul irs and ni mv opinion the pntiustm nt of cash duly was p\en as pei seni- or ty list Tbeie is no humiliation oi burassment

22 I was told by the ltai rt^d counsel foi the nnnaaem n

that the .voikman is now piomoted and she 's d-\ Offieei

23 It is clear fiorn the reeoids md evidence that fh entrustment of cash duties was only an mprml arrangement cf the bank and in my opinion le strictly maintained as pci the sen'onty panel and in my opinion theie is no merit in this dispute at all Accordinglv T proea\i to p i^s the fol- lowing older

ORDER

The refeience is rejected

(D cftted to P \ tiai.scnbed b\ bei corrected and signed by me on 2nd Aug'ist 2001)

V N KULKARN1, Presiding Officei lit--he v,ill be p'aeed m 'It. pmei just above the LJeison who is p.iloiinipg t'lt duties at the time of his/hei lommj fit blanch Wntii the list naity employee joined the Branch three cleiks were funvlioninj the duties of the cashier and they weie Su S S Bhat (SI No b in the panel) Smt S D Blwt (Si No 10 in the paoel) and Sn R D Despandi. (SI Nw 13 t (SI Nc 10) erded on 31-8-87 As Shu R N B o.vessed his unwillingness U fund on as a cashier cpsh duties weie pntiusted to Shu M S RaiL.i (SI IN i I⁵) and Si SK Joshi (SI No 16) for a peiiod of six months from 1-9 1987 tc 28 2-1988 The term or Sri R D Deshpard"- who was also acting as cashier when the first party joined the Bnnch ended c i 30-11-1987 Hence the ent'iis'ment of cishici duties was tmde on 1 12 1987 and was offered to Shn V VI Jahagird ir (SI No 17) \Vh"-n he expressed his unwillingness ca"-h doty should hav- been to Smt Indira P Kulkarm (SI No IS), but the bifiiic'i by ovei sight offered it to Smt S V Kamalpui 'SI N" !9) As l|ie cxpiessed her unwillingness it WPS eit-Listed to Shn Ashok L Tibsli (SI No 20) w't\ efect f om 1-12-198'⁷ The aveiment of the fust partv in hei C'i'm Statement that the ci^b duty was offered to Smt Tndin P K'iH.i the hpse '•sined her to entrust the cash duties at the time of next rotation of c sh duties

14 It is the fin the else of tlie management that as pel

the guidelines m Cir No 128'87|BC diu.ng t!'C leave vac 'ncv oi bsence of i e^rlar l icumbpnf cash duties shall bi en HI te 1 tennoi i r 'j to *he ievt semci most clerk n the I'^panpl The t^mpoivrfv entrustm°nt mide to the *is* nitty CP 10-12 s.7, 11 ] 2-'•>'/ a'"' 1-3-88 was not based in scmontv but bv oveisi?ht Smt fndna P Kulkarm on 1 3 1988 again Mibni 'ted a le n r informing the management iboiif ,g-io T i ,£• o

New Delhi the 17th August, 2001 1 "5 If is the furtKi easi of the management that the casn duties entiusted to peisons line' r SI No 15 and 16 came to an end on 28-2 1988 The contention of the first p-utv ihai she WPS offered cshier's rob iB per the seniority list on 1-3-1988 is denied The Branch bv oversight, entiu&ted temporarily, cashier's diitv to her 1 3-198S \s Smt Indua P Kulkaini (SI No 18) was not cti'is'ed \ '<*i cash du'v vhen h^r turn c ime the Blanch eptiuc(ed the dut>es to h?r oi 2 3 198S Tt is apain demt'1 *hnt Smt Indira P Kulkaini had evr]esspd her unwillingness to funrtion ts a cishiei on 1-12 1987 Th" remaining e m n ' o v^ ir the pin°I became pimb'p for eP*rii

S O 2392 —In pirsu. nee ct Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 19^7 (14 of 1917) the Central Government herebey publishes the awai 1 of the Central Government Tndustn >1 Tnbunal/Lat om Couri, Jabalpur as shown in the fpnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relat on to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman which wa° irte'\td bv the Central Government n 07-08-2001

(No L-12012/229/90-IR(B-II)l

C GANGADHARAN, Under S cy

ANNPXURE

WFORF THF CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAI

TR1BUNAI-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR50: 0 THE GAZETTE OF fNDTA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bunk, Bhopal Region, 4, Sikharvattu Bhnwan, Bhop.il. , . . .. Non-Hpplicant

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of July, 2001

1 Tho Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide ordci No. L-12012/229-1RIB-II) dated 6-12-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action oi the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing the services of Shn Prakash Chandani is justified 7 If not, to what relief is the woikman entitled?"

+. The woikman turlher alleges that the alleged charge vwis nor proved HEamst him tin the material on record and even then the Lnquny Officer held ihe charges proved against him. The payment was nia..k to the Saving Pass Book holder us pet the lLiles oL Ihe Bank and no ineyulaiity was committed in this respect. He was not given the oppoitunity by the Enquiiy Ofllcei lo pioducc his defence evidence durinji the cnquiiy proceeding!. The FnqiJrv Officer acted against the pi inciples of natural justice. No icason was mentioned in the show cause notice served on the workman. He was not given the opportunity of peisonal hen'ins by the Appellate Authority and therefore lie could not defend his case properly. The entire- DF was conducted against him in a biased and pro- judicial manner. The management was determined to remove him from service as he was not ready to join with them as a partv in their illegal activities in the working of the Bank, This has caused (he dismissal of service, The order of dismissal therefore deserves lo be quashed He is entitled to reinstate- ment with back wa^es.

5. The case for the mniiiiyt-ment is that the workman while workinu as Assist.mt in the Bank, was served with a charge- sheet dated 26-3-S4 whereby he \\a' alleged to have committed serious acts of misconduct as under :—

That on 2G-2-R2 when he was working as teller at Govind- •nura Bhopal a person namely Shri Ram Awatar approached you foi withdrawing a sum ot Rs. 1000 from SF A/C No. 2227 m the name of Shri Mahcndia Sinha and presented a with- drawal slip for the amount duly signed by the account holder along with the said pass book or the said account, On that dnv you informed the heard that the signatures of the account holdrr on the instrument (withdrawal slip) did not tally with Ihe sicnaturcs held on Bank's itcoid and hence the payment was not mad¹ to the hruier. You are reported to have torn the withdrawal slip the top portion giving an impression that the withdrawal slip had been destroyed. Later in the dav the Account holder Shri Muhendra Sinha came to the Branch along with the bearer of previous withdrawal slip and with- drew the amount of Rs. 1000 bv presenting another withdrawal slip. However, you retained the mutilated withdrawal slip presented by the bearer wilh you

5021

nesi(tp"i rhncn nf tn# n/*^r,n" + 1,A1J." A 11 n >

50:2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made over this industrial dispute between the Asstt. General Secretary, Central Bank of India Staff Association, Kanpur espousing cause of Mohan Jaitly and Regional Manager, C'enual Hank of India, Ktawah kir adjudication. The reference reads as under :

15. r h; pimls'iinent of dismissal awarded by the workman in the circumstances of Hie CO--Q cannol be held to be dis- piopoitiunnfo. Such woikman cannot be retained on duty to I'Cifrtin ihe duty of Assistant in any Bank. The punishment is thcrvfoie holu to be jun i

'"Whether the action of Management of Central Bank of India in imposing pemlty vide order No. RO| PRS|DAD|98-99|613 dated 28-3-1999 of reduction of two stages in time scale of p ly of Slid Mohan Jaitly, clerk of Etawah Branch is justified or not7 If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 16. T^aiic No. 5—On 'he revsont stated obove, it is held that the workman U not entitle. 1 to any relief as claimed by li in. Hi: is not rnhtlfd to reinstatement with back wanes The Older of climTssal is just and proper. The reference is cccoidinuly an-iwi'irj in favour of the management and against the workman.

17. Copy of the award hv s'-nt to the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India as per rule.

2. Admittedly, the workman, Mohan Jaitly working as Clerk employed at Etawah branch of the Central Bank of India was charge shewed bv letter No, RO|PKSiDAD|94-95| 130/249 dated 7-5-1994 as follow .

K. M. RAI, Presiding Offi-.-er

"While working on Current Deposit seat he had posted a credit transfer voucher of Rs, 24000 on 25-1-1991 in C/D ledger account of M/s Rajpoot TradinR Co. at B|O Etawah despite the fact that said credit entry of Rs, 24000 was already stand posted in the account at that time and ledger folio No. 607 of said account was al;o noted on the related credit transfer voucher. This act on his part has contri- buted I'D twice posting of said credit transfer voucher of Rs. 24000 in C|D ledger account of M|s. Rajpoot Trading Co. cm 25-1-91 The party had withdrawn the amount against excess balance created in the account due to twice posting of credit transfer voucher of Rs. 24000. It has created an unauthoriz- ed overdraft in a|c and bank is likclv to puffer financial loss.

Thus, Mr. Mohan laitly had committed act of. gross negligence which had jeopardized the Bink interest and put the Bnnk into fimncial loss. He k charged under gross misconduct of the above act undT oara 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66." New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001

SO 2393.—In pucuiince of S. etion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, l')A7 (14 of 1947), the Central Government h'ifhv publi'hcs the award or the Government Industrial Tribmal/J.'.hour Court, luek'iow as shown in the annexure in me Indu trial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to the mnnapement of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 21-S-2001.

3. The ommlssions and commissions involving the work- man is reflected in recital of the above ch.irge. PHor i^> issu- ance of the charpe sheet he was issued two rnemos No. RO| PRSIDAD|9V94|407 dated 11-6-1993 and RP|PRS|DAD|93- 94|30|1354 datrd 2-11-93 calling upon to file his reply about wrongful entries in thr ledger in relation to account 'of M|s. R"jnoni Tradinr Cc which resulted into over drawn! rausina loss to the bank. The workman preferred, not to file, anv response to said show cause memos, forcing issuance of charge sheet as above.

iNo. L-12O11|179|2OOO-1R(B-JI)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

4. Initially Mr, J. B, Jain was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry. Howev'-r, he was replaced later by Mr. V. K. Sarin. During the pendency \of the enquiry, the workman, jointly with Amar Singh, Vmood Kumar and D.C. TVxit, also invniveH m the siid commi'-sions, filed nn undrrtpkine b"foie fho Disric¹;n.i v Authoriy en 12-1-1996, the content of which is reproduced hereunder :

rity did not lefer to specific amount. The Appellate Autho- rity, 10 provide justice to the appellant fMoruu Jaitly), set aside the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 29-1-1996 and remanded back the case to the Disciplinaiy Authority wuh instruction that the departmental enquiny be held 'denovo' against the appellant and pass lmal order after receiving findings ol the 1-nquiry Officer and observing mandatory norms.

7. In compliance of the direction of the Apcllate Autho- rity, me Discipiinary Authority oidcred 'denovo' enquiry and appointed Mr. H. X, Vcrma, Bianch Manager. Anai Mandi fiiancli, Liawah as hnqu.ry Officer. Enquiry was attended by the workman alongwith his defence repiescnta- tive. The enquiry officer concluded his enquuy on 19-7-98 and held the charge proved.

8. The Disciphnaiy Authoiily Mr. J, P. Misia on the basn Of the eiiquuy report issued memo No. RO; PRS; DAD; 98-99/202 dated l9-8-y8 to lln; workman pioposing pumsii- ment in shape of reduction of two stages in time stale of pay and desued him to make submissions against the pio- posed punishment. Opportunity of personal healing was also given by the disciplinary authority to the workman. After personal hearing on 10-10-98, the Regional Manager, Mr. J. P. Misra, acting as the Disciplinary Authority passed iinul order by Memo No. RO|PRS|DAD|98-99|6U dated 20-3-99. The older reads as undci :

''I J. P. Misia m the capacity of Disciplinary Authority vide order No. RO|PRS|DAD|9d 99|612 dated 20-3-1999 awarded the punishment of "Reduction by two stages in tire scale of pay'' as enumerated m para 19.6 (c) of Bipartite settlement dated 10-10-66 (amended uplo date) in disciplinary pro- ceedings taken against Sn Mohin Jaitly, Clerk Etawah Branch."

Shri Mohan Jaitly, Clsrk is hereby advised that above punishment is inflicted upon him with immediate effect."

y. The woikman filed appeal against the said order dated 30-3-99 before the Appellate Authority who by order No. ZO/PRS/DAD/99 2000/499 dated 8-10-1999 rejected the appeal. The Appellate Authoiily Mi. S. K. Abbi passed detailed oider and justified action of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the said ordci, the workman raised this industrial d'spute,

10. Factual details are admitted and rs not needed to be reproduced. The workman has not denied to be on current counter on the relevant date when double entries were made In the ledgei in the account of M|s. Rajpoot Trading Co. The fnclum of overdiawal by the said company, is, also ^ot disputed. Efforts on the part of the management to lecover the excess amount from M|s. Rajpoot Trading Co. was iiiidcr- taken and civil suit was filed in this tegard, is, also not disputed. In order to resolve present dispute, it is to be assessed as whether conduct of the workman, in shape of omission and commission which ultimately lcsulted into double posting of Rs. 24000 in account of M/s. Rajpoot Tiad- ing Co. amounted to grave misconduct punishable under ihe relevant provisions of the Bipartite Settlement Main grounds taken bv the workman are as follows-

(i) that a 'denovo' enquiry is not contemplated under the Bipaitite Settlement, as such this enquiry in light of the direction of the Appelln'e Authority is not legally sustainable;

(ii) that proper opportunity to inspect the files was not given to the woikman;

(iii) that part the enquiry on 20-3-1999 was done in absence of the workman, rendering the proceeding illegal;

(iv) that the Enquiry Officer did not allow the workman to put relevant aneitiotw to the management wit- ness;

(v) the management did not provide documents and informations relevant to the enquiry;

(vi) the enquirv was concluded without giving opportu- nity to the workman; and

(.vii) that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perveme

50:i 10. Tne donovo enquiry is iiot prohibited by the Bipartite Semem.ni. Itic Disciplinary Autlionty followed insliuetjons ot tne Appellate Auihonty and oidered d.in'no enqur'y. Tho Older CJI me Appellaie Authoiily was not challenged by Ihe workman Deiore any lorum and this ordei attained finality. A^ait, Lie workman pailit-ipated in denovo epquny aloiigwnh his defence lenrescnuilivc and cioss-cxxamined the wanes;,. Ihe plea as to illegality ot the denovo enquiry appears to tiave been taken beioie this Tnl.unol for the first time. The denovo enquiiy did noi pitjudicc cause ot the workman. No material has been placed to show that the donovo enquiry was illegul. lhis plea seems to be misconceived.

11. Plea that proper oppjitunity was not given to Ihe woikman to inspect hies, seems to an after thought. He was not suppostd to have owned icsponsibility of excess pavment and agreed tv> share loss, had he not inspected the leicvant documents diiung the period prior to enquiry and thereafter. Nothing is shown, what prejudices were caui' d to the work- man by lejecting his plea to inspect files. Whether thi hie claimed to be injected was relevant is alsj not disclosed. Inspection ot file is called upon only when relevancy wilh the subject matter is shown. In the present case, the woik- man has tacitly admitted his idle in double posting. Urder the said circumstances, this plea u. misconceived and un- acceptable.

11. Tl'c plea that part on the enquiry on 20-3-99 was con ducted in his absence did not cause any piejuilice to him, If the woikman, with a view to delay or orWiut-t the passage of enquuy chooses to be absent, the enquiry was not re- quiicd to be stalled. To gaiii on thi^. plea, it is incomb:nt on the woikman to show that he was leally and actually suffer- ed. Nothing is on iccoid to justify this submission. This plea is rejected.

12. The A|R of the workman pointed towaids some ques- tions which were not replied by the workman cr were net allowed to be put. If one goes by these questions, it is clear that these questions weie not very relevant to tho misconduct of the workman. These questions, of course, lelated to the subject matter, but related t0 actron against the officials or culpabilities of the management. The workman was entitled to cross examine and not impeach the wifnet,5. As observed eatlier, the involvement in double posting is not denied. There may have been negligence on the part of the other officials too, but this fact could not absolve the vorkman of his accountabilities. The tenor of questions indicate that the workman desucd actions against others. All the docu- ments which were relevant to the workmm's mi>conduLt, were made available to him. There app^ais no denial of opportunity to him at any stage. The Euqinv Oflkei was not prejudiced. The workman had already contested the case upto appellate Jagc in which e'enovo enquiry was ordered. No prejudice ha¹; occasioned due to denial of permission to put questions or those questions not replied by the witness in substance, the whole ca^e Is I used on documents and dis- chrrgc of duties uplo stagj of double posting, These questions did not relate to relevant facts, henco were rightly denied.

13. Il is evident lrom ptiusnl of the enquiry file that the Enquiiy Officer deliberated in detail on ths fac+s and cii- cumstancrs leading to proof of accusation The findings are not perverse in any manner.

14. The Disciplinary Authority rightly agreed wi'h tlie findings and passed penalty order. Appelhte Arthoiity ako disposed of appeal with reasoned order.

15. Accordingly, the domestic enquiry WTS fair and rropfr and the findings did not suffer with vice of perversity. The action of the management is held to be justified in punishing the workman,

16. Reference is answeied against the woikmnn. He it.

not entitled to any relief.

LUCKNOW

14-8-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Offlcex5024 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J [No. L-12012/l&/95-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANN1-XURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVKKNMENT INDUSTRIAL TK1BUNALCUM-IAEOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YISHWANIIIl^jf?, B\NGAl.CR!i

Dated: 10th August, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'blc Shri V. N Kulkarn:, B.Com.,LLB..

Presiding Officer

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANOALORE

C.R. No. 49/97

I PARTY

II PARTY Ramcsh Marathc, General Manager (P) Clerk. Syndicate Bank H.O., Syndicate Bank, Mnnipal 576 119 SIIVL'1 (Advocate—Shri Pradeep Sawkar) Karnool District, Andhra Pradesh (Advocfatt—shri Narasimha Swamy)

AWARD

1. The Central Gfv^rnment by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of [ho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has leferred this dis- pute vide ordn- No. L-12O12|19|95|1R (BIT) dated 19th June, 1995 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

''Whether the Action of the Management of Syndicate Bank, Manipa! in Imposing !he Following Pcnali- ties on Sri Ramesh Marathc, Clerk vide their Order Dated 22-11-1993 is Legal t.nd Justified?

(I) Stoppage of next one increment with cumulative effect for the alleged misconduct of vilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of superiors ;

(II) S'oppage of next one increment for 6 months for alleged misconduct of indecent nnd disorderly behaviour on the premises of the bank, and

(III) Stoppage of next one increment for 6 months for the alleged misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. If not, what relief is the said work- man entitled to 7"

2. First Party was working with the Sf-c.nd Party. On account of misconduct enquiry was initialed against the first p;irty. On the basis of the enquiry report minor punishment was imposed and therefore, Industrial dispute is raised.

3. Parlies appeared and filed Claim Statement and Coun- ter respectively.

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

5. The first party joined the Bank in the year 1984 and was wi rkiujf honestly and sincerely without any complaint. He was inc'haiee of the ca.sh department. There was heavy rush in the bank on account of the fact that second October happened to be a holiday for Gandhi Jayanthi, In addition Dasara lcsiival wtw aho in the. first week of October, 1992. Work was very heavy in the branch,

6 It is the further case ot the first party that at the end of the working hours uf the bant the Sub Manager wanted the first party to do the work in the Clearing deportment on the very same day. But on account of busy schedule he could not cany out the said wcrl. that too at the fag end of the day to clear the cheques. However the Sub ManaRer got angry with tlie first party and stated that he would take action against him and letter was issued to him for the mis- ccnd'ici. Again lettet dated 3/7-1U-1992 was given to the first party for various actions of misconduct. He submitted ex- planntion but enquiry was corducted. The enquiry is not correct Mid proper. He htis t'Ot committed any misconduct. Charges aie not proved. First party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

8. The main contention of the management is on that 1-10-1992, the first party was working as a Cashier in the Suving', Bank Section of the Cash Counter. At about 4.30' P.M. on thuf day, tlic first party completed his work of the said section and on account of the fact that there was heavy work connected with the clearing section due to successive holidays and he was advNcd by the Sub Manager to assist Srat. P. Surckha, Clerk in Clearing Section. But the first party refuted to obey the oral orders and written order was given. The first party refuse.I to acknowledge the receipt of the (flic; order in the delivery book, though he received it under protest. Tile above act is a misconduct in the meaning of Clause 19.3(e) wilful insubordination and disobedience to lawful ;.nd reasonable orders, ot superiors. Clause 19.5(c) indecent and disorderly behaviour on the present of the Bank, 19.5(j) committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bunk under the Bipartite settlement,

9. Enquiry was initiated. Regarding enquiry it is said that 1 lie: full opportunity v-as given to the first party and enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry properly but the first party himself did not participate in the proceedings and walked out of the enquiry on 2-.M993. There were no ground to change the Enquiry Officer. All the allegations made bv the first party are not coircct. Charges wore proved and for the misconduct action taken by the management is correct. The Second party has prayed to reject tho reference.

10. It is seen from the records that this court by its order doled 19th April, 2001 pa^cd an order holding that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and valid.

11. In view of the fact that the enquiry ig held as fair and proper now the first party cannot say that the enquiry is rot nroper and no chance was given to the first party The i.nly contention of the liist party that there was harrass- m°nt because the first party was a member of the union First party w,is examined himself and has said that there was hanassment to him,

II. I have carefully perused the enquiry proceedings and all the relevant documents.

13. According to the rnnnngfirrnt when the first party finished his n'pular work he wns n^ked by the superior to work in the Clearing Section but he refused to do work and when the memo was given to him he received the letter undsr protest and it is clear fioin the records that he refused to acknowledge receipt. In my opinion this is definitely in- subordination and not vvorking to the orders of the superior.

14. The first party is working in a responsible Nationalised Bank and is expected to maintain discipline and work properly.

15. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first pnrtv Jiat so far as Cliaige 1 und Charge 2 is concerned the period has expiied und he is not in.'.istinp on that. His oi*Jy con- tention wa; that (he punishment of stoppage of next one increment with cumulative effect is too harsh and thh is no! proportionate the misconduct alleged by the management.

16. In my opinion there is no merit in this argument be- cause misconduct is proved and there is disobedience on the part of the first party and secondly charges are proved and in the absence of uny roiiteiial that there was harrassment and victimisation to the first raity, on behalf of the manage- ment I Hm of ihe opinion that the punishment imposed is correct.

17. Regarding lmrrassment it is only said by the first party that he was harrassed. The:e is no material produced by the first party to

18. Taking all this into consideration and in view of the fact that the DE is held as Fair and Proper there is nothing to invoke the ynovisions of Secrion 11A of the ID Act that too in a situation where minor punishment is imposed on the first party. There is no merit in this reference. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 10th August 2001.)

HON'BLE V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 10 -8 -2001

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001 S.O. 2395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Corporation Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 21-08-2001.

[No. L-120!2^95'07-IRrB-im C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

5OZ5 ANNEXURE

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

"SHRAM SADAN",

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 14th August, 2001

PRESENT :

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

C. R. No. 90|98

I PARTY

The Joint Secretary, Corporation Bank Employees. Union, H-5, 7th Floor, Manish Towers, J. C. Road, Bangolore-560001, (Advocate—Shri M. R. Shailcndra).

II PARTY

The Chief Manager (I&D), Corporation Bank, Post Box No. 88, Mangalorc, (Advocate—Shri Pradeep Sawkar).

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-J2012[395|97lIR(B-II) dated 20th October 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Corporation Bank in imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon Shri B. S. Surendra, clerk is commensurate to the act of miscon- duct allegedly committed by the workman ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?"5026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, zOOl/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PAIU' Jl—SEC. 3(ii)J 1. The Bank Secretary, Corporation Bank Employees union for the workman has rais- ed dispute on the ground that the manage- ment has imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

2. Parties appeared and filed Claim State- ment and Written Statement respectively.

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

4. It is the further case of the union that when the workman was working at Banga- lore Srinagar Branch of the Bank bet- ween the period 28th October, 1992 and 12th December, 1993, certain omissions and Com- missions have been alleged and charge sheet was issued. The workman had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6000 from Shri R. Ramesh, Clerk of Doddaballapur Branch and three cheques were issued on his SB Account maintained at Bangalore Srinagar Branch and Shri Ramesh discounted two of the aforesaid cheques.

5. It is the further case of the workman that he has not committed any misconduct and the charges are not correct infact the aforesaid charges do not constitute miscon- duct. The workman has relied the judge- ment pronounced by Kerala High Court and has contented the matter affecting private right do not constitute misconduct.

6. Regarding enquiry it is said by the work- man that the management has not produced any witness oral or documentary to prove that the workman have borrowed a sum of Rs. 6000 from Shri Ramesh. The enquiry officer has failed to take cognisance of provi- sions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation that the workman had not maintained the sufficient balance in his SB Account is not correct. The charge sheet itself says that the alleged discounted cheques have not been received by Srinagar Bank and therefore, the workman is not liable for any misconduct. The finding of the enquiry officer is without any evidence. The work- man for these reasons and for some o+hcr reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

8. It is said that the reference is bad and not properly worded as stated in para 1 of the Written Statement. The provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act invoke in cases of punishments of discharge or dismissal and not in other cases. Charge sheet was correcUy issued and misconduct was proved. Details of charge &heet are stated in para 2 of the Written Statement.

9. Regarding enquiry it is said that the same is correct and all the allegations made by the workman in this behalf are not cor- rect. It is also said full opportunity was given to the Workman to defend his case. The workman has borrowed Rs. 6000 and issued cheques and cheques agregrating to Rs. 4000 has been discounted.

10. It is the further case of the manage- ment that the workman" and Mr. Ramesh being the bank employees are aware of the bank procedures and insupport of this Mr. Ramesh in connivance made false entry in the courier register. There is no merit in the dispute raised by the first party workman. The action of the management is correct. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. It is seen from the records that MW1 is examined on behalf of the management.

12. The evidence of MW1 is that he con- ducted enquiry against the first party work- man. He has given detailed evidence about the enquiry.

13. At this stage it is to be noted that the first party conceded the fairness of the enquiry on 14th June, 2001 and requested that the matter may be heard on merits.

14. Accordingly I have heard both sides in details and I have perused all the enquiry proceedings and read the decisions cited by the parties. It is true that in the instant case the first party workman has conceded the domestic enquiry fair and proper.

15. It was vehemently argued by the learn- ed counsel for the first parry workman that the transaction was between the workman and one Mr. Ramesh and this has noting to do with the bank and the action of the management is not correct. In support of this argument he relied a decision of Kerala High Court which is marked in the enquiry as Ex. D l. The citation is O.P. No. 5798 of 1986 which was decided on 14-12-1990. I have read the above decision carefully. It5027 is held in the above decision that matters affecting private rights do not constitute any misconduct.

16. Against this it was argued by the learn- ed counsel for the second party that the work- man has committed misconduct and there is temporary misuse of funds and therefore, there is no merit in this dispute. In support of this he relied following decisions :—

(I) A IR 1997 SC 1393

(II) A IR 1997 SC 1398

(III) 1995 (6) S CC 237 (IV) 1995 (6) S CC 240 (V) A IR 1996 SC 2412 (VI) A IR 1996 SC 2419.

17. I have read the above decisions very carefully. Facts of AIR 1997 SC 1393 arc quite different from the facts of the present case. It was in respect of enquiry and non supply of certain documents.

18. In ATR 1997 SC page 1398 facts are quite different from the facts of the case on hand.

19. In 1995 (6) SCC 237 there was a Strike and the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of the above decision

20. In AIR 1996 SC 2412 again the facts of the present case are quite different from the fact<= of the above decision.

21. In AIR 1997 SC 1393 (Para 8) was insisted to be seen and was argued that the acts of the workman constituted misconduct and accordingly proceedings were init'ated.

no misconduct and therefore, the manage- ment is not correct in imposing the punish- ment in question.

24. According to the chargeshcet the alleged discounted chaque have not been received by Srinagar Branch and therefore it can be said here that the finding of the En- quiry Officer is not based on evidence and the report of the enquiry officer is perverse. In fact there is no temporary misuse of bank funds in this case.

25. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the management that the punish- ment is minor and this court cannot invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act. 26. In the instant case the alleged transac- tion of workman and another employee by name Shri Ramesh is a private transaction and in my opinion there is no misconduct at all and therefore, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the management.

27. I already said that the alleged transac- tion is between the workman and another em- ployee by name Shri Ramesh and the transac- tion being private not affectins the bank but the action of the management in imoosing thj punishment is not correct.

28. I have considered all the submissions made by the parties carefully and T proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed and imnosing the punishment of stoppage of one increment wilh cumulative effect is set aside.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her correct- ed and signed bv me on 14th August 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer3328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 15, 2Q01/BHADRA 24, 1923 [FAKT I W S U C. 3tfi)l New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001 S O. 2396 —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the unnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers m relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2001.

[No. L-17012/43/97-lR(B-ll)J C. GANGADHARAN, Under Srcv

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN" III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated- 16th Augmt, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N kulkarm, B.Com , LI B, Presiding Officer, < 'GIT-cum-I abour O w t. Bangalore.

C R. No. 63/93

I P A R T Y:

Shri K. M. Gurushivakumar, S/o Shn K Ma'llaiah No. 3887, Lakshmishnagar, Kadur, Chickmagalur-577 548. (Advocate : V S Naik¹*

II PARTY:

The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Krishna, Udupi-576 101. (Advocate : Shri T V. Anantha Murthv).

AWARD

1 The Central Government by exercising the Dowers 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-17012/43 ! 97/TR(B-II) dated 29th June, 1Q98 for adjudication oi the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India in refusing employment to Shri Gurusmvakumar w e.f. 1-3-1997 is legal and justified 7 Tf not, to what relief the said workman Is entitled ?" 2 The first party was working with the second party His services were terminated and therefore, this industrial dispute is raised,

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

4. The case of the first party in bn;f is as undei . —

5. The first party belongs to Scheduled Caste Com- munity. He had registered his name in the Employ- ment Exchange at ChickmagJur He received an interview notice on 29-3-1995 fiom the management and his name was sponsoicd b> the Employment Exchange in the post of Temporaly Assistant in the Branch. He appeared for the interview on 17-9-1995 and he was appointed by an ordei dated 14-3-1996 and he joined on 18-3-1996 and he was continuously working with the second party lit was also enjoying the leave and other service ben*fits. He was being paid a basic salary of Rs 1950 I To was also entitled to diaw other allowances.

6. It is the further case of the first party that on 1-3-1997 first party workman was refused employ- ment. No letter or memo of termination was given. The management issued a service certificate on 1-3-97 giving paiticulars of employment and also the wages drawn by him I hc first party was working against the existing vacancy and he worked continuously till the employment was refused.

7. He worked for more than 240 days The action of the management is nol correct. The Life Insurance Corporation of India is governed by the provisions of Chapteis V A and B of the Act. The management has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act and theicfore, the action is not conect. The management illegally lefused employment. In view ot age factor it is very difficulty for the first party workman to get an alternative employment. The first party workman for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

8 The case of the Second Party m brief is as follows :

9 It is mainly contented that this Tribunal has no Jurisdiction because the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 is aj self contained Act, and in that it has been piovided for provisions to make Regulations and Rules But provisions of Section 48 aie stated in the Counter The provisions of Section 49 are also stated in the Counter.

10 It is the further case of the management that consequence of the amendment to Section 48 of the 1956 Act inserting Sub sections (2)(cc), (2A), (2B) and (2C ) the ie[>uLiHon^ framed by the Cororation have now become deemed Rules under Section 48 of the said Act

11. It is further contented by the management that the amendment excludes the application of Industrial Dispute Act. The piovisions of Section (2C) are also stated in the counter.

12 It is the further case of the management that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courii and Tribunals in India and therefore the dispute is not maintainable because the employees of the corporation shall not be entitled to protection, to which they were entitled before the coming into force of the amendment aforesaid, 13. It is the further case of the management that the first party was appointed temporal ily as temporary assistant for the period from 18-3-1996 to 28-2-199/ and under the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Regulation 8 deals with temporary start and it leads as under :

(i) "Not with Maiding anything contained in ihese Regulations, a Managing Director. Executiev Director (Personnel), a Zonal Manager or~;a Divisional Manager may emp- loy staff in Classes JII and IV on a tempo- rary basis subject to such geftcral or special directions as may be issued by the Chair- man from time to time".

(ii) "No person appointed under Sub-regulatinn (1) shall only by reason nf such appoint- ment be entitled to absorption in the service of the Corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any po",t".

14. It is the further case of the managemen* that the rules for recruitment of temporary s.dff me framed vide LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 and any temporary appointment made under Regulation 8 of Staff Regulations is gov- erned by the sa'd instructions and these instructions have been approved by the Supreme Court.

15. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

16. It is seen from the records that on behalf of workman he got examined himself as WW1.

17. On behalf of the management MW1, J. D. Rao ' was examined and documents were marked.

18. According to the ,;vi<]ence of MW1 the first party was appointed as a Temporary Assistant w.e.f. 18-3-1996 and the conditions of appointment ate mentioned in Ex. Ml and Ex. M2 and therefore, the first party is not entitled for any benefits. His further evidence is that the reference be rejected.

19. He further says that the appointment of tem- porary assistant was necessitated as the panel of re- cruitment have not selected the regular employees.

20. MW1 in his cross examination has stated that after interview the first party reported duty :n Kaddur Branch on 18-3-96. He was doing the c'uty of Clerical Job- He is unable to tell the name of a person who replaced the first party. He also says in his cross exa- mination th. t no Ic'ler was issued to the first party either on 28-2-97 or subs^quen'ly. He also says that there was no enquiry against the frst party and no notice was issued to the first party.

21. Against this the evidence of WW1 is that he was appointed on 14-3-1996 and he joined duty on 18-3-1996. He also said that no regular employee reported for duty. He says that at the time of termi- nation notice and compensation was given to him. He has prayed for reinstatement.

22. It is clear from the records that first p-rtv Hs .worked continuously for more than -240 days and this ?7'i? nT/?(VM .?4

5029:

fact is not. disputed by the management. It was vehe- mently argued by the learned counsel for the manage- ment that the first party was appointed on temporary basis and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 1994 Page 1343, the provisions of ID Act are not applicable to the case of the first party and therefore, this reference has no merit.

23. I have read the above decision very carefully and I have perused the documents marked as Ex. Ml to Ex. M4. I have read the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 carefully and Staff Regulation Rules, 1960 and other documents relied by the parties.

24. According to the appointment order, the ap- pointment of first party was on temporary basis and it wa^ governed by the provisions of the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India (Employment of Tempo- rary Staff Instructions, 1993).

25. Further according to the appointment conditions it is also clear that during the period of temporary employment with the corporation, none of the pro- visions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 barring regulation 8, or of the rules issued by the Central Government under Section 43 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 shall apply.

26. The learned counsc' for the first party vehe- mently argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reierre 1 by the management is not applicable to the case of first party because as per the conditions of the appointment order the very provi- sions of Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act shall not apply to the first party and therefore, the management cannot take the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1994 page 1343.

27. I have read the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court very carefully. It is clear that by an amendment to Section 48, the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act are not applicable in case of probationers who ire terminated, and regulations framed under Section 48(2C) have overriding effect over the pro- visions of Industrial Dispute Act.

28. In the instant case the appointment is tempo- rary and according to the condition of the appoint- ment order the very provisions of Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 shall not apply to¹ the first party.

29. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the first party that the pro\isinns of Section 48 in particular amended 2C does not apply to the .temporary appointments and if only the amended provision is made applicable then ihe management can fah? the benefit of 'aw Jnid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision relied by the man- agement. It was further ar/jned lhat in the instant case the v,ery .application of Section 4P has been excluded in the appointment order and the provisions of Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India shall not apply jn this case except the Regu- lation 8. There fc merit in this argument.

30. I shall deal Regulation 8 in the later n?rt of this order. For the present it can b& sa'd that amended provisions of Section 2 (Q do not apply in Case of5030 -OTGAZETTE OF tfftJlA": SEFTEWSESt 15. 20O1/$HADRA 24, 1923 LPAWflpqSfc _#">] temporary appointment as the appointment ordfer has excluded the application of SiCtion 48 and therefore, the management cannot take principles held in the above decision of the Supreme Court.

Central Goverrimcnt Industrial Tribuiial-cuin-L'a'bour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Anncxure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom and their wbrkrrian, which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2001.

[No. L-400l2/2/95~IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE 31. So far as Regulation 8 is concerned, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the first party that this provision also will not help the management because the ID Act is applicable in the case of first party and refusal of employment as alleg- ed by the first party amounts to retrenchment.

tEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- 5USTRTAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

II MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUU ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated 2nd August, 2001 32. It is clear from the records that the first party worked continuously for more than 240 days and this is not denied by the management. Further the name of the first party was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and in view of this the management cannot terminate the services of the first party without taking the mandatory provisions of the ID Act and such beirjg the case the termination is bad.

'RESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGI r-Cum-Lab'.iur Court, Bangalore.

33. Regarding this aspect and the exclus;on of emended provisions of Section 2(O of Ssction 48 of LIC of India Act is concerned, the leirned jnun-' sel for the management submitted that he has no further comments on this aspect.

C.R. No. 114/97

I PARTY:

34. So far as Regulation 8 is concerned, the manage- ment has not convinced anything and the termination is bad. T have already said the provisions of ID Act are applicable to the first oarty and refusal of em- ployment amounts to retrenchment.

35. Taking all this into consideration, I urn of (he opinion that there is merit in this dispute and accord- ingly I proceed to pass the following Award :

AWARD

Shri A. Daniel, C/o A. David, DTO, Dharmapuri-63 6-705. Tamil Nadu. Shri A. Dharman, C/o T. Mahingfippan, D. No. 177, TNHB Vennnpatti Quarters, Dharmapuri-636 705, Tamil Nadu. (Advocate : Shri Satya Narayan),

II PARTY :

Reference is allowed and the action of the man- agement in dismissing the first party workrm.i from service n not justified as prayed by the firit party, nnd further the management is directed to reinstate the first pirtv with continuity of service from the date on which he was terminated. Accordingly Award is passed as prayed by the first party.

("Dictated to PA transcribed bv her corrected and

The Divisional Engineer, Telecom Co-axial Cable Project, No. 38, 28th Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore-560 078. (Advocate : Shri Krishna Kumar Megharajt.

"i?ped bv me on 16th August, 200 0.

AWARD

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

Tf fWt, 20?TT"T, 2001

^TT.Si'T, 2397.—Kfafrffar faTP? (tftlftW, 1947

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 fias referred this dispute vide order No. L-40012/2/ ?5-IR(DU) dated 26th February, 1996 for adjudica- tion on the following schedule :

f 1947 ^ 14) "ft ETTTT 17 ^T ST^q

faflP?f % ^W, wnrer 5r f Mw aftaftPw

SCHEDULE A^SVS 'Ft WTfoPT wrrrft &, "ft fctw *i < *K frf 2 0-S-20 01 !ftt STTT ffW TT I

"Whether the action of the Department of Tele- communication in terminating the services of the workmen S/Shri A. Dharman and A. Daniel w.e.f. 26-3-1988 is justified? If not/ to what relief the workmen arc entitled to?"

f*f . TTBT-400 1 2/2/9 5~1TTf 5fK ffi-*{- )1 ^TJftT TR T*rf, Tffl fffff"|frft

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001

2. First Party workman was working in the man- agement and his services were terminated "o indus- trial dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and flTed Claim Statement tend

Counter respectively.

o o ">TO7._|n rif'innc^ nf Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 04 of 1947"). the Cen- tra] Government hereby publishes the -award of the5031 4.-The case of the first party in brief is as follows":

5. The first party w,as recruited by the AE Co- Axial, Mangalore as per the procedures in vogue. He \yas ported to work as casual mazdour in Kasaragod, lyla^igalpre section under the co-axial cable project diyigipn from August, 198.6 and was discharging duties of a. permanent nature without any blemish. He conti- AU

7. The case of the Second party in brief is as under:

8. The d^rflite is not maintainable. All the allega- tions are not correct. The second party has not issued any letter dated 26-3,-88 to the first party that the first party terminating the services. The first party himself has voluntarily obstained from the work with- out prior sanction or prior intimation to the depart-* ment. From 1*588 without any reason the first party workman remained absent and did not attend the duties, The management has stated in detail the cri- teria fpr absorbing casual labourers in the depart- ment.

v 9. It is the further case of the management that those who have been employed before 31-3-1985 and currently working on the date of issue of orders i.e. 1841-1088 and those who have been taken to work between 31-3-85 to 22-6-88 and who are in continu- ous service on the date of issue of order i.e. 17-12-93 and who are not absent for the last more than 365 days continuing from the date of issue of this order. The first party has not fulfilled required conditions mentioned in the circular issued by the Department, hence the first party is not entitled for absorption into work. The first party has not fulfilled any of the criteria so question of his absorption did not arise at all. ' ' ,

10. It is the further case of the management that instructions were issued as per letter No. 270/6/84 STN dated 30-3-85 wherein instructions Were issued to stop fresh recruitment and employment of casual labourers for any type of work in Telecom Circles./ districts. It was instructed m protects and electrifica- tion circles only for specific works and on comple- tion 6f the work th£ casual labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. According to the Instruc- tions subsequently issued vide pffice letter No. ?70-5/ 84 STN d£tfed' 22^6r88 fresh recruitment of casual labourers eyen for specific period in projects and electrification circles also should not be resorted to. The management for these reasons has prayed tp reject the reference.

U. It is ,seen from the records that on behalf of the management 'MW1 is,examined. According to his evidence the first party workmen worked between 1986—88. He Was working as casual labourer. He was not terminated. The workman himself discontinue the work. The allegations mads by the workmen are not correct.

12. I have heard the arguments and perused the available material. At the very outset I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this dispute because the first party workman has not '.lied any documen- tary evidence to establish that he was entitled for absorption as per rules. The department has issued orders and circulars as and when required and ac- cording to the management this workman has not attended duty after some period and therefore, the question of termination does not arise. Some orders and circulars are filed and I have read them carefully. From going through them it is clear that the first party workman has not fulfilled any of the criteria for his absorption.

13. Myfl has categorically stated that the work- man himself discontinued the work. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. Absolutely there is no material before us to say that the dispute has any merit.

14. Similar reference i.e. CR No. 116/97 was before this tribunal and the reference is rejected.

15. I have referred this because in the cross exami- nation of MW1 of this case the leaerncd advocate has submitted that except the name of the workman the evidence in that case be taken as evidence in this case, In CR No. 116/97 MW1, M. Narayan has cate- gorically stated that the workman has left the job. He has stated in his cross-ccaininaiion that nothing was given in writing but it was only oral.

16. Absolutely there is no material before us to say that the reference has any merit. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is r&jected

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 2nd August, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 S.O. 2398.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of5032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART H^-SBC. 3(ii)] the Central 'Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Luckbcw, 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 leceivcd by the Central Govern- ment on 20-8-2001.

[No. L-4201l|39|2000-IR(DU)] KUI.DIP RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRJBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Rudresh Kumar, Presiding Officer

ADJUDICATION

I. D. No. 158|20OO

Rei\ No. L-420I1|392000|1RCDU) dtd. 29-9-2000

BETWEEN

The Regional Secretary, Central P.W.D. Mazdoor Union (North Zonc-IJ Lucknow-226001 (in the matter of Asharfi Lai & 39 Others)

AND

The Superintending Engineer (P&A), CPWD, Central Division-I, Lucknow (U.P.) -226001.

AWARD

By reference No. L-42011|39|2000-IR(DU) dated 22-9-2000, in the Central Goveinment in the Minis- try of Labour in exercise oi powers conferred by clause (d) Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 1. D. Aa, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over the industrial di'pute between The Regional Secy., Central PWD Mazdoor Union (N. Zone-I), Lucknow-226001 espousing cause of Asharfi Lai & 39 otheis and The .Supsi intending Engineer (Pc -\), CPWD, Central D.visicn-1, 1 uclriow for adjudication.

The reference is produced ai. under :

"Whether the action of the management of the Central Public Work Deptt. in not Regula- rising The Service of Sh. Asharfi Lai & 39 other Dasti Rasced Karmachari (List cnclu^u) vur*; Lgal and justified ? If not, to what leJicf the workmen are entitled and from which date ?''

C.P.W.D. Mdzdoor Union icpresenting 39 (an- nex uie) workmen holding different posts in group D Ctiteijoiy has tiled pn.vc.r4 claim seeking regularihti- tion of the services. These workmen were admittedly appointed en difhrent designation in between 2-12-1985 to 25-10-1989 on daily wage bays against group D category posts of Beldar, Chawkidar and other similar pos's. They ar? working continuously snica their date of appointment and were also accor- ded temporary ^tauU- about mere than seven years K\ck. Thee employees have not been regularized so far desptc cieatlnp of posfs by the department vide Nq, }9(6> fr*o

whereby 8982 iidditicnal pets were created to adjust the woikmg gioup D employees. On 24-8-95 the Daec'or General bought tuil details of those work- men on daily wage appointed prior to 1990. A letter was addressed to the Regional Chief Engineer. In response to the said letter, Regional Cruel Engineer by us letter dt. 25-9-J 995 submitted his report to Director Geneial. However, regularization orders wcie not issued so fur. It is also aneged juniors to the woikmcn viz. Vir Pal Singh and Munna Lai were rc- guiaiued ignoring them.

I ht management did not challenge lacis recited in the claim smiement that the woikmen named in the enelobea iiuiicxuie, weic appointed ironi 2-12-1985 to 23-10-1989 and they are working since then and they were also grunteu temporary siatus. Main plea of the management it. that tnesc appointments were made against ihe ban order to engage daily wagers w.e.f. 19-11-1985. 'Ihe workmen were appointed subsequent to the ban order and their regularization in services depended on policy decision of Government ol India and Director General, C.P.W.D. in accor- dance With recognized procedure. Iheir services can- not be regularized at local level. The local manage- men forwarded their name for appropriate action giving full details.

Management also submitted thai this Tribunal cannul adjudicate on policy matters. Regulari/ation of tho workman against the ban order is a matter related to policy decision of the government, and so the re- lerence is not competent.

As mentioned earlier, factual disputes in the matter of appointment, coiit.nuous in service, working against regular posts and granting temporary status to the woikmen have not been disputed. The solitary ques- tion emerges whether the workmen are entitled to regularization against the sanctioned posts mentioned earlier and ailso in the light of the fact that two unions vere regularized in compliance of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is not in- formed Jiat tlu cider ol the Central Administrative 1'iibunal, granting relief of regularization were challenged by the management at any forum.

Ihe vvoikmcii have leaded that the apex court in wut petition No. 9966 and 563-7O|83. Surendra Sngh it others Vs. Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. & others made following order :

"We allow both the writ petitions and direct the- lespondents, as in the Nehru Yubak Kendra case (Supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other aaily-rated employees, the same salary and allowances as are paid to the regulai and permanent employees with effest from the date when they were respectively employed

We also record our regret lhat many em- ployees are kept in service on a temporary daily-\v;igi.s basis wilhout their services being regularized. We hope that the Govt. Mill take appropriate action to regularize the services of all these who h;i|vee been in con.inupus eemplojmunt for mare than six months,

fv/o principle: were evolved in the said order by the Apex court i.e. equal pay for equal .work and also legulaiizati'on.of thos^ working -continuously ior more than six months; In the present reference, the5033 question of equal pay ior equal work is not covered. The workmen have already derived temporary status and so quontum of remuneration is not covered in the scope of reference. Thus, the Tribunal is. required to delibrate on the seemed principle i.e. regularizatjjn after continuous service for six. months. In the present case, the management of the CPWD has admitted thyt the workmen are continuously working for more than 16-17 years. Thjj, is also not pleaded that they aie not working against regular post's or they are sur- plus, looking into the requirement of the department. The top management of CPWD was not unaware with inductment of workmen despite ban order effec- tive from 19-11-1985. There is no material on record that any action was taken against those appointing ag'tini ban oidcr. In an> event those appointed and working continuously cannot be denied rcgularization in light of the principal laid down by the apex court. Management though pleaded its inability to regularize services at local level on the ground of matter being in nature of policy niiitter. However, it has not been disputed that polls were created on 19-11-92 only to adjust daily wagers. Management did not file any material to indicate thai the creation of posts by the above said letter, did not apply to workmen or those additional posts were created to some other category of employees. Accordingly, it can be safely inferred that the posts were created to adjust those appointed against the ban order. Had it is not been so, names of those working before 1990 could not have been obtained by the superior officers of the department. It reflects aha that the posts existed and regulari- zation orders, have not been made on the plea of policy dechion. If regularisation of two junior em- ployees could be rn^de ignoring the policy decision of the Cin'ral Administrative Tribunal without any challenge, th's implies that the workmen could also be regularized mid what is needed to the manage- ment is the court's direction. In fact, there is no poli- cy decision. Had it been so, additional posts could not hove been sanctioned for the workmen appointed much prior to 1990. A number of posts in group D are vacant t > recited in rejoinder. This fact is not dis- puted by management by supplementary or other- wise.

Accordingly, in view of Ihe principle for regulari- zation laid down by ihe apex court and also in view of creation of posts tmd actions taken seeking details of those workmen, working prior to 1990 there is no escape but to huld thbi the workmen whose names find reference in iho rumexurc arc entitled to regulari- ztation according to the intcr-se-seniority, in prefe- rence to juniors, 7 regularized earlier.

The refeicnce is adjudicated as above.

Lucknow, dfd. 13-8-2001

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 S O. 2399,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of P&T Dcptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2001.

[No. L-40012|100|88-D.II(B,>] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURB

BEFORE THE CENTRAL 'GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI

PRESENT:

Shri Rudrcsh Kumar, Presiding Officer ADJUDICATION

I. D. No. 51|89

Ref Nn. L-40012|100|?8-D-2(B) Dtd. 7-5-1989

BETWEEN

Ram Sufesh Chaudhary

C!o Babban Chaudhary New Light Engineering Corporation, New Delhi-44

AND

Sr. Supdt. of Post Officer Kalkaji Post Office, New Delhi.

AWARD

By reference No. L-40012|100|88-D-2(B) dated 7-5-1989, the Centra] Government in the Miinistry of Labour, in c\eicke of powers conferred by clause (d) of Subjection (1) of Section 10 of I. D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Ram Surcsh Chaudhary and Sr. Supdt. of Fot.t Office;, New Delhi for adjudication.

The reference is produced as under :

"Whether the action of the P&T Deptt. in ter- minating the services of Shri Ram Suresh Chaudhary, daily wager postman w.e.f. 20-1-84 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Admitted case of the parties are, that the work- man, Ram Suresh Chaudhary, was appointed as daily wager Postman on :>7-4-1981 and served till 19-1-8,4 His services were discontinued w.e.f. 20-1-84. Accor- ding to the workman, he was a dnfly wager • and5034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA iffflStfBgfr *5, 2.QQJ/MOMMA 24, 1923 [PAKT Il-rSfic. MM worked for more ,|ftan 240 days in #ny cajqndcr >year during the said period and so' his services should have been regularised against the post of Postman. The management, instead of regularising his services tcrl minated him despite lendenng satisfactory service for above three years, without giving benefit of Section 25-F of the X.D. Act.

3. In the wiitten submission, the workman, abo, has referred facts legarding his appointment from Dec. 1975' to Oct. 1974 and termination without making compliance of Section 25-F I.D. Act. It is to mention that the scope of reference does not cover the alleged- termination dt. 19-10-74, as such for the purposes of present discussion, the services rendered by the workman in between the period 27-4-81 to 19-1-84 has to- be- taken into consideration, to adju- dicate whether termination w.e.f. 20-lL84 fe legal and justified ?

4. The management has not disputed working rendered by the workman, stating that he worked as daily wager Postman against i£e vacancy till 19*1-1984 and his semens were discontinued w.e.t 20-1-84. Also,,thc management has pot' disputed that the workman continuously worked during the snid period. It is, thus, obvious that the workman worked for more than 240 days continuously in the calender years 1981, 1982 and 1983 and was en- titled to'protection of section 25-F of the I.D. Act,

5. It is pleaded by the management that the ser- vice^ v[ workman was not regularised Respite his rendering services for aforesaid periods for reasons : that he was not qualified to hold the post of Postman. Minimum educational qualification rapsprjbed Jor the post of Postman should be X class wiJUe ihe workman is only VH1 qlass passed. $?jng ineligible for the post of Postman, his non-consioeratipn- for regularisation was justified. It is not permissible in law, to grant lelief of reinstatement if the workman is ineligible to hold an office. Of course, he was a daily wager and the management at the time of dis- continuation of his service should have paid him notice pay, and retrenchment compensation etc. under section 25-F of the I.D. Act. jSjnce the management failed to comply with the provisions of section 25-F, the workman is entitled to continuity with back wages

6. Thfc wprkm&ri does not posses minimum quali- fication of the post, hence, instead of ordering conti- nuation n> serj^ce, it wo,uld be appropriate to consi- der lump sum compensation. He was a daily wager and about 15 years passed since he was discontinued. The management did not comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the I D, Act, and the workman is entitled to back wages. 1hus, in totality of the facts, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh ) only $ecms just.

7. Accordingly, the workman with less qualifica- tion than the minimum prescribed is not entitled to continuation in service and is awarded Rs. 1,,00,000 (Oae lakh) only. a$.compefl$a$0n towards ftnl and final settlement of the claim.

.8. Award \" as wbove.

N e w J ^ i.

16tQJ3r2Q01.

RUDRFSH KUMAR, Pressing Qffiper JMew pejhi, the 20th August, 2^)01 SVO. 24QQ.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ,$e Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 "of 1947), Jhe Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nashik as shown in the Ann^'ure ^in the Industrial Dispute between the employers Jn r^a#on to the management of Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2001.

[No. L-42012|148|97-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNpXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S, HIRURKAR, INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT NASHIK Ref. (IT) No. 5|98.

BETWEEN

The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station, Deolali South, Nashik-422101.

• • First Party.

AND

Shri R. V. Palde, P. Latmt, Mumjobacha Makl, Tal. and Distt. Nashik-422401.

• • Second Parly.

Coram : Shri S. S. Hirurkar, Industrial Tribunal.

Appearances :

None for the First Party.

Shri Sv D. Gangurde, Advocate for Second Party.

EXPARTE AWARD DECLARED It is the reference adjudicated to this Tri- bunal by Govt. of India; Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by its order dtd. 18-5-98. Refe- rence was adjudicated in exercise of the powers confirmed by clause (<3) of sub-section/ (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Jhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Cen- tral Government, regarding the dispute men- tfoned in the Schedule of reference which reads as under :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action" of the¹ Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, A5r Force Station, Deolali South, in terminat- ing the services of Shri R. V. Palde is legal and justified ? Jf not. whjit relief to which the wbrkman is entitled ?"

After reference was adjudicated, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim was filed by the 2nd party workman on 29-9-98. It is mentioned by the 2nd party worftjttan in the written statement that he has worked with the respondent as a poon from 10-11-95 to 10-11-1996. His services were terminated orallv without assigning any reasOtt, without foflbw^hg due process of law under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act. In the conciliation proceedings, the matter could not be settled between the parties. Therefore, failure report was sub- mitted. Thereafter this matter was adjudicat- ed to this Tribunal. It is prayed by the work- man that termination being illegal, unjustifi- ed, employer be directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back Wages.

2. Notice was issued to the 1st party cm- pToyer who apoeared in the Court by ";ub- mittinp, application Ex. C-l and Ex. C-2 through posts. In view of the prayer made in those applications, adjournments were granted. But later on nobbbv remained pre- sent ior the 1st party employer. Hence by order dtd. 14-12-2000 the court proceeded exparte. Thereafter matter was adjourned from time to time then also nobody rem m- cd present in the Court for 1st party errpfoyer.

5GJ5- Hence, 2nd party Workman Was allowed to (file affidavit below Ex. U-5 to adduce evidence on 8-6-2001.

3. Second party workman in, his affidavit below Ex. U-5 hasstated all the facts in detail. After perusal of the affidavit, it is crystal clear that complainant has worked with the 1st parly employer as a peon-cum-watchman and he has completed more than 240 days. His services were terminated without following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act so also retrenchment compensation under sec- tion 25 (f) was not paid to him. Hence ter- mination of 2nd party workman seems to be illegal. It is also stated by the workman that after his termination, Shri Jitendra Kambale, Ulhas Jadhav, Vinod Gaikwad were appointed as peon-wim-watchman and they are still working with the 1st party employer. Under such circumstances, since the services of the Wbrkman 2nd party were terminated illegally workman is entitled to get the relief of continuity of service with full back wages. Hence, I am constrained fo hold that action of the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalava. Air Force Station, Deolali, South, Nashik 422101 in terminating the services of Shri R. V. Palde is not legal and justified. Hence workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back waees. So I proceed to pass the award as follows :—-

AWARD

1. 1st partv employer i.e. the Principal, Kendriya Vidvalava. Air Force Station, Deolali South. Nachik- 422101 is hereby directed to rein state Shri R. V. Palde in his usml post with continuity of service w.e.f. 11-11-96 and pav h'm full back wages from the date of ter- mination till the date of reins^a'c- ment.

2. Award accordingly.

Place : Nashik.

Date : 27-7-2001.

S. S, HIRURKAR, Industrial Tribunal503,$, THE GAZETTE OF I N D ^: SEPTEMBER. 1$, 2Q01/B#AI>RA 24, 1923 [PAUT IJ-^SEC. 3,(U)1 New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2001 S.O. 2401.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-8-2001

[No. L-40O25/6/2001-TR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT WARANGAL PRESENT:

Sri V. Appalanarasimham, B.Sc., B.L., Judge. Thursday, the 6th day of January, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. C. 13 of 1998

BETWEEN

S. Narsaiah S/o Venkataiah, Ex. Casual Mazdoor, C/o P. Surcrtdcr Kumar, Advocate, Prdmakshi Colony. Manankonda.

. . .Petitioner

AND

Th° Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Warangal.

.Respondent.

This Industrial Dispute coming on before me for final hearing on 17-12-1999 upon perusing the peti- tion, counter and all other documents on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Surendier Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and Sri M. Sada Sivadu] A G.P. for the respondent the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day the court passed the following:—

AWARD

The petitioner filed this petition Under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act to set aside the oral termi- nation order dated 7-11-1998 passed bv the res- pondent and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner ao Casual Mczdoor

2. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows.—The petitioner was appoint- ed as Casual Mazdoor in Telecom Department dur- ing 1986. He continuously worked as Casual Maz- door without any break of service from 1986 to 7-11-1998. Suddenly the respondent terminated Ihe services of the petitioner orally on 7-11-1998 with- out assigning any reasons. Petitioner completed 240 working days prior to his termination. The respondent has not followed the procedure under Seel ion 25-F of I.D. Act and so, the termination is illegal. Juniors of the petitioner are retained and petitioner was ter- minated from service. Respondent his not followed the provisions of Section 25-G of I.D. Act. The peti- tioner is now aged 35 years pnd he cannot secure another job at this OTC SO, this petition if filed for reinstatement of the petitioner with nil benefits by setting aside the termination order

3, The brief averments in the counter filed by the respondent are as follows.—The petitioner worked as Casual Mazdoor from 1-5-1995 and not from 1086. Petitioner was not terminated from fiervice. As there is no necessity to engage Casual Mazdoor for want of any work, the services of the petitioner were kept out of duty* but he was not terminated. Petitioner never completed continuous service of ?40 d^vs in a'iy calendar year. As the service of ib" petitioner are casual in nature, the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act are not applicable. So. nlso STfion 25-G of I.D. Act is not ippl'cable. Th^ De'itHn is ihhV to be dismissed.

4 The petitioner is examined as W.W.-l nnj FTS, W-1 to W-4 are marked. Sub- Divisional TFnpmeer is examined as M.W.-l on behalf nf the respondent.

5. Arguments of advocate for the petitioner and A.G.P., for the respondent are heard.

6. The point for consideration is whether termina- tion of the petitioner orally on 7-11-199P bv the res- pondent is illegal and if so. to what relief the peti- tioner is entitled ?

7. Point :—The respondent admitted the fact that pctif'oner worked as Casual Mazdoor in Telecom De- partment from 1-5-1995 to September, 1998. M-l deposed in his evidence that petitioner stopped corn- in? for duty from 1-3 1-1998 on the cround that his salary was not paid on 31-10-98 for October, 1998. M.W.-l clearly admitted in his evidence that petition- er worked for 240 days in a calendar vear between 1-5-95 to 31-10-1998. WW.-l deposed in his evi- dence in support of the averments in the petition. The pav slips for the wages paid to the petitioner as Ex. W-2 and pay receipts under Ex. W-3 are admitted by M.W.-1 a'so. Ex. W-4 i5037 prior to the termination on 7-11-1998. So respondent is bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of l.D. Act before terminating the ser- vices of the petitioner. Section 25-F of l.D. Act is mandatory. Respondent failed to follow the mandatory requirement under Section 25-F of l.D. Act. by giving one monfh notice or by paying wages for one month in lieu of notice. So, the termination is illegal. The respondent stated in counter that petitioner was kept out of the duty for lack of work. M.W.-l deposed in his evidence that petitioner volunturily stopped at- tending for duty from 1-11-1998 on the ground that his salary was not paid for October, 1998 on 31st October, 1998. The respondent has taken inconsistent pleas and so the stand taken by the respondent is nothing but false. I his court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner illegally, eventhough he completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year prior to the date of termination on 7-11-1998, and without following the mandatory requirement under Section 25-F of l.D. Act. Therefore, the termination order dt. 7-11-1998 against the petitioner passed hy the respondent orally is liable to be set aside.

8. The petitioner is now aged 35 years. He cannot secure job at this a>;e. He has to maintain himself and his dependants for a long period of more than 30 years. Simplv because, there is no available post in Telecom Department, re-instatcment of the petitioner shall not be refused in the given circumstances of the matter. Tt would be unreasonable to hold that peti- tioner is entitled only for one months wages and com- pensation under Section 25-F, G of I.D. \ct. It is a fit case to order for reinstatement of the petitioner as Casual Mazdoor and the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner as Casual Mazdoor, as the respondent illegally terminafed ihe services of the petitioner with- out following the mandatory procedure under provi- sions of T.D. Act. However this court is not inclined to give continuity of service or back wages, as the post held by the petitioner is only contingent in nature. Point is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, an award is passed by setting aside the termination of the petitioner oral orders dt. 7th November, 1998 passed bv the respondent and the respondent is directed to reinstated the petitioner in Telecom Department as Casual Mazdoor as "FRESH PECRUTT". The petitioner is not entitled for con- tinuity of service or lack wages. This award shall come into force within 30 days or from the date of its publication, whichever is earlier by virtue of ihe powers conferred to this court under Section 17-A of I.D. Act.

Dictated to stenographer and transcribed bv him, corrected and pronounced bv me and given under my hand and seal of this court on this 6th day of January, 7000.

V APPAI ANARASIMHAM. Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer APPENDIX OF EVTDENCF

W'tne^f"; examined • For Petitioner/Workman ; For R e s j - r - ' : " '' Management :

274?, GL 2001—25

W.W.-l S. Narsaiah. M.W.-l C.S.R.K. Shastri.

Exhibits Marked :

For Petitioner/Workman :

Ex. W-l dt. 1-9-95—Days Book of Sri S. Nara- saiah showing the attendance and certified by the Department.

Ex. M-2 dt. —Bunch of (10) pay slips.

Ex. W-3 —(15) Pay receipts of dif- ftrcnt months.

Ex. W-4 dt. 4-7-1997—Identity card issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warangal.

For RespondentlManagenient : Nil.

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2001

S.O. 2402.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panaji (Goa) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2001.

[No. L-40012/40/93-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE TNDUSTRIALT RIBUNAL GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAIT

(BEFORE SHR1 AJIT .1. AGNI, HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

' Ref. No. R-IT/78/94

Shri Basavaraj Yamanappa Hannur, C/o A. S. Kori, L/M, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones), Margao-Goa.

. .Workman/Party T.

V/s.

The Telecom District Manager, Department of Telecommunication, Panaji-Goa.

. . .Employer/Party II (1)5038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Sub-Divisional Olhccr (Phones), Margao-Goa.

. . . Employer/Pai ty II (2) Workman/Paity I—Represented by Adv. Shri P. A, Kholkar.

Employer/Paity II—Repi evented by Ad\. E. '?.

Dudri Narayan.

Panuji, dated 30-7-2001

AWARD

Tn exercise ot the powers confined by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government by order dated 25-7-1994 bearing No. L-40012J40[93-TR(BU) re- ferred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Department of Tele- com District Manager, Goa, and SDO Phones, Margao, Goa, in stopping from services to Shri Basavaraj Yamanappa Hannur, ex-casual muzdoor, with effect from 30-11-1986 is proper, legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. On receipt of the reference a case was registered under No. TT/78/94 and registered A/D notice was issued to the parties. In pcrsuance to the said notice the parties put in their appearance. The workman- Party I (for short, "workman") filed his statement of claim at Exb. 6. The ease of the woikman in short is that he was employed as a casual ma/'loor at Margao in the year October 1985 and woiked conti- nuously upto November 1986. From December 1986, the workman was not taken for work without complv- ing with the provisions of Section 2^F of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 19^7, The workman thereafter, made a representation dated 13-12-90 to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Phones), Margao Goa, bringing to his notice that the services of the workman vere ter- minated illegally and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, J947. The workman also brought to the notice of the S.D.O. that his ferrrim- tion of service was contrary to the order and direc- tions of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 1280/ 89 whereby the Department of Telecommunication Was directed to take back all the casual niaz<'o'->rs who were discharged after 30-3-1985. Thereafter, the workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Vaseo by his representa- tion dated 19-9-92. The Employer/Party II (For short, "•Employer") filed their reply before the Assis- tant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Vasco, 1 exult- ed in failure and consequently, a failure report dated 15-1-93 was submitted to the Ministry of Labour. The contention of the workman is (hat the emp'oyer terminated his services w c.f. 1-12-86 without com- plying with the provision nf Section 25F of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947, and also without following the directions Riven bv the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 1280/89. The workman therefore stated that he is entitled to reins jlement in service with full back wages from 1-12-86 and all other consequential benefits and the leliefs claimed by him in his state- men L ol claim,

3. The employer filed their written statement at Exb. 7, The employer stattd That the workman was lemov- ed Irom seivice as per the policy ol the DO1 and the workman was paid notice pay and hence he was not entitled to any reliefs. The employer stated that the removal of the workman from service was govern- ed by the Agreement in R.C.M. between the Adminis- tration and (he Union wherein it was agreed thai those casual mazdoois who were recruited after 7-5-95 would be removed Irom service. The employer stated that the workman has failed to justify as to why he kept quiet during the period from 1986 to 1990 and further stated that the workman is now trying to take some advantage of some eireul ir issued by the DOT regarding the guidelines for grant of temporary status to casual mazdoors. The employer admitted that the workman made a representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Vasco, and that a failure report was submitted by him to the Ministry of Labour. The employer stated that there is no dis- pute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act as the workman has been removed from service as per the circular issued¹ by ihc DOT and the workman did not raise any dispute from the time he left the job in the year 1986 till the year 1990. The emp- loyer stated that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 1280/89 is not applicable to the workman. The employer further stated that the work- man is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed by him in the statement of claim and the reference is liable to be rejected.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed at Exb. 14 :

1. Whether the Party T proves that the Party TI did not comply with the provisions of Sec- tion 25F of fhe T.D. Act and hener the termination of his services bv the Party II is illegal?

2. Whether the Party T proves that the termination of his services bv the Party IT w.e.f. 30th November, 1986 is illegal, improper and unjustified ?

3. Whether the Party II proves that the termina- tion of the services of the Party I w.e.f. 30-11-S6 is in terms of the Agreement be- tween the Administration and the Union ?

4. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

5. What Award?

5039

regularisation as per the scheme is an entirely sepa- rate issue and n the same is decided in this reference, it would amount lo travelling beyond the scope of the reierenee which u- not permissible under the law. There ought to be a reference to that effect from the Government, in order that the >,aid scheme should be made applicable, the concerned workman must be in employment. Admittedly the scheme was intro- duced m tiic yeui iy90 when the workman was not in employment as according to the workman himself his services were ttiniir'ated much prior to the fram- ing of the scheme. Therefore in my view the only is.-.ue for co^ideuiliun is whether the workman's ser- vxes were illegally terminated from 30-11-1986 and if the answer is in the affirmative, to what relief he is entitled to. 'I he employer has relied upon the judgments cf die Supreme Coiut in the case of (1) Union of lnd a and Others V|S. Tejram Parsharamji Biunbhifj end ors. reported m AIR 1991 SC 570 (2) Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Un on \ s. Delhi Adn/nislration, Delhi, reported in AIR 1992 SC 789. I have gone through the said judgments ond I c.m of ihe view that they are totally inapplicable to the Lett in the present case.

held that the Post and Telecommunication Depart- ment is not an industry. Though there was no specific pleading from the employer in this respect, still the issue arose whether the Telecommunication Depart- ment is an "industry" and whether the dispute refer- red is an industriai dispute. Afte." rearing both the p.uUes on th s issue this Tribunal passed an Award dated 6-8-97 holding that the Telecommunication Department is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of die Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, the dispute reterred by the Government is not an industrial dispute. Th's Tribunal therefore rejected (he u k r u i ce holding that the reference made by the Central Government is bad in law. This Award \\i§ subsequently thdjLiig^d by the workman in the High Comt of Bombay at Goa—Panaji in "Writ Peti- tion No. 103*38 3rd the Hon'ble High Court by common JuJgerrvn dated 12th March, 1998 set aside the Aw aid d-Ad 4-8-97 of this Tribunal in view of the subsequent Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case ci Genual Manager, Tcieeom v s. S. Sri- nivasa Rao & o< tiers reported in 1997 (9) Supiemt 469 wherein the Supreme Court set aside its earlier judgement in 1 hay>um Joseph's case (supra) ?nd held that Telecommunication Department of the TJnion of India is an "industry'" as defined in Section 2 ( J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. T h; Hon'ble High Court icmanded the matter back to this Tribunal to p-.oceed in accordance with law. After )3ie matter was remanded the parties were duly noti- fied. The v o i l m an was represented by Adv. Shti P. Kholkar and the Employer was represented by Adv. Shri S. A BanJodkar. They submitted that the written argument of the parties are already on record and they do not want to m?ke any further submissions.

6, Mv findings ou the issues are as follows '

Is-ue No. 1 : In the affirmative.

: In the affirmative.

Issue No. 2

: In the negative.

Issue No. 3

: In the negative.

Issue No. J

As per order below.

Issue No, 5 :

S. In the present case the workman has filed his own amdavit whereas the employer has filed the affi- davit of the Sub-Divisional Engineer (legal) Shri W. B. Miranda. The employe) has not cross examined the workman nor the workman has cross examined the employer's wwru-ss. Both the parties have produced documents in support of their case. The workman h-iri s i.ted in Jus rffidfvit that he worked as casual mazejoof from 1 -10-1985 to 30-11-1986. This state- ment of the wo'-kman has not been denied by the employer's witness Shri Miranda in his affidavit. Besides, th; woelm-in has produced at Exb. P-4 the minutes of the meeting dated 22-4-92 held by the Sub-Comm't'ce vridei the Presidentship of Chief /.ccoim's O-Ticer of the Telecom District Manager, Gc? The said minutes show that in the said meet- ing reinstatement cases of labourers was discussed, and as regards the workman it was admitted that he worked from October 1985 to November, 1986. Therefore it k ^n admitted fact that the workman worked as casual nuzdoor with the employer from 1-10-1985 to 30-11-1986.

REASONS

7 Issue Nos. I. 2 & 3.—AH these is.u.s arc *aken up together because they are inter-relatcd. The work- man as well fs (he employer have filed the>r written argument and I Vive considered them. Both the parties m their evidence and in their written arguments have referi xl to the scheme framed by the Telecom- munication Cepn merit knows as "Casual Labourer^ (Gram of Tcmpoi^r> Statui avi Regulation) Scheme", m thr year 1990, bes^d on the judgment of the Supreme Couit, wherein gu'de lines W CF give>i te> dei'l \v" h tl.c ni. ttd of '••? "'ing temporary status to casual laboiners. Both the parties have also pro- duced the necessary documents on the said scheme. In my view, in the present ens; the pleadings of th pj;t'e" "lid their e\ideiice on the point of granting temporary status to the workmen and] or regularising his service are to.Jl\ irrelevant ond cannor bs con"- ^idued rs the 'V-ue involved in the present case is v.heth'r i!'% "ovc^s of the workman were illegally terminated by the employer. The issue whether the workman is entitled to the temporary status and

5040 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/DHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the D.O.T. circulated vide circular dated 7-5-85 under which the services of the workman were terminated by giving notice to him nor Die employer produced the Agieemeni in R.C.M. between the Administra- tion and the Union. Therefore, there is no evidence to suppoil the contention of the employer that the work- man could be removed from seivice by giving to him only the notice. I therefore hold that the employer has failed to prove that the termination of service of the workman is in terms of the Agreement between Administration and the Union.

the definition of the term "workman". Any person or employee who satisfies the pri- mary conditions as stated rfbove and who does not come within the exceptions con- tained in the definition will be a workman. If a casual labourer is employed in an indus- try lor hire or reward, he will be a "work- man" within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act. lhere is nothing in the definition of terms "workman" which excludes a casual labourer."

In the case of Sakharam Govind Kadam V/s. DaviJ Brown Greaves Ltd., Tune, reported in 2000 I CLR 180, the Bombay High Court disagieed with the find- ings of the Labour Court that the Petitioner being a casual employee was not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 25F of the IiJj.ti.al Ui ± .lc ict, 1947. The Bombay High Couit held that any employee who completes 240 days continuous setvjee as contem- plated by Section 25-B of Ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act, il the occasion so arises. This shows that a casual labourer or employee is a "workman" under the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is entitled lo the benefits of the provisions ol the said Act.

11. In the present case as mentioned eanier, it is an admitted fact that the workman was employed as casual mazdooi. Further as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Srinivasa Rao (supra) the employer is a "industry" as defined under Hie Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Applying the test laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Jana (supra) and since the workman does not fall within the exceptions contained in the definition of "workman" and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakharam Govind Kadam (supra), the workman Shri Bassavaraj Yama- nappa Hannur is a "workman" as defined under Sec- tion 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applied to h;m. The employer has set up the defence that the workman was removed from service as per the policy of the D.O.T. covered under order circulated vide circular dated 30-3-1985, However, once the Industrial Disputes Act, applied to the work- man, the provisions of the said Act were required to be followed at the time of removing him from service.

10. The workman has contended that since he had completed more than 240 days of service prior to his removal from service he was entitled to one month's notice and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, lele- com V/s. S. Srinivapa Rao and others reported in 1997(9) Supreme Court 469, has held that the lele- communication Department or the Union of India is an "industry", as defined in Section 2(J) of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore the employer in the present case is an "industry" as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Now, the question is whether the workman Shri Bassavaraj Yamanapp.i Hannur is a( "Workman" as defined under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly the workman was employed as a casual mazdoor. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tapan Kumar J ana V / s. Calcutta Telephones and Others reported in 1988 Jl LLJ 382, has held that a casual labourer employed in an industry for hire or reward will be a "workman". In that case the appellant Tapan Kumar Jana was appointed as a casual employee of the Calcutta Tele- phones. He was paid his wages on the 5th day of every month lor the work rendered by him the preced- ing month and the amount was calculated at a daily rate. The point involved was whether a casual la- bourer is a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Digwadih Coiiery V/s. iheii Workman reported in 1965, II LLJ, 110, wherein it was held that the termination of the services of a badh workman amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(oo) of the Act and that of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Joseph V/s, The Management of Gopal Textiles Mills reported in 1975 I-LLJ 136, wherein it was obseived that the definition of "work- man" does not exclude even the casual employee or a substitute like "badli", in paia 15 of its judgement held as follows :

12. The contention of the workman is that at the time of his removal from service he was not given notice nor he was paid compensation as required under Section 25F of the Industrial DispuLcs Act, 1947, The question of complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act arises only if the services of the workman a\.c retrenched. Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines retrench- ment as follows :

(oo) "Retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disci- plinary action, but does not include ;

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman ; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching Ihe age of superannuation if the contract of "The definition has not provided lor the exclu- sion of a casual labourei from the category of a workman nor has it laid down that only the permanent employees of an industry will be workmen. Certain employees have been excluded from the definition of "workman" but such exceptions also do not include a casual labourer. The primary condition that has to be fulfilled by an employee to bring him within the definition of "workman" is that he must be employed in an industry tor hire or reward. The concept of perma- nent employment is not the only criteria of5041 employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf ; or

(bb) termination of the service ot the workman as a result of the non-vcnevv.il ol u,c v .1- tiact of employment between ili^ employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being lei minuted under a stipulation in that behall contained there- in ; or

the ground oi continued ill-health."

The workman was removed from sciviee in the pie- sent case not as a punishment inflicted by way ol disciplinary action nor his case tails within me excep- tions given in Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore the case ot the workman square- ly lalls within the meaning of relienchmem as defined in Section 2(oo) ol' the Industrial Disputes Act, 194'/, Hence removal of the workman tram service amounts to retrenchment. Section 25F oi the industrial Disputes Aci, 1947 lays down the piocedure to be followed while retrenching the workman. The said section lays down that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service tor not le^ than one year under the employer shall be retrenched by thai employer until (1) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of the notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice; (2) the workman has been paid at the time of retrem/.meiu compensation which shall be equivalent of 15 days average wage for every completed year (if continuous service 01 any part thereof 111 excess of six months and (3) notice in prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Gov- ernment cr such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

months preceding M2-86, the workman had worked for more than 240 days. The identity card produced by the workman at fcixb. P-6 also supports this fact. Ihe employer has also admitted this tact as can be seen lroin the minutes of the meeting dated 22-4-92 Exb. P-4, held by the Sub. Committee, under the Pre- sidentship 0/ Chief Accounts Officer ot the Telecom District Manager, Goa, As per the minutes of the said meeting reinstatement cases ol labourers was dis- cussed and with reference to the workman Shri Bassa- varaj it is mentioned that he worked tor 426 days fiom October 1985 to November 1986 and has fulfilled the condition of working for 240 days in 12 calendar months. Thus there is an admission trom the emp- loyer that the workman worked lor more than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months prior to the date ol tei ruination of his service. The Bombay High Court in the case of Sakharam Govind Kadam (supra) has held that even u casual employee who completes 240 days continuous service as contemplat- ed by Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, is entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 25F applied to the workman. Though the employer's witness Shri Miranda stated in his affidavit that notice was given to the workman prior to his removal, no evidence has been produced by the employer in support of this conten- tion. This was required as the workman had stated in his affidavit that he was not given notice of removal/ retrenchment. The employer did not product the copy of the notice which is said to have been given to the workman. I he employer in its evidence did not state that besides giving notice, the workman was also paid the retrenchment compensation. It is the case of the employer itself that only notice was given prior to the removal of the workman from service. Thus -admittedly no letrcnchment compensation was paid fo the workman at the time when he was removed from service. Since no retrenchment compen- sation was paid to the workman and there is no evi- dence that one month's notice was given to him prior to termination of his service nor he was paid notice pay in lieu of one month's notice, there is no compli- ance of the provisions ol Section 25F from the employer.

14, It is a settled law that complying with the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in caise of Retrenchment is mandatory. The Supreme Court in the case of M|s. Avon Services Production Agency Pvt. Ltd. v|s Industrial Tribunal, Haiyana and Otheis reported in AIR 1979 SC 170 has held that giving of notice and payment of compen • sution is a condition precedent in the case of retrench- ment and failure to comply wiih the provisions pres- cribing conditions j.racedent lor valid retrenchment in Sec. 25F renders the o.der of retrenchment invalid and inoperative. In the case of Gammon India Ltd. v|s. Niranjan Dass reported in 1984 (I) SCC 509, 'he Supreme Court has held that in the absence of compliance with the prerequisites of Sec, 25F, the retrenchment bringing about termination is ab-initio void. The saime principles are laid¹ down by the Supreme Court in the cas: of Narotam Chopra v|s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, leportcd in 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 97, the authority on which the work- man .ias relied upon. In the present ense it has been held by me that the employer did not comply J3. Section 25F ot the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is attiacted if the workman has been in continuous service. It states thai a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service lor not less than one year. Section 25B of the Act, defines coniimious service. It states that a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year if the workman during the period ol 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than 190 days in the case of workman employed below ground in a mint' and 240 days in any other case. In the present case the workman was not employed below giound in a mine. The workman has stated in his affidavit that he worked for 426 days between the period 1-I0-8.S to 30-11-86 and he worked for 365 days in 12 con- tinuous calendar months from I-IO-S^ to 30-1 1-86. This statement ot the workman has not been denied by the employer in the affidavit ol its witness Shii Miranda. In the statement of claim also filed by the workman at parr. _ he had stated that he worked continuous for 426 days during the period 1-10-85 to 30-11-86. In the written statement the empkner did not deny this stati. merit of the workman. The services of the woikman were terminated from lr.t December, 1980, and het^e during the period of 125042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24. 1923 IPARF 1I--SF.C 3 M OI with the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act at the time of removal|ternnn uion of service of workman. This being the case the termination of service of the workman becomes itwalid, illegal and inoperative. I, therefore, hold that the workman has succeeded in proving that the termination of his service b\ th^ employer is illegal, improper and unjustified In. the circumstances, 1 answer the issue nos. 1 & 2 in the affirmative and the issue no, 3 in the negative.

not maintainable because of latches committed by the workman in seeking relief. In that case the High Court found that there was undue delay oi 7 to 9 years in ra.sing the dispute before the Tribunal, The High Court referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nedunigadi Bank Ltd, v|s K. P. Madhaivankutti and )thers reported in 2000 (1) SLR 630 [2000(2) SCC 455] and Mated that above princi- ples have been reiterated bv the Supiemc Court in this judgment. The High Couit quoted para 6 of the judgment wherein the Supreme Court has held that—

"Law does not prescribe any time-hmt lor the appropriate Government to eteicise us power under Section 10 ot the Act. ft is not that this power ca.ii be cxeicisc at any point of time and lo revive matters which tiad since oeen settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Govern- ment has exercised powers in this case aftei lapse of about seven \;ar^ of order dis- missing the lcspondent from service, Af the time reference v\as made no industrial dispute existed or could! be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subjet-maitter ot reference under Sec. i() of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances- of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather in- congruous lhat the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. Tnfact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time v\ hen the tcfcience in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other em- ployees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circum- stances they were dismissed and subse- quently reheated is nowhere mentioned. Demand realised by the respondent for nr'sing industrial dispuls was ex facie bad and incompe'ent."

15. issue No. 4: It lias been held¹ by me that the termination of service ot the workman is illegal and unjustiried. I he normal rule js thai when the order oi termination is held to be illegal and unjustified, the workman should be leinstated in service wiih full back wages unless there are circumstances which do not warranty reinstatement or full back wages. One of the factors to be considered is the part conduct of the workman and hit, gainful employment. In this case there is no evidence on record to show that the past conduct of the woikman wavs not good. There is also no evidence from the employe] that the work- man is gainfully employed. However a reasonable presumption can be drawn tha; being a casual workei he could get work intermittently. The employer has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v/s. Union ot India & Otheis reported in AIR 1992, SC 1414 in support of its contention that no relief should be granted to the workman because he has not explained the delay in raising the dispute. 'Ihe Supreme Court in the said case held ihat inordinate and unexplained delay or latches is by itself ai ground to refuse relief to the Petitioner in that case, irrespective of the merit of his claim. The Supreme Court held that if a peiaon entitled to a relief choose, to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. Similar principles ar; laid down by the Sup- reme Court in I he eaise of Balbir Singh vjs. Punjab Roadways and am. rcpoited in 2001 I CLR 788. In this case orders of punMinient were passed against the Petitioner employee in June 1978, October 1983, April 1987, November 1990 and May 1991. The employee raised industrial dispute in respect of tne saiid punishment and ihe said dispute was refeired lo the Tribunal by the Style Government in the year 1995. The tribunal held that the order ol punishment were bad because they were passed without holding ptoper enquiry. The Tribunal reluscd to give relief in respect of the orders excepting the last order dated 10th May 1991, on the ground of delay. The Writ Petition which was filed by the eniplovee was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the dispute v>as belated and the award of the Tribunal was confirmed. The judgment of the High Couit was chDillenijed in appeal before the Supierne Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court that whether relief to the workman shoi Id he denied on the ground of delay or it should he apnropriatcly moulded is at the discretion of the Tribuml dt"(vndin.* on 'he facts and circumstances of the c:'sc, hu' the descretion is to b? exercised judicially. 1 he Supreme Court dismissed the appeal hoidinc HIP* there was no ground to inter- fere with the discretion exercised hy the Tribunal. Tn the case of Telecom D'striu. M i,..'i.'v. Beleaum v/s, A. A, An"-il, Ki nr.. reported in "001 T CLR 114, the Karnataka High Court held that the tefeicncc was

5043

the circumstances of ca:h cdbc. The Supreme Court held that apart from 'he obvious risk to industiial peace liom the entertainment of claims aficr a consi- derable long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effcci this is likely to have on the employer's financu¹ arrangement, the Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v^. DnjiiiKJshwar Rukmaji Aher & anr., reported in 1998 I O ,R 522 has held that the competent aulhoiity would be justified in rejecting a reference for adjudi- cation in respect of demands which are over-stale The High Court has further held tha,t when the demands which are stale are referred lor adjudication, ihe claimant employee is necessarily required to explain the reasons for the inordinate delay in approaching the conciliation officer or his inaction for such a long period, and if such an explanation does not cow: forward or if the adjudication is not convinced by the reasons given in respect of such a delay or in action on the part of the claimant employee foi ad- judicator has the powers lo iej*vt the ffcivnce.

5 0 44 T HE G A Z E T TE O F T N D 1\ • S E P T E M B ER 1 5, 2 0 0 1 / B H A D RA 2 4, 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )]

New Delhi, the 24th August, 200J S.O. 2403.—In pursuance or Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 oE 1947), the Cential Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their work- men, which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2001.

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 30th My, 2001

PRESENT :

K. KARTH1KEYAN, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute Nos. 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 47," 48, 51 and 55/2000

fin the matter of the disputes¹ for adjudicator, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-scctior 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workmen and the Management of the General Manager, Telecommuni- cations, Kancheepuram District Chennai.]

BETWEEN

In ID Nos.

I Farty|Workmn:

1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

S. Janakiraman I. Mohanraj T. Karnan S. Kuppan G. Kalyanasundaium G. Ravichandran M. Thiagarajan S. Gajendran

12/2000 13/2000 14/2000 17/2000 18/2000 20/2000 47/2000 48/2000 9. V. Gajendran

51/2000 10. C. Devarajan

55/2000

AND

II Party |Managcemnt:

The General Manager, Telecommunication, Kancheepuram Distt.

12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, of 2000

47/2000 The Divisional Engineer, Admn. O/o. General Manager, Telecom, Chengalpet SSA, Chennai.

48/2000 The Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Transmission Installation, Madurai.

51/2000 Telecom District Manager, Chennai MGR District, Chennai.

55/2000 The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

APPEARANCES :

For he Workmen Sri N. Ganasekar and Smt Piemavdtliy, Ad"ocatcs.

For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan,

crnment Additional Standing

Counsel The Government of India, Ministiy of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 194⁷ (14 of 1947), have re- ferred the concerned Industrial Disputes for adjudica- tion vide Order No. L-40012/90/2000/IR(DU), L- 40012/91 /2000/TRfDU). L-40012/88/2000/IR (DU). L-40012/92/2000/IR(DU), L-40012/93/ 20p0'IR(DU), L-40012/5 3/2000/TRfDU), L- 40012/47/2000/IR(DU), L-40012/214/2000/IR (DU), L-40012/169/2000/IRfDU). L-40012/280/ 2000/IR (DU), dated 30-05-2000. 31-5-2000, 07-08-2000, 09-08-2000 and 29-08-2000 respec- tively.

On receipt of these references bv this Tribunal, they were taken on file as ID Nos. 12, 13. 14, 17, 18, 20, 47, 48, 51 and 55/2000 respectively and notices were issued to both the parties to appear be- fore this Tribunal and to file the respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. Sri N. Ganosekar, advocate entered aopenrancc on behalf of all ihe Peti- ioners and the Claim Statements of the Petitioners respectively were filed with the respective documents. The Government Additional Standing Counsel Sri5045 Sh. R. Kannalapan entered appearance and filed the Counter Statement rind the xerox copies of the docu- ments of the respective II PartyJManagement.

These matters came up before me for final hearing on 22-06-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statements, Counter Statements, the other material papers on re- cord, upon perusing the oral and documentary evi- dence let in on either side and upon hearing the argu- ments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the follow- ing:—

COMMON AWARD

These industrial disputes have been raised by the I Party/Workmen (hereinafter referreJ to as Petition- ers) against the II Party/Management, Telecom De- partment (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) dis- puting the action of the Respondent about their non- employment as unjustified and prayed for a relief of reinstatement in service with all other attendant benefits.

2. The common averments made in the Claim State- ments of the Petitioners are briefly as follows :—

The Petitioners were engaged by the Respondent Telecom Department to perform the work of digging pits, erection of posts, laying cables and other allied works allotted to them as the regular employees of the department. The appointment and termination of the services of the Petitioners were not denied. The Petitioners have put in more than 240 days of con- tinuous service as required under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioners were not issued with any notice or not paid any compen- sation as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the termination of the services. of the petitioners by the Respondent, Telecom Depart- ment were illegal and in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. Such orders of termination oral/written in the respective cases of the Petitioners are void, ab-initio and the Petitioners are deemed to be in continuous employment and are entitled to get reinstatement with back wages and arrears for the period during which they were kept out of employment illegally 3. The common averments in the Counter St-itt- ment of the Respondents are briefly as follows :- - The Petitioners were engaged by the Telecom De- partment to carry out digging, drawing wires and lay- ing posts and for other casual works o>i daily rates wages basis. The Department used to engage the peti- tioners as and when there was work. There is a scheme for "Grant of Temporary Sratus to Casual Labourers" which was introduced in 1989. The essen- tial condition for grant of temporary status is that (i) the casual labourer should have been engaged prior to 31-3-1985 ; (ii) he should be currently errraloyed on the date of implementation of the scheme i.e on 1-10-1989 ; and (hi) he should have put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the preceding yrnrs prior to 1--1O-1989. The petitioners were directed to submit th.ejr respective service particulars for the nur- pose ot conferment of temporary status and. the Peti- tioners also furnished the service particulars. Since 2742 GI'2001—26

the Petidoners did not fulfil all the aforesaid manda- tory conditions, they could not be granted TSM status. The Rzspondent/Telecom Department fcrutinizcd the service particulars produced by the Petitioners. The Muster Rolls which the Petitioner had mentioned in the service certificate as authority for engagement of work were verified and the names of the Petitioners were not found in those Muster Rolls. The original Muster Rolls will be produced before this Hon'ble Tribunal to establish the same. The Petitioner have produced false service certificates with a \iuw to get the benefits like rcgularization etc. from the depart- ment to the detriment of other eligible applicants, It is evident from the service certificates produced by the Petitioners that they have not worked 240 days in any one year. As the Petitioners could not b" given temporary status the pre-requisite for regularisation as Group D, the question of re^ilarisruion is ruled out in their cases. The Petitioners* services were ter- minated, since there was no work The Petitioners have not come forward with clear hands. Therefore, the petitions have to be dismissed holding that thev are not entitled for any relief.

4, When the matter was taken up for enquiry, a joint memo was filed by the counsel on cither sid£ to have a cemmon enquiry for all these cases and to treat the evidence let in I.D. No. 12/2000 as common evidence for all the cases and the memo was recorded. On the side of the Petition 'r/Workman all the Peti- tioners were examined as WW1 to WW10 and one common witness has been examined for the Respon- dent as MW1. Except for the Petitioners in I.D. Nos. 13 and 20/2000 the documents have bern marked for the other Petitioners in thsre cases as Petitioners' exhibits. On the side of the Management, except in I.D. Nos. 20, 21 and 55/2000 in all other connected cases, the documents have been marked as Manage- ment Exhibits. On completion of evidence cm either side in all these cases, the learned counsel on eijher side have advanced their common arguments.

5. The industrial disputes commonlv referred to In the Schedule of references in I.D, Nos. 12, 47. 48 and 51/2000 are as follows:—

"Whether the non-employment of Sri Janakl- raman, Sri N. Thiaftarnjan, Sri S. Gajendran and Sri V. Gaicndran by the Telecom De- partment, the II Party/Management is lptml and justified ? If not, to what relief, the workmen are entitled ?"

The industrial disputes commonly referred to in the Schedule of references in I.D. Nos. 13, 17. 18 and 55/2000 are as follows :—.

"Whether the demand /claim of the worlcmefc Sri P. Mohan Raj, Sri S Kuppan, Sri C. Kalyanasundaram and C. Devnrafan fnr re- instatement in the department of Telecom is legal and justified? If so /not to what relief the workmen are entitled ?" The industrial disputes commonly referred to in the Schedule of reference¹; in I D. Nos. 14 and 20/2000 are as follows :—

"Whether the action of tht General Manager, Telecom, Kancheepuram in terminating the5046 THEGAZBTTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [ftfe II^-Ssc. 3("n Mfldcrt of Sri T. Karnan, Sri G. Ravf- cl}$jdra", casual taazdocus is justified? If not, to \yhat relief they are entjtlecl ?"

6. The common point for my consideration is—

"Whether the non-employment of the Petitioners by tire Respondcat/'DeptiTtmcni of Telecom is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief, the Petitioners are entitled?"

5047

flfflOcr, who said to have istued those certificates as q Witness for the workman.

a particular Muster Roll they iised to pay him wages only under the Muster ftolf. tn support of his evi- dence, documents as Xtfro* copies ef those Muster Rolls have been filed in these cases as Management exhibits. Nothing has been dKeited* in the cross exami- nation from MWl to disprove the contention of the Respondent/Management in these cases and to dis- credit his evidence in chief.

8. From both ojral and documentary evidence of either sides available in these cases, it is seen that these petitioners have not worked from 1984 as casual labourers, but they were engaged as casual labour at daily rates wages basis durmg the end of December in some cases and in- (ho y*ar 1-995. The Petitioners have admhted in their evince, fbM they have worked as casual labourers in the respondent Telecom Depart- ment by assisting the ragMar wojimen of-the depart- ment. From the evidence, available i"- tjiese cases it is seen that the Petitioners haVe worked! less tfiap 240 days and the Petitioners in l&i Nw.,ll2f 13, 14, 18 and 47 were not even worked 100 days. Hence the contention of the- Petitioners that (Key have worfced continuously for more than 240 dgy* in- the respon- dent Telecom Department ha" ndtb"Mf Substantiated¹ with acceptable evidence. Getting the signatures in the Muster Roll to show (he vf-ofkfnat w^as engaged and ihe Petitioners names are not avauabT© in the origi- nal Muster Rolls mamtaiwd- &y the department, though it is statedJn the- service, corfi&BJrtes that they have worked under suqfo -&fusi#r, LROKS. as casual labourers in the depar.tfl$en.tt &r6 Botidteptfled. So the service certificates produced by these petitioners in these cases are bogus.

9. It is the contention of *h& Fctitkmen that they

5048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—Sac. 3(ii)]

11. In the result, an award is passed holding mat the non employment of the petitioners by the res- pondent Telecom Department is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman, the petitioners herein are not entitled to any relief. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 30th July. 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 12J2000 Witnesses Examined:

For the I Party|Workmen;

WW1—Shri S. Janakiraman

For the H Party|Mana|geraent ;

MW1 Shn JK. R. Balasubramaniam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For I Party I Workman:

Ex. No. Date with Description Wl Series Nil—Xerox copy of the service parti- culars Of the Petitioners.

W2 Nil.—Original M R. Note Book of the Peti- tioner.

11-3-95— Transfer order of S|Shn S. Janakiraiman and T Karnan, Casual Maz- doors from the O]o. SDE, Kancheepuram to Chennai. (.Original). 15-5-95—Termination order¹ of S|Sri S. Janakiraman and T. Karnan, Casual Maz- doors from the O|o. SDE (wireless), Madras.

W5 17-11-89—Xerox copy of the letter from Chief General Manager, Telecom. Tamil Nadu Circle to The General Manager, Telecom, Madrns Regarding grant of tem- porary status and Re_gularization scheme for casual labourers.

W6 9-12-98—Xerox copy of the Counter filed by the Management tjerore Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) in IDA No MB 86(98.

For the II Farty| Management :

Ml Mar. 95—Xerox copy of Muster RoH No. 4409| 13.

M2 Sept. 88—Xerot copy of the Muster Roll No. 06116|10.

M3 April, 89—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 06114(9.

M8 July, 1991—Xerox copy of tht Mustet Roll No. 20866(9.

M9 i

M10

Sept. 1991—Xivox. copy of the Muster Roll No. 2O867|14. Nov. 1991—Xerot copy of the Muster Roll No. 20868(02

June, 1992—Xerox: copy of the Muster Mil

Roll No. 04o31|20.

M12

M13

Aug. 1992 —Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 2|24. Jan. 1993—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 5|4.

M14 March, 93—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 5] 10. April, 93—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll M15

No. 5111.

I.D. No. 13|2000

Witnesses Examined:

For the I Party [Workmen:

WW1—Shri P. Mohanraj.

For the II Party|Managemnt:

MW1—Shri K. R. Balasubramaniam (Common evidence).

DOCUMENTS MARKED: For I Party|Workman . Nil. For the II Party /Management :

Ml Dec. 94—Xerox copy of Muster Roll No. 04776.

M2 Aug. 86—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 04940.

series (1) Nil—Xerox copy of the- Master Roll No. 4|4051. series (2) Nil—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 8|4051.

series (2) May, 91 Xerox copy of the Mus- ter Roll No. 16120931. series (4) June, 91 Xerox copy of the Mus- ter Roll No. 19/20931.

M4 series (3) June. 91--Xerox copy of the- Muster Roll No. 18)20931.

M4 series (4) June, 91- -Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 19/20931 I.D. No. 1412000 •

M5 W2 11-3-95—.Transfer order of S|Shri " S. Janakiraman and T. Karnan, Casual Ma)z- doors from the O|o. SDE, Kancheepuram to Chennai, (Original).

W3 series (4) Nil- Service certificates of the Petitioner given By the Management.

W4 Nil—Original M. R. Note book of the Petitioner.

W5 20-6-95—Transfer order of the Petitioner issued by the S.D.E. (wireless) Madras to the Petitioner.

For the II Party/Management :

Ml Sept. 89—Xerox Copy of Muster RoH No. O85O8|1I.

M2 Sept. 88—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 06116U0.

M3 May, 90—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 05808122.

M4 March, 93—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 21257107.

M5 Apr. 1992—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 21253106.

M6 Feb. 1993—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 2813.

M7 Aug. 1993—Xerox copy of the Musttr Roll No. 29|11.

M8 Oct. 1993—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 29120.

M9 Oct. 1993-^Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 29/19.

M1O May, 1989—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 4440|24.

M il March, 95—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 04769113.

I.D. No. 17|2000

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Parly|Worlcnicn :

WW1—Shri S. Kuppan.

For the II Party [Management :

MW1 Shri K. R. Balasubramaniam (Common evidence).

Documents Marked :

For I Party | Workman :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 12-6-79--Record sheet of the Petitioner issued by the P. U. Middle school at Saya- navarain.

W2 series (7> Nil—Service certificates of the Petitioner issued by Sub Division Officer, Kancheepuram.

W3 May '94 to June, 05 M R. Note book of the Petitioner.

•5049 For the II Part) (Management :

Ml Mar. 85—Xerox copy of Muster Roll Sx 05850|2.

M2 Aug. 89—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 08506| 11.

M3 Sept. 84—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 0<55()7|4.

M4 Sept. 89—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 08507111.

M5 Oct. 89 —Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 0S507|24.

M6 Nov. 89—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 08508|17.

I. D. No. 18|2000

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party |Workmen :

WW1—Shri C. Kalyanasundaram.

For the II PartyJManagement :

MWl Shri K. R. Balasubramaniami (Common evidence).

Documents Marked :

For I Party |Workman :

E\. No. Date Description

Wl series (5)—Original Service Certificate of the Petitionet issued by the Management.

For the II Party|Management :

Ml Nil—Xerox copy of Muster Roll No. 91 4408.

Nil—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 1714403. Nil—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 8507| 11.

Nil.—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No 5808|22. Nil.—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 21257|07.

M6 Nil.—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 21253|06.

M7 Nil.—Xerox cOpy of the Muster Roll No. 29120.

1. D. No. 20|2000

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party|WorVmen :

WW1— Shri G. Ravichandran.

Fpr the II Party[Management :

MWl Shri K. R. Balasubramaniara(Common evidence).

50*0 THE GAZETTE OF MWA : 8EP*H"fH"^lf: 2"W/0HAI>RA 24, 1923 mart n-^Sit. Mil)]

Documents Maiked .

For I PurtylWodjman :-r

For the II Party .'Management :—Nil.

I. D. No. 4?|2()90

Witnesses Examined :

Fforthe I FwrtyfW\>rlcmen :

WW1— 5hri M. Thiyagarajan.

For the It Patty IManagcmejSt : W"te.

DocuftKMits Market! :

For the I Pany I Workmen :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl series (3>—Original Service Certificate of the Petitioner issued by the Management.

W2 Nil- -Original M. R. Note Book of the Peti- tioner.

For the II Party |Mtinagement :

Ml series (44) NH—Xerox copy of Muster Ro"*.

I. D. No. 4812060

Witnesses Examined .

For the I Party|Workmen :

WWl^ShiirS. Gajendran.

For tibft If Partjc|Me*fagofi"r" •:

MW1 Shri K; R. Balasubramaniarn(Common evidence).

Docuipo^i Marked : For I Party [ Workman :

Ex No. Date Description

Wl 15-12-84—Original letter {i

W2- Nit.—Original Service Certtfiaates of the Petitioner issued by the Management.

W3 Nil—Original Service certifleptes- of the Petitioner issued by Junior Telecom Officer, Tiruttani.

W4 Nil—Original identity card of the Petitioner.

W5 J 992 to 1996—^Perwnal reoord* bf Ciwploy- roent on Muster Roll of the¹ Petitioner.

For the II PartyjManagement :

Ml Nil—XcroA copy of the- EmpJffJtoMtr En- change registration card of the Petitioner.

MZ Maich—Xerox copy of the Muster Roll No. 07340|20.

M3 June, 86—Xerox copy of the Mujter Roll No. 1901414.

M4 July, 86—Xerox copy of- the Muster Roll No, 06844)8.

WitfiWtt* ffxamlttetf ;

For tfio rPirtytWoikmen :

WW1—Shri V: CJaJendran.

For the II Party|Matl"(jfemCnt :

AiV. 1 Shri K. R. Balasubramaniam(Common evident*).

Documents Marked:

For I P*rty/Wortfteii:

Date Dcscnption

Ex. No. Wl series (6) Nil—Xerox copy of the Service Cfciftificatw of the Petttfoner htiaea by the Management.

For ilwil Party fMonagwiuMt : NU.

I. D. No. 55f2000

For the I Party|Workmen :

WWI—Shri C. Devarajao.

For the }I PantjIManageenent :

MWl Shri'K. R. Balasutttfflani^tifCommon evidence).

Docufflitefr Marked" ;

For 1 Patty|Workman :

Date Descrfpdbn Ex. No. Wl Nil—Oitjginar M. R. NcAe Book of the Petitioner.

W2 Series (4) Nit—Origfflfai SetV&* Cerflflcate of the Petitioner- issioed by'thc'JSX), Rani- pet & Ors. Nil-~Origirml Identity Card of the Peti- W3 tii

encr. Nil -rersbnal records of employment of trw Petitioner in the Muster RolL

For the II Party (Management :

D. No. 31]2009- ↩

Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 24th August, 2001 S.©^'2404'.—In pursiraitcc of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 5O5L- Di"H*^ Act, 194^ has wiemd this^dttspute vide ordej No. L4aOU|l"8|W-Ul(nU) dat^J J3"74?94 for adjudication on the foliQWJftg jidieclHle :—

sQJtmuifi

lishes.the a,ward of the Central, Governm^njt iiKfusfrtal T^bunaJ-ci^mJ^our c p u^ Ban^ajore as shpwp. in the Annsxuje in, the Industrial Dispute "between tj^e employers ift relation to the management of Archaeologi- cal Survey of India and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 24-&2QQ1.

KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXJJRE BEW&E. TftE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT "SHRAM SAOAN". Ill W$N> ffi CORSS, II PHASE TUMKUR ROAD, YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dafed : 30th July, 200,1

PRESENT :

HOWBLE SHRI V. N. KULKARN1, B-.COM, LLB, PRESSING OFFICER OGIT-CUM-LABQUR COURT, BANGALORE, C.R. No. 60194

I PA^TX : Sri Hullappa Bheemappa Madar. C|o.. Rev. Fr. Joseph. Rodrigijes, Ca&olljc Church. Gul#!gi#-$&7203. Bijapur. Karnataka. n 2A&TY : 1. The Assistant Secretary, Archae^logJQal Survey of Ind,ia, Patt?^Jai;a) 587211, Bijap^ir Distjt. Kanj^aka.

2. The Foreman (Horticulture), Archaeological Survey of India, Patt.a^akal-587211, Bijapu^, Karnataka.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising Jhe ppwers conferred^ by oJau$e (d) of Sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial "Whether the acticai of M^aagement of Archaeological Swve.y of In^ia^ P^ttacjakal, Bijajjur in terminating the Services qf §hri HuUaflpa Bheem^p^a Mad,ar, E^-Workmftti is lecal an/jvi,§tt$ed ? li i\Qt> what relief the Workjna.ri cpnperned is entitled to?"

2. Th" first pa*"y was appointed as Casual Labourer with the second party. He was re- fused woiik and was terminated. Therefore Industrial dispute was raised.

3. Parties appeared and gle.d Claim State- ment and Counte/ respectively. The case of the fiijst party workrnan in britef is as under :-

4. Agco"feig t

5. He worked along with 3 others namely S|Sh4 Ba^ppa Maha^vappa Totager, And^Wppa B^salingappa Shaatageri and Shai^^rappia Mallappg Hwgar and the first party was not considered lor regular appoint- ment. The first %afty wgs appointed by the Employment Office*-, Employment Exchange, BagalkQt. Ixn para 6 he has given details for having wojrk-ed with the Seooad Party. The first party was nQt regularised though many request were made. The first party belongs to Schedule Casite. The action of the management is not correct. The first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. The case of the Second Parly jn brief is as fo]low§ :

7. It i$ true thatf the first party was appoint- ed as Casual Labourer in the department. It is also admitted in the counter that he work- ed in different branches.

8. It is the further ease erf the management that Basapna Mahactewappa Totagcr. Andana- ppa Basajmgappa Sat&geri. Shankarappa Maliappa noogar we^e all working- as Casual5052 . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA-: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [FART II—SEC. '3ffi)I Labourers continuously from 1976 till their absorption on the regular post as "Garden Attendants" in 1985. But the petitioner has left the work on his own accord in August 1984 and he was not eligible to be absorbed. It is true that the first party was engaged through the employment exchange.

9. It is the further case of the management that the first party worked under the Con- servation Assistant, Badami before leaving the work in August 1984 and therefore, the claim is not correct. Details of working are given in the Counter Statement.

10. The main contention of the Second Party is that the first party left the work on his own accord due to severe stomach pain and did not intimate about his illness. All other allegations are not correct. The Second Party did not exercise any kind of undue influence whatsoever on Sarvasri Maliyappa, Basappa, S. K. Kudachi and Shankarappa for their statement on behalf of the first party. The action of the management is correct. The petitioner was never retrenched or removed from the work. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. It is seen from the records that the management examined one witness MW1 and against this workman got examined himself as WWI and documents were marked for both sides.

12. I have heard both sides. We have the documents, Ex. Wl to W4 filed, by the-first party. With these documents it is clear that first party was sponsored by Employment Exchange. Ex. Wl is the certificate given by Foreman. Horticulture Department, Pattadkal stating that the first party was working as Casual Labour since January 1982 to 31-5-1986. With this it is clear that the first party has continuously worked. The other two documents are the certificates of Hullappa Bho^iappa.

13. Let us consider the evidence of MW1 and WWI. MW1 has also stated in his evi- dence that the first Darty has worked in the department from 1981 to 1984. He further says that he left the department in 1984 and never turned up. He further says that he started working with Conservative Depart- ment from 1989 to 1990. The first while bav- ins? work in 1^84 has not given any reprcsen- tio'i, " He also spys that during the year 1984. some of. the casual labourers were regularised and at that time he was not work- ing in that department and after one year he approached for regularisation but by that time seniority list was already forwarded and there- fore his case was not considered.

14. With this evidence things are clear to the effect that first party was appointed as casual worker and he was sponsored by em- ployment exchange and he worked from 1981 to 1984. We have no quarrel with this state of affairs.

15. In the instant case the main conten- tion ol the Second Party is that after 1984 the first party never turned up for work and he started working in some other department. This is important because some of the workers were regularised in the year 1985 as per the evidence of MW1 and the evidence of MW1 is that at the time the first party was not work- ing in this department. This evidence seems to be quite natural and nothing is made out from the cross examination of MW1 to discard his evidence.

16. In a siutation like this burden is on the first party to prove that he has not left the work in the year 1984.

17. According to WWI he says he worked from 1976 to 1981. He says in the year 1984 a seniority list was prepared and his name was included but he was not considered for resniUirisation as the officer working at thai time was not in good terms along with him. Except few persons others were re- gularised. He says he has not abandoned the vork at any point of time. He says he worked in Conservation Department from 1989 to 1993 and not 1991 as suggested.

18. Here it is important to note that MW1 has said that the first parry left the work on account of serious stomach pain. For the reasons best known to the first party there is no suggestion. First party has not left the work on account of his ill health. The first party has stated in his cross-examination that he has not written any letter that he remained absent due to stomach ache. If at all the first party has left the work on account of stomach ache he could have given representation but nothing is on record.

19. In the instant case admittedly we have to pbee more importance on the oral evi- ¹ dence of the parties. MW1 WAS also not wprk- *i rn

20. Taking all this into consideration, T am of Ihe opinion that the first party was appoint- ed J:, Casual Worker and he workqd. conti- nuously. In a situation like this ends of jus- tice will meet if I direct to regularise him as per rules applicable then. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order ;

ORDER

Reference is partly allowed and the manage- ment is directed to regularise the first party if at that time of reeularisation of others he was also working with the department and in case if he was not working and left the work, fiist prrty will not be entitled for anv b c n ^. Accordingly reference is disposed off,

(Dictated to PA transcribed by h^r correct-

ed and signed by me 30th July 2001),

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding Officer

"Whither the actidn of the management of Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm, Su^atgarh in termi- natinc 'he services of Shri I orrik Yadnv w.e.f. 1-7-87 is legal nnd justified 7 Tf not, to whnt relief the workman is entitled 7"

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2001

S.O. 2405.—In pursuance of Srcdon 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, ]947 (14 of J947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexnre in the Tnr'mtrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Cntrlc Br,*ed'ng Farm and their workman which wns receive.I by the Centra] Government on 24-8-2001.

[No, L-42O12|181!9S-TR(DU)] KULDIP RAT VERMA, De^k Officer

274"? GI 200-1—2'505+ TIffi-GAZETTE OF INfllA . SEPTEMBER IS; 2GO1/BHADRA 24-, 1933 [P*ftf II-—SftC. 3(ii)T- 5055 5056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, T26oi/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART H—fec, 1(U) ] New Delhi, the 24th August, 2001

S.O. 2406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Tobacco Research Ins- titute and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2001.

[No. L-42011/68/95-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated, 13th August, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shxi V. N. Kulkarni, B.Coui., LLB.^ Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C.R. No. 174/97

I PARTY

The President, CTRI Workers Union, 714, Lalbon Mohalla Hunsur-571105. Mysore District. (Advocate—Shri A. R. Holla)

II PARTY

The Director, Central Tobacco Research Institute,' Rajamandry-533 105, Andhra Pradesh, (A.dvocate—Shri S. V. Sastry)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sutJ-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-42011/68/ 95-IR(DU) dated 26th August,' 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Cen- tral Tobacco Research Institute, Hunsur to regularise the services of the casual workers with less than 240 days of service in a year by including the day of break in service with then: actual days of work is justified ?"

2. The first party workmen Were working with the Second Party Management. They were not regularised5057 10. The case of the management in brief is as

follows :

so on. Behalf of them the President, CTRI Workmen Union has raised this industrial dispute arid the same is referred.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and

Counter respectively.

4. The case of the first party workmen is as under :

11. It is contended by the management that the union has no locus standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the workmen employed by the second party and there is no proper espousal. The names of 56 workmen are not correct.

12. The next contention of |he management is that it is not an industry as stated in para 4 of the Counter.

13. It is the further case of the management that 5. There are 56 workmen in this dispute. It is their case that the Central Tobacco Research Institute previously was under the control ot Ministry of Pood and Agriculture and now under Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the workmen have been working at the Central Tobacco Research Institute Research Station, Hunsur. The work is of a regular nature. Other subordinate Offices are located at dif- ferent places as bhown in para 3 ot tlie Claim State- ment.

6. It is the further case of the workmen that they had been engaged continuously throughout the year till 1987 as peons, watch and ward staff, attenders in libraries and glass houses, in care ot draft animals and cattle sheds, sweeping, field works such as weed- ing, harvesting, ,sowing etc. The workmen aic bong engaged from April to October every year during the tobacco season and they were given employment throughout the year prior to 1987, as maize and vege- tables were cultivated, after tobacco crpp.

regularisation of services of eligible workmen at CTRIj Research Station, Hunsur is done through the selec- tion process as per the guidelines of ICAR and Gov- • ernment of Indu and hence no dispute on regularisa- tion exists. It is also not correct to say that the workers with less than 240 days have been regularised. The procedure is described in detail in para 5 of the Counter. It is also said that the regularisation of tem- porary status employees is also done, in strict accord- ance with the recruitment rules and instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Govern- ment of India. Some of the workmen who fulfilled the qualifications were given temporary status in accordance with the guideline?. "Wages are paid as per the Minimum Wage Act, 1948. The work is not of regular nature as contented by the workmen. The workmen are not engaged throughout the year. There were Writ Petition and the management has submitted in detail, explanation regarding the inability of the research station in providing continuous engagement of the workers throughout the year.

7. It is the further case of the workmen that the second party stopped inter crop cultivation of wheat, jowar, ragi, paddy etc. with an intention to deprive ihe workmen the continuous employment throughout the year. The action of the management is not correct. The management retained these workmen on daily wages basis without regularising their services.

14. It is further contented that the High Court of Karnataka in its judgement observed that it would be inappropriate to ask the Research Station to maintain the labour force without utilising their services in any way being gainful and writ petitions were disposed off. The present list submitted by the first party also contains names of several outdoor labourers and the workmen are aware that they are engaged during the season only. Some of the workmen were granted tem- porary status and other benefits as explained in para 8 of the Counter.

15. In para 9 it is stated that there are two cate- gories of casual workers and details are given about the working conditions and payment of wages.

8. It is the further case of the workmen that they were forced to work below 240 days in a year with an intention to deprive them the continuity of service and consequent lawful benefits. The Second Party categorised these workmen as Group "D" and E&E staff and Casual Workers and by conferring temporary status on 14 workmen with effect from 1-9-1993 and giving E&E status for 8 more workmen prior to 1st September, 1993 as stated in paia 4 of the Claim Statement. They arc paid a daily wages of Rs. 38 w.e.f. 1-1-1994. They are given 2 holidays in a year and they are covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund ahd Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The details aie given in the para 5 of the Claim Statement.

16. It is the further case of the management that as per the Orders passed in O.A. No. 855/92 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench a combined seniority list of all eligible tempo- rary status casual workers to all the research stations including Central Tobacco Research Institute head quarters has already been praperd for their absorption as regular Group 'D' employees as and when vacancy arises and 10 among the temporary status labourers of the station find their names in the combined senio- rity list. The second party has also madfc necessary provisions in the 9th Five Year Plan proposal for creation of regular Group D with the intention, to regularise the temporary casual workers working at CTRI, Hunsur.

9. It is the further case of the workmen that the services of the workmen in Central Tobacco Research Institute Research Station, West Bengal which is ano- ther unit of Second Party are" regularised in pursuance of the directions given by tro Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. S55 of 1992 dated 8-"9-J994 and m Bihar also the workmen got benefit. So also they got benefit at Dhanbad. The workmen for tljcse reasons, fynyc proved to pass award in their favour.

_5M" THE GAZETTE OF 1ND!A : SfcOTMj^R 1$. 2,001/^ApRA 24, 1923 [PAW H-^ffC. -1OJJ]

17. The management has further stated that the regularisatiOn cannot be claimed as a matter of tight on the basis of the completion of some years of service and the workmen arc not entitled to the status of the permanent/regular workers including the pay. The management has prayed to reject the reference.

18. it is seen from the reeords that on behalf of the management Dr. M. M.^Shanoy, Senior Scientist is examined and documents are marked. Against this AVW1, Mr. P. A. Kumar, General Secretary of the tJnion and WW2 arc examined for the first -party.

19. I have heard- both sides in detail. I have perus- ed alt the documents- and read the citations givttn by the parties.

20. The -Joint Secretaryof the Uniorj, WW1 has Stated in his 'cross examination that he has no docu- ments to show that the workers involved in this dis- -putc are the members of-CTRI WU. Hefurther says that as per the constitution each member is inspected to pay Rs. 6 per annum and he hits not maintained any receipt book. He has also said thflt be has not produced documents in this regard. He has a resolu- • tion passed in the meeting authorising him to espouse the cause of this workman but he has not produced the same before the court. He has also said that the workmen in the Sr. No. of the Clajra Statement from 1 to 4, 6, 8, 11, 18 to 2Q, 26, 29, 33, 39 to 41, 43, 48 and 53 have filed Writ .Petitions and the-said Writ Petitions are 10301 to 10334 oi 90 and were disposed on 3-12-1990. Thos.e Writ Petitions were ¹ for Tigolarisation and points in dispute is also to regu- larise the services.

21. He further stated in his cross examination that according to him the nursery .seasons will start pre- lerably during the month of March and it will con- tinues to May or June. The labourers will be esgaged during nursery seasons. With this cross examination it is very much clear that the workmen were doing work during season only and they were not doing regular work.

22. Regarding the dispute on behalf of the work- men the union has not filed necessary documents though they are with the General 'Secretary. WW1 further says in his cross examination that the certifi- cate Ex. W3 ahows that tobacco cultivation is, purely seasonal. In view of this cross examination of WW1 it is clear that these workmen were dping seasonal work. He also says in his cross examination that he is not having any document to show that these work- men have worked continuously for more: than 240 days in a year.

23. Absolutely there is no material before us to say these workmen have worked more than 240 days in a year. WW1 says in his cross examination that tem- porary working scheme came into effect from 1-1-96. The -union has not produced any document to prove that these workmen have worked continuously for 240 days.

24. In view of these facts the decision relied by the first party viz., (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 71 and (1985) 4 Supreme Courtises 201 wHI not help the first party at all.

25. I have read the above decisions carefully and ^ arn of the opinion that the facts of this case are qlilte different from the facts of the above' decision.

26. The m-nagementj in the counter itself has stat- ed that the fcglilarisation of temporary $#tys emp- loyees is cbne in strict accordance with the recruitment rules and instructions issued by department qf Person- nel and Training, Government of India. Six workers at SI. No. 36, 37, 30, 40, 51 and 55 havel fulfilled the requirement in accordance with the giiideline&aiid they have been, granted temporary stfl/us-w.e.f, 1>S"P3. It is alto admitted in the -Counter that besides time 6 another 16 casual labourers have also been .granted temporary -status W.e.f, 1^9-93. With this statement by the management it is cl*ar that it has regularised some of the workmen who have fulfilled the guidelines-and therefore.there is no merit in this dispute. In this.case the workmen has not established that they wnrbed for 240 days and they have fulfilled qualification for regutaFJfcafion. ,

27. In pata 8 of the counter also Certain facts are admitted by the management.'With this it is Clear that the management has not deprived the benefits to the Workmen. Firstly the Workmen-have fafted to dstablish that they have worked continuously for 240 days tad secondly they have al$o failed to establish that they have fulfilled the qualifications required for regulari- sation. This is important because according to the admission of the management some of the workmen in this disptrte who have fulfilled "the qualifications are given temporary status.

""2S. I have read the following decisions tiled'by ibe learned counsel for the second party.

(i) 1964 (1) LU Madras P-95.

(ii) AIR 1997 SC P-1855.

(in) 1986 Lab IC Ker WB P-1564.

(iv) AIR 1997 SC P-3657

(v) RLR 19*8<80) P^608SC.

(vi) 1999(81)ALLP-319.

(vii) 1993(66)P-613 (ALLWB).

29. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decisions and the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the workmen have failed to prove that they have Worked for more than' 240 days contin- uously.

30. In view of this, there is no merit in this refer- ence and accordingly I proceed to pass the following •order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected apd signed by me on 13th August, 2001.)

A t f P # A & A * ":

For th" Claifflaflfr : Mfc. M. Gnanasekajr* C. Ppomavathy Sn G. Manjula, Advocates,i

For thp Management : Sri K, Rajendran, Addl.

C,G.S.C.

The Gflvt'. of India); Ministry of Labour in exorcise of powers<-conferred byrclause (d) oi sub-section (1) and sub-sectio|ii 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act* 194.7 (14 of 194/), have referred the conodrned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-42Mit46|99|fRfl3U) dated 25-4*2000.

New Delhi, the 24tU August, 2001

SjQ; 2407,-™Jn pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), th" Cen- tral Gov"raBWOt hereby publishes tht awafd of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ghenilai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to th*- mejnageiBiMit of. Central Cattle Breeding Farm and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 24-8-2001.

This reference Has beefl-made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Intru$trial Tribunal, where it wag taken on file-as I.D. No. 73|20OO. When-the matter was ponding enquiry in-that Tribunal the Govt. of India Mmjstry of Latx>ur was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudipation. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, the case hafr been taken on file as I.D. No. 571 2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about; the transfer of this case to this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Trjbuna} on 24-1-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal counsel on cither side pre- sent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case forthM.

[NO. L-420I1|46|99"IR-(D£J)]

KftLBlP RM VERMft, Desk Officer

AtfNEXURfi

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBtlNA^-CUM-LABOTJR COURT, CHENNAI

This- matter carne up before me for final hearing op 20-6-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Stateman*, the other, material papers on record!, th'e dral evidence let in on the side of the I Party and documentary evidence- let in on cither side and upon hearing th& arguments- of learned counsel on ei'her side this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal hak passed the following:—

Wednesday, the 8th August, 2001

AWARD

PRESENT:

K. KARITHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

The Industrial Dispute- referred to- in, the- above order of reference- by the Central Govi. for adjudica- tion by this- Tribunal is as follows :—

Industrial Dispute No. 5712001

(Tamil Nadh State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 73|2OOO)

"Whether the dettialid of National General Em- ployees' Union, Central Cattle Breeding FarM Branch for regularization of 30 casual workmen listed in the annexure is justified? If not, to what relief the" workmen are entitled"?"

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under okrase (d) of sub-sec'fon <1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the in- dustrial Disputes Aot, 1947 (14 of 19471, batweenr ibe Claimant Union and- the Management of Central Cattle Breeding Farm Branch, AJamathi.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, : [ Party'Claimant Nffional General Employees" Union, Central Cattle Breeding F.irm Branch, Alwftathi, Chenn&i.

AND

: t[ Partv|M1am>."3nOTit

Thfi Director Central Cffittle BVeedmg FftrW Brwwto, A&mafHl, CftehnaT,

5Goa-. THE GAZETTE OF INDJA S E P T E M B E ^ U^ 2001/BHATJRA 24, 1923 [PA*T I T - S E C, 3.(ii)]

342 to 370(93 dated 12-10-l9§TSs"T)ecn marked " Ex. M l. No one was examined on the side of the Management. The learned counsel on either side have advanced their respective arguments,

5. The Point for my consideration is —

"Whether the demand made by the Petitioner Union tor regulavization of 30 casual work- men listed in the annexurj to the Schedule by the Respondent.Central Cattle Bleeding Farm Branch, Alamathi is justified ? If not, to what relief, the said workmen are entitled?

Point :—

labourers in 1981 in agriculture day to day (arm works on daily wages basis and the wages were paid according to the Govt. approved rate. All these casual labourers have been placed under temporary status scheme w.e.t. 1-9-93. 1hs services of these casual labourers have not been regularised by the Respon- dent. The Central Administrative Tribunal had passed an order on 5-6-89 in O.A.No. 184]88. In pursuance ot the same, all the casual workers arc letting equal pay on par with legular Group D employees. Because of the uon-regularisaiion of these casual labourers, they are not getting any service benefits. By regularising the services ot the casual workmen, the Respondent is not put to any hardship nor any additional .financial burden. There is no justification for keeping the employees on casual basis for more than 19 years without the benefits of rcgula- risation. Such an action of the Respondent is highly arbitrary and unjust. The service benefits enjoyed by the- regular Group D employees were not exten- ded to this casual workmen. Ther^ is no scunty of employment to these workmen. Hence, it is prayed thaf an award may be passed directing the Respondent] Mana"cment to regularise the services ot the work- men mentioned in the annexure- from the dale ot their initial engagement and to give them consequen- tial monetary benefits.

5061

As pei the admission cf VVWl in the cross examina- 2742 OI ;0C1—285062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] W2

workman, which was received by the l.ential Government on 18-8-2001.

13-10-83—Xerox copv ol ihc O M. No. 49014|7|83-Estt. (C)

[No. L-12012'51/99 IR(B-D] W3 26-10-84—Xi.-r.cu copy of the O M. No. 49014) I9|84-Estt. (C)

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 7.5.85—Xerox copy of the O.M. No. 49014

ANNEXURE

18|84-Estt. (C).

7.6-88—Xerox copy ot the O M. No. 49014

BEFORE THE CEN1RAL GOVERNMENT INDUS 1 RIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR 2|8t5-E<-tt. (C).

COURT, NFW DELHI W6

Presiding Officer.—Rudresh Kumar. 5-6-99—Copy of order in O.A, No. 184|88 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras.

ADIUDICAIJON

W7 7.9-89—Xerox copy of judgement in W.P. No¹. 7667| 83 of Madras High Court.

I. D. No. 39[94

Ref. No. L-12012/51/99/lR/(B-I) dt. 12-5-1993 8-4-91—Xerox copy of O.M. No. 49O14|4| 90|Estt. (C).

BETWEEN

W9 15-12-92—Xerox copy of letter from the Director, Centr.il Cattle Breeding Farm Brainch, Alamathi 1o Shri R. Kandir, Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.

Dy. General Secretary, Stale Bank of India, Staff Association, E-314, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi (in the mutter of Smt. Usha Kalra)

AND

5063

3. The workman had barely stayed two years at Saraswati Vihar branch before she was transferred to Hauz Quazi biar.ch by the management vide com- munication No. 21114 dt. 25-4-92. Treating the tronsior \oid and mopcialive, tne womman did not comply A⁷i(h this oider, with the result ot not having worked dt any of tht branches for the last more than eight jears. ii u contended that the transfer to Hauz Quazi biauch was foi malafide reasons and in no event, w"s necessitated by exigencies of the scr\ice or lor administrative reasons. A number of allegations have been made in the claim statement against branch manager of Saraswsti Vihar branch, and charged superior authorities of havng acted to side him, irrespective of considering genuineness of reason;, and grievances of the workman. The grounds may be summea up, in brief, i.e. non-transfer of time deposit worth Rs. 4.00 lakh from Saraswati Vihar branch to T>, Hazari branch for invalid reasons, ultimately resulting into a civil suit, issuance of a number of rnemos by the branch manager of Saraswati Vihar branch on 24-12-91, 21-2-92 and 23-4-92 agamst the workman, causing harrasment to her, denying promotional papers for a long time, delaying to issue salary certificates pertaining to fin- ancial years 1990-1991 till 11-9-1991, delaying payment of cftictaUig salary pertaining to June and July, 1990 till Octcber, 1991, and undue patronage of high officers of the management bank, favouring the branch manager, Saraswati Vihar branch etc. 4. it is twiner alleged that the branch manager Saraswati Vihar branch became even more vindic- tive, on filing of n ch'i] suit. A number of other allegations against the branch manager, Saraswati Vihar branch, have been made in the statement of claim, with a view to prove, that the transfer of the workman to Hauz Quazi branch, only after two years much below the prescribed period of five years, was against the policy of transfer for malafide considera- t on? tcntamount to unfair labour practice.

5. The factual base that (he workman was trans- ferred from Shakur Basti branch tc Saraswati Vihar Branch in December, 1990 and bgain transferred in two years to H'Hiz Ouzi branch is not disputed by the management. The Management has admitted transfer policy, generally followed m the bank, under a settlement between the All India State Bunk of 1'idia S if Fedeicitien and the management of the S+ate Bank of India. However, it has defended its action by stating that the working atmosphere at Ssmswati Vihar branch was so polluted due to ani- nioM'y be'wccn ih'" work'nan and the branch mana- g.r necests action on plea oi adnrrutliation impesatives and exigencies of ser- vices, which are recognised giounds v.t Note 1 of the Transfer Policy.

6. in (o!a!iiy ot the facts and circumstances put forward by the pdr'ie> in this case, main considera- tion is whether atmosphere was congenial at Saras- wati Vihar branch inviting action bv way of transfer of the workman fiom Saraswati Vihar branch tc Hauz Quazi branch ? In this context, j< is not neces- sary to enter into merit of the civil suit filed by her husband against the State Bank of India or othe\ memos allegedly issued by the branch manager to Mrs. Usha Kaira. Evidence speaks that the emp- lo\cc\s of ihv. branch vho represented the Asstt. General Ma, :ger aga;nst the branch manager. Alle- gations and counter allegationJ made by the parties is suihcicnt to g:\e infeieiue that all was not well at the Suraswfti Vihai branch, justifying measures to enforce discipline and create working atmosphere, and if necessaiy to take action by transfer or other- wise. Discussions of individual charges and counter charge-, is not necessary for purposes of judging justification oi transfer. Allegations made in the claim statement centred against the branch manager and not the tuusierring, Authority viz., Asstt. General Manager. There is no material on record to justify infciencc that the Asstt. General Manager was tiiide¹' the thumb of the branch manager or siding, him in the ui->pulc between the workman and the branch mr.ipg-r. Admittedly, he was a superior auihotty rcqii'ied to assure proper atmosphere of working In SI.IK ululate branches in interest of custo- mers and general public. There is no material on jrcc.id to md ct'te (hat the impugned transfer was punitive, though only after two years of stay. The workman was edjusied in the city area, not very disadvantageous to the workman. If the workman was not satisfied vi-'h the place of transfer to Hauz Quzi branch, she could hive approached for change. Her in'L with Saraswati Vihar branch, in- face oi tussel with the branch manager, for justifiable or unjustifiable reasons, is not understandable. Public seivices iKed to ignore egos of the employees, with a view to regulate and rationalise working. Allegations rm"dc ;a the claim statement, with any standard, jiistifixl inference of non-conducive work- ing atmosphere at the Saraswati Vihar branch. The action of the A<.-. t.General Manager resorting to transfer of the vmkrnan was justified. As observed orlier, there was no rmlafide in the back ground cf the impugned tiansfer.

7. During ihj course of oral argument, it was subnrttcd Ibn management of the bank suggested four brpnehes to choose any one by .the workman, during teconcT.j'ion proceeding before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central)" but the offer dec- ided.

8 Th * v> i i Lniaii d d not cirry oi't transfer order, bSmg finly award that the same was not stayed by tbc ;iuthoi'"tics or the court and has been operative al- ale ig. A p r( '.ult, she did not render any ser- v c. during ail th:s period. As discussed above, there was no ill motive behind her transfer. Also, transfer was necessitated by administrative considera- '!on and ;n no event, was against the transfer policy or th; . p.ucn *d t uims of tiansfer. More than eight ye:"-s have elapsed and the workman ceased to have any right to S-r v,"ti Vihor branch, even in accord- ance w;'h the t - nsfer policy, fixing five years norms. As Hich, Mie is not cr titled to any relief on this count also. It is open to management to regularise the v i ce < I the woikman as per rules.

9. Accord ngly, the action of the State Bank of India in tiaiuioniag Mrs. Usha Kalra. Teller, from Sara^wj-ti V'bar bit.nch to Hauz Quazi branch was5064 THE GAZETTE OF I N D l\ : SEPTEMBER 15, 7001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART I I ~ S E C. 3(ii)] not unjustified. The workman Mrs. Usha Kalra is not entitled to any relief.

10. Award as above.

KUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th August, 2001 S.O. 2409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tl.c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 'oofernment hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial TribunallLabour Court, Lueknow, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, wnich was received by the Central Gov- crnmont on 18-3-2001.

[No. L-41012|69|2000-IR(B-1)|

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Presiding Officer—Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

1. D. No. 69|2001

Ref. No. L"41012,69|2000|IR(B-I) Dt. 26-4-2001

BETWEEN

The Divisional Organisation Secretary' Uttar Railway Kairnchari Union, 283/63-Kha. Gharhi Kanaora (Prernwatj Nagar), P.O. Manak Nagar. Luckiiow (U.P, )-226()01.

(In the matter of Prabhadeen),

AND

The Divisional Engineei (1st), Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow (U.P. 5-226001.

AWARD

By reference No. L-41012[69|2000|rR(B-I) dated 26-4-2001 in the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exorcise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over the industrial d<5pute between the Divisional Organization Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, Lucknow espousing cause of Pra- bhadecn and The Divisional Engineer (1st), Nor- thern Railway, DRM Officer, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference is produced as under :

"Whether the action of Northern Railway, I ucknow in transferring and changing category of Prabhadeen was legal and justified ? If not, what relief the work- man is entitled ?"

7 he workman instead of filing claim statement, submitted an application t c l av r h i wh M>. Pervez Alam, Divisional Organization Secretary, Uttur Rail- way Karmchari Union showing unwillingness to pur- sue (his industiial depute, since the management had already redressed grievances of the workman, Pra- bhadeen by changing hi, category and taking appro- priate action in the matter of transfer. It is prayed that the reference be no adjudicated and be treated not pressed.

In view of this application, not pressing the claim, there appears no justification to proceed further. Ac- cordingly, the lcferencc is ordered to bj returned without adjudication on merit, as not pressed. Dt. 13-8-2001.

, LUCKNOW.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20Ui August, 2001 S,O. 2410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 at 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes ihe award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexur: in the Industrial Dispute between thj employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Centra] Govern- ment on 18-8-2OOJ.

[No. L--H012/90/94-lR(R-J)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer5065 ANNEXURE

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL IRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT.

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

CHENNAI

Monday, Hit; 16th Julv. 2001

PRESENT :

K. KAR1HJKEYAN, Pre^din,; Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 416/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal

"Whether the action of the Management of Southern Railway, Madras in terminating the services of Shri P. Kulasekayan from 21-124976 in violation of Section 25T~ of I.D. Act, 1947 is jusi, proper and legal ? If not to what relief is the workman en- titled ?"

I.D. No. 112/06)

2. The Industrial Dispute as staLd in the Claim Statement of the I Party/Workman is briefly as fol- lows :—

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-sect ion 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri P. Kulasekaran and the Management of the General Manager, Sou- thern Railway)

BETWEEN

Sri P. Kulasekaian . . .1 Party/Woikinan

AND

The General Manager, Southern Railway. . , II Party/Management

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman—M/s. I¹. 1-enn Walter, D. Geetha and J. Soundarichuiidiasckar, Advocates.

For the Management—-Sri P. Arulmudi, Advo-

cate.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of SecLion 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have re- ferred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudica- tion vide Order No. L-410l.'/90/94-IR(B-l), dated 19-7-95.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 112/96. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for ad- judication. On receipt of records from (hat Tribuml, the case has been taken on file as T.D. No, 416/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a dhvetion to appear before this Tribunal on 23-2-2001 with their respectivj parties. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on record on cither side were present along with their respective parties and proseeud'.'d this case further.

The I Party/Workman Sri P. Kuiasekar-an (here- inafter referred to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labourer under the control of Inspector of Works, Tambaram, Madras on 4-11-1975. He was a daily rated casual labour and was engaged only on need basis. Since his service was found unsatisfactory he was stopped from service from 21-12-1976. The peti- tioner has not been conferred temporary status. The Petitioner was not issued with the notice of retrench- ment or paid notice pay. He Was not paid retrench- ment compensation under section 25F of the indus- trial Dispute Act. As it is a contravention of section 25N of the Industrial Dispute Act, the retrenchment itself is ab initio void. The Petitioner ,fileof I.D. Act and it was illegal, th: Petitioner should have raised an industrial dispute. Against that judgement and decree, the Petitioner filed an appeal as \S 297 / 82. The 5th ( Additional Judge, City Civi] Court. Madras gave a finding in that appeal that it was a case of illegal retrenchment from service, which is in contravention of Section 25F ot the I.D. Act, 1947. But however, dismissed that appeal with an observa- tion that 'the Petitioner should seek remedy only by way of raising an industrial dispute'. Then the Peti- tioner raised an industrial dispute under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central Government had.referred the .matter for .adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore Then as per the orders of the Government the case has been trans- ferred to Madras Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner had worked for more than 240 day^, No notice of retrenchment, wages or retrenchment compensation had been offered or paid. Hena\ the retrenchment ,ot the Petitioner from service is unjust, improper and illegal. Hence, the Petitioner is deemed to be continued This matter came up before me for final hcnrina on 15-6-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement. Counter Statement, the other material papers on re- cord, upon perusing the oral and documentary evi- dence on the side of the I Party/Workman and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned coun- sel on either side and this mauvr having stood over til] this date for consideration, this 7'ribunal has passed the following:—

5066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)|

the services of Shri P. Kulasekaran from 21-12-1976 in violation ot Section 25F ol l.D. Act, 1947 is just, proper and legal'.' It not, to what rdief ib the wuikman en- titled ?"

in service with all benefits. Ther- is no severance of relationship of master and servant in e>e5 oi law. His juniors like Ponnusamy, VIam, Amsappaji and Elumalai had been made permanent employees and drawing a salary of Rs. 4000 per month. The Peti- tioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 234 per month, when he was retrenched from ^erviee. Hence, Hi is Tribunal may be pleased to order the Respondent/ Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and other atlen- dant benefits.

3. The Respondent, Management, Southern Rail- way, Chennai had filed a Counter disputing the .Tfer- ments in the Claim Statement. They aie briefly as follows :—

The Petitioner Sri P. Kulusekaran. was engaged as casual labour under the control oi Inspector of Works, Tambaram on 4-11-75 only and not on 21-10-75. The Petitioner was not continuously engaged. He has been stopped several times and was le-cng.iged as mid when extra casual labourer was required, by the ad- ministration. As the Petitioner's work was found to be unsatisfactory by the Supeivisoj the Inspector of Works, Tambaram, the Petitioner was stopped from service with effect Irom 21-12-1976. Stopping the Petitioner from service dues not attract section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since the Peli tioner was engaged only as a daily rated casual labourer, who had not put in 240 days of continuous service. In fact, he had only rendered 267 days of total service, which was not continuous and which was besides not in a particular calendar year. In the suit filed by the Petitioner in the City Civil Court, the Hon'ble Court observed that the Filing was illegal and bad in law¹ and dismissed the suit and the appeal also. The Appellate Court gave a direction to rai"e an industrial dispute in the appropriate forum. The Peti- tioner aggrieved by that decision, filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court was also pleased to dismiss the appeal dulv directing the Peti- tioner to seek his remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The City Civil Court hns not observed that the retrenchment is illegal. As the dispute raise-l by the Petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commis- sioner, Chennai ended in failure of conciliation, on submission of the report by Assistant Labour Com- missioner, Chennai. the matter has been referred by the Government to this Tribunal for adjudication The Petitioner was stopped from service because he was engaged as daily rated cisual labourer. Since the Petitioner had not obtained temporary status, the Petitioner's averment that h^ wrs retrenched from service was denied. At no point of time, tho relation- ship of master and servant in the ryes -if law w?s exist between the Petitioner and the Respondent/ Management. The Petitioner has no I' n>s slimdi to compare the services of erstwhile iuniois, who atlain- ed temporary status and absorbed nr-rmmvnfly for the reason they had put in the rrnnm'd number of days of continuous service The Pctiiimvr v'*s stop- ped from service due to his un'-Hisfactoiv perform- ance, this does not amount to ilWal r-tivnchment He is not entitlH ti seeV rcmrdv undrr TmliKiriai Disputes Act. 1947, Hence t'ii" Hnr'W- Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss f"his industri'i! disDute by rejertipn the claim ma do by the Petitioner

4 The noinf for mv cons' ' ^ r " '" - ^e —

5067

New Delhi, the 21st Align ,i 200!

S.O. 2411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government iiereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Trsbunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncxure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway, Kota and their workman, which was received by ihe Centra] Gov- ernment on 20-8-2001.

[No. 1.-41011/ i6/90-IR(B-I)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer service. I be contention oi the Respondent/Man ige- ment thai Jie petitioner was Mopped from service on Etccunt of his unsatisfactory \wr\ c-,cn befoic he had attained temporary status has not been disrated by substantial or acceptable evidence by the Peti- tioner. So, there is no questifM of iernnnptio.i of M?r- ^'re o" '> -e Petitioner by i'u Respondent/Manage- ment and hence the claim of the PeiHiouer thai he was terminated from seivice contrary to t^e provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act i' -¹) ' <;'\'n ">V. Fur- ther, it cannot be said that it i= cm '.nn So R"le 149(6) cf Indian Railway Establishment Code In view of the above, it can be concluded that the v' i- tioner's claim for reinstatement in service with back wages and continuity of serv;;e with otl-e-r attendant benefits cannot be granted. So. under such circum- stances, it can be concluded that the act

5. In the result, an award is passed holding lhat the actio" of the Management of Southern Railway, Madras in stoppir"? the Pstiiioru.* 'Workman SH P. Rulasekaran from service vi 21-12-1076, which is not ?r termination of service to attract the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, is just, proper and lepal. The conrprnp-⁴ v/nrVmip K not entitled to any relief. No Cost

(Dictated to the Steno^nnher, tra^cribed -md tvped by h'm, corrected and nronormred bv me iv the 'op:n court on this day the H th Tuly, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEY \NT, Prp^din" O^cer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1 Party/Workman •

WW1—Shri P. Kulasekarm.

• For the IT Party/Manpgement :

None.

Documents Marked :

For I Party/Workman :

Dei-cnpt!ori

Ex. No. Wl

Date 15-0.T-80

04-02-83

Xerox copy of i idgeme^i in O.S. No. 8601 of 1977. Xerox c pv of order in \ S No. 297 of 1982.

W3 23-08-90 Xerox ;onv of lh> ordri in T A. No. 1358 of 1986.

For the IT Partv/Managoment:

Nil.

"Whether the action of the Division )1 Railway Mana- ger, Kota Division, Kota is justified in not paying transfer allowance and packing charges to- 36 Gang- mate|Gangmen (as per annexuie)? If not, what lelief the woikmen concerned aie entitled to?"5068 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA: SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PARF II—SEC. 3(ii)] "Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager. Western Railway, Kota in denying promotion and not paying benefit of upgradation to S|Shri Shi i- ram M, und SurajmHl S., Trolly men from 1-8-82 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned work- men are entitled to and from what date ?" New Delhi, the 21st August, 2001

S.O. 2412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947\ the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour .Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncxure- in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employcis in relation to the management, of Pashchim Railway, Kota and their workman which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 20-8-2001.

[No. L-41011 /39/90-IR(DU)/JR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer5069 New Delhi, tlic 22nd August, 2001

S.O. 2413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 pi 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunul-cum-Labour Court, JAIPUR (RAJAS 1 HAN) as shown in the Annexurc, in the industrial dispute betwen the emplo- yers in relation to the M s. JAIPUR UDYOG LTD. and their workmen which was received by the Cen- tral Government on the 22-08-2001.

LNo. L-29012|119|99|IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

"Wheher Shii Pmsadi Lai Lodwal is a workman under section 2(s> of the T.D. Act? If so, to what relief he is entitled on his termination dated 28-2-1998 by the management of M|s. Jaipur UdyoR Lid. and from which date?"

?,7J2 GI 2001—295070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001 'BHADRA 24, 1923 [PABI II—Srr. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2001

S.O. ?414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tho "Workman" m^ins any person (including) an apprentice employed in any industiy to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical oi supervisory work for hire oi rewai'l, whither Ihe teims of employment be express or implied, ami for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation (o an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that di'.pulu, but does not ircluik any such person—

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1*1 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cuni-Lubour Court, Bhubaneshwar(Orissa) as shown in the Anne- xuie, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Nuasahi Chromite Mines and their workmen which was received by the Central Govern- ment onthe22-08-'¹OOI.

(i) Who is sublet to the Air Voice Act, 1950 (45 of 19501, oi the Aimy Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (02 of 1957). or

(ii) whu is employed .n the police scivice or as an officer

or other employee of a pnson; or

[No. L-29012/4/99/1R (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

(iii) who is employed m<\inlv in a managerial or nOminis-

trative cip^city; or

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRFBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUB4NE.SWAR

PRESENT :

(iv) who, being eniplovcd in a supervisory capuclv, draws waj^cs c\u?edine one thousand six hundred rupees pci mensem or c^tjcises, cither hy the nature of the duties ittuched ti> the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a minacerial nalmc]"'

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NQ. 261/2001

Dated, Bliubtiiujswur, the 1st August, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of Nuasahi Chromite Mines ol' M/s. 1MFA Ltd., Rasuigarh, Bomikhal, Bhubpneswar. 1st Party Management

AND

Their workman Shri Satrughan Patra, At/P.O. Bangore, Via Hadgarh, Keonjhar. 2ni Party Workman

APPEARANCES :

Mr. M, K. Mahapatra and For the 1st Party Mr. M, R. Kar, Management.

5071

None For the 2nd Party

Workman

AWARD

Government hereby publishes the Award of thi Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Laboui Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd. and their workman which was received by the Central Government on the 22-08-01.

[ N o. L-3 9012/4/2001/IR (M) B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

The Government of fndia in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29012/4/99/TR(M), dated 8-6-1999 :

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

"Whether the action of the management of Nuasahi Chromite Mines of M/s. IMFA by re- fusing employment to Shri Satrughan Patra is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7"

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CG1T 1/14 OF 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGE-

MENT OF M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD.

M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd., The Vice -President (HR), Patvolk Division, 19, J. N. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.

AND

2. While making reference intimation was also sent to the Management and the Workman to file their respective claim statements before this Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the reference. The reference was made on 8-6-1999. The Tribunal on receipt of the reference also issued notices to the parties. Inspite of direction of the Tribunal and the Government of Tndia (Ministry of Labour), the workman has not made his appearance before the Tribunal and he has not filed his statement of claims. Notice was duly served on him but he did not take any step to take part in the proceeding and to place his case before the Tribunal to answer the reference. Since, 1999 the reference could not be answered in absence of the workman mid for not taking any step by him.

THEIR WORKMAN Shri S. Ramanathan, 13, Yamuna, 3rd Floor, Mulund Sandesh Co-op. Hsg. Society, B-Nahur Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai.

APPEARANCES :

3. The above circumstances would suggest that no dispute exists between the parties and the workman has got no cause of action and that he has got no materials in suppoit of his case.

For the Employer Mr, L, L. D'Souza,

Representative.

For the Woikman In person.

4. Hence, no dispute award is passed and the workman i*. not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated, 8ih August, 2001 S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-39012/4/2001/IR(M), dated 30-3-2001, have referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred on it, by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :

"Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri S. Ramanathan w.c.f. 25-5-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman, Shri S, Ramanathan is entitled to '?"

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2001

2. PcrsuuiiL to notices, workman Shri S. Ramanathan, filed his Statement of Claim (Ex. 4) and when the matter was fixed for filing written S.U. 2415.—In pursuance ol Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra/507? THE GAZETTE OF fNDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART n —S E C. 3(ii)] statement by the management M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Mumbai, the workman liled application (Ex. 7) pointing out that reference on the same point on his termination of services was received by CGIT No. 2 from the Ministry vide No. L-39O12/5/20Of/lR(M) Dated 14-05-2001 (Ref. No. CGIT 2/72/2001) which is fixed for the written statement of the management on 07-09-2001. Therefore, the workman ddires to pursue the above matter before CGIT No. 2 and. consequently the instant reference be disposed of. The management has no objection to that. Jn view of the above position the reference will have to be disposed of and hence the Order :

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of vide application Ex. 7.

S. N. SAUNDANK.AR, Iocharge Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2001 S.O. 7416.-In pursuance pf Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Ael, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur as shown in the Anncxure in tho Industrial Dispute between the ornployers in relation to iLc niapagur.tnt of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and t hw workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-08-2001.

[No. L-27012/1/87-D-1IKB)] B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAT GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/168/87 PRESIDING, OFFICER : SHRl K.M. RAI Shri S.O. Gupta

Authorised Representative of Mudi Bai BMMS (BMS), P.O. Tirodi, Distt. Balaghat (MP) Applicant

Versus

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Manganese On; (India) Ltd., 3, Mount Road,

Nagpur (MS) Non-spplicant

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of Juno, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-27012/1/87-D.IIKR) dated 21-8-87 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal.

''Whether the- action of the management of Tirodi Manganeso Mines of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. PO Tirodi DLtt. Balaghat in retiring Smt. Mudi Bai W/o Daji a piece lated woikcr w.e.f. I-/-80 is justified? Tf not, 1 what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. The case for the workman is that she was employed at Tirodi mine, Distt. Balaghat by the management. As per agreement between the Union and the management dated 13-11-68, she was to retire after attaining the age of 60 years. The pro\iwons of certified standing orders 1979 were not applicable in the case of workman as she was employed prior to the coming into force of the standing orders. She was wrongly retired w.e.f. 1-7-86 after attaining the age of 58 years. She would have been retired w.e.f. 30-6-90 after attaining the age of 60 years. In this way she has been wrongly retirod by the management and therefore she is entitled to all monetary benefits for the said period which has been denied by the manage- ment,

3. The case for the management is that the work- man was employed in Tirodi Mines Of the Manganese Ore (India) Limited. According to the certified standing order, the retirement age of an employee is 58 years. In the year 1984, several employees made a complaint regarding their incorrect iccording of date of birth in the Provident Fund Rceord and therefore the Union and the management agreed to get the workers medically examined by the Medical Board to determine their date of birth. It was agreed between tho Union and the management that the certificate issued by the Medical Board after medical examination shall be final and the date of birth given in the same shall not be challenged. In the light of this agreement, the workman was medi- cally examined by the Medical Board and her age was confirmed as 56 years on 29-6-84. Based on this re-assessment of age by the Medical Board, she was retired from service w.o.f. 1-7-86. In this way no illegality has been committed by Lhe management in retiring the workman from service w.e.f. 1-7-86. In view of all these facts, the workman is not entitled to the relief of relinng at the age of 60 as claimed by her in this ease. The order of retirement is per- fectly valid and does not require any interference.

5073

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

1. Whether the management illegally retired the workman w.e.f. 1-7-86 '?

2. Whether the workman is entitled lo get the relief of retirement at the age of 60 years ?

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

4. Relief and costs 7

5. Issues No. 1 ami 2:

Sec. 25 of the certified standing order reads as under:

"Every workman shall retire from the service of the management on his completing the age of 58 years. In the absence of usual proof of age e.g. school leaving certificate from the Municipal Committee, the age set forth in the provident fund record (Nomination form) of the workman shall be the basis of arriving at the age of retire- ment of the workman. In case of those workman whose datos of birth are shown in the records of the management in years only without any specific month and date, such workman shall retire from the service with effect from 1st of July of the year in which they complete 58 years of age/'

6. The above said provisions of the certified standing order clearly go to show that the retiring age of the employee shall be 58 years and not 60, This standing order came into force after the Union and the management agreed to it. According to this provision every employee was to retire after attaining the age of 58 yeais. In this connection, the disputed date of birth of the workman was finally assessed by the Medical examination conducted by the medical board as per agreement between the Union and the management. As per Medical Board Certificate, the workman's age was assessed as56 yeapj on 29-6-84. In this way no erroi has been committed by the management in retiring the workman after attaining the age of 58 years on 1-7-86. The service condition of the workman was governed by the certified standing orders of 1979 and not by il.e agiccmcnt of 1968. Hence lho date of her retirement was per- fectly valid and no illegality in this respect has been committed by the management.

7. The workman's chum for accepting the age of retirement on 30-6-90 is neither proper nor accept- able in the light of the provisions of Sec.25 of the certified standing order 1979 which governs the ser- vice conditions of the employees of Manganese Ore (India) Limited. The entry of dak¹ of birth in the identity card of the workman is not the lc^al basis to determine the age of any employee. The age can be determined only by the entries made in the record of Provident Fund or other service records of the employee Her date of birth as year 1930 has no wheie been entered into the rjevant records, Hence her plea on this point cannot be accepted to be true. Her age was properly assessed by the medi- cal board according to the agreement arrived at between the Union and the management. Hence she cannot claim any other benefit as far as her date of birth is concerned.

8. In view of the above said reasons it is held that the workman was rightly retired on 1-7-86 after attaining the age of 58 years. .She cannqt claim her retirement after attaining the age of 60 yea,rs. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

9. Issue No. 3 :

In view of my findings given on issue Nos. 1 & 2, the workman is not entitled to any monetary benefits in the present case. This issue is answered accord- ingly.

10. Issue No. 4 :

On the reasons stated above, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by her in this case. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the work- man.

11. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour as per rules

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer -New Delhi, the 24th August. 2001 S.O.^417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between fie employers in relation Lo the management of Gas Authority of India Ltd., and their workman,5074 T HE G A Z E T TE OF INDIA : S E P T E M B ER 15, ? 0 0 1 / B H A D RA 24, 1923 [PART I I —S I C. 3(ii)l which was received by the Ccnlial Govoniiiuit '^n 2O-8-:001.

[No FM1021/3/200MR'M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy

ANNEXURH

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT : V1SAKHAPATNAM PRESENT : Sri C Sambasiva Rao, M.A. B.L.,

Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated : 8th day of November, 1999

I.T.T.D.(C)No 11/97,

Directly filed under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

BETWEEN :

this is a good job in a Central Government Under- taking with job security pulls and eounterpulls applied on the respondent, by influential people in the loca- lity, to have their own people in the jobs and conse- quently the management caved in and removed the workman from job in the 1st week of April, 1995, Technically speaking the workman also who was continuing the service of his fat'ier is deemed to have been in continuous service ot the management cemp- any as having been appointed on compassionate giounds. The workman is considered a permanent employee of the management and the discharge of him is illegal. The management did not follow thij piovisions contained in the I.D. Act and hence this dispute between the petitioner and the management is an industrial dispute. The management tailed to comply wilh the statutory provisions hud down under Sec. 25F and 25G of the I.D. Act. He is entitled to be reinstatement with all back wages, He ap- proached the Asst. Commissioner of Labour Rajah- mundry with their grievances and submitted a peti- tion No. 1 ot 1995 He was advised to submit his claim before this court. Hence the action of the management is not legal and valid Kothala Raja Ratnam, S/o Venkata Reddy K.V. Lanka, H/o Totharamudi village, Inavilli Mandalam, East Godavari Distric , .. Workman

And

The Gas-Authority of India Limited, (Central Government Undertaking) D. No, 16-7-18, Jethi Avenue, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-3, Rep. by Regional Manager/Office incharge,. Manage- ment.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Kameswara Rao, Advo- cate for workman and of Sri M. Ramdas, advocate for Management, upon hearing the arguments or both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following :

AWARD

(1) This is u dispute raised by a workman under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seek- ing the relief of reinstatement with all baek wages and other benefits due to such employees holding the discharge of the petitioner as illegal and costs of the petition

3. For that the management filed a r:joindsr denying the allegations mad'; in th- pc ition. It submitted that Kothala Venkata Reddy died on 13-2-95 but it is not known to this respondent perso- nally. After his death the workman was appointed as Care taker with effect from 4-2-95 on compassionate grounds on the same terms and conditions as appli- cable to late Venkata Reddy No appointment order or termination order or confirmation order was issued to the workman and since the question of issuing such orders does not arise as the workman was not at all engaged by i(. The work of care- taking was previously entru-AeJ to a contractors who in turn, used to maintain the same by engaging his own contract labour. The establishment is registered under the contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. This respondent nevei appointed any one directly for the ear;ttiking work. Tt is the duty of the contractor to keep a w.itch on the valve stations by his workers and in case of any leakage or any other emergency to report the same to the respondent for necessary action. The contract initially was awarded to Sri K. Venugopala Rao on 1-7-91. Subsequently the work of Totharamudi station along with 19 other S.V Stations was awarded to Sri K. Venugipila Rao from 16-1-93. After the expiry of the contract of Sri K. Venugopalar Rao this management awarded fresh contract to M/s Mdheshwan (2) As per the allegations of ihe workman that the Management appointed the father of the peti- tioner as Care taker at the Gas Point in Totharamudi Village in Tnvalli Mandalam East Godavari District on a monthly salary of Rs, 600 on 6-5-92. He was recruited on the recommendations of its contractor by name K. VemigopaLi Rao, But unfortunately the father of the workman died on 13-2-95. On compassionate grounds the mana^^ment appointed the workman who is Ihe son of tue deceased person on the same tcims and conditions on 14-2-95. As

Security Services, a DGR >p.>n o ' u. Lx-Scvicr- ITH.11 ag uc_y w.:.l. l-4-9j and h.¹ -,aid ageiK> eng.ijies its own personnel who are also cviervice- men as caretakers of S.V. Station-,, The eng'gement5075 contract with Vuiugopnlaiaao was discontinued hence there is no excess of relation ship between the management and this workman. The management is not liable to any appointment of the workman. Venugopalarao is a contractor and he himself appointed/engaged the workman as contract labour to attend their duties. The management is never appointed the workman.

or the workman's Ptlhvr mid after hN lift' time the petitioner- as contr-.ct labour by the previous con- tractor Sri K. Venugopal Rao at any of the S.V. station^ would not cieate any right in f.ivour of the workman aoairi'.l this management to claim employ- ment. He was never engaged by this, management anJ consequently the question of removal from service did not anse. Hence there are no merits in Ihe petition and iln. petition is liable to IT dismissed.

A dispute was raised before the Asst. Commis- sioner of Labour and the workman was advised to approach this court and hence he filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the LD. Act. Since there is no enquiry held or no material is there with regard to the appointment and removal of the workman oppor- tunity was given to both management and the work- man to lead evidence. WVV1 and MWI are examined before this court and Fxs.Ml to M7 arc worked for Management.

5. The points for consideiation are:

(1) Whether there is a relationship employer and employee between the management and tht. worVman.

(7.) Whether The workman is entitled reinstate- ment in his contention is accepted a-, the is a workman of management?

6. As per the contention of the workman his father was working as caretaker with the management at Totharamudi point on a monthly salary ofRs. 600/- in 1992 through CTNGC contractor one K. Venu- gopalarao, His father expired in 1995 February and

0 l compassionate grounds trat job was given to him on a monthly s-Jaiy of Rs. 600/- (six hi ndred only) and he worked for three months till May, 1995 The management without assigning any reasons removed the workman from service. One Satyanarayana was appointed in his plice. No notice was given or compensation was paid m lieu of notice. In his cross-axamination he sutcd that his father worked with contractor Venugopalarao. His father was not given appoiniment by the management but only by Venugop-il UMO, i-l.'drii'd that contract works will be given to the contractor and Vcnugopalarao was one of 'he contractors. I Fe admitted that he was also given appointment by the Venugopalarao.

Whereas MWI Law Officer of the management

7. As could be seen from the evidence on record the petitioner himself admitted that his father was appointed by a contractor Venugopalarao and the management has filed Exs. MI and M2 showing about the registration of that contractor from the Contract Labour Act. Tn this case the workman has got service on his own account but that is also on the death of hi-; father and on compassionate grounds he was engaged. If that is the case atleast at the time of compassionate appointment some kind or order should havebeen made showing he is a workman who was given such appointment. Unfortunately, the workman who seeks relief having got appointment from a contract labour even as per his case did not choose to implead that contractor as a party to the petition and so that if any volation of rule is there under the contract labour Act, to treat the manage- ment as a principil employer, as liable for the in- fraction of duties by its contractor under the contract Labour Act. On the other hand, the management itself filed the documents pertaining to registration of the contractor under the Contract Labour Act. It is not a case where the earlier workman who is his deceased father, wis engxge-d . by the cantrictor were removed by the management. As per the directions of the Government of India under which the respondent is functioning as per the guidelines of the Government with regard to the appointment of security personnel in PSUs from ex-servicemen security agencies sponsored by DGR. So the question of removal of the workman by the management is not established and the relationship of the workman and the in inag .-merit is also not established in this case. When the relationship of workman and the management is not established in the absence of any proof except the WDrkmin's self serving conten- tions, it is very difficult to accept the contentions of the workivin that he is a work-nan of the management and entitled to be benefits as claimed by him. Consi- dering these aspects it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to any held r^le.fas claimed by him.

8. In the result, the workmm i. not entitled to any relief and tlu petition i, disnis,-d passing Nil Award deciding against th; workmin.

Dictated to steno, transcribed by her given under my na.id and seal of the court this the 8th day of November, 1999.

deposed hi he was ineharge of legal matter as an office with the managers. '. They have section-wise valve points to supply gas, to vaiious distributors and monitoring the pressure lo gas and of deduction there is any leal-age in the pipe line at any point in the One Vcnugopala rao was appointed for care taking of the point at the section. He obt'iine.1 licence under the Contract Labour Act which are filed Ml and M2. 1 his workman was never employed by them. The

C. SAMBASIVA RAO, Presiding Officer5076 THE GAZETTE OF I N DK : SEPTEMBER 15. 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For

Workman : WW1 K. Rajaratnam Management: MWlVcnkatcsh

Documents marked for workman : Nil Documents marked for Management:

Ex.Ml

Ex.M2

3-12-93 Letter addressed to K. Venugopala Rao contractor by the Asst, Labour Commissioner (Control) Visakhapatnarn. 14-12-94. -do-

Ex.M3 4-2-94 Office Memorandum issued by Ministry of Defence.

Ex.M4 1] ^11-94 Office Memorandum issued by Ministry of Industries.

Ex.M5 31-8-94 Letter addressed to the Management by the Director Employment.

Ex.M6 2-1-95 Tnter Office Memo issued by the Management.

Ex.M7 ]->3-95 Letter addressed to the M/s Maheshwari Security Agency • by the Management,

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2001 S. O. ?4I8.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), tho Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatham as shown ill tho Annexuro in the Industrial Disputo between " the employers in relation to the management, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2001.

[No. H-H021/1/2001-1R (,M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT : VISAKHAPATNAM Present : Sri C. Samhasivo Rao, M. A., B. L., Chairman & Presiding Officer.

Dated : 13th day of December, 1999

T.T.L D. No. 17/97

This Petition is filed Dircu+Iy Under Sec. 2A (2) of the I. D. Act. Batweon : K. Chandra Sekharam. S/o Late Rammurthy, Aripaka, Via-Sabbavaram, Visakhapatman.

. .Workman And

The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.

.. Management This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Vcnkatoswara Rao, Advocate for workman and of Sri G. V. Rcddy, advocate for management, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on persuing the entire material on record, the court passed tho following :

AWARD

(1) This is a petition filed by a workman under Sec. 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking tho relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

(2) As per tho claim of tho workman he has been working with the management from May, 1982 without any remarks. He has never been issued any memo or charge sheet for any negligence in performing his duties. While he has been working as a crane operator in 1997, he has fallen from a mobile crane MC 16 and he has sustained injuries to his head and other portions of the body and due to head injury he has been advised rest as his status was described in clin'cal terms as Non-compose martin and aa such he has been undergoing prolonged medical treatment. Added to that the management who is perfectly aware of the accident did not choose to pay tho compensation nor deposited the same before the authority under the workman's compensation Act. Further his daughter has been kidnapped in the year 1992 and ho is informed the same on 8-2-92 to Chiefe Mechanical Engineer about his problems. The management issued a memo on 30-6-96 alleging tha he remained absent unauthorisedly from 22-1-96 till tlv: date of charge sheet dated 27-3-96. He submitted his explanation stating that he has been undergoing ticatment for the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment and that he has not5077 (5) On 17-K-99 after persuing the material papers available on record this court held that there adequate opportunity given to the workman and the prodcodure followed in the domestic enquiry is not vitiated. Hence arguments were submitted U/S 11A of the J. D. Act.

(6) The points for consideration are :

violated the regulation nor committed the mis- conduct. An enquiry was conducted on 30-9-96 and he received the popy of the same. The enquiry officor was biased against the workman and he adopted a procedure of questioning the recording the answers. Inspitc of such pitiable condition*, which is within the knowledge of respondent has choosen to terminate the services of workman by office order dated 30-1-97, which is illegal and unjustified.

(1) Whether the workman is liable lo be reinstated treating that punishment was given to him illegally and liable to be sctaside ?

(2) If the conclusions drawn in imposing the punishment is correct whether it is a case where this court has to interfere with the findings given by the management treating the quantum of punishment imposed is beyond proportion to the infraaction of duties by the workman ?

(3) Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service as contended by him ?

3 For that a rejoinder is filed by the manage- ment denying the allegations made in the petition. It denied the allegations of sustaining injuries by the workman. It submitted that the workman met with an accident during his working hours, he was granted hospital leave for a period of three months five days from 31-1-95 to 4-5-95 was re- commended by the Medical Officer. The CMO has issued fit certificate to the workman has specifically stated that there is no loss of earning capacity and as such the payment of compensation under workman's Compensation Act does not arise at all. He was removed from service for his unauthorised absence. He preferred an appeal stating that his daughter has been kidnapped and the same was allowed and his penal was set aside by the disciplinary authority on 7-10-93. It denied that he has no one at his home to send his leave application and intimate about his sickness and due to his domestic problems he is keeping indifferent health is not a ground for his absence. He was charge sheeted for major penalty on 30-3-96 for long unauthorised absence from duty from 22-1-96 to till the date of drafing the charge sh'¹- t i.e. 27-3-96 without leave which is treated as unauthorised absence and for the same the management's work was badly dis- located. He submitted hi, ex planation on 19-4-96 even though he acknowledge the receipt of the charge sheet on 6-4-96 and denied ,hc charges levelled against him when the disciplinary proceedings were pending he again absented from duty (..nau'hu-isedlv from 1 7-5-90 o 8-8-96 and as si,ch the disciplinary au- thony has remitted the case for departmental enquiry dt, 2S-8-96 info th; charges. l"n the preliminary enquiry the workman admitted his guill and signed the proceedings. He did not state anything about the same in vriiing even at the liirc when the enquiry report, was made available to him. On the basis of the materal and the preliminary enquiry report submitted to it, the disciplinary authority finally removed the workman from service w.c.f. 30-1-97 \K^ proceedings dated 30-1-97. He preferred an appeal, which was tejected by tin- chairman, Port Trust. Hence the action of the management is quite justified and reasonable. The nc'ition is liable to be dismissed.

(7) Ex. M 1 shows the absence of the workman from duty from 22-1-96 till to date i.e. 5-2-96 without any leave or sick. The letter is by Asst Executive Engineer, who is the controlling officer of the workman. Again under Ex, M 2 another letter was sent along with the attendance parti- culars from 1 -J-95 to 5-3-96 the absence of the workman. It is shows in. the column of leave or sick is 232 days. There upon a memorandum dated 30-3-96 was issued where in the present petitioner is directed submit within 10 days of the receipt of the memorandum on the allegations of the charge. The charge is that he was absenting from duty unauthorisedly from 22-1-96 till the date of drafting the charge sheet on 27-3-96, without submitting any leave application or sick certificate causing much difficulty in making alternative arrangements in his place. It is also mentioned that he was censured thrice and imposed with minor penalty once and major penalty once for similar offence of his unauthorised absence to duty but there is absolutely no change in his attitude and that shows his gross mis- conduct, unbecaming of a public servant and as such he failed to maintain absolute deviation from duty. Ex. M 4 is acknowledgement, Ex. M 5 is the letter addressed to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, by the workman in which he expressed that he was not given opportunity to prove about earlier punishment. Though it is cited that those punishments are made for the purpose of this case but the present charge is as such has nothing to do with the earlier prnishmenis. The persons 2742 Gl/1001—305078 THE GAZETTE OF fNDTA : SFPTEMFER 15, ^OOI/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART TT—SEC. 3(ii)l against him. Another punishment was imposed on 25-9-89 where his pay was reduced for two years under Fx, M 17. On 25-4-9) six months annual increments was withheld for his unauthorised absence from duly On 10-6-92 his annual in- crement next due, is withheld lor a period of two years without cumulative eflect, ol his future increments. Under Ex. M 20 dated 10-4-93 his annual increment is withheld for a period ol one year without cumulative effect, of his future incre- ments besides denial ol ETC facility for the current and future block periods i.e., 1990-93 & 194-97 he was removed from service in the order dated 2-9-93. On that appellate authority passed on order dated 7-10-93 under Ex M 22 the order earlier passed under Ex. M21 set aside and he was reinstated. The period from the date ol¹ removal to his reinstatement was tieated, as not on duty, Another punishment of lenient view taken for absence was also imposed on 24 11-95, On 19-4-96 under Ex. M 24 though the workman was reported to duty on 19-4-96 he has not applied for any leave for the period from 22-1-96 to 18-4-96. Another report was submitted under Ex. M 25 and on 29-5-96 for absenting duty from 17-5-96 to 29-5-96 without applying any leave. On 13-6-96 a notice was issued to the workman about his unauthorised absence flora 17-5-96 tiJl to date. It is subsequent to the present pro- ceedings dated 13-6-96 and he was asked to immediately ropor. to duty which was rcpoited by him under Ex, M 26, Ex. M 28 is fur liter leport sent about his not reporting duty from 17-5-96 without any leave, The Chairman, Port Trust imposed order passed on 3-7-97 refusing to intci- fere the punishment imposed on the workman, and dismissed the appeal The letter dated 14-3-97 mentioned that enquiry officer has no right to mention all previous cases in his report.

Thus, on a careful perusal of the entire evidence who are goiiif.; lo be txamined arc a',o indicated in the annexure In the charge under Ex. W 3. lor that the workman submitted an explanation telling about his injuries received by him in 1994 claiming himself he is a disciplined man and due tu the mental condition i e. tempo- rary Insanity having nun composemantix, he is not in a position to perform his duties. That cannot be considered as willul absence from duty from 21-1-% to 1K-4-96 treating this cause as special one and he asked i'or reinstatement into service where he will prove he is noble employee, to the organisation. That letter is dated 19-4-96 under Ex. M5 He was intimated about the enquiry throgh a letter dated 28-8-96 under Ex, M 6 and intimating the persons who are going to be examined and the persons who are to be present in case of management witnesses. Then this workman was examined, whcie he was put questions whether he wanted lo accept the charges levelled against him and to that he stated that he accepted the charges levelled against him. So the enquiry was closed. The presenting officer submitted that he has no brief to submit any- thing more. Alter that a report was sent along with the enquiry report. The proceedings on the charge sheet issued to him, is marked as Ex. M 8, Ex. M 9 which shows supply of copy of enquiry report. On that on 14-12-96 he submitted an explanation to which he admitted about receiving enquiry report. He reiterated as accepted due to the domestic pioblcms and his daughier hai expired and havi.ig calamity in the house and he could not attend his normal duties regularly and could not keep his mind s eady on the duties and also his health condition is not well, due to the calamity. He sought for execusing him and permit him to attend his regular duties and asked to be executed. On proceedings issued by the disciplinary authority the Chief Mechanical Engi- neer ordered removal of the workman from service and he was granted permission to appeal within 45 days, which is filed under lix. M i l. On that a statement was submitted in the appeal seeking reinstatement where he mentioned that he submitted sick certificate 1'iom 17-5-96 to 28-8-96. He stated that he has got children and having no property. He got long sickness due to accident, He had so many loans. He requested to consider his representation on humanitarian consideration. Ex. VI 13 is the pro- ceedings of the dismissal of the workman vv.e.f. 30-1-97 for his unauthorised absence. Hx. M 14 is enclosing letter. The earlier proceedings with regard to the censures imposed on 26-4-85 is under Ex, M 15 & Ex. M 16 indicates another punishment was imposed on 24-9-88 which was marked under Ex. M 16 where another censure was imposed

available on record it is clear that even at the stag, of enquiry the workman never questioned about his unauthorised absence which was opined by the authority as illegal and unauthorised absented. He only pleaded for mercy, It is no doubt proved that earlier conduct and subsequent conduct was consi- dered in this case. It is not as if he was not apprised of the earlier conduct and any way all the punishment imposed him. So it is a clear case where the work- man himself admitted about his unauthorised absence and the conclusions drawn with regard to the illegal and unauthorised absence by the disciplinary autho- rity which was accepted by the appellate authority is not in any way vitiated in coming to the conclusion of imposing penalty. The fact remains that in 1994 he received injuries by falling from the crane and he got upset in his life but the fact that the fall does5079 Ex.M8 3-12-96 Enquiry officers report.

Ex.M9 9-12-96 Letter addressed to the workman by Chief Mechanical Engineer.

Ex.MlO 14-12-96 Lettei addressed to the Mantige- meni by workman.

Ex.Mll 30-1-97 Proceedings of the Chief Mechanical Engineer,

Ex.M12 14-3-97 Letter addressed to the management by workman.

3-7-97 proceedings of the Chairman, Visakha-

Ex.M13

patnam Port Trust.

U.M14 10-7-97 Letter addressed to the workman by Management

Ex, Ml 5 26-4-85 Proceedings ol the Chief Mechanical Engineer.

Ex.M16 24-9-88 Proceedings of the Chief Mechanical Engineer.

Ex.M17 20-5-89 -do-

Es.M18 25-4-91 -do-

10-6-92 -do-

Ex,M19

10-3-93 -do-

Ex.M20

2-9-93 -do-

Ex.M21

Ex.M22 7-10-93 proceedings of the Chairman Visakhapatnam Port Trust.

Ex.M23 24-11-95 Proceedings ot the Chief Mechani- cal Engineer.

Ex.M24 19-4-96 Let Lei addressed to Chief Mechani- cal Engineer by Assistant Executive Engineer.

not in any way effected his mental position, as con- tended by the management which is not seriously disputed by the workman by producing any evidence to the centre in the sense the treatment undergone by him for his mental illness. So in normal course the explanation or¹ the workman cannot be accepted. But the fact remains the workman worked with the management right from 1982 till he was removed from service. No doubt he has got number of punishments earlier since he lias got children and if it is only a case of absence but not a fraud or any grade allegations of misconduct against him in discharging his duties, this court feels that it is a fit case where he has to be reinstated, but considering the facts he cannot be granted back wages and the period of absence prior to the enquiry until reinstate- ment which to done from the date of passing this award till his reinstatement with in a period of one month from the dale of this award he shall be treated with no pay no work for the purpose of reckoning the seniority. There shall be continuity of service, but it does not absrob him from the earlier punish- ments which are already imposed against him in accounting the seniority. Accordingly the order of removal is modified setting aside the punishment of removal and directing the management to reinstat the workman into service within one month from the date of award without back wages but with continuity of service for reckoning the seniority alone. But the management is at liberty to consider in reckoning the seniority, about earlier punishments imposed prior to this removal order. In the circum- stances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 13th day oi' the December, 1999.

29-5-96 -do

Ex.M25

E\. M26

C. SAMBAS1VA RAO, Presiding OMiccr

EX".M28

5080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2C01 S-O. "'419.- 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, Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute, between the employers in relation < the management ol' Visakhapatnam Port Trust nd their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 20-8-01.

[No. H-11021/2/2001-IR(M)]

B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT VISAKHAPATNAM Present : Sri C. Sambasiva Rao, M.A.,BL-, Chairman and Presiding Officer.

Dated : 9th day ot November, 1999 1.7.1.D. (C) 33/97

This petition is filed directly U /s 2A(2) ol the I.D. Act. Between: Kasarapu Gopala Rao D.No. 26-32-7. Ramakmhna Street, Near Rama Mandiram, Visakhapatnam-530 001. . .. .Workman AND

Management, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakltapatnam - 530 035. . . .. Management This dispute coming on lor final hearing before me in the presence of Sn B.V. Rad, Authorised Representative for workman and Sri B. Gowri Sankar Raju, advocate for management, upon hearing the arguments oi' both sides and on perusing the entire material on record the court passed the following:

AWARD

1. This is a petition filed by a workman under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 seeking the relief of reinstatement with back wages and conti- nuity of service.

2. As per the claim statement of the workman he was an ex-workman under the management, until summarily terminated on 26-5-81, without assigning any reasons, His last drawn salary is Rs. 1600/ per month. His father (late) Kasarapu Tatayya was a permanent employee under the management and relevant times, he was working as Carpenter Grade-J and he expired while in employment on 15-12-79. His mother requested the management to provide employment lo him, as is the ususal practice in existence in the management passed orders conceding his mother's request. He was called [or interviews and medical tests and ii was conducted according to rules. His lien of employment is qualified by virtue of his late father's service in this a management. Even though he was surficien ly qualified fcr he post of messenger he was discriminated and denied that post which was on permanent basis and on the other hand he was selected for the post of Shore Kahalassi and enrolled in employment on 11-12-90. He was terminated on 26-5-8L, which is illegal and arbitrary. He approached employees union and later the manage- ment offered him fresh appointment on 24-8-83 in the post of Railway Khalasi/IIamal in the pay scale ot 325-461. Since he have raised industrial dispute, the management refused to rwi'n-ii \.l.a i jcin the said post. Thus, the management discriminated and denied him justice for second time. He approached conciliation officer and there it was failed and the proceedings were closed. He filed writ petition No. 13263/84 and writ appeal No. 1535/1984 before Hon'ble High Court, which were dismissed. A special leave petition was rejected by Supreme Court as Time barred on 10-8-93, Hence the action of the management is not justified and illegal.

3. For that the management filed a rejoinder denying the allegations made in the petition. It submitted that while working as casual Khalasi the workman's services were terminated vv.e.f. 3-5-81 as he was found unfit for retention on the basis of his gross misconduct of attempted theft of Port property. The rules and regulations arc applicable to the regular employees but not to the casual employees. The management conducted necessary enquiries before taking action to terminate the services of the work- man. The management requested to furnish the remarks of the petitioner for fresh appointment as a Railway Khalasi and previously the workman raised industrial dispute and the same was not referred for adjudication by the Central Government, a writ petition WP 13263/84 and W.A.No. 1535/84 also filed by him but the dispute could not be referred for adjudication. An SLP was also filed before Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed as it is time barred. Hence the present petition is not maintain- able under law as there is no reference by the Central Government. Hence there are no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. For that a lojoinder is filled by the work- man denying the allegations of he management- He submnled hal J he nianagemen; has come up with the allegations of ihef af er more ihrn one year and the objected lie same and demanded o prove the allegation of theft, The managenKni ough to have resorted to proper procedure m obser- vance of principles of natural jLisiICL- or the proce- dure as laid down in the service regulations of tch establishment, had the allegation been t"ue and fact. It silence for all these years is, substantial grcJur.d thi't it acted iralifidely in tcrininat:ng the workman's sevvieev This dispute is m t ;,1 ."II in-i barred. The maintain;.bility of pU K . even after the rc-.pondent is Central Government bedy has been already settl> d by Ihe e c ri ' f h'w, which law will be presented in the c o u re of enquiry.

(5) Since there is no adequate record and domes- tie enquiry report is not there, enquny was held before this court on the request of the management. WW1 and MW1 are examined. Exs. Wl to W12 for workman aiid Exs. Ml to M7 lor management are marked.

(6) The points for considerations :

(1) Whether the earlier p occedir.gs alleged by the pctitionci procluding him from raising this dispute before this court once again ?

(2) Whether the petitioner is removed without following the procedure under Sec. 25F of the l.D. Act or any other p.ovisions of Law in the T.D. Act and whenever he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him ?

(3) Whether the workman is entitled to the rel'tf of leinslaumeiit with back wages and continuity of service '?

(7) As per the case of the workman on compas- sionate grounds he got the job as his father died while working with the manpffircnt rs Caipenter. Jrle wi'S in in a id tnc'tr Ex. Wl ^> ; pply for jcb aid so he applied he tan c. He was called for interview under Ex. W2 and anothei call letter Lx. W3 for I he posts of messenger and Khalasi respectively. Later he provided with a job of Khallasi under Ex. W4 and he joined on 16-2-80 along with him 9 persons were appointed. Some- demand was made to pay amount and some of he employee^ paid the amount and their services were made permanent. But he expressed his inability to pay and his employment was stopped to him under Ex. W5, wi huii' any enquiry. Then he approach d the union and they apprcuchr-d ACL. Acr'tin he was issued call letter pending the proceedings by the management for appointment of Railway Khalasi/Hpinah under l'x. W7. On seeing this kttcr the ACL closed his proceedings and lcfuscd to refer the matter. Then he filed a writ and division bench passed order holding that there is no need of interfering with the order by the Asst. Commis- sioner of Labour under Ex. WR. Then Iv app x> ached Supreme Court which was later dismissed stat- ing that the petition is lime barred, which is under W9, The recruitment seiviee seniority rule> are Ex. W10 and W l l. He denied thai he was appom- ed only As .,\tsu.il labm" inpja wa,i. l i: J J U \L

50S1 that he committed theft of paint tins and on the same reason, he was removed on 23-5-91. He do not know i'bout the sending a letter under Ex. Ml. He also denied that the mangement conducted equiry ai.d afu.i thai only IK was n.moved. Whereas MW1 Sr. Asst. CME dipot deposed that (he workman was appointed as casual labour on daily wages on compassionate giourds on the account of his father's death. While he was going away one liter of grey paint central sec urity force caught him and disciplinary piocccd.ings lodged against him on 23-5-81 and on that ground lie was removed from se.viee sir.ee he was a temporary employee, working on daily wages. They never issued orders to tho workman on permanent bisis. He said that he does not know personally about the nature of appointment given to him. He deposed in his cross-examination that he docs not have any per- sonal knowledge about this matter.

Whcicas MW2 personal officer of the manage- ment deposed that he knows the facts oi~ the case. The workman was appointed as Khallasi in the- mana- gement on the account of his father's death on com- passoinate grounds. He was found stealing a tin of paint and cought by Central Tndustriul Security Force Personnel. He admitted his mistake ami on that a letter was addressed by Asst. Commandent of Central Industrial Security Force

Ex.Wl is the letter submitted by the mother of the workman about the death of Sathayya on 15-12-79 and a request was made for appointment of her son, in the Port G. Trust. On the basis of that a letter was issued under Kx. 2 hy the management to submit all original certificates of the workman on 10-7-80 at 14.00 hrs. Similarly such letter is sent on 21-11-80 under Ex.W3. Ex. W4 is another letter sent to him on 11-12-80 to attend office immediately with all original certificates. Under Ex.W5 the wor- kman was intimated that his services were termina- ted in which it is simply mentioned that the services of Sri Kasarapu Gopala Rao, S/o. Late Satbjyya casual labour Kahalasi (Shore) in E/M Section aie terminated with effect from 23-05-81, Ex.W6 notice given lor conciliation proceedings marked tothc work- man along with notice given to the Chairman. Port5082 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : SEPTEMBER IS, 2OOI/BHAI>RA 24, 152.3 [PART II—SEC. 3(h)] These rules do nut indicate about the casual woik- "nen appointed. So there is some substance in the contentions by ihj management, these rules are net applicable to the workman. M1 is order of termi- nation w.e.f. 23-5-81 on account of misconduct and about the theft of port property and he was found un- fit for retention in service. Ex, M2 is letter add- ressed to the Chief Mechanical Engineer with regard to apprehension of the workman-casinl labour. It is mentioned that on 2-5-81 around 12.30 hrs. their SGs have apprehended the workman casual labour at docks nviin gate while he was carrying about 1 liter gray paint in a tin unauthoredly and sought for departmental action. A seizer memo is marked under Ex. M3 , Ex M4 is statement given by workman about his apprehension with paint in a tin and was apprehended Ex. M5 is the order passed of termination of service w. e. f, 23-6-81 afternoon and no reasons are stated in this Ex. M6 is the order of High Court in Wiit Petition No. 13263/84 where the reference which is sought to be made was rejected by the Government which was questioned by the workman, it is observed that there are no malafides in the action of the management in disposing with the casual services of the workman in as¹ much as he was caught red handed while carrying away unautho- redly a lin of gray paint and that he hns also con- fessed his guilt. It is hed that discretion exercised by the management is not arbitray.

As could b^ seiA from the ovid^ice on record even

5083

thn- Lird'hips C. C'Jiii mpant'cK ; id K. M. Su'f-'h' JJ Temp i ary/Badili ..ppoi .tme.u yivL.ii to '.anduLle whose name w. s i L l..el^d in select !i,i in a< e^td, nee with regulations iueh candid'!': gets light o be LoiT-iderfd for appoiniment as and wlu-.i vaeaicy aiises and tennii ation of M(I h >andid;il': without giving him oppoilunity of explanation held unju tilled. Even this judgement u not in any wa> helpful to the present case of the wojkman hejein sn.ee it is i ot a. case of appoii.iment of whom (MI tin- bisi-, of srl

Though the principle of resjudicatal is rol strictly applicable as in CPC sMI the obes.-vation madL accepting the contentions of the management with regard to the infraction ol duties which led to discharge horn seivice of the workman was taken cognigence by the High Court and of the workman's commitling there is no need to interfere with these facts, which served as a background foi removal from service treating his services as not satisfactory and a aunple order is i'sued terminating the services of the workman without giving any reasons or in stigma. So those observations would have a binding effect on this court.

The question of following procedure u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in removing him Prom service in view of the findings given supra as the workman is worked less than 6 months and not even worked for 240 days continuously in a year, while enjoying the post as a casual labour, appointed on compassionate grounds, on account of the death ol his father.

(8) In view of the findings given above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for and the petition is dismissed passing nil award deciding the matter against the workman,

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under may hand and seal ol the court this the 9th day of November, 1999.

C. SAMBASIVA RAO, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN I.TJ. D. No. 33/07

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

For Workman : WW 1 : K. Gopala Rao,

For Management : MW 1 : VI. Subbaiah Sastry,

MW 2 : S Muiy.iJa Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For Workman ; Ex. W j. : j2-5-80 : Letter to5084 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Cx. W 2 : 2-7-80 : Letter to K. Gopalarao by VPT.

Ex. W 3 : 21-11-80 : -do-

employers in relation to the M/s Stone International PvL Ltd, and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 22-08-2001.

Ex W 4 : 11-12-80 : -do-

Ex. W 5 : 21-5-81 : Termination ordir of the

[N. L-29012/33/2O00/IR(M)] workman.

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

Ex. W 6 : 23-7-83 : Letter to management by ACL (C) VSP.

Ex. W 7 : 24-8-83 : Letter to the workman by manage- ment,

Ex. W 8 : 27-11-84 : Xerox copy of the ordei in WA No. 1535/84.

Ex. W 9 : 27-11-84 : Xerox copy of the proceedings in CC No. 21456.

Ex. W 10 : Xerox copy of the VPTn Employees Recruitment Regulations.

Ex. W 11 : Recruitment Rules for all posts in VPT.

Ex. W 12 : VPT Temporary Service Regulations, 1964.

For Management :

Ex. M 1 : 27-6-81 : Letter to the General Secretary VPE Union, by Chief Medical Engineer.

Ex. M 2 : 11-5-81 : Letter to the management by

ACL.

Ex. M 3 : xerox copy of seizer memo.

Ex, M 4 : Letter addressed to CISF commandant by workman.

Ex. M 5 : 25-5-81 : Termination order of the workman.

Ex. M 6 : 20-9-84 : Xerox copy of the order in WPNO. 13262/84.

Ex. M 7 : 27-11-84 : Xerox copy of the orders in W. A. No. 1535/84.

New Delhi, the 24 h August, 2001

"Whether the terminution of Sh. Ajay Bargaonkar by the tnanagimtnt of M/s. Stono International Pvt. Ltd., Kamganjinandi w.cf. 2-5-99 is le^al and justified V If not to what relief claimant Sh, Bargaonkur is entitled ptid from which date ?" S.O. 2420.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, ICoia as shown in the Aunexure, in the Industrial dispute between the5083 "Whether the termination of services of Shri Gopal Singh S/o Shri Sultan Singh cleaner by the ManaRemsnt of M/s Assocmtiid Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd., Rtmpiinjmandi from 27-3-97 is just;fled and ICRBI or not ? If not to vl.at relief the claimant is entitled and from what date ?"

New Delhi, the 24ih August, 2001

Si O. 7411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, KOTA as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Associated Stone Co. and their workman which was rec.ived by the Central Government on the 22-08-2001.

[No. L-29012/49/99/IR (M)]

B. M. DAVID, Und"r Secy,

2742 GI/20Q1--315086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2OO1/BHAI>RA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] PRESENT :

Hon'blc Sliri V.N. Kulkami, B.Com., LLB, Presiding

Officer.

COIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE C. R. No. 71|92

I PARTY Tho General Secretary, New Mangalore Port Staff Association, NMPT Administrative Office Building, Pannmbur, MangaIore-575010 (Advocate-Shri D.R. Vishwanatha Bhat)

II PARTY

The Chaiman, New Man galore Port Trust, Panambur, Mangalore 575010 (Advocate Smt. Indu R. Raj)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercsing the powers ron- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of th,: Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has refcrrod this dispute vide order No. L-4501 l|2]91-TR(Misc.) dated 13th August, 1992 for adjudication on the followinj schedule-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Management of new mangalore Port Trust is justified in alterning the seniority prejudicial to Smt. H.R. Yadunandini consequent upon the rever_- sioit of Shri Ramchandra Rao from Junior Assist* ant cadre to clerical cadre? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"

"1. The first party workman is working with the manage- ment and it has altered the Seniority prejudicial to Smt. H.R. Yadunandini consequent upon the reversion of Shri Rama- chandra Rao from Junior Assistant cadre to Clerical Cadre and therefore dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter

respectively.

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2001

4. It is the case of the workman that she waj promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (Redesignated as Junicr Assistant) from the cadre of Lower Division Clerk vide order No. 5|18|80|Admn, 4 dated 8-10-1980. She report for duty as Upper Division Clerk on 9-10-1980 forenoon and her name appears in Sr, No. 20. The list sttirti with SI. No 1 by name Sri Achuihan Koilerian and ends with SI. No. 22 by name Sri O. Krishna Naik. In the -eniority list of Group C Ministerial staff published as on 1-7-1933 circulated vide QM No, 4|23|84|Admn. 4 dated 21-8-1985 the seniority position of the workman in the cadre of Upper Division Cleik was shown at SI. No. 111. Whereas the nnme of Sri Achu- than Kolerian appears at SI. No. 93 and the name of Shn O. Kiishna Naik appears at SI. No. 113. The Senority nssipn- ed to tho workman is in the same order in vhich the order of promotion dated 8-10-1980 was issued. Seniority position assienrd to the workman was altered subsequently as per the seniority list of Groim C Ministerial Staff as on 1-7-1984 circulated vide OM No. 4|14|85|Admn. 4 datrd 5-11-1986.

S. O. 7422.—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 Bangalore as shown in iho Annexure i-i 'he JnditF- !> ial DjspJte b'lwoen \h: employer^ in relation to the .management New Mangalorc Port Trust and th'ir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-08-2001.

[No. L-450I1/2/91-IR (M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

A N N E X U RE

5. It is the further grievance of the workman that the seniority portion is cban^d nnrj the action of the manage- ment is net correct. In pr.r(1 ? of the Claim Statement the method of promotion is stated in dftail. Thp first party work- man belong to ST category and Shri O. Kriihn.i Nafk who was elevated to a higher position in the seniority list BIW hf-lones to ST category and therefore, the ylt^ratlnn 'Of the Seniority will adversely affect the interest of the flm party workman, All the grounds are stated m detail nnd the viork- mnn is prayed to pass award in favour of its union.

fi The case of the management in brief is .is under:

BF.FORF THE CENTRAL GOVFRNMF.NT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CU.M-LAHOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN" ITJ MATN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, • YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 13th August, 7001'

7. Shri A. Ramachandra Rao, Kum. Meera Bai, Sri O Krishna Naik, Smt. H.R. Yadunandini and Shri M. Aithftppa Naik were initially working us Lower Division Clerks and5087 their relative seniority position in the cadro of Lower Divi- sion Cleik were SI. 45, 67, 93, 95 and 9" as stated in the Counter and all these candidates belong to SI community. The promotions were carried out 75 ,:>er cent by promotion en the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfits and 25 per cent competitive examination limited to Lower Divi- sion Clerks. In other words three employe ;s arc promoted on the baiiis of seniority, one employee is piomoted through uumpetitive examination. Mr. A. Ramaehandta Rao was promoted to the post of Upper Division Cleik as per order dated 2-2-1979 against 75 per cent quota. Rum. Meera Bai was promoted against 75 per cent quota ai per order dated 25-9-80. Shri O. Krishna Naik was promoted against 75 per cent quota as per order dated S-10-1980 whereas Smt. H. R, Yadunandini was promoted against 25 per cent quota by an order dated 8-10-1980. All these were promoted against the reserved vacancies for STs as per the roaster.

8. Senioiity List as on 1-7-1982 is staUd in para 4 of the Counter Shri O. Krishna Naik was senior to the First party workman. But because she was promoted against 25 per cent quota, she was placed senior to Shri O. Kruhna Naik in the category of Upper Division Clerk. Subsequently, Shri A. Ramachandra Rao was revelled t" the Lower Post of Lower Division Clerk as a result of departmental enquiry by an order dated 6-1-1983, With the result of his reversion, the S. T. vacancy of Upper Division Clerk against 75 per cent quota had to be filled up from among the S.T. candidates. Shri M. Aithappa Naik the next senior employee among the S.T. candidates in the feeder cadre ot Lower Division Clerk was accordingly promoted as Upper Division Clerk, thus filling Lhe slot vacated by Shri Ramachandra Rao by an order dated 28-1-1983.

9, It is the further case of the management that with the reversion of Shri Ramachandra Rue and promotion of Shri M. Aithappa Naik, the 3 : 1 ratio had once again was re- applied and inter se seniority among the Upper Division Clerks was refixed and in that process Smt, Meera Bai oc- cupied the place of Shri Romachandra .tao and Sri O. Krlsh- tia Naik occupied the place of Smt. Mrera Bai and Shri H. Aithappa Naik occupied the place of Shri O, Krishna Naik and all are g^aainst 75 per cent quntd. Therefore, first party had necessarily to be placed at the hppropriate place against 25 per cent quota cum reservation under ST cate- goiy, The action of the in

10. In view of the recasting of the seniority list consequent on reversion of Shri Ramachandra Rao, the placement of Shri O. Krishna Naik above the first party is in order and lhe recasting of the seniority after reversion of Shri Ramachand- ra Rao and .promotion of Shri M. Aithappa Naik, the prsi- tion in the inter se seniority as on 1-7-1984 is shown in para 7 of the counter. The first party has no valid and kfrrd objection. The management has prayed to reject the refe- rence,

11. It is seen from the records that on behalf of The manage- ment, MW1, Satish Nayak was examined and MW2, Manju- nath Gadiyar was also examined. The documents are marked in the evidence. Against this the workman got examined her- self as WW1.

12. I have read the evidence carefully, I have perused all trie necessary documents and read written arguments given by both parties. With the evidence of MW1 Pnd MW2 I am of the opinion that the seniority list i' prepared in accordance with ih'.* guidelines and there is no violation of any rules. MW1 and MW2 have given detailed evidence and nothing is illiciled from their cross examination TO as to say that the action of the manasement is not correct. They have explained the correct position of seniority list and promotin of the first party workman and other officials.

13. It is clear from the records that finl party workman was selected under 25 per cent quota. She was piomoted on merit. Shri Ramachandra Rao was promoted on 2"2-1979 against the 75 per cent quota i.e. by seniority nnd Smt. Meera Bai was promoted on 25-9-1980 against the 75 per cent quota and O. Krishna Noik was promoted on 8-10-80 against the 75 per cent quota i.e. by seniority whereas the first party workman has been promoted by limited depart- mental examination i.e. 25 per cent quota.

14. It is also clear that in the piomo:ion list Shri O. Krish- na Naik is junior to the first party workman only becauso of the promotion by quota of 3 : 1 iatio which is followed as per management recruitment rules. Th; management has filed all the relevant rules an d.-'cuuding to them it is clear that theie is no merit in this dispute. Shri Raniachnndra Rao was leveried to the post of LDC in the year 1983 as penalty of having pioduccd faJse caste certificate. Upon his reversion the post of UDC in the 75 per cent quota i.e. of a post filled by promotion on seniority fell vacant and that was to be filled up but the position of this workman remained undisturbed because she has been promoted under 25 per cent quota.

15. MVV1 has given detailed evidence about the vacancy position of the icu^tei system. I-.v, M9 is the relevant record and with all this it is clear that there is no merit in this dispute. The management has established that it has not alter- ed the seniority of the workman consequent upon the rever- sion of Ramachandra Rao from Junior Assistant Cadre to Clerk Cadre.

16. The veidence of WW1 is not sufficient to say that the seniority is changed. I have given my best consideration to the evidence before me nnd also perused (ill the relevant docu- ments and I am of the opinion that there is no merit in tfris reference. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 13-8-2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, tie 27th August, 2001

S.O. 2123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947;, the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai ns shown in the Annexuro in the Industrial Dispute between fhe employers in relation to the management M|s. Dalpnia Magne&ite Corpn. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-08-2001.

[No. L-27O12/3/96-IR(M)l B. M. DAVID. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHENNAI Tuesday, the 7th August, 2001

PRESENT:

K. KARTH1KEYAN, Preying Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 407/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Dispute I.D. No. 90/96) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause id) of sub-section <1) and sub-section: 2(A) of section- 1050&S THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : SEFfEMBER 15. 2Q01/BJiAI>RA 24, 1923 [PART ]X—Sue. 3l")] of the Industrial Disputes fai, 1947, belw"ea the Workman, Sri C. Pai⋼'imy and the MflnneemeM of Dalmia Magnfisite Corporation, Saieni.j

BETWEEN

Shri C, Palanisamy. . . .. I Party/Workman

AND

The Whule Time director II Party/Manafiement Uulmra Magnesne Qorporatipn, Salem,

APPfcARANCE :

for the YVoikman. .M/s. P. K. Rajagopal & D. Sivakumaran, Advocates.

For the Management. ,M/s. M. R. Raghavan & K. Vaiu Venkat. Advocates

AWARD

The Government or India, Ministry oJi Labour in exercise Of powers conferred by clause (dj of sub-section (.1) and sub-secuon -(.A) oi Section 10 01 Industrial Dispute Act, ly4/ (.14 of 1947), have referred the following d.spute for adjudication \ide Order No. L-27012/3/96-IK-tMisc) dated 23-09-1996 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Dalmia Magncsite Corporation, Salem, in terminatinK the services of Shn C. Palanisamy is justified 7 it not, to what relief the workman u entitled ?" 2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nada State lnduMnal Tribunal, where it was taken on hie as I.D. No. yo/9b. Wnca it was pending there for enquiry, as per the orders of the Central Government, this case has bevii transferred to tbu rile of this Tribunal. On receipt of rcord. tiom that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 407/2001 on 0602-2001 anJ notices were sent by Registered Post with acknowledgement due to the counwl .cm record on cither side, intonninf; them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, wan a direction to appear before tins Tribunal on 22-2-2001, with their respective parties to prosecute this case. Though the notices were duly served, neither party nor their icipeciive ltpresentative was present be! ore tnis Tribunal on 22-2-2001 and hence the case was adjourned to 9-:.-2001. On 9-3-2001, the counsel for the I Party alone was present and both the parties and the counsel for the II Party/Management rtinained absent and there was no representation. No documents were filed on either side. The case was adjourned lor enquiry on six occasions i.e. 27-3-2001, 1-5-2001, 4-6-2001, 22-6 2001, 2-7-2001 and 17-07-2001. When the mistier was taken up for enquiry on 17-7-2001, the counsel for the I Party alone was present and filed a petition seeking time for filing documents. So ths case was adjourned on thai date to 27-07-2001 for enquiry finally. On 27-07-2001 also both the parties remained absent and the counsel on either side were also not present. As there was no representation at all on either side, the case was adjourned to this date i.e. 07-08-2001, as a last chance for enquiry.

3. When the matter is taken up today i.e. 7-8-2001, both the parties remained absent and the counsel on either side also not present and there is i-o representation on either sid;. Though this case has been posted foi enquiry as a last chance, neither party nppcated and represented their respective slan.l for this Tribunal to adjudicate the referred dispute in the absence of both the parties tu pui forth their respective cas • as parties to the referred dispute, it is decided to dispose of the matter with the available materials on record.

4. The Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workmtn is as follows;—

The I Party[Workman Sri C, Palanisamy, (hereinafter referred to as Petitionei) was appointed on 6-6-1990 as an apprentice mazdour. The Petitioned Mother Smt. Pappa, W/o Chctty Annan was working wiih the. Respondent as Mazdoor/ Permanent Worker ] {signed her job on account of her ill health on 30-5-1990. She requested the Management in her kttef pi resignation to give appointment to her son, the PtfitMjBCT fcetfin, OM compassionate ground. Accordingly, the Petitioner was appointed in the place of her Motfiar. For mac, me mmoiiei *> Modici gid forgo the lump sum payment or K.i. J.U.VAIU puid usually tj persons going on voluntary retirement, since she wumul liei son to be employed in her piacc Ine Petitioner was retained as an apprentice upio j i o - i ^ w, though there WL:> u complaint initially that the petitioner w^s me low performer later on, he improved and piovcd Himself woriliy. In view oi trie same, he was appointed us a tempoiary woiK.er tor Uio period of one year from 1-5-1992 to Ju-4-19yJ. Clause 7 in the appointment order dated zO-5-y2 lor appointing the Petitioner as a temporary .voider reads tnat 'your penormance during this tompoiary appointment would bo mouitortd and only if it meets the nurmi oi production, pioduciiwl> and quality, your case will be consiucitd tor a peunaneni post". So, unless the per- iuimancd ot the Petitioner meets, the norms of production, he could not be considered lor the permanent post. So, it cunnot be a termination clause. But suddenly, without any uot.ee, hearing or opportunity, ai. order dated 24-7-1993 was served on the Petitioner leiievinu him from the services of the company with immediate effect. In that notice, it is slated that since the Petitionei had not achieved norms of production in terms of Clause 7 men'iored above, the orders were passed. 1 hough the Petitioner was given temporary appointment upto 3U-4-93, he was retailed tiil 26-7-93 because his work was satisfactory. As an apprentice anil then as a temporary worker, the Petitioner had put in the services of three years aijd he liiid worked foi more than 240 days every year. As such, he ii entitled to be made peimimenl. In any event, he cannot be terminated from service bj. Invoking clause 7 in the appointment order without notice or opportunity. The action ot the Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner i;i opposed to law, natuial justice and the norms governing employer-employee rclanoiishp. Even assuming it is a re- trenchment simplicitor jt could not have been done without following the provisions of Stciion 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and rules framed thereunder. If it is by way of penalty for bad performance rs claimed by the Management, procedure and teims of opportunities, enquiry and due processes after show cause having not been followed, the termination is bad. The non-employment of the Petitioner by the Management is unjust, unlawful, inequitable and bad in law. The Petit.oner is entitled to be reinstated with back wages, continuity of i-ervicc. Hence, it is prayed that the Tribunal may be passed an award accordingly.

5. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II party/ Management are briefly as follows :—

Tiie II Parly/Management of Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem (herein ufter lefeired to at, Respondent) has appointed the Petmoner as an apprentice foi one year from 6-6-90. The Petitioner was provided employment on compassionate ground in the place of his Mother, who was sick and resigned. Ihe nerfoiimince of the Petitioner during apprentice was found to be unsatisfactory. So it was extended for another six months in o

5UQb>

cu>Wtwvd fpr j?wm4"mn post only when his pertc-iawnce uitwa Luc noiiiia ot pioancuon., pioauetwiy a^id gutt/uy. Mv.

c o i im I I UL a c i n u ve me q u a n tv e x p e c t ed on mm oy • m p i o v i uK ius piiioiUAfiiicc. As tue rcutionei cowd not improve iiu pi-injiJOiuiLCo, und piovc iiinibLU worth oi beinfi uppOiiilcd ia u ppimaiicm puai, ni> services could not be conunuea. ±L is i)i-1. a caae ui termination utti&cung Section / if oi Uie maudiitai Disputes ACI. Ine leimination was not made Dy way 01 p^nmiy ioi' bad puloimaiice. Ine termination is not twu ju j^iw mal it is only uu actioi¹. taken by ipiiowing trie pi'octdaics mid due piucess. So, the action of the Management m LCimimuinu tne 1'aitiuner from service is just, lawiui, equituole ana sustuiii^bie. Ine peljtipner is not entitled to any leliti as against the Respondent much less the relief of K.-mi.taitmem witn bacK wuses etc. Hence, the claim pf the i-'eutiom.r may be dismissed.

fa. The jppint forraycon&icta Htion is—

"Whthcr the action of the Management of M]s. Dalmia MagnesUe Corpoiation, Salem, in teimuituing the seivicus of anu *.. Faiumsuiny 18 justified 7 it not, to wnat relier the workman is entitled V" Point:—

Though suiheient upjpoi tunily has been afforded to either paitiLj LO me dispute lu pui loilh their respective contention mey IMVC laised m the u i ' in iiateineni as well as t^omitci Otuicmeni le.ipcctividy, npnc oL tnem appeared beiure Uiis Iribuiud to Catablisn tlipir stand. Mo 01 al or documentaiy cvmence lias oeen let 111 on cittici side. So, ttie Tribunal Jiua leit wun no opuon, but to decide this case on merits wan tne available maieiiuJi, the Claim Statement of the I'ciii.onei/Wuntmdn and Hie Counter Statement of the Ki-bpondcnt, Maiwjjement.

7. The uppointment of the Petitioner gri compassionate giound in tne Re^pondent/Mrinagement company as pleaded by the Petitioner is admitted by tne Respondent/ Management, it is also the case 01 both the parties that an appointment oidei was given to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Manage- ment with some jerms and ctuaiuons and one of the terms 01 the appointment order dated 20-05-92 is that the Pelitioner , can be made pernjancnt employee of the Respondent/ -Management only wnen he is found to achieve the norms of production, piodtictivity and quality as per the clause 2 ot the temporaly appointment older. From the averment 01 the Counter Statement it is seen that though many opportunities wwe affordedtothe Petitioner by extending his period of apprenticeship, he had not improved his performance and snown any sign of impiovement. This averment of the Re^pondem/Management 111 the Counter Statement has not been denied by the Petitioner/Wortman by way of any reply or rejoinder, it is fuithcr alleged in the Counter Statement of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner was lelieved of nis services on tho basis of specific term provided in the contract for temporary appointment. From the material, available in this cj-.e, it is seen thct the Petitioner was never made a permanent employee of thg Respondent company. It is not the case of the i'eiilioncr that he was performed h s duties as per the expectation o; the Management and it is also not his case that he was not afforded many opportunities la improve his performance. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the lermiuation is opposed to law and natural justice. He has not comt forward to disprove the contention of the Respondent that he did not improve his performance in order to achieve the quality expected on him As he was not absorbed as E permanent employee of the respondent company and has been terminated from service wntle he was only on a temporary appointment, the provision under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be attracted for the action of termination of the service taken against the I Parry /Workman, Further, it cannot be said that it is a penalty imposed by the Respondcnt|Man"sement for *j 1 Pc r f o r m a r i c e- Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the management a"ainst the I Party/ n n W R^ iV ^ { F ^ nS 'l im from service is unlawful or unjustified. So the Petitioner cannot have any relief as prayed accordingly. R c sPo n d e n t' T h™. I answer the Ppofnl P""V*In lm ,r euu l t- "? BWU*A is p a s s cd holdinK that the Petitioner/Workman Is not entitled to anv relief m prayed for agamst th" Rospon.denVM£-1.Sl:me5t No Cost (Dictated to the Sttnoti*j?l("r, transcribed and typed b him, corrected and pror.ounced by me in the open court on this day the 7th August, 2001.)

K, KARTHZKEYAN, PUMICUM Officer New Delhi, the 2?tfi August, 200 J S.O. 2424.—In pursuance of Section M of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 c£ 1947), the Cen- tral Gpvernment hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar {Orissa) as shown in the Annex- ure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relaiLion to the M|s. Nuasahi Chromite Mines and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 22-8-2001.

[No. L-29012/3/99-IRCM)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANKSWAR

PRESENT :

, , ^ j Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswaj'.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 262|2001 Dated- Bhubaneswar, the 1st August, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of Nuasahi Chromite Mines of M|s. IMFA Ltd., Rasulgmh, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar. ...1st Party- Management

AND

Their workman Shri Naryan Patra,

At.|Po. Bangore, Via-Hadgarh

.. 2nd Party-Workman.

Keonjhar. APPEARANCES:

MrT M. K. Mahapatra, and M. R. Rap—For the 1st Party-Management.

None. —japr the 2nd Party-Workman.

5090 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART U—SEC 3(ii)J

AWARD

Tin Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29012|3|99|IR(M), dated "-6-1999:—

"Whether the action of the management of Nuasahi Chromite Mines of M[s. IMF A by refusing employment to Shri Narayan Patra is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman h entitled ?"

2. While making reference intimation was also sent to the Management and the Workman to file their res- pective claim statements before this Tribunal with fifteen days from the date of receipt of the reference. The reference was made on 8-6-1999. The Tribunal on receipt of the reference also issued notices to the parties. In spite of direction of the Tribunal and the Government of India (Ministry of Labour), the workman has not made his appearance before the Tri- bunal and he has not filed his statement of claims. Notice wa£ duly served on him but he did not take any step to lake part in the proceeding and to place his case before the Tribunal to answer the reference. Since, 1999 the reference could not be answered in absence of the workman and for not taking any step by him.

3. The above circumstances wduld suggest that no dispute exists between the parties and the workman Has got no cause of action and that he has got no materials in support of his case.

4. Hence, no dispute award is passed and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

5. The reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001 S.O. 2425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribnual-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (Orissal) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the Mjs, S. Kumar Handling Agency and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 22-8-2001.

LNa. L-29012|19|2001|IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri S. K. Dhal, OSIS, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. cum-Labour Court. Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Caise No. 381|2001 Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 9th August 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of M|s. S. Kumar Handling Agency, Contractor, M.M.T.C. Railway Siding, At. Station Road, P.O. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar. . . 1st Party-Management.

AND

Their Workmen, represented through their General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union, At|Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar.

. . 2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES:

Shri S. K. Behera . ,toi the 1st Party- Management.

Shri B. S. Pad, General Secretary,

North Orissa Workers Union. . . For the 2nd Party-

Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Older Ni>. L-2012|19|2001|1R|(M) dated 3-4-2001:—

"Whether the demand of the North Orissa Workers Union, to pay 20% bonus for the year 1998-99 to all workmen engaged by M|s. S. Kumar Handling Agency, Contrac- tor of MMTC, At. Po : Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar who has earned more pront is justified ? If yes, to what relief the work- men are entitled to 7"

2. While sending the reference intimation was sent to both the parties to file their respective Claiim State- ments and documents before the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the reference. The Farties were also noticed by this Tribunal and they have made their appearance. The Union has filed the Claim Statement. When the proceeding was adjourned for filing of the Written Statement by the Management both the parries have filed a petition for5091 passing Award as per the terms of settlement which lias been made on 1-8-2001.. The contents of the petition was read over and explained to both the parties and they have admitted to be true.

3. Hence, award is passed as per the terms of settlement reached between the parties. The Memo- randum of settlement would form part of the Award.

4. Reference is amsweicd accordingly.

S. K. DUAL, Presiding Officer

FORM II

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF M|S. S. KUMAR HANDLING AGENCY, CONTRAC- TOR M.M.T.C. RAILWAY STDTNG, BARBIL AND THEIR WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, NORTH OR1S3A WORKERS' UNION BARBIL, DIST:KEONJHAR OVER PAYMENT OF BONUS , FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 199S-99 DATED THIS THE 1ST, AUGUST, 2001

Reprcsentating the Management Shri S. K. B'ehra, Proprietor, M|S. S. Kumar Handling Apencv. Contractor, M.M.T.C. Ltd, Barbil Railway siding, Barlbil.

Representating the Union|Workmert

1. Shri B. S. Pati, General Secretary, Norfh Orissa Workers' Union", Barbil.

2. Shri K. N, Nanda, Secretary

North Orissa Workers' Union, Barbil.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE The General Secretary, North Orissa Workers' Union raised the Industrial Dispute for the payment of Bonus 20% for the financial year 1998-99 to the wagon loaders of Borbil Railway siding.

That when no anrcibb settlement arrived at the Union raised the dispute before the Asst, Labour Commissioner (C) RKL for settlement over the dis- pute. But there also the management did not parti- cipated, hence the dispuie has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for Adjudication.

That during the pendency of the dispute for adju- dication the parties had mutual discussions for ami- cable settlement of the dispute.

That after going through the working condition and the placement iff wagons by the mynaeement of M|S. M.M.T.C. Ltd. vene discussed and finally the parties agreed ia resolve the dispute bv signing the settlement today the 1st August, 2001 on the following terms :

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 1. Both the oarties agreed for payment of Bonus 12<& for the financial year l'998-99 for all catego- ries of workmen of Barbil Railway siding.

2. That the management already paid Bonus 10% for the financial year and the balance 2% shall be paid after the award is passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

3. Thajt this settlement will be filed before the Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar with prayer for passing an award on the terms of the settlement.

Both parties shall report the implementation of the settlement to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C), Rourkiela and Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bhubaneswar after the payment of dues of the workers as per terms of the settlement.

Signature of the Management :

(Sri S. K. Behera) Proprietor

M|s. S. Kumar Handling Agency Witness:

(R. K. Sabu) Address : Barbil Witness:

Address.

Signature of the Union : (Sri B. S. Pati)

General Secretary North Orissa) Workers' Union

K. N. NANDA, Secy. North Orissa Workers' Union.

Witness :

Sd./- Illegible,

Sd'-

Illegible

Address : BaibiJ.

New Delhi, the -27th August, 2001 S.O. 2426.—-In pursuance of Section' 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 n 4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) as shown i,i the Annex- ure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M|s. Kumar Handling Agcncv ar4 their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 22-8-20O1.

[No. L-26011|ll|99-IR(M)]

B. M, DAVID, Under Secy.

50ft! THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER l-S.^QGl/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART II—SEC SCiiV]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

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

Industrial Dispute Case N6. 68/2001 Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 9th August, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of M./s. S. Kumar Handling Agency, M.M.T.C. Railway Siding, At Station Road, P.O. BarbiJ, Dist. Keonjhar.

—1st Party-Management.

AND

Their Workmen, represented through their General Secretary, North Orissa' Workers Union, At/P.O. Barbil, District Keonjhar.

—2nd Pftrty^Union.

APPEARANCES:

Shri S. K. Behcra—For the 1st Party-Manage- ment.

Shri B. S. Pati, General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union—For the 2nd Party- Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) h-we referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Order No. L-26011/ll/99/IR(M>, dated M-12-1999:—

"Whether the demand of the North Orissa Wor- kers Union, Barbil fcr payment of 20 per cent bonus for the financial year ending 1997-98 by M/s. S. Kumar Handling Agency, Contractor of MMTC, Barbil, is justified ? If so. to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. While sending the reference intimation was sent to both the parties to file their respective Claim State- ments and documents before the Tribunal within fif- teen days from the date of receipt of the reference. The parties were also noticed by this Tribunal and they have made their appearance. The Union has filed the Claim Statement. When the proceeding was ad- journed for filing of the Written Statement by the Management both the parties have filed a petition for passing Award as per the terms of settlement which has been made on 1-8-2001. The contents of the peti- tioit was read over and explained to both the parties and they have admitted to bc true.

3.- Hence, award is passed as per the terms or settlement reached between the parties. The Memo- randum of settlement would form part of the Award.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

FORM H

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. S. KUMAR HANDLING AGENCY, CONTRAC- TOR, M.M.T.C. RAILWAY SIDING, BARBTL AND THEIR WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, NORTH ORTSSA WOR- KERS' UNION BARBIL, DISTRICT KEONIHAR OVER PAYMENT OF BONUS FOR THE FINAN- CIAL YEAR 1997-98 DATED THIS THE 1ST AUGUST, 2001

Representating the Management :

Shri S. K. Bchera, Proprietor, M/s. S. Kumar Handling Agency, Contractor, M.M.T.C. Ltd. Barbil, Railway Siding, Barbil.

Represenfat;ng the Union]Workmen :

1. Shri B. S. Pati, General Secretary, North Orissa Workers' Union, Barbil.

2. Shri K. N. Nandir,

Secretary North Orissa Workers' Union, Barbil.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE The General Secretary, North Orissa Workers' Union raised the Industrial Dispute for the payment of Bonus @ 20 per cent for the financial year 1997- 98 to the wagon loaders of Barbil Railway siding.

That when no amicable settlement arrived at the Union raised the dispute before the Asstl. Labour Commissioner (Q RKL for settlement over the dis- pute. But there also the management did not partici- pated, hence the dispute has been referred to the In- dustrial Tribunal for Adjudication.

That during the pendency of the dispute for ad- judication the parties had mutual discussions for ami- cable settlement of the dispute.

That after going through the working condition and the placement of wagons by the management of M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. were discussed and finally the parties agreed to resolve the dispute by signing the settlement Hoday the 1st August, 2001 on the following terms :

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 1. Both the parties agreed foe payment of Bonus @ 12 per cent for the financial year 1997-98 for all categories of workmen of Barbil Railway siding,

2. That the management already paid Bonus (a) 10 per cent for (he financial year and the balance 2 per cent shal] be paid after the award is passed by the Industrial Tri- bunal.

5093

3. That this settlement will be filed before the presiding officer Central Government In- dustrial TribunaUciim-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar with prayer for passing an award on the terms of the settlemtni.

Both parties shall report the implementation of the settlement to the Asst. Labour Commissionei (C), Rourkela and Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bhubaneswar after the payment of dues of the workers as per terms of the settlement.

Signature of the management •

Sd/-

(Sri S. K. Behera) Proprietor M/s. S. Kumar Handling Agency.

Sd/-

^Vitness : Address : D. R. Saini, Barbil. Witness : Address : ( )

Signature of the Union :

Sd/-

(Sri G. S. Pati) General Secretary, North Orissa Workers' Union

Sd/-

(K. N. Nanda) Secnetary, North Orissa Workers' Union.

Sd/-

(Tagadish Prasad)

Witness :

Address •

Barbil.

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001

S.O. ?4n7.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mangalam Cements Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-08-01.

fMo L-290P/34/94 1R CM)] B. M, DAVID. Under Secy,

2742 GI/2001—325094 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNFXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMTNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBAN1SWAR

Present :

Shri S. K. Dhal, OS.1S, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Couit, jfhubaneswar

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASF NO. 116/2001

Dated. Bhubaneswar, the 8th August, 2001

Between :

The Management of M/s. Gem Corporation of Orissa Limited, Regd. Office D-20, B J.B Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 1st Party Management

(And)

Their Workman Shri Jogi Nayak, At. Bhapur, P.O. Badascrcipur, Via. Banpur, Distt. Khurda. 2nd Paity Workman Appearances :

None Eor the 1st Party

Management.

None For the 2nd Party

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 the the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 or 1947) have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29012/72/96-IR (Misc.), dated 27-1-1997

"Whether the action of the management of the Gem Corporation of Orissa Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Jogi Nayak even after comple- tion of more than 3 years continuous service is legal and justified ? Tl" not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2001

S.O. 24"I8. —Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Governmejit Industrial Tribunal, Bhubanes- war as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Gem Corpn of On'ssa Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-08-2001.

[No. 1^29012/72/96 -IR (M)]

2. While making reference intimation was also sent to the Management and the Workman to file their respective claim statements before this Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the reference. The reference was made on 27-1-1997. The Tribunal on receipt of the reference also issued notices to the parties Inspitc of direction of the Tribunal and the Government of India (Ministry of Labour), the workman h;is not made his appearance before the Tribunal and he has not filed his state- ment of claims. He also did not take any step to take part in the proceeding and to place his case before the Tribunal to answer the reference. Since, B, M DAVID, Under Secy.

5035

1977, the reference could not be answered jn absence of the workman and for not taking any step by him.

3. The above circumstances would suggest that no dispute exists between the parties and the work- man has got no cause of action and that lie has got no materials in support of his case,

4. Hence, no dispute award is passed and the workman is no. entitled for any relief.

5. The reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 27ih August, 2001 S.O. ?429.—In pursuance oF Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-La- bour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexurein the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Mumbai Port Trust and their workman which was received by the Central Government on the 22-08^001.

[No. L-3IOll/4/2OOO-IR(M)l B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

Present :

S. N. Saundankar, lncharge Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT- 1/45 of 2000.

Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai Port Trust The Chairman, Mumbai-400 038.

AND

Their Workmen. Mumbai Port Trust Dock and Genl. Employees Union,

The Secretary, Kamgar Sudan, Mazagon, Mumbai 400 010.

Appearances :

For the Employer : Mr. Phadnis,

Representative, For the Workmen : No Appearance.

Mumbai, dated 7th August, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-3101l/4/2000/IR(M), dated 29-8-2000, 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 :

"Whether the action of the management of Mumb'.ii Port Trust by terminal ing the services of 8 nurses vi/. ]. Ncha Talegaonkur, 2. Sunita Mohitc, 3. Reshm? Baraskar, 4. Bharati Barkar, 5. Amita Sarang, 6. Minakshi Rane, 7. Ujwala Kadam, 8, Neclima Ghag, is justified and proper ? II' not, then what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. On lecupt of reference notice (Exhibit 2) was sent to both the parties i.e. the Union and the manage- ment and that union was served with notice vide acknowledgement (Exhibit 3). However, none appear- ed on behalf of union nor filed Statement of Claim though suffii icnt ti31t,jiwivcqueii1]y again notice (Fxhibit 4) was issued to b.->th the parties' returnable on 2\A July, 2001 and the same were received by the management vide (Exhibit 5) and union vide (Exhibit 6). In response to that, on behalf of the manage-munt Mr. Phadnis holding for Advocate Mr. Uimsh Ribu- filed Vakakitnama. Howcvi r, n o r: .inn-arcrt on behalf of the union. Record shows lhai HK nmtrr was kLpt on 31-7-2001 and thereafter totluy. Howevu-, union did not appear nor filed. Suivinent of Claiiii which indicates that the union is not interested in prosecuting the refe- rence. Therefore the following ordcv is p issed ;

ORDER.

Reference stands disposed, of for non-prosecution.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR lncharge Trending Officer5096 THE GAZETTE OF TNDtA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2 O O 1 / B H A D R A ~ 2 4, 1923 7pARTTx^EcT"3(iI)'l New Delhi, die 27,h August, 2001 S.O. 2430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tL Industrial Dispute-. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cential GoveiMTiuit Industrial Tiibunal, Chem.ai as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in lelation to the manage- ment of TuLicorin Port Trust and their workman, whieh was received by the Central Government on 22-08-01.

[ No. L-44O12/6/94-IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 7th August, 2001

Present : K. Karthikeyan,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 388/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tiibunal T.D. No. 24/95) "" (In the matter cf the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between Sri M. Natesan, Workman and the Management of Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuti- corin.

BETWEEN

I Party/Claimant The General Secretary, Port Workers Union, Tuticorin.

AND

II Party/Manage-

ment.

The Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin. Appearance :

For the claimant

M/s. P. K. Rajagopal &. K, Santhakumari, Advocates.

For the Management

Sri M. Sriram & V. C. Balaii. Advocates.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of power, conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec. (I) and sub-sec. 2(A) of See. 10 of Iiuhr.trial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), have referred concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-44012/6/94-IR (Misc.) dated 90i June, 1995.

This reference was Mist made to the Tamil Ntdu State Industrial Tiibtnal where it wrs taken on file as l.D. No. 24/95. When it w;is pending then; for adji dication, as per the ( rdcrs of the Central Govt. this case has Ken tiaiWencd 1o the file of this Tribunal, On receipt oi' icccrds ficm Jln>t Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as T.D. No. 388/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel en record on -ither side, informing thorn about the transf, r of this ease to io>eii'c

When the matter cann. up before me for final hearing on 09-07-2001, upon perilling the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, other mak,rial papers on locoid, upon perusing the documentary evidence let in on the side of the II Party/Management and upon hiaring the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till thjs date for eonsidcialion, this Tribural has passed the following :

AWARD

The Indu trial Dispute leferred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudi- cation by this Tr,buna| is as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management (if Tuticorin Port Trust in denying promotion to Sri M. Natcsan as Operator Giade 1 is justified - If not to what relief he is entitled 7"

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

The General Secretary, Port Workers Union representing the ease of the workman Sri M. Natesan has filed the Claim Statement as I Party/Claimant (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner). The con- cerned workman (hereinafter referred to as workman) has joined the II Party/Management/Tuticorin Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) on 1-4-1964. He worked as a mazdoor and worked in the fields and job of elctrical and cleaner upto 1967. Subsequently, he was promoted as cleaner and worked in TATA of P & H Cranes and other heavy machi- neries upto 30-9-69. Thereafter he was promoted as Crane Operator Grade II from 1-10-69. He was working under the same post till 1995 at the time of the reference of the present industrial dispute has been made. As a result of wage negotiation settlement he was given selection grade -ost of5097 Senior Operator Grade-11 w.e.f. 7-5-1991. The said post is a feeder category to the post of operator (Grade-I) v.hu'h again is a feeder post regarding promotional post of Operator (Special Grade) The qualification prescribed for the post nl O.ieiatoi (Grade-] I) in respect df promotion is five years experience in the profession of operalion and mainte- nance of earth moving machineries and a pass in the trade test conducted by the Port. Possession of heavy vehicle driving licence is essential for the promotion. Even though the promolees did not possess heavy vehicle driving licence the respondent promoted them deliberately not selecting the concerned workman. Whenever the workman appeared for trade lest held for the sake of giving promotions, the Respondent/ Management want only failed him, thus victimizing him from giving promotion. The concerned work- man is entrusted with the work duties and responsi- bilities attached to the post of Operator Grade-I and Operator Special Grade without heavy vehicle driving licence but he was denied promotion to those higher posts on the ground that he is not having heavy vchiclt driving licence. The denial of promo- tion by the Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and is ir violation of statutory regulations, unreasonable and bad in law. Hence, JT is prayed that this HorTb.'e Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award direlmg the Respondeni/Managcment to give promotion to Sri M. Nalesan as Operator Grade-I.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent are briefly as follows:

Now the workman is working as Senior Opeiator which is purely a personal post to him w.e.f. 7-5-1991. Only those employees who have the requisite quali- fications prescribed in the approved Rccruitmen Rules alone had been considered for promotion The claim of the Union that the workman Sri M. Natesan is more qualified than his juniors is not correct. As per the entry available in the office accounts Sri M. Natesan does not have educational qualifications/technical qualifications. The Tuticorin Port Trust which was a minor port was under cons- truction from the year 1963 )o 1974 and was under the control of the Chief Engineer and Administrator appointed by the Central Govt. as the Port was functioning as a subordinate office of the Union Ministry of Shipping & Transport. During the year 1974 the Tuticorin H irbour Project was declared as a Major Port and the Tuticorin Harbour Project (work charge established) Recruitment Rules, 1974 was made for regulating the method of recruitment for the post under the work charge establishment. The Major Port Trust Board was constituted by the Tuticorin Port on 1-4-1979 and the Tuticorin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Piomotion) Regu- lations, 1979 was made. Serial numbers K2, 83 and 84 of the schedule to the Regulations, 1979 dealt with the Recruitment Rules to the post of Operator Special Grade, Operator Grade-J, Operator Grade-JI respectively. As per the 1974 Rcruitment Rules, the post of Operator Grade-JI has to be filled by promotion. Promotion by selection on marks in the cadre of skilled mazdoor, mazdoor artisans etc. should pass the test prescribed and conducted by the department. The Recruitment Rules did not specify the possession oi¹ heavy vehicle driving licence till 1974. The trade test was conducted on 21-4-1975, the concerned workman did not attend the trade test and absented himself. During J977 Die rules were amended by which heavy vehicle driving licence was declared to be essential. On 7-11-1977 again the trade test was conducted and for the said test also the concerned workman did not attend and therefore, his case was not considered for promotion. Based on the report of the Trade Test Committee and the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Com- mittee those employees who were in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence alone have been promoted to (he cadre of Operator Grade-I. Since the concerned workman Sri M. Natesan did not posses the heavy vehicle driving licence, which is an essential qualification for the post of crane operator Grade-I, though he passed the trade test he has not been con- sidered for promotion. Possession of heavy vehicle driving licence is mandatory under Motor Vehicles Act to move the mobile cranes fitted with pneumatic wheels in highways. Hence, the Respondent was constrained to ins'wt upon ln"e~J5c5ssessioji of heavy vehicle drivinglicence, whihe is clearly stipulated in the Regulations, 1979. Hence, the prayer of the Petitioner Union for the promotion of the concerned workman to Operator Grade-I has to be dismissed.

4. When the matter was pending before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal and was taken up for enquiry on 6-7-2000 by consent of the counsel on either side, the xerox copies of the documents filed on the side of the Respondent/Management were marked as Ex. Ml to Mil and it was adjourned subsequently to various hearings for arguments by the request of the counsel on either side, till the case has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal, as per the orders of the Central Govt. When the matter was taken up here (or final hearing on 9-7-2001, the counsel on cither side have advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point for my consideration is—

"Whether the claim ol the Petitioner Union seeking promotion for Sri M. Natesan as Operator Grade-I in Tuticorin Porl under the Management of Respondent is correel? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"5098 THE GAZETTE OF INT)TA : SEPTEMBER 15, 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART t t —S E C. 3(ii)] Point:

It is admitted that I he concerned workman Sri M. Natesan joined the Respondent Port on 1-4-1964 as a lascar He was re-appointed as mazdoor w.e.f. 1-10-1964 and redesignated as Cutne Operator Grade Hfrom 1-10-1969. It is the contention ol the Petitioner Union that even though the concerned workman Sri Natesan is working us a Senior Operator w.e.f. 7-5-1991, his juniors have been promoted as Operator Grade I and it amounts to discriminaton. ft is also admitted that Operator Grade-11 is a feeder category

10 the post of Operator Grade-I, which again a feeder post regarding the promotion post of Operator Special Grade. Jt is admitted al'lei the formation of Tuti- corin Port Trust on 1-4-79 the Tuticorin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority & Promotion) Regulations, 1979 was framed and notified in the Gazettcc Ex.Ml is a type set of copy of the approved Recruitment Rules ol the postot Operator Grade-I. In Ex. Ml column 11, it is stated that Operator Grade-

11 with five years experience in Port after appoint- ment thereto on a regular basis with a pass in the test prescribed and conducted by the department has been mentioned as requisite tor promotion. Ex.M2 is the xerox copy ol' the seniority list of Operator Grade-II in Tuticorin Port Trust as on 1-8-1991. In this document, in the column for'educational quali- fication of the concerned workman Sri M. Natesan, nothing has been stated and he was shown to being the substaniiye^pokt-of-.Opf-i-at'ir Gradc-II and was working as Senior Operator Grade-II w.e.f. 3-5-1991. Except a few people, all otLci people who are junioit. to him in the seniority list have shown to have possessed heavy vehicle driving licence. These entries have not been disputed by the concerned workman or the Petitioner Union. Ex.M3 is the typed copy of Notification dated 12-7-1974 for the Tuticorin Harbour Project (Work charge establish- ment) Recruitment Rules, 1974. In thatil is shown that the post of Crane Operator Grade-I as a Selection Post. From that jt is seen that the promotion to the post by selection on merit horn the cadre of Crane Operator Grade-II with a pass in the test prescribed and conducted by the department, This is not disputed by the Petitioner Union as well as the concer- ned workman. Ex.M4 is the xerox copy of the report dated 21-4-1975 about the trade test conducted for the post ol Crane Operator Special Grade and Crane Operator Grade-I. It is shown in that record that the concerned workman Mr. Natesan one of the ten absentees Tor the trade test for the Crane Operator 1 Giade conducted in the month ol March, 1975. Ex,M5 is a xerox copy of the Gazette Notification for the rules at Tuticorin Port Recruit- ment Rules, 1977. Ex.M6 is the copy of the Minutes of Promotion Committee MiAci r, K1 Opeulur Gi.ide-I held on 7-11-1977. Ex,M7

5099

has b en U'ki n . MM f IK ' u u e n u' vu.'lnwn, while giving pruntlion to others It is. seen from Fx. M-ll, IIIL ct.pv of ,i omnticn ord.i i dated 3-5-91 ih.'M ihi'ionfi n cd v^i'lman Sii Nathan was given p-r^onal proniolion on the ba^is of his 15 "i-.irs and more ol' service in llv¹ scale as a one time measuie. The s. me carnot bj taken advantage by the concerned v\oil man for claimimg promotion to the rext higher post of Cruise Operator Grade 1. So from all tlkse things, it is seen that the claim of the Petitioner Union on behalf of the corce/ned workman is not sustain- able. Thus, the point is aiisw^^d accordingly.

6. In the result, an award is passed holding

that the action of the mana gement, Tuticorin Port Trust in denying promotion to Sri M. Natesan as ©pjrator Grade I is justified. H.-nce, the concerned workman is not entitled to any lvlief. No Cost.

(Dictated to ihe Stenographer, transcrib.,d and typed by him, convete-d and pionourc,jd by me in the open court on this day the 7th August, 2001).

K. KARTHIKFVAN, Piesiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

On either side : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For 1 Paitv/Claimant : UiL

For the Jl Party/Management :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil Xerox copy of approved re- cruitment rules for the post of Op.eator Grade \

Nil

Xerox copy of the draft seniority list Of Operator Grade I in Tuticorin Port Trust as on 1-8-91.

12-07-74

Xerox copy of Notification for rcci nitment rules for the post of Operator Grade T.

21-04-75

Xerox copy of Trade TeJ report conducted on 28-3-75.

2I-O2-7R

Xerox copy of the Notifi- cation regarding Transfer of personnel from W.C-E. RR 1997.

7-FI-77

the pivm >tif)ii p >iL. The coiie_-rn,:d workman d'*es- not have a heavy vehicle driving 1;LVIV e which is a requisite quilifkytion for considering him for promotion to the Crane Operator Grade I. Jl is not lho c.ise of the concerml workman of the Petitioner Ujiion that I ho juniors to the concerned workman who do not possess the heavy vehicle driving licence have been given promotion from Operator Gia<'e-Jf to C'l'i e Operator G a dc T. Thj coite.ition of the Petition Union That there is no impediment for tine Respondent/ Management for promoting the concerned workman, since he has passed the trade test in the year 1939 itself is incorrect, because, admittedly the concerned workman does not possess heavy vehicle driving licence. It h the contention of the Petitioner Union that "the concerned workman has been quietly allowed to continue as Operator Grade TT for all these years, inspite of the fact that he does not possess the heavy vehicle driving licence, which necessarily implies that the said condi ion has been relaxed in the case of Mr. M. NiUc-un. So, what is essential for one post having been relaxed, it cannot be insisted upon for the next higher post requiring the same standards, qualification and nature of duties. Hence, the Port Trust cannot insist upon the possession of heavy vehicle driving licence in res- pect of such promotion." From the materials available in this east, it is seen I hat this contention of the Petitioner Union cannot be accepted ascoirtcl and tenable because as per Regulation, 36 an interpretation to any doubt can b-j civen only by Chairman, Porl Trust and as per Regulation 31 any relaxation to the pre,cnbe\i qualification can be done only by the Clifiiman, Port Tiust. He a in (his case, no such relaxation has b?en given by (he Chainnan, Per' Turs , the Respo.i- dent herein, because ho has to coir ider the icpoilof the Trade Ti-sl Committee and the ra-omm-nd.ations of the Dt-pn it mural Piomntion Committee. Further he has to decide as per tho stipulated Regulations of 1979. It is al'o sten Horn the evidei ce in this case that the concerned workman Natesan was promoted to Operator Grade 11 in the year 1969, when the I UK does nut prescribed the pos^sion of heavy vehicle driving licence. So b'lsed on the performai'Xi of the workman dut ing the U\KL (f-st, he was given promotion, It is not dispufid (hat Mibsequentlv. in 1977 and 1979 the Rr-cruiiment Rules w:re anemled and as per the amendment p.v;

Xeiox copy of the Mi mutes of the DPC for tilling up the post of Operator Grade I5100 THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : SEPTEMBER IS 2001/BHADRA 24, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3(ii)l 13-08-93

Xerox copy of the Minutes of the DPC for filling up the post of Operator Grade I.

Nil

Xerox copy of Tulicorin Port Trust C.R.S. ?nd P Regu- lation, 1979 for copy of Regulation 36.

Nil

Xerox copy of Tuticorin Port Trust C.R.S. and P Re- gulation, 1979 for copy of Regulation 31.

15-04-91

M10

Xerox copy of ^rder regar- ding improvement in pro- motional opportunities to Class IV posts.

M il

03-05-91 Xerox copy of promotion order to Operator Grade 11 in Tuticorin Port Trust.

New Delhi, "he 14th August, 2001

S.O. 2431.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), 'he Central Government after satisfying that it is necessary so to do, hereby authorises the officers of the level of First Secretary and above posted in Indian Embassies/High Commissions/Consulates abroad to perform the functions of tho Protector of Emigrants to decide and oxtend the suspension of emigration check requiremunt period of an Indian citizen already granted such facility by the authorised per- son in India, for the purpose of the Immigration Act, 1983.

[No. Z-110;5/16/?001-Emig.] J. P. PAT1, Jt. Secy. & Protector Gonera I of Emigrants Mew Delhi, the 5th September, 2001 S. O. 2432.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Employee's State insurance Hospital, Noida under Employee's State Insurance Corporation working under the Ministry of Labour.

[File No. E-11O11/1/93-RBN (Pt.)]

K. K. MARWAH, Dy. Secy.