This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D. L - 3 3 0 0 1 / 99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 39] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVlNA 7, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a

separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

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

(other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi the 29ih August, 2001

S. O.2550.- 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 Commandant (Accounts), Office of the IGP, Eastern Sector, CRPF, Salt Lake, Kolkata, being a Gazetted Officer of the Government of India to be the Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act, and directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers con- ferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of the Public premises under the control of occupation of the Central Reserve Police Force, at Salt Lake, Sector-III , V and 47, Strand Road, Kolkata.

[No. A. IT. 14/98-2001—Adm-I/CRPF/ MHA/PF. III]

M. S. KALANIA, Under Secy

[5159]

2863 Gl/2001—15360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART TT—SEC. 3(ii)l ORDER

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

STAMPS

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

ORDER

Now Delhi, the 6th September, 2001

S. O. 2558.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits M/s. ICICI Limited, Mumbai to pay consolidated, stamp duly of rupees two crore eight lakh eight hundred seventy five only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 554690 ICICI Unsecured Re- deemable Bonds (July, 2001 Tssue) in the nature of Debentures aggregating to rupees two hundred seventy seven crores thiry four lakh fifty thousand only, to be issued by the said company.

STAMPS

[No. 44/2001-STAMPS F. No. 33/55/2001-ST]

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Sery.

S.O. 2557.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by" clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bhaiat) Limited, Tiruchirapalli to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees fifteen lakh thirty thousand three hundred seventy four only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds described as 6 % Secuted Non Con- vertible Debentures bearing distinctive numbers from 1 to 7651621 of ten rurpees each aggre- gating to rupees seven crore sixty five lakh sixteen thousand two hundred ten only, to be issued by the said company.

[No. 43/2001-STAMPS F. No. 33/54 2001-ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001 S.O.2559.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of Jndia, specially empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F.No. 673/18/2001-Cus. VFIT, dated 14-08-2001 under the said sub-section directing that Shri Taufik Haji Gaffar, S/o Shri Haji Gaflar (1) R/o 9/10, Shalimar Apt., 1st Floor, Shalimar Society, Adajan Patya, Surat (2) Office Address : 25/26, Super Yarn Market, Zampa Bazar, Main Road, Surat be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Vadodara with a view to preventing him from Smuggling goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.

3, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Surat within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F.No. 673/18/2001-Cus. VlII] VDAY K. SHARMA, Dy. Secy.

(Narcotics Control Division)

(Legal Cell)

Cliennai, the lUh September, 200J

S.O. 2560.,—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Cri- minal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a-ad with Sec- tion 36C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri N. P. Kumar, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for ihe pur- pose of conducting cases of Narcotics Control Bureau on behalf of the Central Government under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the Special Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu, for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

Provided that Shri N. P. Kumar shall not appear as a defence counsel on behalf of any accused booked by the Central or a Slate Government for any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs- tances Act, 1985, during the said period of three years.

[ F. No. IV/4/2001-NCD (Legal)] S. KUMAR, Dy. Legal Adviser5362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J Chcnnai, the 11th September, 2001

S.O. 2561.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sectioii(8) of section 24 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), read with section 36C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P. N. Prakash, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conduc- ting cases of Narcotics Control Bureau on behalf of the Central Government under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the High Court at Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu, for a period of three years or until further orders, which- ever is earlier.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2001

(INCOME TAX) Provided that Shri P. N. Prakash shall not appear as a defence counsel on behalf of any accused booked by the Central or a State Government, for any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs- tances Act, 1985, during the said period of three years.

[F. No. IV/4/2001-NCD (Legal ^ S. KUMAR, Dy. Legal Adviser

S. O. 2562,—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by iho sub-clauso (v) of claxise (23C) of section 10 of tho Income-tax, Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Contral Government hereby notifies the "Divine Life Soniety, Rishikesh (U.P,)" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for tht assess- ment year 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 subject to tho following conditions, namely:—

(i) the asscssee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects -for which it is established ;

(ii) the asscssee will not invest or deposit its funds (oi her than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to tho assessment years mentionad above other wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section

5) of Section 11 ;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessoe and separate books of5363 accounts are maintained • in respect o\ sucii business.

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the lncome-ta:: tiiUlvrily in accordance with the provisions of il v Income-tax Act, 1961.

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2001 (v) that in the event of dissolution, iis suipli - and the assets will be given to a chari- table organisation with similar objectives.

(INCOME TAX) [Notification No. 94/2001/F. No. 197/19/2001- JTA-1]

SAMAR BHADRA, (Jndur Secy.

S. O. 2563.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by the sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section ]0 of the Income-tax Act, J 961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies the L'Shr< Raniji Sati Mandir, Calcutta" the assess- ment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the asscssce will apply its imome, or accumulate for application, wholly nnd exclusively to the objects for which it is established ;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its ,funds (other than voluntary contribu- tions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11 ;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are m/iinUiincd in respect of such business.

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the lncomo-lax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assels will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives

[Notification No. 114/2001/F. No. 197/10/2001- ITA-1] PROMILA BHARDWAJ, Director5364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ji)] Amrilsar, Punjab" for the purpose of the said sub- clause for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 subject to the following conditions namely:—

(i) the assesses will apply its income, or accu- mulate for application, wholly and exclusi- vely to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewel- lery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assess- ment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Sec- tion 11;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the as- sessee and separate books of accounts are maintained jn respect of such business.

(iv) the assessee will regularly rile its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income- tax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No./l34/2001/F.No. 197/ 101/2000-ITA-J] SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2001

(TNCOME TAX)

S.O.2564-—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

of the Income-lax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central

Government hereby notiiies the "Chief Khnlsu Diwan5365 (iv) this notification will not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainments of the objectives of the as- sessee and separa'e books of accounts arc maintained in respect of such business.

[Notification No. 260/2001/F.No.l96/8/2000-ITA-I] I. P. S. BINDRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 2565.—in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (23) of section 10 of the Tncome Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies the "Defence Accounts Sports Control Board, New Delhi" for the purpose of the said clause for assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 subject to the following conditions namely : -

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accu- mulate it for application, in consonance with the provisions of Sub-section? (2) and and (3) of Section 11 as modified by the said clause (23) for such accumulation wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewel- lery, furniture or any other article as may be notified by the Board under the third provision to the aforesaid clause (23) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of its income in any manner to its members except as grants to any association or insti- tution affiliated to it; and5366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART I L - - S E I\ !\ii)j New Delhi, the 13th Scplemb.T, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

O,1iw ol" ihe Commission's Cc.iiral Excise

No. 3/200KNT (Cus)

CHANDIGARH the 31st August, 2001 S,O. ?566.—Jn exercise of the powers conferred by clause (23) ol' section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Mie Central Government hereby notifies the "Wrcstlinp Federation of India, New Delhi" for the purpose of the said clause for assess- ment years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 subject to the fol- lowing conditions namely : -

Notification

(i) the assessee will apply ih income, or accu- mulate it for application, in consonance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11 as modified by the said clause (23) for such accumulation wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

S. O. 2567.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Notification No. 33/94-Cus (NT) dated 01-07-1994 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, V & P. O. Sarai Kbas, Tehsil Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar in the state of Punjab is hereby declared to be a warehousing station under section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (No. 52 of 1962) for the purpose of setting up of Hundred per cent Export Oriented Units (100 "0 EOU).

[C. No. VITT (HQ) 40/3/CUS/2001/2560-2579]

F. M. JASWAL, Commissioner (ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of je- wellery, furniture or any other article us may be notified by the Board under the third provision to the aforesaid clause (23) for any period during the previous yeas relavant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the fofms or modes specified in sub-section (5) or Section 11;

(iii) the assesse will not distribute any part of its income in any manner to its members except as grants to any association or institution affiliated to it, and

(iv) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to ihe attainments of the objectives of the assessee and sep; rate books of accounts are main- tained in respect of such business.

[Notification No. :GI/2001/F. N O. 196/5/2001-lTA-l] I. P. S. B1NDRA, Under Secy.

(Department ol¹ Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 7th September, 2001 S. O, 7568. In pursuance of clause (d) of Section 19 read with Sub-section 3 (A) and Sub- section (4) of Section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Govern- ment, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates the following persons, to be DircUors of the Central Board of State Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from 17th July, 2001: • -

1. Shri Kirit Shantilal Parikh, Emeritus Professor, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Flat No. A I/A 2, IGIDR Campus, Gen. A. R. Vaiudya Marg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai.

2. Shri Ekanath Keshav Thakur, Businessman, (Founder Director of National School of Banking), B/7, Bageshri, Shankar Ghanekar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

3. Shri Subodh Kumar Bhargava, Advisor, Eicher Goodearth Ltd., S-221, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017.

4. Shri N. Srinivasan, Vice-Chairman and Chief Direetor, India Cement Ltd., 6, Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Chennai- 600028.

[No. 8/5/2000-B. O. L] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S. O. 2569 —In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that the provisions of Sub-section 2863 GI/2001—2

(1) and (2) of Section 10B of the said Act, shall not, apply to the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. for a period of three months from 19 August, 2001 to 18 November, 2001 or til) the appointment of a regular Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for that Bank, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. ,13/8/2001-BOA (i)] D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S. O. l'57O.--In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act. 1949 (10 of 194)9, the Cential Government on recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that the provisions of Sub- section (9) of Section 10B of said Act, shall not to the extent the preclude the bank from appoin- ting a person to carry out the duties of the Chairman and Chief Excutive Officer beyond a period exceeding Pour months, apply to the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. from 19 August 2001 to 18 November 2001 or lill the appointment of a regular Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for that bank, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 13/8/2001 -BOA (ii)] D. CHOUDHURY, Under Socy.

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S.O, 257].- Tn exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Compa- nies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 read with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Na- tionalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 the Central Government, hereby nominates the following persons as part-time non-officia) directors of Union Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from 12th Sep- tember, 2001.

1 Shn Arun Singh,

Chartered Accountant, F-7, Lajpat Nagar-Hl, New Delhi-110024

In pursuance of clause (h) of Sub- seciion (3) roud wi h Sub-section 3(A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undei - takings) Act, 1970.

-do- 2. Shri Ujjwal Deorao Nikam,

Advocate, 48, Barrister Nikam Chowk, Zilla Peth Jalgaon Distt. Jaleaon (MS)

[F.No. 9/l7/2000-B.O.T.(i)] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S.O. 2572.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of Sub-section (3) and 3(A) of Section 9 of the Bailing Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 read with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management &. Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Amar Nath Singla, A-6/32, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063 as part-time non-official director of Canara Bank for a period of three years commencing on 12th September, 2001.

[F. No. 9/17/2000-B.O.l(ii)l

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2001 S.O. i573.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on the recom- mendations of Reserve Bank of India, hereby declars that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of Baroda upto 15th August 2003 in so far as they relate to its holding shares in the Nai"ital Bank Ltd.

[F. No. 15/8/96-BOA]

D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFRLRS

(C. P. V. Division)

New Delhi, the I Oth September, 2001

S. O. 2574.—In pursuance of the clause (.ij of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), Shri Johnson Eappen, Asst. in the E/l Bucros Aires was authorised to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer from 23-10-2000 to 19-07-2001.

[No. T. 4330/1/2001]

Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Con")

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001

S. O. 2575-—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S. O. 1283 dated the 28th May, 2001 in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 9th June, 2001, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (horeinaftcv referred to the said Act), the lands and all the lights) in or over such lands described in the said Schedule appended to the5370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASV1NA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] for particular areas of the said lands, a and when necessary.

[No. 43015/17/97-LSW/PRIW] said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutlly in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-scciion (1) of Section 10 of the said A c t;

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy, And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, a Government company, (hereinafter referred to as the Company), is will- ing to comply wi.h such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of section U of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and right in or over the lands, so vested, shall, with effect from the 9th June, 2001 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the said Com- pany, subject to the following terms and condi- tions, namely :

(1) The said Government Company, shall reimburse the Central Government aU payments made in respect of compen- sation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

(2) A tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts pay- able to the Central Government by the said Government company under condi- tions (1), and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said company, and, similarly, all expenditure incurred in res- pect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc., for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the said Company.

(3) The said Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any pro- ceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights or in over the said lands so vested ;

(4) The said Company shall have no powers to transfer the lands to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; and

(5) The said Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by tho Central Government5371 Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the snid Act ;

And Whereas Dr. Chachoua Samir who possess the said qualification is attached to Kaiser Hospital Ltd,, Pancbkula, for the purpose of charitable work and not for persnal gain ;

CORRIGENDUM

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub-sec- tion (1) of the Section 14 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Chachoua Samir in India shall be limi- ted to :—

New Delhi, the 13lh September, 2001

(a) a petiud of two year from the d;itc of issue of this S. O. 2576.—In the notification of the Govern-

order, ol"

ment of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S. O. 1474, dated 31st May, 2001, Published in

(b) the period during which Dr. Chachoua Samir is attached to Kaiser Hospital Ltd., Panchkula, whichever is shorter.

the Gazette of Tndia, Part-Il, Section-3, Sub-section

(ii), dated the 30th June, 2001, at page 3009 in

['No. V-110161112001-MEtL'olicy-T)] P. G, KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

Note 2, in Line 5, for "nterestcd in any land in

respect of which" read "interested in any land

in respect of which a",

[File No. 43O15/5/99-PR1W]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health)

New Delhi, the I91h September 2001

S.O. 2577.—Whereas medical qualification M.B.B.S. granted by University of Melbourne is a recognised medi- cal qualification for the purpose of the Indinn Medical5372 THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2 0 0 1 / A S V I NA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)1 5173 5374 THE GAZETTE OF END (A : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVJNA 7, 1923 [PART 11—Sue. 3(ii)1 5375 2863 GI/2001—35376 THE GAZETTE OF TNDI \ : SLPTCMBER 2'), 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART SI—Sec. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(Bureau of civil Avia ion Security)

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001

S.O. 2578-—Tn exercise of pnvvers conferred by section 5A of the Aircraft Act, IW4 (XXII of 1934), delegated to him by the Central Government vide the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation notification number S.O. number 1797, dated the 3rd J"[y, 1997, the Commissioner of Security, Civil Aviation, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, after being satisfied that it is necessary for the puxrjosc of securing safety of aircraft operations, by the following order, issues directions which shall be applicable for the purposes of handling and transportation of cargo on flights departing from any airport in Tndia, namely :—

ORDER

1. Short title and extent —(1) This Order may he called the Regulated Agent 'Aviation Security (AVSIX) Order, 2001 '5377 (2) I extends to the whole of India.

(3) H f,ha]l come into force on thL

2. Definition.—in this Older, unless there is any- thing repugnant in the subject or context,

(1) "Act" nrans the Aircraft Act, 1934 (XXII of 1934):

(2) "Aircraft'" and "Aerodrome" shall have the same meaning as in the Aircraft Act, 1934;

(3) "Air Caigo" or "Cargo", in respect of con- signor means any material, other than accom- panied baggage, meant to be transported by aircraft, which may or may not be accom- panied by the consignor;

(4) "Certificate of Registration" or "Certificate" in respect of a Regulated Agent, means a certificate issued by the Commissioner to him under this Order;

(5) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Security, Civil Aviation;

(6) "Regulated Agent" means an agent, freight forwarder or any other entity, who conducts business with an, operator and provides secu- rity control that arc accepted or required by the Commissioner, in respect of cargo, courier, express parcels or mail to be transported by air.

3. Certain items not covered by this Order.—Con* signments containing Dangerous Goods, arms, ammu- nition, currency, gold, silver, jewellery, precious or semi-precious items, drugs or narcotics shall not come under the purview of this Order.

4. Registration of Regulated Agents.— (1) A Regu- lated Agent shall get himself registered with (he Commissioner in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 6 of this Order.

(2) An enterprise belonging to a;.y one of LIIC following categories and running for at least five years on the elate of application for registration referred to in sub-paragi\ip!i (1) of this paragraph, out of which a minimum period of three yeais i, in air cargo business, shall be eligible for such registration, namely :—

(a) manufacturers and exporters dealing directly with air carriers for the purpose of sending their goods by air;

(b) caiV,ij agents who are members of Air Cargo Agents Association;

(c) cargo agents accredited to International Air Transport Association (TATA);

(d) any other cargo agent recommended by an canicr;

(e) Government or !,emi-govcrnment warehouses handling shipments of air cargo;

(I') exportcs from common- ti^er customs- bonded facilities like air cargo complexes;

(g) Department of posts; and

(h) Any other person approved a> "Regulated Agent" by the Commissioner in accordance with provisions of this notification.

5. Privileges of Certificate of Registration.- (1) No airline shall enter into an agreement with a Regulated Agent for acceptance of ready-for-loading cargo unless the latter is in possession of the Certification of Registration.

(2) An airline may accept the cargo for direct loading to its aircraft from the holder of a Certifka.e of Registration, provided the certifies that the security proc dures have b.'en IbllowLd. The cargo received from any person shall be loaded into the aircraft only after subjecting it to the prescribed security check.

6. Procedure for Registration of Regulat d Agent.—The following procedure shall be followed for registration of a Regulated Agent, namely :—

(a) an application for giant of Certificate of Registration shall be made to the Commis- sioner m ihe Form-A annexure with thi Order;

(b) where the original Certificate of Registration is lost or destroyed, a duplicate there of may be issued by the Commissioner on an appli- cation made by the Regulated Agent to hi for that purpose;

(c) on receipt of the application referred to in clause (a), the Commissioner shall constitute an inspection team comprising of an officer of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security as Chair- man, and the representatives of Air India, Indian Airlines and of the concerned airline as members thereof;

(d) such inspection team shall inspect the loca- tion, examine the adequacy of necessary security facilities and infrastructure as directed by the Commissioner from time to time. After completion of such inspection, the inspection team shall submit its report to the Commissioner;

(e) on the basis of the report made by such inspection team, the Commissioner, on being satisfied about the adequacy of the infras- tructure, may issue a Certificate of Regis- tration with such conditions as he think appropriate, which shall be valid for three years; provided the requisite standards are5378 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fii)l maintained during the period. The certi- ficate shall be renewed once for the same period by following the same procedure has specified in clauses (a), (c) and (d) above with necessary modifications.

7. Cancellation or suspension of the Certificate of Registration.- (I) If the Commissioner is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for doing so, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the Certi- ficate of Registration or suspend it for any specific period. He may also, during the investigation of any matter suspend the Certificate of Registration on reasonable ground.

(2) Without prejudice to the generally of the power in sub-rule (1), the Commissioner may cancel or suspend the Certificate of Registration for such period as he thinks fit, if he is satisfied—

(a) that any of the conditions of the Certificate of Registration has not been complied with and the failure is due to any willful act or default on the part of the holder of the certi- ficate or by any of his servants, or agents, irrespective of whether or not such willful act or default of the servant or agent was within the knowledge or under approval of the holder of the Certificate of Registration; or

(b) that the holder of the Certificate of Regis- tration has failed to maintain the standards of security, safety, sanitation, business ethics and environmental purity as specified by the Commissioner from time to time; or (c) that any criminal proceedings are pending Egainst the holder of the Certificate of Regis- tration in any court in India; or (d) that the certificate was obtained by suppres- sion of material information or on the basis of wrong information.

(3) Before any action is taken under sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (-"') of :his paragraph, the Commissioner shall give to the holder of the Certificate of Registration not less than twenty-one days' notice in writing specifying the ground upon which it proposed to cancel or, as the case may be, suspend the certificate and shall give him an opportu- nity of showing cause either in writing or by appearing in person before the Commissioner against the action proposed to be taken under this paragraph.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (3) of this paragraph, the Commissioner may, jf he has reason to believe on reliable information that it is expedient in the interest of public safety so to do, summarily examine the matter and suspend ahe certificate with a view to make further inquiry nd for taking further action.

(5) Any person aggreived by any order passed by the Commissioner under this paragraph may, within sixty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the Security to the Government of India in the Ministry dealing with the civil aviation.

8. Cargo handling facility of the Regulated Agent.—Every Regulated Agent shall be in posses- sion of either individual or shared cargo holding facility. The premises used for the purpose of carrying on the business of cargo shall be safe, secure, fully protected and fully segregated covered area with proper lighting and other necessary facilities for handling , packing and storage of cargo, in accordance with the norms laid down by the Commissioner. Such premises shall be located in tlie area duly autho- rised and approved by the competent municipal authority for carrying on such business.

9. Equipment for screening of cargo and access control.—(1) Every Regulated Agent shall be re- quired to procure and maintain suitable radiological and other electronic equipment for screening of cargo and for access control in the premises for people associated with the business of cargo.

(2) The Commissioner may depute inspection teams every quarter to the cargo business premises of the Regulated Agents to ensure that the norms specified by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), are adhered to and the concerned equip- ments are in good functional condition.

(3) If Ihe Standard of maintenance for quality of such equipments do not meet the norms referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above, the Commissioner may cancel the Certificate issued to the concerned Regulated Agent.

10. Entry into the premises of the Regulated Agent.—Except otherwise authorised under any law for the time being in force, no person shall be permitted free access into the cargo business premises of any Regulated Agents, unless duly authorised by such agent.

11. Responsibilities of the Regulated Agent.— Every Regulated Agent shall be responsible for the following functions, namely:—

(a) that he shall nominate a security officer who shall be responsible for the following purposes relating to such agent, namely:

(i) to ensure that the security provisions, pres- cribed by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Secu- rity (BCAS) arc implemented;

(ii) to supervise the work of the security staff;

(iii) to establish an internal control system to avoid contamination of security cleared cargo; and5379 (iv) to establish contact with the appropriate authorities in case some dangerous items such as amis, ammunition, explosives or any other dangerous goods are discovered in a particular consignment.

(b) that no security personnel shall Le emplov d by any Regulated Agent unless such pcrsui IKI s.rv certified by the Commissioner in accordance with the laid down standards and procedures determined by the Commissioner from time to lime.

(c) that before delivery to air carrier, the Air Cargo dealt with by such Agent shall be subjected to at least one of the following security checks by the duly trained security staff of the Regulated Agent, namely :

(i) physical examination;

(ii) x-ray screening; and

(iii) twenty four hours cooling.

(d) that the packing of Air Caigo dealt with by him shall be carried out by the Regulated Agent under the supervision of or in the presence of the security personnel. Such packing shall include re-pucking of those consignments which arc opened by the cus- toms authorities for physical examination or which need repacking due to damage during transit;

(c) that every security cheeked consignments dealt with by him shall be strapped by security tape and kept in a safe place under proper guard;

(f) that the handling and security of the Air Cargo dealt with by him from the time of its receipt in the premises of the Regulated Agent till its delivery to the air carrier shall be undertaken by the security personnel of the Regulated Agonl.

(g) that the security-checked Air Cargo dealt with by him shall be transported to the airport or the warehouse of the air carrier by the Regulated Agent in a safe and secured manner in a sealed con- tainer or trucks under appropriate surveillance so as to prevent any tampering or mischief during transit;

(h) that the Air Cargo dealt with by him ready for shipment shall be delivered by the Regulated Agent to the airlines or tendered at their air cargo ground services facilities at the airport;

(i) that the Regulated Agent shall give to the airline a written declaration certifying that the Air Cargo dealt with by him delivered by him has been subjected to the security controls specified by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and that the consignment do not contain any dangerous goods as defined in the Technical Inslrtiction (ICAO Doc. 92R4-AN/905, issued by International Civil Aviation Organisation) ;

(j) that in case the Regulated Agent is not an exporter, it shall also obtain a certificate from the exporter lo the effect that the consignment by such agent does not contain any dangerous goods referred to in clause (i) above and is safe for carriage by air. This certificate shall not in any manner, absolve the Regulated Agent of the responsibility in regard to security controls;

(k) that initial verification and periodi • verifica- tion of his employees and security personnel shall be the responsibility of the Regulated Agent;

(1) that the Regulated Agent shall submit every quarter to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) a list of his employee> including the security personnel;

(m) that the Regulated Agent shall maintain a permanent record showing time-in and time-out for all cargo consignment dealt with by him and the same shall be produced before the inspection team appointed by the Commissioner on demand;

(n) that the Regulated Agent shall maintain a permanent record showing the security instructions (24 hours cooling, X-ray examination or physical examination) issued by the Commissioner that a particular cargo consignmen dealt with by him has been subjected to, and also indicated the name of the security officials who has conducted the verification and certification. A copy of the certificate under the hand of such agent for such purpose shall be handed over to the airline along with the Air Cargo. Such certificate shall be subjected to checking by the inspection team appointed by the Commi'wioner;

(o)thal every Regulated Agent shall comply with any other instruction issued in regard safety by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) from time to time.

12. Implementation and control.— (1) The air- line shall cau,c loading of the cargo in the aircraft in accordance with t h; procedure laid down by the Commissioner in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standards.

(2) Every airline accepting Air Cafgo from any Regulated Agent shad inspect at least 15% of the consignment at random and maintain a record of that. The acceptance of such cargo by an airline shall create liability on the part of the airline about the confcnLs of such Cargo and their being legiti- mate and not in violation of any law for the time bjing in fore;. The airline shall cause loading in accordance with the JiUcmauonal Civil Aviation Organisation's standards,

(3) Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and the air carriers shall carry out surprise inspection of the Regulated Agonts fro-m time lo "ime to ensure5 . 1 80 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : S E P T E M B ER 2 9, 2 0 0 1 / A S V I NA 7, 1 9 23 | P A RT • ! — S i x. 3 ( i i )J that there is no deviation from Hie security norms specified by the Buivau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS).

(4) The Regulated Agent shall make available all necessary documents, cargo consignment, and the required security facilities for inspection by the officers of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and air carrier ccncenied.

(5) (a) Deployment of security personnel for security functions by every Regulated Agent shall be made to such minimum number of security personnel for the purpose of per forming such duties as may be necessary, in the interest of safety and security of passengers, employees, aircraft, airport and cargo premises;

(b) Every Regulated Agent shall ensure that each X-ray Baggage Inspection System (BIS) relating to his cargo business shall be manned by three trained personnel per shift for performing following functions, namely :—

(i) the placing the bag on the conveyer belt of ihu X-ray Baggage Inspection System (BIS);

(ii) the monitoring the X-ray images; and (iii) physically on manually checking the contents of the consignment and to provide- with security sticker and band.

(c) two trained persons shall be deployed by the Regulated Agent for undertaking the following func- tions relating to his cargo business, namely:-- (i) to lift heavy consignment on the idle roller and to remove from X-ray Baggage Inspccc- tion System (BIS);

(ii) to assist in operating the security strapping machine and to keep the X-ray Baggage Inspection System (BIS) area from of carls or trolleys;

(iii) to access control to the premises a¹ each access point.

(6) Every security personnel employed by Regu- lated Agent shall be registered with the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and must have quali- fications and certificates of fitness in accordance with the terms and conditions specified by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) from lime to time in this bohalf.

13. Cusloms Check .--(I) A Regulated Agent shall comply with the orders and directives issued by the customs and other authorities from time- to time with regard to the export cargo. For this purpose, the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the Ministry dealing v/'il: Fnarice and the Ministry dealing with Commerce phall prevail.

(2) It shall be the responsibility of every Regvlated Agent to pay all the taxes and duties as are required to be paid for export of the Air Cargo under any law for the time being in force.

14. Regulated Agent not to violate law, etc.— No Regulated Agent shall violate or contaminate the relevant provisions of Aircrafi Act, 1934 (XXII of 1934), Aircraft Rules, 1937 and other rules and regulations applicable at the airports or rny other law for time being in force while doing cargo business with the airlines at the airports in India and on any such violaiion the Commissioner may after giving him an opportunity of being heard, cancel the Certificate issued to him.

tF.No.Av. 13024/112/93-SSV/Vol.IlI)] SARADA ALI KHAN, Dy. Secy.

F cm -A Format of Application for registration as Regulated Agent

1. Name of the Organisation ap- plying for registration as a Re- gulated Agent.

2. Status of the applicant Orga-

nisation.

3. Place where the warehouse of the Regulated Agent is to be set-up and precise reasons for selection of the site.

4. Location of the site with dis-

tance from the nearest airport (Enclose a map showing loca- tion and model links with the airports)

5. Whether land for the setting up of cargo warehouse already acquired? If so, Area of land (in square metres) Whether land is hired or on lease? If not, how the land is proposed to be acquired.

6. Plan for securing the warehouse

and its premises.

7. Name of" the airlines for trans- portation of cargo booked by Regulated Agent.

H. Lay out plan of security checks

of cargo in the warehouse in- cluding the availability or provision of electronic gadgets or plan for procurement if not available.

9. Tnfra-stmclural facilities pro- posed to be pi ovideil. (area in Sq. Metres)

Office acL-ommodalion for ap- plicants¹ si a IT

Accommodation for security checks

Computer linked with the airlines and airport Canteen

Communication facilities like telephohe, fax etc.,

Flood light/high mast towers for security

Public and staff conveniences/ amenities like toilets drinking water etc.

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

New Delhi, the 7th September, 2001 Fire fighting system Strong Room for valuable cargo

Parking area (100 meters away from warehouse) for lorries ou'side the facility.

10. • Experience/capability of the applicant in running the ware- house.

S. O. 2579.—In pursuance of sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rules 10 of the Official Language (use for the official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) hereby notify the ' DRM office, Vijaywada of South Central Railway and DRM office, Pune of Central Railway, wh^rc 8 0^ of the staff have acquired the working knowledge o,f Hindi.

[No. Hindi-2001/OL-l/12/2] 11.' Staff lo be employed with their experience and qualifications, responsibilities.

R. K. SINGH, Secy. Railway Board 12. Equipment : Details of the equipment (X-ray baggage ins- pection System), HHMD, DFMFD, explosive detectors etc.

Tf not available the plan of procurement of the same to be given,

13. Financial static of the appli-

cant organization.

14. Movement logistics of cargo containers between the pro- posed warehouse to the airport: Complete details to be pro-- vided.

I/we certify that the above details are correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature Name

Seal-

Place Date5 3 82 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • S E P T E M B ER 2 9, 2 0 0 1 / A S V I NA 7, 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )l ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVLY OF 1NDTA

Broadcasting), the staff whereof more than 80 "„ have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-- ORDER

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2001

1. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Bilaspur

(Chhalisgarh)

2. High Power Transmitter, Banner

3. Low Power Transmitter, Bhiwani

4. Doordarshun Centre, Kalhiar

fi( Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Ahmedabad

6. Doordarshan Centre, Varanasi

7. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre. Balrampur

8. All India Radio, Barcilly

9. All India Radio, Chandrapur

S.O.2580.— [n exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4 of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains, 1959, I, Umcsh Kumar, Director (Admn.) Archaeological Survey of India, hereby direct that the various parts of the Protected Monu- ments of EUora Caves in the district of Aurangabad in the Stale of Maharashtra shall be closed on Tues- day instead of Monday, (Notified earlier dated 18-2-1997) from the 1st day of April-2001 and shall not be opened to any person other than an Archaeo- logical Officer, his Agents, Subordinate and work- men and any other Government servant on duty.

10. All India Radio, Nasik

[No. E-11011/l/93-Hindi] [File No. 11/5/96-M] UMESH KUMAR, Director (Admn.) fur Director General

S. S. KATARIA, Director (OL) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD- CASTING

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001

S. O. ?581.—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 notify the following Sub- ordinate Offices of the DG : Doordarshan and All India Radio (Ministry of Information and5383 2863 OI/2001—45384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29. 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)j MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM &

NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2001

S.O. 2582.—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) Installation in the State of Maharashtra., an extension pipeline to Maoglya (Indore) Terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh should bi laid by Bh'-i'at Pct^ileum Corporation Limited;

And whereas it, appears i.hat for the purpose of

I'.iying the said pipeline, iL r, necessary Lo acquire the right of user in the i¹ nd under which the s^id pipeline is pro;xi3ed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in oxercibe of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) ol' section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. 1962 (50 of 19G2), the Centra] Govern. merit hereby declares its intention to acquire the right

of IAV.T therein;

5ZX5

the date on which copies of this notification as pub- lished in the Gazette of India are made available to the public. t.bjsiM in writing to the acquisition • T the riyhl of iiser therein for laying of thv pipeline um'.ur the land to Sh/i Prahalair> V. Kachare, Gr.npetent Authority, Mu.hb^i-Manmad Pipeline Extension Pro- ject (Mumbji-MaiLiiiiid-Munalya). Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at camp office at 1st Floor, Ashapuri Plaza. Ravalgaon Naka, Malegaon Camp, Mak-gaon 423105 (Maharashtra).

SCHEDULE

Tahasil : Nandgaon District : Nashjk

Slate : Maharashtra

Area Name of Gat/Survey

Village

Nos. Hectors Aref. Sq.

Mis.

5

3

1

4

02 72

0

175

27

0 32 176

94

0 06 178

22

0 68 179

06

0 00 180

0 19 02 181

00 79

0

Drain

18 90

0

138/2/1 B

2^

0

138'2/2

23

72 •

0 09 139/3

0 03 87 141

50

0 16 142/1/1 B

50

0 04 142/1/2/1

0

142/1/2

16 50 142/1/2/2/1/2

0 ]6 50 Road, VR-23

0 03 96 Nan a

0 07 76 180/1

0

14

21 181

0 44 72 Panjhan River

0 21 60 4. Panjl.andev

174/Pf.

0

1. Panew ad i

96

24

4S 174/Pf.

0 i.:

0

192/Pi.

20

52

0 05 S. 11. No. P4

22

0 ]d 1%(l)?/Pi,

94 196(2)/1/!

0

24

21

00

0

195/1/I A

72 194(I)/2A

0

K4

15 18

0 05 R9 2. NiigapiT

0 04 Roa'-i SH-24

98 17

0 73 44

(1 00 31 3. DhoianL Bk

163

26

0

78

0

162

09 67 16!

0 03 04

0

0 0

65 Royd, VR-13 56

0

45 00 24

57 ' 72 74

0 12 55

26

0 00 51

12 53

0 36 55 54

0

00

0

48/2

46

o:> is 48/'

0

98

10

0

77/B

23 78

0

7"

40

23 79

0

24

30 Nal in

04

0

7?

80

0 7i Si

0

99/1/1

05 04 99/2/1

05

0

04 QQ '3

0 05 04 99/4

0

04

05 09/5

05

0

04

0

99/6

05 04 99 7

0 05 04160 39 43 0 R O ; R\ VK-134 02 87 159 0 40 94, •Mi) ,'3 0 07 150 0 77 23 0 74 07 0 Drain loo/: 100', 0 07 74 07 85 5386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 29. 2001/ASV1NA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 5 4 2 4 5 1 3 0

00

23

HO/1

5. Khadgaon

0

63

140/2

22

03

141/A

0

71

68

03

141,/B-l

0

7. Bhurdi

03 68

0

141/B-2

03 68

0

141/C

68

141/C-2

03

0

31 00

0

143/3

09

30

143/4

0

19 78

153

0

34

155/1

11

0

11

155/2

20

0

11

155/3

0

20

155/4

0 11 20

04

156/1

81

0

04 81

156>2

0

04

156/3

80

0

0

81

156/4

04

07

0

20

Wadga River

192

36

0 12 190

07

0 14 Na||a

0

24

02 89/1

0 10 17

0

89/2

10 17 90

0

08

01

0

Road, MDR-23

01 38 88

0 17 41 86

0 16 85

0

22 83

13

05 61 Road, ODR-34 0

84/1

0 05 05 84/2

0 05 05

05

84/3

0

05 121/A

0 08 10

0 16 121/B-i

38

0 16 38

0 16 38 121 /B-2 121/B-3

0

38 121/B-4

50

0

92

55'2

0 04 51

Vcnky Nalia

49

fi. Navsuri

99

0 09

100 pt.

37

0

22

100 pt.

0

90

12

Road, VR-93

00

0

88

50

103

0

43

43/1

29

0

00

8. Boygaou

0

43/2

28 99

42

0 21 96

41/1

01

0

53

53

0

4J/2

01

0

41/3

01 55

0 19 82

40/1 1 r 40/2 J 3S

23

0

40

Nalla

01

0

11

J9

36

0

91

26

0

28

32

Road

00 90

0

25

0 27 19

04

26

0

68

16 122

0 42 72 115

0

17

05 114

0 24 15

0 24

112/1

04 1J2/2/B

0

15

17 111

0

26

20

110

30

0 22

121

0 36 72 119/1

0 36 72

0

Road, VR-84

01 16 Cart Track

73

0 00

39 122

37

0

138/1

28

0

86 139

04

0

14 Nalla

0

10

03

140

23

0

50 149

10

0

08 150

09

0

00 151

0

60

03

152/2

36

0

00 148

03

0

28 144

10

0

085 48 60 0 25 0 45 00 08 08 4 0 33 3 0 21 0 02 193 [ F. No. R-31015/11/2001-OR-ITJ I1ARISH KUMAR, Under Secy. 45 — \ 5387 2863 GI/2001—55388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5389 5390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29. 2001/ASVINA 7. 1923 I PART II—SEC\ 3fii)l 5391 5392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA7,1923 [PAR: II—SEC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, Uie 25th September, 2001 S.O. 2583.—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;

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 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 rights of user in the land described in the said Schedule;

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 Shn Prahlad V. Kacharc, Competent Authority, Mumbai Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, 1st Floor, Seva Complex, Opp. Gurudwara, MumKii Agra Road, Dhule-424001 (Maharashtra).

SCHEDULE

Tchsil Shirpur District: Dhulc State: Maharashtra

Area Gal/Survey

Name of Village

Hectars

Sq. Mts.

No

Are

0 76 82 Tapi River

1 Thalncr

0 36 27 274

20 11

0

273/1

0 20 11 273/2

11

0 20 273/3

36 27 277

0

0 01 40 278/1

0 27 28 280/1

0 27 28 280/1

97

01

0

Cart Track

Name of Village Gat/Survey

Area No.

Hectars Are Sq. Mts. 269/1B/2

20

0 70

0

269/1C/3/1

20

70

0

269/1C/3/2

20

70

0

269/2

20

70

267

0

60

12 283/1

27

02

0

0

283/2

27

02 283/3

0

27

02

42 RoadMDR-34 0 03

0

427

20

07

429

03

0 05

426

0 22 51 422

16

0 04

00

0 27

423

63

12 421

0

420/1

20

0 25

20

0

420/2

25

44

0

393/1

10 393/2

44

0

10

52

0 20

418/1

52

0 20

418/2

14 417

0 22

416

0

95

24

00 415

0 03

40

0

14 413/1

40

0

14 413/2

40

0

14 413/3

40

0

414/1

23

40

0

414/2

23

40

0

414/3

23

40

0 23

414/4

44

0 01

Road, VR-1

22

0

407/1

15

22 407/2/1

0 15

22

0

15 407/2/2

22

0

407/3/1

15

22

0

407/3/2

15

72

0 00 Road, VR-117 69 0 281/1 80 0 28 408/1 70 20 0 269/1 80 0 408/2 28 0 70 20 269/1 A/1 40 0 05 Nalla 5393 Name of Village Gat/Survey

Area

Name of Village

Area

Gat/Survey No.

No.

Hectars Ares Sq. Mts.

Hectars Ares Sq. Mts.

13

01 2. Tajpuri

0

10 188/1

0

3. Arriry^ur-Qwitf

16

107/2

62

0

Cart Track

00

02

188/2

0

80

31

J22/1

0 42 0

185

80

04

31

0 42

122/2

0 02 45

Nalla

122/3

31

0 42

26

0

187/1

80

31

122/4

0 42 187/2

0

80

26

31

42

122/5

0

63 19

163/1B

0

70

0 02

Nalla

0

19

63

163/2A

46

121/1

0 08 0

19

63

163/1A

46

0 08

121/2

0 63 19

163/2B

82

0

140/2/2

75 0

12

60

157/A/1A

82

0 75

140/2/1

60 12

0

157/A-1B

82

0 75

140/2

60

0

12

157/A-1C

140/1/1

82

0 75 0

12

60

157/A2

141

90

0 34 0 60

157/B1

12

49

72

01

4. Gartad

0

60

0

157B2

12

12

09

71

0

60

0

12

157/A3A

06

70/A

21

0

60

0

12

157/B3B

06

70/B

21

0

22 77

0

156/1

06

69/1

21

0

22

156/2

0

77

06

01

0

0

48

69/2

21 Cart Track

103

0

42

25

61/1

32

0 22

46

100

0

29

32

22

61/2

0

01

64

0

14

09

60

78

0

02

Road

81

0

56

10

59

0

0 39 47

94/1

58

17

0 05

39

0

94/2

47

57

57/1

09

0

0 02 22

76/A

57

0 09

57/2

0 02 22

76/B

61

22.

56/1

0

0

07

17

90

61

22

56/2/1

0

0 02 28

83

61

22

56/2/1/1

0

0

22

14

84/1

61

56/2/1/2

22

0

14

0

84/2

22

92

11

54/1

0

19

89

0

73

11

54/2

92

0

01

88

0

04

74

0 19

53

10 55

106/1

0

3. Ahilyapur

22

04

44/1

0

0

55

10

106/2

44/2

22

0 04

10

106/3

0

55

39

45

0 08

10

106/4/1

0

55

03

14

47

00 10 55 106/4/2 35 0 23 48/1 10 01 107/1/1 0 23 48/2 35 0 10 01 0 107/1/2 5394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Name of Village Gat/Survey

Area Name of Village

Area

Gat/Survey No.

Hcctars

Sq. Mts.

No.

Hcctars

Sq. Mts.

Are

Are 138/1

0

09

5. Dahiwad

49

5. Dahiwad

00

Drain

0

90

49

0

09

138/2

31

(Contd.)

0

386/1/1

58 138/3

0 49 09

0 01

Cart Track

79 138/4

0 49 09

21

0

20

385/1

0 34

21

25

385/2

0

20 139/A

0 34

139/B

21

25

385/3/1

0

20

25

0 34

0

92 139/C

379/1

32 0

13

0

140

32

61

379/2

92 0 04

Cart Track

0

92

32

379/3

92

11

216

09 0

79

01

CT, 384/1

0

0 05 86

384/2

0

09 Nalla

01

18

0

217/1

396/1

37 01 0

12

217/2

0

18 12

37

396/2

0

01 0

13 28

34

397

0

40 283/1

0

28

19

13

0

283/2

545/1

83 0

75

34

0

282/1

545/1/1

83

19

0

83 0

75

19

34

282/2

545/2

0

0

83

71

19 285/A-l

32

545/3

0

0

71

02 285/A-2

32

Nalla

06

25 285/A-3

559

0

04

32

0

71

0

74 0

71

00 285/A-5

Cart Trek

32

0

544/1/1

0

71

06 42 285/B

32

06 42

544/1/2

287

0

08

0

78

0 06 42

544/1+2

289

0

12

45

0

96

23

03

543

296/1/2

0

10

0

27

560

23 10

15 0

296/1/3

12

564

0

43

08

0

62

Road, NH 3

18

565

0

60

17

0

17

314

0

11 55 0

566

80

01

Cart Track

27

567

0

94 0

15 66

334

0

16

02

Nalla

27

335

0 13

0 05 40

Road, VR-24

0

15

336/1

18

00 91

0

Cart Track

0

15

18

336/2

09 M

0

588/3

0

08

01

Cart Track

04

0

02

Nalla

71

0

337/1A

44

570

0

11

48

44

0

71

337/1B

0

54

05

Nalla

46

27

339

0

0 03 45

572

00

374

0 18

0 50 44

573/1

03 59

373

044 50 0 573/2 80 10 376/1 0 0 37 02 528 0 80 10 376/2 25 0 20 527 40 00 0 375 5395 Name of Village

Area

Name of Village Gal/Survey

Gat/Survey No.

Hectares

Area Are Sq. Mts.

No.

Hectares Are bq. Mis.

0

15 45

2

35

0 20 07

8. Hadhcd

6. Natwade (Lauki)

37 42

0

36/1

0 35 15

4

0 37 42

36/2

43

Drain

0 02

37 42

0

36/3

0 61 12

61

0 02 48

Nalla

0 16 66

60

96

0 05

Nalla

0 64 23

58/1

38

43

0 57

0 64 23

58/2

0 29

47/1

13

64 23

58/3

0

77

0

48/1

21

61

0 02

Drain

21 77

0

48/2

0 66 68

50

01 27

0

Road

02 11

Road, VR-75 0

25 36

55/1

0

57 40

53/1

0

36

0 25

55/2A

40

0

53/2

57

36

0 25

55/2B

0 57 40

53/3

25 36

0

55/2C

57 40

0

53/4

36

25

0

55/3/1

57 40

0

53/5

36

25

55/3/2

0

40

0 57

53/6

70

0 03

Drain

57 40

0

53/7

44

0 37

56/1

0 57

53/8

40

0 57

53/9

40

44

37

0

56/2

0 73 27

11/1

37 44

56/3

0

73 27

0

11/2

37 44

0

56/4

21

0

Nalla

05

44

37

56/5

0

12

0 31 75

80

0 02

Drain

0

11 85

Nalla

21 26

0. Sangvi

Amnavati River 0

78

12

Jirbhavir Nalla 0

7. Sule

64

0 31

41/1

25 12

0

21/1

31 64

0

41/2

0 25 12

21/2

0 25

60 21/3

12

21

42/1/A

0

25 12

0

21/4

60

0 21

42/1/B

0 02 97

22

60

0 21

42/2/A

25

20

0 01

60

0 21

42/2/B

90

0 35

23/1

20

0 50

34/1

0 35 90

23/2

50 20

0

34/2

06

25

0 32

20

0 50

34/VA

84

0

31/1

50

20

50

34/3/B

0

0 50 84

31/2

20 0 50

0 50

84

34/3/C

31/3

84

0 50

31/4/1

0 50 20

34/3/D

84

0 50

31/5/A-l

46

0 08

33/10 50 31/5/B 84 46 08 33/2 0 84 0 50 31/4/2 4b 1) 08 33/3 84 0 50 31/5 A/2

.yzx^c//?&/-/.,

Name of Village

Area

Name of Village Gat/Survey

Area Gat/Survey No

Hectares Are Sq Mts

No

Hectares Are Sq Mts

08

9 Sangvi—Contd 33/4

0

0

61

46

10 Palasner

20

94/1

0

68

31/1

0

61

05

20

94/2

0

20 31/2

0

61

05 68

94/3

0

68

31/3

0

61

05

20

94/4

0

68

31/4

0

40

05

50

101/2

05

68

31/5 A

40 0

101/7

50

0

05

6 8'

70 31/5B

0

02 0

Drain

31

32

0

102/1

0

34

30

16

30

89

34 20/1

0

0

16

102/2

30

69 0

20/2

103/1

0

89

15

14

0

0

15 69 21

103/2

22

0

69 15/1

103/3

32 34

0 15

32

34

69 0

0

15 15/2

103/4

104

0

34

15/3

32

79

0 21 0

34

15/4

105/1

32

80

0 12

46

32

80 0

0

12 n /i

105/2

46

32

19 13/2

0

28 0

111/1

19

16 92

7/1/A

111/2

0

0

28

19 7/1/B

111/3

16 92

0

0 28

30 0

0

22

16

110/1

92

7/1/C

0

0

30

110/2

22

16 92

7/1/D

06 0

109

0

39

16 92

7/2/1

72

0

27

16 92

11212

0

1/1

11 Hedrya

72

1/2

0

27

06

84

0

Road, SH-1

54

31

0

00

Carl Track

6/1

0 39

0

34

31

15

47 0 39

6/2

0

04

39

31

Dram

05 0

6/3

46

14

41

96

0 53 0

5/1

80

0

00

41

96

Cart Track

0

5/2

94

0

00

13/3

41

96

0

5/3

10

10

0

53

41 96

0

5/4

0

22

41

11

23 0

96

5/5/1

27

8/1

0

75

41

96

0

5/5/2

75

8/2

0 27

41

0

96

5/5/3

75

8/3

0

27

05

87

0

4/1A

27

0

75

8/4

05

0 87

4/1B

41

0

02

Road, VR-71

05

87

0

4/2

90

7

0

0687 4/3 0 05 05 87 4/4 0 [FNo R-31015/14/2001-OR-II] 87 0 05 4/5 HARTP.H KIJMAR Under Sccv 5397 5398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 200 I/AS VINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5399 5400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

540]

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 S.O. 2584 .—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;

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 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 (I) 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 nght of user in the land described in the said Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within, twenty-one days from the date on which copies of this notification, 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 Prahalad V. Kachare, Competent Authority, Mumbai Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 1st Floor. Seva Complex. Opp Gurudwara, Mumbai-Agra Road. Dhulc-424 001 (Maharashtra)

SCHEDULE

Taluka Amalner District Jalgaon State Maharashtra Name of Village

Hectors

Sq Mts.

Area Area Gat/Surve\ No

47

0

25

01 1. Chopdai

0 01 08 Road

20

04

24

0

27

0

80

10

54 29/1

0 36

0

54

36

29/2

26

0 01

Dram

0

23

20

16

80

0 19

22

0 03 60 31

0

32

24

12

0

2I/A-1

15 48

0 15 48 21/1B/A

0

48

15

21/B-l/B/A

1 Cliopdm—Comd.

Name of Village: Gat/Survey

Hectors

Area Area Sq. Mts.

No.

0

48 21/-B/1B/1B

15

48

0 15

21/B/1B/2

21/B-2

15

0

48

15

0

21/B-3/2

48

02 64 36/1

0

02

0

64 36/2-1A 36/2-2

02

0

64

32 35/1

52

0

32 35/2

52

0

34

0

20 34/1B

34 20 34/2B

0

34/2-2

34

0

20

00 72 Cart Track

0

00 90 37/1A

0

42

12 78

0

40/1

0 40 30

40 30 40/2

0

03 42

0

Drain

33

41/1

37

0

33 37 41/2 A

0

0

12

00 70 47/1

0 01 63

0 01 63 47/2

0

63 47/3

01

0 01 98 Cart Track

26

0

11

28

0

96 48/1

44

44 96 48/2

0

00 21 49/A

0

0 00 21 49/B

0

51

13 69

05 40

0

Raod S H. 14

19

0

98 52/1

19

0

98 52/2

04

54/1

0

07

04 07 54/2

0

59 58 58/1

0

59 58 58/2A"

0

98 Road

0 01

61

09

0

72 80

10

0

70 79

0 12 24

06

0

1. Cliopdm—Cont

83 d.775402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Name of Village

Name of Village

Gat/Survey No.

Sq. Mts

Hectors

Area Area

Gat/Survey No.

Hectors

Area Area Sq. Mts.

76

0 06 32

0

469/2

30 78 0

Drain

02 08

Drain

0 00 54 1

84

76 04

0

492

11 35 Drain

0 00 27

493

0 29 70 2. Anchalwadi 12/1

0 05 79

495

09

0

00 12/2

0 05 79

446

0 09 00 0

447

13/1

20 05

0 08 10 13/2

0 20 05

446/1

0 15 30 0 16 75

Road, MDR-53 0 02 15/1

70 15/2

0 16 75

435 0 22 50 0 00

Cart Track

36

Road, ODR-121 0 03 60 17/1

0 56 88

263

0 21 60 0 56 88

272/1

0

17/2

20 52 1 9'

0 18 01

Cart Track

0 01 44 0 17 90

273

0 00 21

17 24

0 23 32

114

0 21 60

11

0 15

249

0 05 76 23/2

248

0 04 68

11

23/3

0 15

0 06 73

247

0 05 40 3. Javkhede 551

246

0 05 94 541/1/1

0 22 21

0

245

05 22 541/1/2

0 22 21

244

0 05 58 541/3/2

0 22 21

243

0 05 94 541/4/2

0 22 21

242

0 06 30 549

0 01 01

0

62

09

241

01 542/1

0

17

Drain

0 07 56

09 17

542/2

0

238

0 39 60

09 18

543

0

0

Drain

00 90 544

0 20 48

239

0 14 58 531/1/1

0 24 81

229

0 22 68 531/2

0 24 81

03 96

Rond, MDR-53 0

60

702

0 00

09

208

0

00 0 32 73

530/1

0 00 72

Cart Track

530/2/1

0 32 73

40

210/1

0 24

32

0

73

530/2/2

40

0

210/2

24 0 39 96

527

38

0

24

212

0 08 10

Drain

0

76

14

270/2

00 90

4 Wavade

0

Cart Track

63

0

271/1

15 0 07 93

475

63

0 15

271/2

96

21

0

477/2

0

54

34

272/C

0 22 50

478

(1

16

341

32

17

479

0 01

0 00 50

. Can Track

4 Wa\ade—Contd

78

30

0

.469/1/2

3.JavW"fe—Cortd5403 Name of Village

Name of Villag ;e Gat/Survey

Sq Mts.

Hectors

Area Area

Gat/Survey No.

No, :

Hectors

Area Area Sq. Mts

57

24

0 12

84

338/1/1

0

60

58

0 06 30 0 84

338/1/2

60

59

48

0 06 0 84

338/1/3

60

10 80

125

0

0 84

338/2/2

60

03 96

Road, MDR-60 0

0 84

338/2/3

60

0

76

14

124

0 84

338/2/1

60

0 04 14

121/1

0 00

Cart Track

38

0 04 14

121/1B

0 35

337/1

66

68

120

0 04

17 0

337/2

35

122

10

66

0

6. Loncharam 113

0 32 76 447

0 13 85

0 09 00

60

Road, MDR-54

03

[ 0

0 22 50

Drain 97/1

27

435

0

11

32

27

0

98/1

422

0 43 45

0 27 32

98/2

428

0 24 59

09

63

0 00 0 32

425/1

22

0 25 24

61/1

0 25 24 0 32

425/2

22

61/2

0 25 24

61/3

0

70

10

37/4

11 63

64/3

0

0 03 60

Road, VR-57

0

68

45 61

05

0

45

Drain

0 29 85

72/1A

57

0 45

29/1

29

0

85

72/IB

0 12

52/3

24

29

0

85

72/2

27

11

0

88

06 24

0

73/1

0 06 24 0

73/2

16

51/2

70

3 0 04 50

Rond. VR-8(

0 01 08

Drain

37

0

42

132

7 Bhnrwas

0 28

51/1

08

0 24 33

131

00 54

LonitoMandalRd.O

0 51 12

129

0

41

03

5. Lonsim

74

0 17 28

110

42

0 14 90

13

0

86

111

17

43

0

00

30

0

')()

Cart Track

40

199

01

0

45

0 23 59

0

198

17 78 0 00

Cart Track

72

35

191

0 00 0 21

48/1

24

0 25 20

193

0

40

05

47/1

0

70

20

194/1

0 05 40

47/2

0

70

20

194/2

00

64

0

60

00 28

195

0

25

69/1

0

20

0

26

01

Dram

0

197

0

25

69/2

20

22 50

0 27 540 215/1 65 13 50 0 27 S4 215/2 0 13 32 66/1 16 0 21 21h 13 0 66/2 32 (1 78 U 159/1 8 Eklaharc 0 09 5. Lonsim—ConLd 60 72 y ";^';^//-y^-"/_75404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA7, 1923 IPART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Name of Village

Name of Village

Gat/Survey No.

Hectors

Area Area Sq. Mts.

Hectors

Area Area Sq. Mts.

Gat/Survey No.

23

0

109/A

40

78 84

15 9/2/A

0

109/B

23 40

0

159/2B

0 78 84

0

Drain

00 90 165

0 27 36

47

0

110/A

16 0 12

166/B/l

78

0 47 16

110/B

0 12 78

166/C/l

I10/B2

47 16

0

168

11

0

88

110/B3

47 16

0

169

0 12 96

47

0

16

110/B4

111

0 19 80

01

116

0

44 110

0 08 10

0

Road. VR-1

03 06 Western Railway 0 25 74

25 92

10. Bhilali

0

144/1/B

108

0 23 22

0

141/1

32 82 SH-6

0 06 12

0

141/2

32 82 107

0 10 80

20 77

0

142/1

55

0 24 30

20 77

0

142/2

0 00

Drain

72

19

0

138/1B

80 5.1

0 27 00

19 80

0

138/2

52

0 01 04

137

32 56

0

49

36 00

0

27 77

0

67/A

0

Drain

01 08

27 77

0

67/B-l

0

4/1

33 30

27 77

0

67/B-2

4/2

0 33 30

00 60

0

Drain

4/3

0 33 30

15 84

80

0

3

0 07 56

10

79

0

82 0 00 90

Cart Track

17 10

82

0

0 12 60

if'8/2

04 32

Road. MDR-55 0

0 14

307/1

76

09 00

7

0

0 14 76

307/2

33 48

6/1B

0

305

0 27 00

33 48

0

6/2B

0 03 60

306/1

0 18 90

11/A

1) 03 60

306/2

18 90

0

11/B

0

304

17 10

17 64

0

6/1D

0 09

Lauki River

36

0

9 Ekias

26 82

108/1A

[File No. R-31015/15/2001-OR-H]

0 26 82

108/1B

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

(1 26 82

108/2

') Ektns—Conid5405 5406 THE GAZETTE OF FNDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,200 IAS VINA 7,1923 [PART II—SK. Mn)l 5407 5408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,2001 AS VINA 7,1923 [PART II— SEC. 3 (ii)J

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001

s. o. 2585.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru GobindSingh Refineries Limited (A subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.)

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 described 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-5ub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline^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 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 pipeline under the land to Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Competent Authority, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Punjab Refinery Project, Guru GobindSingh Refineries Limited (A subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.), L.P.G. Bottling Plant, H.P.C.L. ; Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342 005.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Sayala District; Jalore State : Rajasthan

Tehsil: Sayala District: Jalore State : Rajasthan Name of Village Survey No.

Part if Any

R.O.U. Area 1

3

Cart Track Govt. land

05 44 16 14 97 50

95 66 30 70 26

Cart Track Govt. land

Cart Track Govt. land

Cart Track Govt. land

Hect. Are. | Sq.mt. 4 13 10 00 01 05 01 06 21 26 16 00 02 40 00 06 06 01 13 16 08 01 17 13 07 17 12 00 01 05 23 02 41 17 00 18 00 13 11 09 00

00 32 19 11 70 70 50 42 00 24 20 80 02 02 17 79 20 05 90 33 15 14 10 03 69 88 26 50 90

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 1201 1204 1203 1205 1328 1330 1331 1345 1346 1347 1342 1437 1451 1449 1450 1447 623 529 536 537 535 542 538 541 543 544 545 523 410 411 402 415 416 394 417 418 419 421 420 443 54) 1 Tehsil : Sayala District Jalore State FUi^sthan

|No.R-31015/l8/2()01OR-ll|

HAR1SH KUMAR, Under Secy 2863UI/2001—85412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,2001 ASVINA 7,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 5413 5414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,2001ASV1NA 7,1923 [PART II—SF/\ 3 (ii)l 5415

tt'6

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: S E P T E M B ER 2 9 . 2 00 I AS V I NA 7. l '^

[ P AR , [ I - S r ,< •, ^ H i )]5417 5418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,2001ASVINA 7,1923 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)] 5419 2863GK20O1—95420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,2001ASVIN A 7,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 5421 5422 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:SEPTEMBER29,2001ASVINA7,1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3 (ii)] 5423 5424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .SEPTEMBER 29,2001ASVINA 7,1923 [PART II—SEC\ 3 (ii)l

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001

s. o. 2586.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru GobindSingh Refineries Limited (A subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.);

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 (ROU) in the land described under which the said pipeline is proposed tc be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (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 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 pipeline under the land to Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Competent Authority, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline- Punjab Refinery Project, Guru GobindSingh Refineries Limited (A subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) L.P.G. Bottling Plant H.P.C.L. ; Bhagal Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342 005.

SCHEDULE

fehsil Raniwada District : Jalore State : !\ajasthan

Tehsil Raniwada District Jalore State Rajasthan

Tehsi¹ Ramwada District Jalore State RajcT.N.,.: •

Name of Village Survey No

Part iF Any

c'O <:\

Heel

ROU /vea Are '

⁴

2

804 Cart Track BADGAON

820

⁰

01 ' o.i !

•s ,'"•

821

813

827

829

0

0 .

o

[;

?8 i

⁰

t - ¹⁴ J

CT field to SH - 11

832 ' 834 835

315

v

⁰

⁰¹ i¹⁷ !

04 J 04

Govt. Land

316

0 I 0

5-> ⁰

05

56

00

96 ⁰

CT.Field to Field

313

f

317

0

04

0 0 _j

C.T.Field to Field

326

320

319

321 318

322

323

254

0

02

⁰

09

⁰

12

10 ⁰

04

⁰

02

01

0

0

___04j

79 j 45 j 60 0

_ _ _ 3 3i ZJEZA

⁰

02

CT Field to SH - 11

255

2 49

250

31

^JOJ 20 L_JL_

00

26

0 _, 0

Asphalt Road Badgaon to Raniwada

' 351

506

505

507

03

⁰

95 ___76i 49^ ' 04

09

0

07

0

12 0 _j 02

CT Field to Field

521

520 1985

516

515

512

557

00

01

33 0

⁰

02

⁰

17

21

0

__12 05

Govt Land Nala

478

i

j

477

474

475

476

469

468

2WiGI/2(K)l—10

02

04

62 ' 16 ] 99 03 J 13 ' 97 29 , 0 0 I o 0

00

22

66 0

32

0

03

05 09 i

04 81 I 69 1 r o L o _^ 28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 29,2001ASVINA 7,1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3 (ii)] •"ehsil Raniwad^ District Jalorti State Rajasthan Name of Village 1 Survey No

Part IF Any

ROU -Area

Are, Sqmt

Hect.

•>

3 1 I BADGAON T 467

395 3S6

4

03 0

29

53 0

Badgaon River

Badgaon River

191

28 05

21 0

10

63 ADEPURA

164 CT Badgaon to SH-11

j

I

I I

I

I |

01

15 0 0

25

13

01

83

13

00

16

64

00

12

16

06 17

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01

00

10

0 0

10 79 27 50 49 54 44 94 0

30

BHATWAS

255 254 259 263 260 262 286 285 283 281 291 282 208 207 206 189

191

1

18

06

01

45

CT field to field

192

183

182

173

00

13 79 86 08 46 80 57

19

18

01

CT Field to Field

I i I

1

I

1

99 00

13

54

23

CT Field to Field

147 146 141 148 149 150 132 151 131 130 52

53

58

56

271 |

58 57

L-

•

65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 01 18

10 49

14

11

09

13

38 26 34

10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20

00

03

13

0 0 0

85 02 70 50 60 10 51 94 04 92 075429 Tehsil Raniwada District jaiore State Kajasthan Survey No

Part IF Any

Name of Village

I ROU - Area Hect I Are. n

Sq mt

4 2

3

63

17 '

⁰

1 BHATWAS

0

05 6 3. 272

75

00 18 ^ 00

22

0

74

80

0

18 73

0

12 67

0

25

55

17

15

00

CT Field to Field

70

0

10

45 "~ 52

0

22

26 DUNGRI

76

0 j

i ⁵⁰

31

0

41

1 99 21

0

28

42

CT Dungri to Surajwara

02

06 1155 1156 1162 1161 1033 1026 672

00

10

o • 0 0

62

_ J 1—

78

0

30

0

00 0

10

40 0

10 04

0

CT Dunga'n to Surajwara

01

0 0 I

_ _ _ 0 _|

96 r 58 71

26 16

74 620

0

38

67 603

54

0

21

0

13 0

45

464

*5430 THF GAZETTE OF INDIA. SEPTEMBER^¹). 20<>l ASV1NA7. 1023 [PART II—SEI\ 3 (ii)l l e h s il R a n i w a da District ,1,-ilti'f State Rajasthan

NdiTiu o! Village Survey No

Part il '•• .

ROU - Area

I leot

Are Sq nit , MALWARA

461

460

463 j

46?

441

4 36

434

431 I

773

431 1

430

43P , 772 I . . _._ I

r " n

0

57 0

06 P⁴ "f 02 1

0

70

06

0

10

00

0

16 l~ 29 0

28 '

35

31

25 o " 1

0

87

08

08 • 87":

o

0

08

06 0

03

60 0 ~!

10

00

0

26

05

0

05

70

CT Dungn to M.ilwara

r 36/

I 3b8

0 I 01

45 0

15

05 0

24

96 0

00

16 0

06

96

377

769

00

Tehsil Raniwada District Jalore State RaiBsthnn Name of Village Survey No

Part IF Any

RON Area

rehsil Raniwada District Jalore State Rajasthan Name of Village Survey No

Part IF Any

ROU - Area

Tehsil Ramwada District Jalore State : Rajasthan Name of Village Survey No.

Part IF Any

ROU - Area

District iriiorc Statn Rajasthan

ROU • Area SlJI 7'"-,' NO

f - . i ft IF A ny

\ \GCX Are Sq nit 4

14 L 65 KAGMALA

589

0

00 588

0

21

32

12

0

50

0

STREAM

1 587 5r*b 597

• •A

1.'-)

0

984

(J

04

I

ri' 981

f,41 |_ 983 -*•'•!. i •:>n t '.' ] 1084 1 883 5435 Tehsil Raniwada District Jalore State Raiasthan

2863GI/2001—115436 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: SEPTEMBER29,2001ASVJNA7,1923 [PART H—SEC. 3 (ii)l Tehsil : Raniwada District : Jalore State : Rajasthan

|No. R-31015/19/2001OR-II]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OFURBANDEVELOPMENTANDPOVERTYALLEVAHON

M ftwft, 27fafl"U,2001

S. 0.2587.— Whereas the Manager, Government of India Text Book Press, Chandigarh is the disciplinary authority prescribed in the Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in respect of Group C and Group D' employees of the said Press;

And whereas, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against S/Shri Sohan Lai Sharma, Daftry, Jagdish Chander, Asstt Binder, Amrik Singh II, Asstt Binder, Gulzar Chand, Asstt Binder, Kishan Singh, Offset Machine Attendant and N P. Kalda, UDC, working in the Government of India Text Books Press, Chandigarh, under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1%5.

And whereas, the then Manager, Government of India Text Books Press, Chandigarh was unable to function as the disciplinary authority on account of being a material witness in the case;

And whereas, Shri S.K. Bardhan, Dy Director, in the Directorate of Printing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, was appointed by the President as the ad hoc disciplinary authority, competent to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against the above mentioned employees in the said case, vide No. SO. No.3169 dated 20lh October, 1999;

And whereas, the said Shri S.K. Bardhan, Dy. Director has since retired on superanuation on 28th February, 2001 and a new incumbent has also assumed charge as Manager, Government of India Text Book Press, Chandigarh who is not a material witness in the above mentioned case,

Now therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President restore the power of disciplinary authority to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965 against the above mentioned employees in the said case to the Manager, Government of India Text Book Press, Chandigarh, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such restoration.

[ No.C.14015/y99-AV/Ptg.] S. K BISWAS, Desk Officer(P.S.P.)5439 MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001 S.O. 2588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank and their workman, which was received bv the Central Government on 30-8-2001.

[No. L-I2012 212i8Q-D.IL( A )l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy,

A N N E X U RE

B E F O RE T HE C E N T R AL G O V E R N M E NT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR- C O U RT "SHRAM SADAN",

Til MAIN, III CORSS, II PHASE, T U M K UR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, B A N G A L O RE

Dated : 23rd August, 2001 PRESENT :

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNT. B.COM, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER CGTT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, B A N G A L O RE

C.R. NO. 71193

I PARTY

B. Jaya, So B. Ananda, Myniuln Nilaya, Shanti Nagar, Udupi, D. K., Advocate-- Ramesh Uoadhvava, 2863 GI/2001—12

II PARTY

Chairman, Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Trinity Circle. Bangalore,

Advocate—Shri B. C. Prabhakar.

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-12012i212!89-DTT(A) dated 6-12-1993 for adjudication on the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Vijaya Bank in terminating the services of Shri B. Jaya, sub-staff with effect from 9-9-80" is justified ? If not. to what relief, the slid work- man is entitled to ?"

2. The first party was working with the Second Party. His services were terminated and therefore this dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Slnfc- menf and Counter respectively.

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

5. It is the case? of the first party lhat he was appointed as Temporary Attcnder by the second party at Karwar branch w.c.f. 12-6-1980 against a clear permanent vacancy of sub-staff and he continued till 9-9-19S0 But the rnanacem^nt without anv justification relieved him from dnfv on 10-9-80 and the termination is illegal. Service certificate was not given though he requested for it.

6. I( is the further case of the first party that he wrs called to appear for interview and he appeared for interview but he was delibe- rately not selected.

7. Tt is the further c'ise of flip first rnrlv tW there was settlement on 19-8-1988 agreeing to absorb the eligible candidates a n v ng the temnorarv employees who had vvorl:ed for 90 days above during the noriori from 1-1-8? to 306-1998, The ration tpVen by *hr> f i T i n a ^ w nf is not correct nnd th^Tvfnrp tVin f)r<;t nnr'v hns nrcved to pTSS award in his favour,54JO THE GAZETTL OF INDIA : SfclTFMBF.R X). 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PARI 11—Six. 3(11.1 8. The case ol Ihe management in bnn is

as follows :

work. It is also argued that the first party was entitled for regular appointment and' that is wli> he was called for interview and subse- quently ihe management has not selected and terminated his services and this action of the management is not correct.

14. The workman has relied Ex. W4. Cir- cular. I have carefully read the above cir- cular. Ex. W4 was issued on 19th August 1988. This circular pertains to absorption of temporary peons and settlement with the recognised unions. According to this settle- ment opportunity was given to temporary employees who have worked as temporary peon in the Bank for a period of 90 days or mure than in the past.

9. There are two categories ol' employees viz.. Award Stall and Ollicer bmployees. The award staff are further divided into Iwo cate- gories viz. Clerks and Sub-staff. The bene- fits of these stall is stated in para 3 of the Counter. The contention of the manage- ment is that engaging peons on temporary basis is in accordance with the provisions of bank awards and settlements. First party was taken as temporary peon on during the period from 12-6-1980 to 0-9-80 against inter- mittent vacancy caused on acount of absence of Shri Ganapathy Chaya Nayak and the first party accepted the engagement and accord- ing to clause No. 20.7 of ihc first Bipartite Settlement provides for taking temporary peon. The management has stated in detail the rules and regulations in the counter.

10. The main contention of the manage- ment is that the first party was engaged as temporary peon on account of absence of Shri Ganapathy Chava Nayak and the action of the management is correct and the first party has no case. Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has pray- ed to reject the reference.

15. It was argued on behalf of the manage- ment that the first party cannot take the bene- fit-, of this circular, Ex. W4 because he has not worked for 90 days at all the first party worked only for 71 days and 85 davs includ- ing holidays. It appears that after the inter- view, first p'.irty was not selected because he failed to establish that he worked for 90 days and eligible for absorption as per EK. VV4. It also gives an answer to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the first party.

11. It is seen from the records that work- man got examined himself and on behalf of the management one manager was examined, I have read Hie above evidence carefully. I have perused all the documents.

16. I have carefully perused all the docu- ments and attendance register. In the instant i-1-.e the first party has not worked for 90 days and therefore he has not considered for re- gular appointment and this reference has no merit. Accordingly I proceed to pass 'he fo^oving Order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

'Dictated to PA transcribed by her correct- ed -.nd signed by me on 23rd August, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNT. Presiding Officer 12. In the instant case at the very outset I am of the opinion that the first party have no case on merit because as per the settle- ment there was a provision to engage tem- porary peon whenever reqular staff remained absent and accordingly first party was taken as temporary peon. Even according to the evidence of workman he was taken on 12-6-1980 to work as temporary attender and he was working till 9-9-80. It is an ad- mitted fact that some of the temporary atten- ders were called for interview and first party wa.s also called for interview but lie was not selected.

13. It was argued by the learned counsel on behalf if the firsi party that the first partv was entitled for for regular appointment and therefore he was called for interview and gave interview but nothing was informed ;>b'int the result of interview ar'' therefore, the management is not justified in refusing the5441 New Delhi the 3

S.O. 2589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Depute Act, 1947 (14 of 1W"), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial TrilniiiaI/1 alviur Court. Bhubaneswar as shown in the annexiuc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their work- man, which was icceived by llic Central Government on 30 S-2IW1.

[No. L-12011/256/2000-lR(B-Il)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNF.XURF

CHNTRAL GOVF.RNMF.NT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LAHOUR COURT: BHUBANESWAR PRESENT:

Shri S.K. Dlial, OS.IS (Sr, Branch). Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-eum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Indusliiul Dispute Ci.se No. 376 2001

Dnle or conclusion or the hearing 23-8-2001 Date of pissing Award 23-8-2001

JttTWEEN

The- Miiiiagemcnl L£ Deputy General Manager. UCO Bank Buildiny, C-2. Asluik Nugar, Bhubaneswar. Onssa.

. . .. 1st Party-Mananemenl

AND

Their Woikrnan, Repiesented tlvouph the Stale Secretary, UCO Bunk l--.mploye.es Association, C/o UCO Bank, Braj.akabati Road liranch, Ciittack-753001 lOritsn). 2nd Party-Union APPEARANCES :

None.

. . .. For the 1st Party- ManaKement.

None.

. .. For the 2nd Pariy-

Union.

AWARD

The (io"riiimeni <>f Indi.i in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-'cfti')n ?(A*I of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 19471, have refer red the following dispute ior adjudication vide their Ordti No, L-12011/256/2000-1R (H-n". da-eil 13 C2-200I .'16-2-2001 :

"Whether ihe i.clion ot ihe Management of UCO Bank by no) placing a Head Cashier in S.C.S. Colleee, Piri, by allegedly vin!r:tinu the Promotion Policy Ayivt-merit is justified V It nor, what relief the Union is enlillrd ?"

2. Inspilo of intimation i'sucd fioni the Government of Indin 'Ministry of Liibour) and fiom (I is Tiibunal, both the parties *>-iye rcmnini-J ,-ibs(-nt anil they have not taken anv step to •-*• 'M (he Tribu'inl for answering the reference, The Union has not filed their Claim Statement, which would siifiqct that no depute exists between the parties nt picsent.

3 Hence, no dispute nwaid is p;issed.

-1. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictai.'d ,^ C,-,m\:tea by rut-,

S, K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001

S.O 2jy().—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, iy-17 (14 oi 1947), the Central Governm-iu hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tri- bunal, Pune as shown in the iinnexuiv in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manafie- ment of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-8-200).

['No. L-120l2|4()|y)-IRtB-ll)J

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V. L. KAMBLE. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE REFERENCE (IT) NO. 12 OF 1999

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

UCO Bank, Pune

AND

I heir Workmen,

In the matter of disallowing special leave to Shii R,D. Patil.

APPEARANCES :

Shri B.T. Mali for the first nirly. Sim CM. Patil for the Second Party.

AWARD

(Dale : 2-7-2001)

By cxeiuMnjj; poweis conjened by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of SeUion 10 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government leferred the dispute between management of UCO Bank and its work- men for adjudication to this Tribunal by order dated 11-6-99. The dispute between the parties specified in the Schedule to the Order of Reference and which this liibunal is required in decide is :

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in relation to its Kolhapur Mnin Branch in dis- allowinq the special leave to Shri R.D. Patil, Clerk, Kolhapur main Branch for mountaineering!trekking for 21 days during the year 1993 is leqal nnd justi- fied? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 2. Statutory notices are issued to the concerned parties. In response to the notice, on behalf of the concerned workman, Shri D. G. Niyhojkar, Secretary of UCO Bank Employees Union, Pune, has put his appearance who was authorised by Shri C. N. Patcl, General Secretary of the Union. Thereafter, statement of claim is filed by Shri D.U, Nighojkar, which is at Ex. U-2. Tn its statement of claim, it is' stated that Shri R.D. Patil, Clerk is ecrployed with the first party at its Kolhapur Main Branch, Shri R. D. Patil is a trekker and as per the rules of the first party Hank, the employee is en- titled' for special leave npto 30' days for trekking. He has availed this facility for the following period :

1. 18-5-1987—28 days. 2. 16-5-1988 10 12-6-1988—28 days, 3. 19R9-90—29 days. 4. 28-6-1991 to 27-7-1991—30 days.

However, when Shri Patil applied for leave for trekking for 21 d:iys from 11-5-1993 to 31-5-1993, the management rems-d liiu application lor special leave without just cause and valid reasvin. The workman made tevcial representations to the Just party Bank, but the bank has nut considered the saint. I heieforc, the union took up [he issue with the mana- Kumenl vide its letter dated 8-7-1995. The said issue was also discussed dumiR the Industiml Relations Meeting but the fiiM ptuly ret used to concede this demand wlhoul jus* and reasonable ground. Since the manngement of the first party was not considering his claim, the dispute was taken up to the Conciliation Officer (Central) where also amicable settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. 1 here- fore, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report. On his report, the Central Government has referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudiction. With this, it is the contention of the second party that the employees employed with the first party arc entitled to special leave for trekking. The workmen had also been sanctioned special leave for this puipose us per the rules of the first party Bank. The first paity does not have the right to unilaterally change,' the terms and conditions applicable to its employees, lhat too, without any just cause and valid reaions. Thus, the action of the Hi st party is totally unjustified and the workman is entitled tor special leave for 30 day., for trekking. Hence, the demand of the second party workman may be granted. The first party be directed to sanction special leave for 21 days oi which arc us under :

3, The demand of the second party workman is resisted by the first party bank by (ilinc its written statement which is at Ex, C"-5. It is admitted by the first party that Shri R.D. Patil, Cletk from Kolhapur Branch had already avail- ed special leave for Himalaya Trckkinjj 4 times, the details of which are s under :

1. Specil leave sanctioned for trekking in Himalaya for 2S days from 18-5-1W to 14-6-1987;

2. Special leave sanctioned for 28 days from 16-5-1988 to 12-6-1988;

3. Special leave sanctioned for 29 days in 1989-90;

4 Special leave sanctioned for 30 dnvs from 28-6-1591 to 27-7-1991,

It is the contention of the first party that Shii Patil again npphed for special leave on the fifth occasion for j?oing" on tin expedition fiom 11-5-1993 to 31-5-J'W which was "dec- lined tiy the bank, as it was the fifth occasion of availing spe- cial leave for this purpose. As per 1BA Guidelines and Bank's Sports Boaid Circular BSB|Gcneral|386 dated 30-12-1989, special leave faciclity for mountuinceiing|trekking expeditions bhull not exceed 30 days on any one occasion and not more thnii 3 occasions in the employee's entire career with a yap of at least two years between two expeditions. In exceptional circumstances, the gap of two years would be relaxed at the employer's discretion. It is further submitted by the first iwly that the Head Office had considered Shri Patil's rc- tii/c.it as special case for the fourth occasion which was avail- ed from 28-6-1991 to 27-7-1991. Henes, when the workman requested for the fifth time, it was declined by the first party bank. The action on the part of the first party bank is (aga( and justified. On the contrary, tin demand made by Shri R. D. Patil is not correct, legal and justified. Wiih this, it is prayed that the reference be rejected and the demand made by the workman be rejected.

4. To overcome with the controversy between the parties, issues- arc framed for determination at l-'x. C-7, as under :

1. Whether second party workman proves that he is entitled for special leave for mountaineerini:|lrek- king? If yes, under which juIes?

2. Whether the action of the fixbt partv not granting special leave is illegal or uneistified?

3. Whether the second party workman is entitled for the relief sought for?

4. What order?

5. My answers to the aforesaid Jsvics, with reasons, are as under :

1. No 2. No

3. No

4. As per final oider.

REASONS

ft. Heaul Shri B.T, Mali, management representative for the Hist party bank and Shri C,M. patel, learned union dence is led by either parlies, both the learned rcpresenta- ilence is led by either panics. Both the learned representa- tives relied upon documents placed on record. I have gone through the documents placed on recoid. Those are letters, rcpre.senlations made by the union and the concerned wort- man and the replies given bv the first party management.

7. On behalf of the second party workman, one circular wan called upon lYom the custody of the first party bank, winch is the Ciicular dated 6-9-1969 issued by the Ministry of Home Alfairv, New Delhi, Under this Circular, special leave to Government servants for participating in moun- taineering expeditions is granted. It is the submission of the learned union representative on behalf of the second party workman that there is no restriction on the employees for availing benefits of special leave for trekk'iip or mountaineer- ing. During the service tenure, the employee is entitled for this facility, but the limit is only 30 days for one calendar year. However, the learned management representative of the first party bank strongly relied upon the Circular dated 30-12-1989 which is issued by the Bunk's Sporls Board. He invited my attention to Clause (b) which reads as under :

"(b| The special leave facilities for mountaineering! trekking expeditions shall not exceed 30 days on one occasion and not more than three occasions in the employee's entire career, with a gap ol at least two years between two expeditions, In excep- tional circumstances, the Rap of two years could be relaxed at the employer's discretion" X. After going through this condition laid down by the Banks' Sports Board, it is crystal clear that the employees of the Bank are not entitled for this facility for more than thiec occasions. Admittedly, Shri R.D, Patil has availed thin facility for four occasions, Jt is Cx- contention of the first party bank that as a special and exceptional case, this facility was Riven to the concerned workman on tHe lourth occasion. Now, again and again, by exercising its discretion, the management cannot grant such ftrility to the concerned workman. Relying on this Circular, the management has declined to grant this facility of special leave for trekking expedition on the fifth occasion.

9. It is the submission of the learned union tepresenlafivc tor tlie second parly workman that such type of circular was never brought to the notice of the workman. Therefore, it cannot be said at this moment that the mananement has acted within its powers. Such type t.f defence^ cannot be accepted. After all, the benefits which ;

10. fn the aforesaid premises, the action on the part of the first parly bank of refusing special leave cannot be said as illegal or unjustified. Thus, the second party workman is not entitled¹ for the iclieT sought in this order of reference With this. ISMIM 2 ;ir,ri 3 a ic anwjied according lhe reference requires to Iv rejected ^s the second party work-5443 man has failed to i.istity his demand. Hence, l pass me 101- Irowing order :

ORDER

2. Subsequently by ™d^- No. L-120L2/80/2000-IR(B-II) dated 23-11-2000 the Central Government withdiew the pioci-cdri^ ol the .-.aid depute from the Central Government Industrial" Trihunal-cunvL^hour Court No. 1, Dhanbad and innsferrtfd it to Una Tribunal i'ur adjudication.

1. Reference fails.

2. The demand made hy the >i-eond r " tV '•>">:l.'',i,'.i

stands rejected.

3. Award be drawn accordingly.

4. In the circumstances, no order as m costs.

VIDYASAGAR K.AMHI.F, Indusliial Tr.L-unitl.

New Delhi, the i()ih August, 20G1

S.O. 2591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 oi 1947), Ihe Central Government hereby publishes ll.c imuiJ of tht. Industrial Tribunal. Pat.v.i as shown in Uio annc,\ue in the Industrial Dispute betw.en the employers in rel'iliim to the management of Central Bank of India r.ud tlicir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-8-2001.

|No. I--J 2(J 12/80/2000-1RCB-J1)|

C. G A N O A U H A R A N, Under Secy.

^ N N E X U RL

BI.FURH THE PRESIDING Ol FICbR, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL.. PA'INA

lick-rente No. 24 i of 2000

Reference No. Kci of 2001

3. Both parlies have hied their lespective written statements. They have also lil-.d written umiments after the close of the tieai.ng of the. keierenec c;.-e. The case of the workman Sri Knslinaniuid Malaknr as ,t appears Irom the written statement of claim filed on bi hull of him in brief is that he was un.lly appointed hy the Management of Cential Bank of India, Nalhnagar Branch, BrtU(w:lpur on and from 2-5-1988 for discharging the duties ol a Peon. H" was dischaiKinR the duhes of a'leKulnr I'eon. IJe worked from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. regularly on e v dy working day. He was paid wages initially at the rate of Rs. 3 per day which was subsequently raised to Rs. 5. Rs. 10 and finally to Rs. j^ IICL day. While Hie woikman perlormiuy his duties i;i the year iyy2 the Bank called for certain name.-, fioui tbo Kmployment ExchanKe :: of Section 2(oo) of Ihe I.D. Act. AI'Ler tcriuii.alion the woikman approached the Mmiapemciit on a number ot occasions and represented orally and in vvntina for his rciii.siiUcmen! hut without any result. At !asi the workman was emr.ptHcd lo raise the industrial dipsute l-iefo:¹^ the A.L.C. (c). Patnn foi his reinstatement. In the mean time the Management formulated a scheme at apex level for absorption of d u ly laled workers but they fa;led to consider the ca-.e of the workman in the liqht of the said schema, The A X C I ol I'utna held conciliation proceedings hut attempts for conciliation ended in failure and failure of cor.r'lihtion report was sent to lln; Secretary, Ministry of Labour. Government of India bv the Conciliation Officer. Ullimatelv the Cential Government has made the Reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. The action of the manage- ment in termfnarion the scrviee o!' the workman is neither If'-'il nor justified. T!ie Mrina.neniei't did not follow the princi- nlt.-s of Vijual pay for equal woik' ;ls contained in Directive P--;nr;n1,^ of State Policy of ,]K Constitution of India. The Mann'ii'in-'nt lesorted to unfair li'lvuir practice as the work- man was 1-cpt on tenterhook lor o\ei nine year^. The work- man ITIS nr.iyi-ii fo- reiiv.luiement witti payment of back wapes mui i-f.'i;l,u-is-i"iii-i of his seivuv. The workman has also (.'aimed payment of due WP.CLS fo.- the period of his workinc Management of Central Back ol India, Palna and their

workman Sri KrishivmunU M.ildkar.

For the Management : Sri Ashok Kumar Saha, Asstt, Manager, Central Bunk of India, Regional OHlce, Gaya

For the Woikraaii: tiri U. Piasad, General Secretary,

Bank Hmployees f-'caeuitioi;, Bihar, Patna.

PRHShNT :

Sri S. K. Mishra, Presiding Officer. Industrial Tiibunal.

Bailey Road, Patna.

AWARD

The 21.-,l August, 2001

the meaning of Aiticlc 12 of the Constitution of India it was expected to ueai iairjy with me concerned workman, ine iidiiK. acied illegally by teim.natuiri his services wituoiu compliance 01 picvisiona ot Section 25F of the I.D. Act. I ne hdUK commuted an eiror in not absorbing the workman despite the existence of a tcliemc tor absorption and regulansation.

0. Ine iwllowing issues tui.ie tor adjudication in the present

case:—

(.1) Whcthei the action ot the Management of Central Jiank. of India m teniKnaling the service of Krishna- cancl Maiafcar w.e.i. 6-tl-lVy7 is legal and justified ?

(.ii) If not what iclief the concerned workman is entitled -

to?

FINDINGS

JL;U- iso. (0 :

of the year J9MI. Me worKod 24v duvo in 12 Calendar months pie^ding n:s lei.enuiincnt. He Had aiso worKed Z4U days in '.„ cuiviiudi mourns as per tne uloiesdid settlement. Accoiiunjj to iim me iMuneu Manager ol JNaihnagar had obtained Ine iidiu^ ii om tue iocai tmpinyment txcnaiige. I tie tmploy- lii^iu txciiciige Had sUDiinaed names oeiore the Biauch i%>aa;J&-e! mciuuing nia nar.it. txt. W/3 is tne zerox copy or uii lcuei vvuii i.ncio;>Uie tuoiiuued b\ tne local fcmploynunt txenunge beluie the itsianui ivianay.-r. Hie wotkm^n has stated tuat tneteaiter tne candidates had been interviewed by tne biancn Manage! and aftoi the interview he had been engaged in the Brancn. Vac v, orkman has stated that he worked as a casual peon in the Branch continuously for over nme. years. In his ctossexannnation he has said that when therey was disruption ot supply of electncity then Oiiiy ne useu to letcu water from 'lul-e well to the Upper Floor of use buiidmg wnere the Jirai.ch is located otherwise he used *o perform all me dutie.i of a regular peon. He used to put ins signal tires on me back ol the vouchers without reading vvndi was written on those vouchers. He did not make any piotest IOI low payment before any authority since he had neeti given an assurance that he would ultimately be absorbed in the regular service. The witness has further said in his ctoss-examination that nothing was told to him on each day as to what woik be was to do on that day. Initially when he iiad oeen engaged he had been told to work regularly givina ihe assurance that in course of time, he would be absorbed on permanent post.

• '

9. As regards documents .exhibited on behalf of the work- man t x t. W and W/l aie the zerox copies of letters of the Braach Manager to the Regional Offjce about which I have aiready discussed. Ext. \\'/2 is the zerox copy of the letter from th< : -i: •'•••• •. .. I . • life, Bhagalpur addressed to the Branch i, ....:>• V- •.•:..: dated 19-8-1992 forwarding 13 names ot tne candidates including the name of this workman. Ext. \V/3 is zerox copy of the memorandum of settlement arrived between the M r . " ', n.. ,: irf CVi .ial Bank of India and All India Cent.. I i,. * I •••.:!i*\.".— Federation the recognised majority union dated 24-12-1990¹ and the conse- quent ciicuiar of the Bank dated 12-3-1991 as per the said settlement. Accoiding to the said settlement and the circular of the Bank casual workeis who had put in 240 days o* . temporary service ia any continuous period of 12 months after 1-1-1982 upto 31-J2-19M would be considered foi obserption in the immediate available vacancies without any test and interview.

1. Beio.c i proceed to decide the issues I wouid like to mv-iition Mjc:iy me evidence, DOtn oral and documenwiy, uU.JUi,.ii LI> ouin me parties in support oi their respective ..ti^cs iii'i.e wam-^es nave Dten examined on benali Oi me .viaa.'ricincnt. ivi.W. i Suoodh Kumar is a clerk posted in j.w.miagai- Branch, Lentral Bank ot India, in his evidenc i,w i.ij atotvu mat me woi-vinan krishnanand Malakar Ubed to oe enga^a oy we ttiancii ;U times for supply ot water io me siati about i or 4 JU.IS ago. Thus according to him me v.Lineman used fo be engaged as such till the year ly*/. L\O uucnuuaee oi the workman used to be taken. No timing JO, a,tending the duties had beta fixed. The workman uj,ed to leave the Bank alter suprl-ng water. In cross-examination he has slated tnat he is not acquainted with all me facts ot IJJC present dispute. He does not remember trom which date and upto Wii.it date the coi.eemed workman worked in the brancn. According to h:ni the workman used to put his signature on the back of the votc'ien. and that such signatures ao net bear on the back, side of vouchers which have been nted by the Management UAt. M series). M.W. 2 Satya Nara.n Prasad has staied that he was lite Branch Manager of Nath- naedr Branch f'om Di cerrber, 1996 to September, 2001). According to Ivm Sri Knsiuianand Malakar used to be en- gaged by the Branch for supply of water to the staff. The witness lias however added that besides supply of water the workman used to perform i<;;sefc]!antous works of the Bank as and when required. According to the witness the workman \*.as paid wages as and when hs worked and no attendance was, taken. Jle ut>ed to work oniy for two or three hours in a day. In h;s c!o.->s-examination Iv. has said that he does not know whether the Branch Manager Sri Arbmd Sharma had referred the name of the workman to the Regional office for regularisation of his seivici. But he has admitted that txt. \V and W/l aie the ze.ox copies of the letters issued fioni Nathnagar Branch and both the letters bear the sig- nature of Branch Manager Sri Aibind Sharma. Further the witness has said that m the year i-996 and 1997 also wages had been paid to the workman through vouchers. After verifying Kxt. M series the witness admits that none of those vouchers relate to the period of 1996 and 1997 when he ."•as t!->e Branch Manager. M.W. 3 Syed Mohammed Masum Ah has stated that he woiiced at Nathnagar Branch as Chief Cashier from July. 19R0 to June, 1989. In cross-examination JJC has said that the workman had never been engaged for any period continuously and he can not say the total number of days worked by Sit Malakar. This witness has not dems-d that Sri Malakar had also deschaiqed the duties of a Eeon in the Branch. He has simply denied and knowledge about it.

10. It may here be menn'onod that an affidavited petition was filed on behalf of the workman on 19-2-2001 requiring the Management to furnish the details of payment date wise, month wise and year wise. Accordingly an order was passed by this Tribunal on 1-3-2001 directing the Management for furnishing such details. In compliance of the said direction the Management has filed zerox copies of some payment vouchers only of the jears J9SS, 1989 and 1990. None of vouchers bears the signature of the workman on the back of the same. On the body of almost all vouchers it is written that payment was mad:- lor supplj of water, ft becomes apparent from the letters of the Branch Manager (Ext. W and W/l) and ;.lso from the evidence of M.W. 2 that the Management has not filed all the vouchers. No explanation is forth-coming for non filing of lecent vouchers from the year 1991 to 1997. Thus, it becomes apparent that the Management has attempted to suppress material facts. It has been the case of the Management that the workman had been engaged only for supply of water and to discharge contingent nature of work. But there is nothing in the letters of the Branch Managers (E\t. W and W/l) to show that the workman had been engaged only for supply of water or for doing contin- e nt nature of work. According to the letter of the Branch Manager dated 31-1-1994 CLxt. W) the workman worked a (ota? period of 504 days in the year 1988, 1989 and 1990 He .445

13. In the present case as Su Myh'kai woi^ed more than 24() days in 12 Calendar months preceding his retrenchment ;uu as lie requuunents ol section 25I¹ of the I.D. Act were not complied with before teimirai-on of service of the \\ oik man, i find and hold !hat the action of the Management c: Centra! Hank of India in lei mutating the services of the workman w.e.f. 6-11-1997 is illegal and unjustified. This issue is accordingly decided.

Issue No. (ii) :

another lettei by the Btancb Manager to the Regional Office. It is clearly mentioned in this letter that Sri Malakar worked from 1-1-1989 till 24-12-1990 as a casual labourer in the \acanc> of bub-staff. In 11 • it. letter the Branch Manager has forward'.-d topics of certificate duly signed by the candidate and verihed by the Branch for favourable consideration in tiio matter. The genuineness of these two letters (Exb. W and W/lJ can not be doubled. The Management witness No. 2 has admitted in his cross-examination that these letleis had been ia-.ucd from the Bianch cind they bear the signa- tures of the Branch Manager Sii Arvind Sharma.

11. In vie v of my above cu;.eussions 1 have no hesitation to find thai the concerned workman had worked more than 240 days as per requirement ol the Bank's circular and settle- ment (Exi. W/3) and in tUis view of the matter he was entitled for regnSarisation in eeivioe as per the terms of settle- ment of the year 1990.

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001

S.O. 2592.—Tn Pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial TribunaljLabcur Court Chennai as shown m the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between ?he employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-8-2001

{No. L-!2OI2jl26|?.Q0O-TR('B IT)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURB

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR

COURT

CHENNAI Friday, the 10th August, 20015446 THE GAZETTE OF INDfA : SEPTEMBER : ", 2001/ASVTNA 7, 1923 [PART II—SI:C. 3(ii)l PRESENT:

K. Karlhikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispulc No. 88|2000

(In the mutter of the dispute for adjudicaiion under clause ( Jj of Sub-section (I¹') and Sub-sec.ion 2(A) of Section 10 of the In- dustrial Disfines Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri Y. Krjshna- kumar and the Management of Bank of Baroda, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

Shri Y. Krishna!, umar : I PaityiWorkman,

AND

The General Manager, Bank of Barodai, Chenn.ii. : 11 Party|Manapcment.

APPEARANCE :

For Ihe Workman : Sri T. N. Sugesh, Advocate.

For the Management , M's, A. R Nagarnjan,

Advocates.

The Government of Tndi.r, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-sec- tion (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of fndus- trial Dispute Act, [947 (14 of 1447), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispuie for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012 I ?fi!M0U!JR(B-U) dated '11-10-2000.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 11-6-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, other material papers on record, upon perusing the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter liavinii stood over till this date for consi- deration, this Tribunal has passed the following;—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Government for ad- judication by this Trib'inal ns follows:—

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Y. Krishnakumar by the Management ot Bank of Baroda, Chennai is legal and justified? Tf not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the I Party|Workman ate briefly as follows : —

to pioduec any oial wilness, Duiing the enquiry, tlie Petitioner had given ample oppoitunily to defend¹ his case. He was given an oppoLtunity to show cause the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Autho- uty Had issued a. charge sheet and named the Enquiry Officer that it wts in accordance with the Settlement governing the .sejvice tonditions of the Pelitioner, So it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority with a pi'.determined -'nd biased mc'iiner dealt with Hie matter. I he misappropriation of the money in- tended for affixing postal ,-,ijmp K a serious one. The act cannot be viewed leniently since it reflects the ciimmal intention of the Petitioner to defiandthe bank. Dishonesty in any form cannot be viewed sympathetically whether the amount is paltry sum or a substantial cue. The dishonest act of the Petitioned Tcfli'cts upon his integrity. Continuing the services c£ such employees with questionable integrity and honesty is not conducive to the financial institution. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal since he did not find any merit in the appeal. In the departmental enquiiy held on 15-2-89, the Petitioner had catego- riL-.lly .iccjpt.d tlu chaises. He informed the Enquiry Officer lhatt I.e has not involved in the missing clearing instruments at the Madras Main Office. As per the provisions of the Settlement only, the Disci- plinary Authority had differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The allegation that ihe charge memo is vague is totally incoircct. As per the then existing guidelines]Bipartite Settlement governing the service conditions of the Petitioner, there is no need lo attach the documents vilh tlv charge sheet. Hence, the Tiibvnal may be picked to dismiss the petition,

4, The Respondent l.ad filed an additional Counter. The nvc-ments in the additional Counter of the Rcs- >.indent i\rc br'.rfy :-s follows :

2R63 GI 2001—135448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29. 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. .*>(ii)J Points 1 & 2 :—

respect of providing of a copy of substituted findings to the delinquent employee. Ex. M22 is the xerox copy of another circular dated 17-2-94 issued by the Respondent/Bank to all the Disciplinary Auihority Fx. M23 is the xerox copy of Circular dated 15-2-99 issued by the Industrial Law Department, Central Office, Mumbai of Ihe Respo'ndent|Bank with regard to the disciplinary action against award staff. Ex. M24 is ihe xcro\ copy of p:oceedings dt. 15-2-1989 con- ducted by the Enquiry Officer, Ex. M25 is the xerox copy of notice dated 22-12-89 issued by the Regional Manager [(TN I) & Disciplinary Authority] of the Respondent|Bank with regard to show cause against the nature of the proposed punishment. All these documents filed on the fiide of the Respondent [Bank ivive no* been disputed by the Petitioner.

Petitioner who had rendered about 12 years of service is grossly and shockingly disproportionate to the chaiges irameU against mm. lunee, ilie punishment of dismissal is liable to be set aside.

8. It is not disputed mat the Petitioner had issued

money for the purchase of stamps but he only left the plape when the petitioner was for a cup of, lea. He has also concluded in his report that the charge sheeted employee acted prejudicial to the bank by entrusting the bank's money to a friend, and thereby tailing to carry out the duties entrusted to him and has stated that changes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have been proved, Out of the rive charges said to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer in his report, the first three charges constitute as gross misconducts, whereas the other two charges as minor misconducts.

9. Neither before the Enquiry Officer nor before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority or even when the Petitioner prefers a petition to the Chairman and Managiing Director of the Respondent!Bank under Ex. W8, the Petitioner has stated that he was not given sullicient opportunity in the departmental cnuiry to put forth his defence effectively. Further he has not stated anywhere except in the claim statement that the charges were vague hence he cannot put iorlh his defence effective- ly. On the other hand, it is his submission under Ex. Miy letter dated 18-2-89 that he has admitted his misconduct and prayed for mercy. So, under such cir- cumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he was not given suffi- cient opportunity to effectively defend¹ himself either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Disciplinary Authority. On the other hand, from the materials available in this case by vay of exhibits marked by consent of the counsel on either side, it is evident that sufficient and reasonable opportunities were given to the Petitioner, as charge sheeted employee to put forth his stand in the fiomestic enquiry or depart- mental enquiry. Further, a j'-crpsi'l of the documents clearly shows that there are sufficient evidence by way of undisputed documentary evidence to show that the charge of misapproapiiation of the fund's of the Res- podnent|Bank by the Petitioner have been established as it was admitted by the Petitioner himself under Ex. M19 in writing, It is not his ease that he has given that reply to the charge sheet admitting his misconduct, und:r undue influence or coercion. Further, reasons have been given by the Disciplinary Authority in his report for not accept- ing the findings of the Enquiry Officer in certain cluirtvs ancl to find that charges also have been proved against the charge sheeted employee, the Peti- tioner herein, It is seen from the records and also admit led by the Pel it inner himself that he has utiliz- ed ten cheques for his S. B. Account. In the final order dated 30-1-90 passed by the Disciplinary Authority which is Ex. W6 he has stated that 'Sri Y. Krishnakumar, the charge sheeted employee during the relevant period was attached and working in the Current Account department of our Madras Main Office. Generally, Ihe officfr, in-charge of current account is not exnt-cicd to issue a cheque book of current account to S. B. account holder, particularly5450 THE GAZETTE OF TNDrA : SEPTEMBER 2'), 2001/ASVFNA 7, 1923 [PART Tl—Sr.c. 3(ri)| framed against him. Thus, 1 answer the points 1 and 2 accordingly.

11. IJT. the lesult, an award is passed holding that the dismissal of Sri Y. Krishnakumar by the Mana- gement of Rank of Barodvi, Chcnnai, is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is ' not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Sienographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the K)th August, 2001.)

K. KAKTHIKFYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I PartyjWorknrin : Ex. No. Date Description

Wl

chaigc shecled employee fur (he charge of missing cheques, On such firviing given by t!ic Disciplinary Authorily contra to the firiding of the F.nquhy Officer in his report e n n ot said to he a finding without any basis or evidence. From the available materials, it is seen that the eciiii'ntion of the Petitioner thai in the departmental enquiry, the charge sheeted emp- loyee, the 'Ytit'oner. has been denied a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation ggainsi the findings gi\en in the enquiry report amounts to a serious violiWjon of principles of natural justice is in- correct. The further contention of the learned counsel for (he petitioner that mentioning of the appointment of the Enquiry Officer in the charge -licet itself shows that the- biased and pic- detcrmined attitude of ihe Disciplinary Authority and it is also a violation of principles of natural justice is also not correct Further, his contention lhat the charges ha\e not been proved against the Petitioner in the domestic cnijii'iy is not correct. On the other hand, the exhibits filed on either side, go to show that Ihere is sullicient evidence to come to the con- clusion th;u the cluuges levelled against the Peti- tioner have been proved.

9-1-87—Xerox copy of the letter from the Management to the Petitioner.

W2 14-1-87—Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to Ihe Management.

W3 1 1-IO-88-—Xeiox copy of the order of sus- pension.

8-12-88—Xerox copy of the charge memo.

W4

W5 19-8-89—Xerox copy of the Enquiry Re- port.

Wo 30-I-yO—Xerox copy of the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

W7 21-5-90—Xerox copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

W8 10-9-91—Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

>oi the II ParlyjMamigcnienl :

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 7-5-Hh —Xerox copy of Clearing Slips.

M2 Q-5-K6--Xeiox eopy of letter of Chief Manager, Main Branch to ihe Manager, Service Branch.. Madras.

M3 I4"6-Kf"—Xerox copy of letter of ST. Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda to Manager, Canara Bank, Abhiramapuram, Madras.

M4 17-fi-86— Xero.-. copy of the letter of Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Abhiramapuram to Bank of Baroda.

Nil --Xerox copy of the Clearing

M5

Slips.

10. In a case decided by the Supreme Court re- ported r.s AIR 1989 SC 1854 Pyarelal Sharma Vs. Managing Director, Ji K Industries Ltd. & Others, it is held that "if the order c_iii be supported on one ground for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is unt lor the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority punishing the public servant". From this it is evident that out of the many charges levelled against an en.ployee, even if one charge alone has been proved ;is a misconduct, Ihe Disciplinary Autho- rity can impose punishment for the same. Here, in this case, there is sufficient evidence available to come to the conclusion that the proved misconduct of the Petitioner, the charge sheeted employee, is a gross misconduct which can be dealt with severely as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. It is evident from the materials available in this case that the Petitioner has failed to discharge his duties sincerely but misappropriated the amount intended for purchase of postal stamps to be affixed on enve- lopes containing documents and other papers to be mailed to the parlies including a bank in a foreign country. This amounts to dishonesty also. Merely because the amount involved is paltry sum, it can- not be¹ said that mch a proved misconduct can be viewed sympathetically. The intenti'.in of the per- son who commits an olfence which is a proved mis- conduct have to be considered while the quantum of punishment is iinali7ed. It reflects very much about the integrity and honesty of the Petitioner himself. So, continuing the

M6 1 1-6-86—Xerox copy of letter from Main Branch to Scivice Branch.

M7 1 3 •(•>• 86-— Xerox copy of letter of the Senior Branch Marnier, Rank of Baroda to the Maiiricci, Can.ua hank, Abhiramapuram.

tioner in the disciplinary proceedings, is a gross mis- conduct warrants deterrent punishment, as it is delin- ed in the Bi-Partite settlement. Under such circum- stances, it cannot be held that the punishment of dismissal fiom service imposed on ihc Petitioner is grossly and shockingly disproportionate to the charges5451 MS 14-6-86—Xeriu copy of the letter of Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Abhiramapuram to Bank of Baroda, Service Branch.

M9 18-6-86—XCITK copy of letter of the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda to the Managei, Andhra Bank, Madras,

M10 19-6-86—XCJOA copy of the letter ol Manager, Andhra Bant. Madras to Mana- ger, Bank of Baroda, Madras.

Nil —Xerox copy of the Cheque Mil

book issue register Folio 7.

M12 31-1-86 -Xerox copy of sub-stall' du'y ro- 28-2-86 tation registci for February, 1986 and March, 1986.

9-1-97—Xerox copy of later of Chief M13

Manager, Main Branch to the Petitioner.

M14 14-1-87—Xerox copy of letter from the Petitioner to the Management,

M15 Nil —Xerox copy of the S. B. ledger Folios 66, 67 and 68 Pertaining to S. B. A|C. 11107 of the Petitioner.

MI6 22-6-86-— Xerox copy of Cheque No. 877302 for Rs, 200.

M17 28-1-86—Xerox copy of lefitr from the Petitioner to the Management.

M18 1-3-86—Xerox copy of letter from the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda to M. R. Prasad, Bank of Baroda, Madras Main Office.

M19 18-2-89—Xerox copy of letter from the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer.

7-12-99— Xerox copy of High Court M20

Older in WP No. 13388 of 1992.

M21 3-9-99—Xerox copy of circular to ajl Zona],Regional and Disciplinary Authority by the Management,

M22 '. 17-2-94—Xerox copy of circular to all Disciplinary Authoiities by the Vigilance Officer, Bank of Baroda,

M2: I 15-2-99—Xerox copy of eiicular to all Zonal 1 Regional Authorities Disciplinary Authority issued by Bank of Baroda, Central Office, Mumbai,

M24 15-2-89—Xerox copy df the enquiry pro- ceedings.

M25 22-12-89— Xerox copy of the Notice issu- ed hy the Disciplinary Authority.

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2001 S.O. 2593.—In pursuance of Section 17 ol Ihc in- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Couit, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial |Diispule between the employers in ldauon to the management of Corpoiation Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1^0-8-2001.

|No. L-12012, 192, <->3-]R(B-JI)j C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE 1HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURf, "SHRAM SADAN", 111 MAIN, 111 CROSS, U PHASE, 1 UMKUR ROAD, YESHWAN1HPUR, UANGALORP _ , Dated, 17th August, 2001

PRESENT :

Honble Shri V. N. Kulkaini. B.Coni., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGI F-cum-Labour Court. Bangalore.

C.R. No. 20/94

I PARTY

Shri I'. K, Srinivasa Murthy, R /o No. 129. T. PWD Qrts. Road, Hassan, Karnataka, Advocate—Shri V. S. Naik.

If PARTY

The Chairman, Corporation Bank. Mangaladevi Temple Road, PB No. 88, Mangalore-575001. Advocate—Pradeep Sawkai.

AWARD

1, The Cential Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industriil Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vid~ Order No. I - 1 2 0 1 2' 192/93 lU(RIf) dated I5ih Febiiruv, tL>"1 lor ad- judicaiiun on the following schodul:.

S C H E D U LE

"Whether the action ol [he management of Cor- poration Bank, Mangaiore in removing Shri T. K. Srinivasa Jvlurty, Clerk-cum-Cashier from service is justified ? If not, wh;it relict, is the workman entitled to ?"'

2. 1 he lirst party was working with the Second party management and he was removed from service therefore, industrial dispute is raised.

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

4. The ease of I he lirst party in biief is as lollows:

5. The first p'tity was' appointed as a Caehier-cum- •Clerk in the year 1979 and he worked at various places, lie fell ill and he could not attend the office from July, 1988 onwards. He requested for grant of leave and immediately after recovering from his illness he went to assume olfiee but the second party has not allowed him to do so. He made many representa- tions but nothing happened. Enquiry was initiated by issuing charge memo, but no enquiry was conducted. The first party worked for about 9 years and he has no other source of income.

6. It is the further ease of the first party that the management informed him that he has been removed from the services of the Second party by way of Voluntary Retirement as per Clause XVI of the Bi- partite Settlement. The action of the management is not correct and the first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

7. The case of the management in brief js as follows :

8. lhe main contention of the Second party is that the first party remained absent from duties since¹ 22nd March, 1988 and had reported for duty on 25-3-88 and he remained absent from 26-3-88 and reported for duty on 28-6-88 and worked upto 1-7-88. From 2-7-88 onwards, the first party again remained absent unauthorisedly, in spite of clear instructions from the Second party from time to time, to resume duty. On 4-8-88 at about 10 AM Shri K. Prabhakar, Ma'nager of Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore along with Shri B. Balakrishnan, sub-slall visited the lirst party at his residence at Door No. 68, W Feet Koad. First 'N' Block, Rajajinagar. On the same day itself the trans- fer order was sent to I he first party by registered post and it was returned undelivered with the remarks "Always Absent".

9. Again the second parly was constrained to send Shri P. V. Mohan Shankar, Sub-Manager and Shri Syed Na/.eer Ahmed. Sub-stall to the residence of the lirst parly for delivering transfer order and the first parly was very much available at his residence but refused to take delivery of the letters. The first party was advised tn resume duty as stated in detail in the counter but the first party did not assume duty. The Second party waited upto 1-10-88 and the first parly was asked to appear before Ihe Bank's Doctor bill Ihe firsl paily remained ;ib.;i: i .(..irhoiiseHb; and therefore charge shed is issued

10. It is the furlher case of the management that after exhausting all reasonable and possible means to deliver the transfer order and relieving order to the first parly, the bank issued a Notice at his last known address calling upon him to report for duly as per Clause 16 of the IV—Bipartite Seltlement stating inter alia, the reason, for coming to the conclusion that the first party has no intention of joining duties. The said notice sent under Registered Post and it was returned vvith an endorsement "'Always Door Locked".

11. It is the further ease of the management Lhat after expiry of 30 days the Second Party came to know -hat the lirst party has no intention to continue the bank services and deemed to retire voluntarily from the Bank. The first party was voluntarily retired from service as per Clause 16 of Bipartite Settlement on 17-9-84. Ihe Hank had followed the necessary procedure and details are given in the counter. Ihe management for these re;isoiy"> has prayed to reject the reference.

12. It is seen from the records that on behail of the management MWl, MW2 and MW3 were exa- mined. They have given detailed evidence against the workman. According to the evidence of 3 witnesses, the fust party has refused to Lake transfer order and relieving order and he has remained unauthorisedly absent and did not produce any document regarding illness. There is no reason to discard the evidence of MWl to MW3.

13. Against this the first party got examined himself and he staled that he applied leave from 1-7-88 as he was suffering from Jaundice and his father also died on J3-7-88. His leave was not sanctioned and he was~not permitted to join duty.

14. He admits in his cross examination that nil house is very close to Bank. He says that he does not remember if he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 22nd March, 1988 to 25th March, 1988. He also says that he has not attended duty on ,2-7-88 onwards. This cross examination goes to show that he remained un- authorisedly absent lor a long period.

\5. First party also not produced any documentary evidence to prove his illness.

16. It was further aiglied by the learned counsel for the Second Parly lhat in the instant case the first party unauthorisedly remained absent and as per Bi- partite Settlement he deemed to have taken Voluntary Retirement and services come to an end.

17. Jt is clear from the records that Ihe first parly is not interested in working with the management. The learned counsel for the management has relied follow- ing decisions :

(i) 2000(5)SCC 65.

(iil 1996 Lab. I.C. 754 (SC).

(iii) 1492 (II ) PC 308 (Gujarat).

18. I have read the above decisions carefully. The record shows that the lirst party has refused to take notices

19. Keeping in mind ihe principles held in 2000(5) SC cases 65, I am ol' the opinion tint the manfipe- ment has proved service of notice and the first party5453 is deemed lo li:i\o l.ikcn Yoluulai) KclijunuH. J he action ui the maii.igement in I he g n en c n a n a ^ a i i e es is correct.

20. In ihe mslaiit ca'-c noiicc ^ab suit H> llic yiven addiess anil that (lie seivicc is sullicienl

? 1, Taking all this into consideration I am oi the i p i n i on t h at t he ' i• st p j n> I I ,- I M M J IJ to ! 'U n o t i ce intentionally and he leniained unaulhorisedly absent and the action ul the nuununtient is correct. Theie is no merit in this dispute and accordingly I proceed to pass Ihe fullovv'ng order :

ORDER

rl he rclcrcnce is rejected.

(Dictated to PA tianscribed by her corrected and signed by me on 17th August, 2001.)

V. N. KUI.KARNI. Piesidine Ollicer New Delhi, the 4th September 2001 S.O. 2594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government he;vbv pub- lishes the award of ihe Central Gov rninent Industrial Tribunal Tribunal [Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annoxuiv in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rekuu ii io the management of Centra! Bank of India and their vvorLi.i in- which was rereiv- ivl I"¹¹' the Ctn^n] Ciovcrnnv-nt nn OV^-Ol.

[No. L-12025!l0lofl-rR(B-ri)J C. GANGADHARAN. UnforSecy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRRSiniNG OFFICER, CFNTRAI. GOVT. IN^US- TRfAL TRIBUNAT.-("Lirj-T AROTTR COURT, CHANQ'GARH Case No. \D 18?[Q0

SMri D. S Rjhe-jl. Secretary* /-V^try! "R-1-.1- of IndiM, Fm;,;niree-< fTnion fPuninh),

81, lJl)ase-IJ, Urban OsUitc,

F'oeal Pomi. Ludhiana. •• Union.

Vs.

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Queens Road, R.O. Civil Line, AmrUsar Punjab. • • rVhnairmenl.

For the workman.—None.

For the management.- -Shri D. K. Chandha.

AWARD

(Passed an 14th of August, 2001) The Central Govt. vide notification No. L-12025 10 9O-1R(B.II) dated. 23rd Novem- ber 1990 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal tor adjudication : —

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in revert- ing Shri P, L. Saini head cashier to lower stage in time SCPIC is justifi- ed ? If not, to what rtrli- f is the workman entitled ?"

2. None appeared on behalf of (lie work- man despite several notices. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman. The workman has not filed any afT'rt'jvit. The union is not putting appearance in this case for the last many dates. It appears that union is nol interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of (he above, since the union is not interested to pui\-.ue wilh tho present reference, the .same is returned to tiie Ministry for want of prosecution Ap- r "ij rH • Govl. be informed.

C handigarh

M-8-2001

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer5151 THE GAZETrr: 01- JI>D1A'SEI'JhMBI-R :':, 200I/ASVINA 7, 1023 [PART JI—Sic 3(ii)| New Delhi, the .H^'h AiiL-iisi, 2001 S.O. 2595.— In piirsuane.- rf Section 17 of tin.- ln

|No. L-l2012'153|96-IR(B-II)] C. GANG \DHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNiXURE

BEFORF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS TRIAL 1 RIHUNAl -CUM-LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN"

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR RO \ D, > r:SI-IWAN I HPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 23id August, 2001

PRESENT :

Hor'hlc Shi i \r N kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Ofiiccr, CGIT-Cnm-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C. R. No. 237 97

T PARTY :

Shri K. Gangadhar, No. 7 A, 4th Main Road, Palace Gultahalli, B?galorc-560003. Advocate—Shri R. Napcndra Naik

II PARTY :

The General Manager, Syndicate Bank, He'd Office, Mnnipai-575003. Advocate—Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya.

AWARD

4. '1 he C'.i:,e of the lii -t j r u ty in brief is as follows:

5. First party w as w o r k i ng a^ confirmed a t t e n d cr wllh I ho ' e e r ' nd p.irly from 2 f i - 1 2 - l 9 84 and he w o r k ed u n d er M i s p e n s i ou IN ' • U t ed in I he C l a im S f a t e- DV nt,

6. It is the further ca>e of (he first party that he wns falsely implicated in 1r,e ga.se of withdrawal of Rs. 50,000. In para 5, service conditions are stated. The allegations made a;:ain-t the first party are not coneLt. So far as the ci"n;uny is concerned it is contented by I he (ir.it paiiy that reasonable oppor- tunity was not civen to defend himself. The order of dismissal is no( correct. First party for these reasons hns prayed to pass .iv.ard in his favour.

7. The CTC of the Second party in brief is as follows ;

H. The first parLv commuted misconduct and charse sheet dated 15-11-91 was issued because he was do'ng nets prejudicial to liie interest of the bank ii'ul the incident cf Rs, ^0 H00 is given in detail in the counter. 'The enquiry was rightly initiated.

'). Regarding enquiry it is contended that full op- portunily was given to the frsl party and report of the enquiry cmcJr is correel and the action of the management is legal because the first party has mis- appropriated the amount and ihere is no merit in this dispute. Management for these reasons has prayed to rejected the reference.

10. It is seen from the recoids that on behalf of the management MW1 was examined who has given det-iilcd evidence about the i-nquiry. Workman also "ot examined himself.

11. It is seen from the lecnrds lhat this tribunal by its order dated 30th .Uine. 1999 has answered pre- liminarv is^ae holding that the domestic enquiry is in accordance w'th law and fact. I have heard the arguments of the manatremert. The counsel for the first party was not present.

12. This being the old matter, after giving suffi- cient time and after hewing management, case was posted for award.

(vn I9"7 l-'JR SC 2bO.

(iv) \W^ I JR SC 417.

16. I h:i\v rjad Hie above decisions very carefully, Keeping in mind tlie p~inc:plcs held in the above deci- sions LIiii.l muling of the :;'U|uu'v officer, 1 am of the opinim 'h-.\{ mitcunduc! is proved and there are no reasonable grounds to hold that the finding is per- verse.

17. Admittedly the first naity was working in the Nation-jlrtd Bank and he hu.s not worked honestly therefor.-, HIL- action of (he management is correct.

IS. Taking all this into consideration, I am of the opinion that this reference has no merit and accord- ingly I proceed 1o puss the following order.

0 R D 1R

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated fn PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by nu- on 23rd AUJJIISI, 2001).

V. N. KULKMWr, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 259ft.—In pursuance of Seel ion 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/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-09-2001.

[No. L-17012|47|94-1R(B-II)J C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 13th August, 2001

PRESENT :

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Oiliccr.

Industrial Dispute No. 385/2001 2863 GI/2001—14

(Tamil Nadu Slalc Industrial Tribunal l.D. No. 12/95)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between trr. Workman Shri K. S. Ravindran and the Management of New India Assur- ance Co. Ltd,. Villupuram.)

BETWEEN

Shri K. S. Ravindran. . .1 Party/Workman.

AND

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Villupuram.

.II Party/Management.

APPEARANCES:

For the Workman: M/s. D. Hariparanthaman, and Ajoy Khose, Advocates,

For the Management: M/s. P, Sukumar and G. V, Udayakumar, Advocates.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudi- cation vide Order No. L-170l2/47/94/IR(B-II) dated 31-1-95/8-2-95.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as l.D. No. 12/95. When the matter was pend- ing 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribu- nal, the case has been taken on file as l.D. No. 385/ 2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 19-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side Wore present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hear- ing on 24-07-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, other material papers on record, upon perusing the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for con- sideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference bv the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—• "Whether the action of the Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Villupuram in terminating the services of Shri K. S. Ravin- dran, Dev. Inspector w.e.f. 17-08-93 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to ?'n5 4 56 T HE G A Z E T TE OF T N D IA • S E P T E M B ER 2 V, 2 0 0 1 / A S V I NA 7, 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I — S i z e. 3 ( i i )| 2. The averments in Ihe Claim Statement filed by

the F Party/Workman an: briefly as follow'') ; —

has miserably lailed to comply with the business tar- get fixed on him and the Respondent has taken action against the Petitioner like reducing his pay scales so as to control his cost limits etc. as prescribed by the said Scheme and finally by giving warning letter to improve his performance. The Petitioner had not at all taken efforts to improve his performance as per the Scheme governed him and due to his own irres- ponsible attitude, his service was terminated and the same is as per law. The Petitioner was given memos to mend himself and to show progress to improve his business target. But he failed to correct himself and absented for duty unauthorisedly for more than 406 days during the period from 1987 to 199J. The Res- pondent has issued a show cause notice to the Peti- tioner and then a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry which was conducted according to the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has pleaded guilty of the charges levelled yigainst him and submitted that due to his marriage problem, he was unab'e to concentrate on his profes- sion and the same put him to the extent of this level The Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings in his report mentioning that the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. Therefore, the action against the Petitioner is legal and justified as per the Deve- lopment Staff Scheme, 1977 and also by the General Insurance (Control, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. Hence, the Petition may bg dismissed as it lacks hona fide.

4. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder. The aver-

ments are briefly as follows :—

The 1 Party/Workman Sri K. S. RaWndran (herein- after referred to as IV'iiiona) vtas deputed to work by the II Parly, Management, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Villupuram (hereinafter referred to as Res- pondent) by an order dated 29-6-1 ^83 after he under- went the training programme tor Marketing in Insur- ance. He was made to work as Probationary Develop- ment Inspector in that brand] of the Respondent by an order dated 29-8-83 w.e.f. 31-12-1983. He passed the Inspector examination for insurance conducted during October, 1983 by the Federation of Insurance Institute. The services of the Petitioner as Inspector Grade T was confirmed by the Respondent by an order dated 12-01-1985 w.e.f. 1-1-1985. Due to some personal reasons, the Petitioner was forced to take leave. The Respondent issued a charge memo dated 1-4^91 to the Petitioner for unauthorised leave. Sub- sequently by an order dated 21-6-1091 the Petitioner was given a warning letter. Thereafter also a number of memos were given to the Petitioner for his subse- quent unauthorised absence for work. The Petitioner Was issued a show cause notice dated 10-5-93 as to why his services should not be terminated. On filing an appeal by the Petitioner, the Respondent by a letter dated 9-6-93 recommended to the Senior Divi- sional Manager to continue the services of the Peti- tioner. The Regionnl Officer requested the Branch Manager by a letter dated 26-10-93 to furnish the details regarding non-payment of salary to the Peti- tioner. By another letter dated 15-11-93, a recom- mendation was made to release the salary withheld for the period of about two years. The Petitioner's services were illegally terminated without assigning any reason and without due compensation. So, the Petitioner was forced to raise an industrial dispute before the Assis- tant Labour Commissioner (Central). As it ended in a failure, the Government of India, have referred the dispute for adjudication. The termination of the ser- vices of the Petitioner on 17-8-93 is illegal, unjust and liable to be intcrferred by this Tribunal, since, the action of the Respondent is wholly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Cunslitution and that the Respondent had not conducted any proper enquiry. The Petitioner was not given notice pay and compen- sation as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the order of termina- tion is void, ah initio. Hence, an award may be pass- ed holding that Ihe termination of the services of the Petitioner is unjustified and consequently, direct Ihe Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other atten- dant benefits.

The Petitioner was not paid salary from 25-7-91 to 17-8-1993. though he performed his work. The Branch Manager wrote a letter to the Regional Mana- ger for the continuation of the Petitioner in service. He has also written a letter about his best efforts and performance in achieving the target. In spite of his letter, the Petitioner was terminated from service, without issuing any show cause notice or conducting enquiry. No opportunity was 'given to him to explain and put forth his case. Therefore, the termination was illegal and against the principles of natural justice The termination from service of the Petitioner was contrary to the said Scheme. On any account, the Petitioner cannot be terminated without notice. The petitioner has submitted leave application for all his lea¹ : and the same were sanctioned by the Manage- ment. Therefore, it cannot be termed as absence. The Petitioner had not admitted the allegations as charges were held proved. The period of leave was treated as leave on loss of pay. Further that was not the reason for terminating the services of the Petitioner. There- fore, the termination was wholly illegal and unjustified.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the

Respondent/Management are briefly as follows :—-

5. When the matter was taken up lor enquiry, docu- ments were marked bv consent of Ihe counsel on either side as TCxs. Wl to Wl I and Exs. Ml and M4. Later one document a copy of notice dated 6-8-1994 sent bv the Petitioner to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Respondent/Management at Trichy was marked as T}x. W12 by consent, Then Ihe learned counsel on either side have advanced their arguments.

6, The point for my consideration is—

k'Whether 1he action of the Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Villupuram in The Petitioner was governed by Development Staff Scheme, 1976 and also by General Insurance (Con- duct. Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, which deals with the service conditions of the employees working in QIC of India and its subsidiaries. According to the Development Staff Scheme, the Petitioner ;s supposed to complete the target set fovrh fo,~ him fo>- each vear of performance and also to be within the permissible costs as mentioned in the said Scheme, The Petitioner5457 terminating the services of Shri K. S. Ravin- dran, Dev. Inspector w.ei. 17-08-43 is legal and justified? II" not, what relief is the said workman entitled to '.'"

Point :—

the Claim Petition also, the Petitioner has admitted that due to certain personal reasons, he was forced to take leave and he was issued ciiarge memo by tho Management for his unauthorised absence of work and he was given a number of memos, apart from warning letters * prior to the issuance of show cause notice under Ex. W2.

The Petitioner Sri K. S. Ravindran was in service of the Respondent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd., at Villupuram Branch as Probationary Development Ins- pector with eit'ect from 31-12-1983 alter he underwent the due training in General Insurance Marketing us a pre-requisite for the appointment. Ex. Wl is ihe xerox copy of the letter dated 29-6-1983 sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management informing him that he was provisionally selected to undergo the training. The Petitioner himself has admitted in the Claim Statement that due to certain personal reasons, he was forced to take leave and a number of mcraos were given to him and that for his unauthorised ab- sence, a charge memo dated 1-4-1991 was given to him and subsequently he was given a warning letter dated 21-06-1991. It is also the contention of the Respondent in the Counter Statement that the Peti- tioner was given meinos and warning letters and even then he had not taken efforts to improve his perform- ance and that the Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for duty for more than 406 days during the period from 1987 to 1991 and a show cause notice was issu- ed to him. It is the admission of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement itself that he was issued a show cause notice dated OVJO-5-1993 as to why his services should not be terminated. A xerox copy of the same is Ex. VV2. It is the contention of the Res- pondent in their Counter that the Petitioner was governed by Development Staff Scheme, 1976 and also by the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 which deals with service condi- tions of the employees working in GIC of India and its subsidiaries and that according to the Development Staff Scheme the Petitioner is supposed to complete the target set forth for him tor each year of perform- ance and also to be within the permissible cost as mentioned in the said Scheme and that (he Petitioner has miserably failed to comply with the said require- ment fixed on him and hence, the Respondent has taken action against the Petitioner like reducing his pay scale so as to control his cost limits etc. as pres- cribed by the said Scheme, All these contentions have noL been disputed by the Petitioner himself. Rx. M2 is the xerox copy of the General Insurance (Rationa- lisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Services of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976. Ex. Ml is the xerox copy of the Insurance Scheme- -the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pa\ Scales and other conditions of Services of Development Staff) Amend- ment Scheme. 1987. The fact that the Petitioner is bound by the terms of the Scheme under Exs. Ml and M2 so for as his service is concerned as Proba- tionary Development Inspector as well as when he was confirmed in that post is not disputed. In pursu- ance of the show cause noiiee Hv W2 issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management, a domes- tie enquiry was conducted. It is the contention of the Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Peti- tioner has pleaded guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted ihal due IO his ncirrhijic problem, he was unable to concentrate on hi?, profession. In

7. The Respondent in their Counter Statement has clearly stated that after issuing the show cause notice a domestic enquiry was conducted for the charges levelled against him and the Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry and in that enquiry the Petitioner had pleaded guilty of charges levelled against him and that the domestic enquiry was conducted according to the prin- ciples of natural justice after giving fullest opportunity to the Petitioner in the enquiry. It is further averred in the Counter of the Respondent that the Enquiry Officer has submitted Iris findings in his report men- tioned that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are proved. In the Claim Statement, the Petitioner has not whispered¹ anything by alleging that no domestic enquiry was conducted, subsequent to -Issuance of the charge sheet under Ex. W2 to him. Only in the belated rejoinder filed by him after three and half years after filing the main Claim Statement, the Petitioner has raised a new plea stating that he was terminated from service without issuing any show cause notice or con- ducting enquiry and that without giving him oppor- tunity to explain and put forth his ease and hence, the termination was illegal a-nd against the principles of natural justice. He has further contended in the belated rejoinder that the termination was contrary to the Scheme and that his termination from service without notice is wholly illegal and unjustified. For the first time in the rejoinder he would plea that he had submitted leave applications for all his leave and the same were sanctioned by the Management and therefore, it cannot be termed as unauthorised absence lor work and he also denies the allegation that he ad- mitted the charges. To substantiate this belated stand, Mu evidence either oral or documentary worth consi- dering has been let in by the Petitioner in this case. So, these avei merits in the belated rejoinder of the Petitioner remains unsubstantiated lesides belnu in- correct and opposed to facts available in this case by way of documents. Further, it is the definite plea of the Respondent in the Counter that the Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for duty for more than 406 days during the period from 1987 to 1991. The Peti- tioner in rejoinder has not said anything denying this plea as incorrect. As per clause 11(3) of the General Insurance (Rationalisation of pay scales and other conditions of service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976. the emoluments of a person are reduced includ- ing his basic pay as Development Staff who is operat- ing on a cost ratio which exceeds the stipulated limits and to such reduction for three consecutive years, the services of such a person shall be liable to be termi- nated. Ex. M3 is letter dated 18-4-88 sent by the Divisional Manager to the Petitioner, wherein the Petitioner was informed by the Management that his request for loss of pay has been kept pending final disposal, as it has been referred to the Regional Office. Under letter dated 19-1-89 the Management has in- formed the Petitioner about his business performance stating that the same is not unto the expectation5458 THE GAZETTE OF INDlA • SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVTNA 7, 1923 U'ARI 11-^r.c. JlnjJ been given and hence, there is no stigma attached to the Petitioner in thai, termination older. Prom all these tacts available by way or records. It .is seen thai tiie contention ot the Petitioner in his belated rejoinder that no enquiry was conducted alter the issuance ol charge memo to the Petitioner and' the Petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to explain his stand as defence for the ciiarges levelled against him in the charge memo. It is not the ccn- tion of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the records hied in this case by the Respondent in respect ol the domestic enquiry conducted by the officer ap- pointed by the Respondent and the hung ot his report are ail documents created by th~ Respondent|Manage- ment only for the purpose of this case. Further, the documentary evidence available as a letter submitted by tlie Petitioner for the charge memo issued against him admitting his guilt clearly belies the belated stand taken by the Petitioner in his rejoinder,

8. Under Clause 10 uf the appointment older dated 24-J-84 given to the Petitioner, it is stated that his appomiment is and shall bt subject to the rules and iemulations as may be m force from lime to time and shall also be governed by such instructions'order as may be issued to him orally or in wriling. UnJ'er Clause (g) of Schedule A. duties and functions of the Petitioner attached to the appointment order, it is stated as follows :—

"You shall report OJI every wojking day tu the oflice of the company wherever there is such an office und sign such muster roll as may be maintained lor the Inspectors. Jf you fail to call at the company's ottiee and to sign the niuiter roll on any day wiihoui. any satisfactory explanation for the same, you will be treated as absent. If you fail to attend the office and to sign the muster roll for any reason whatsoever, vithout permission for a continuous period of ten days or more, your services will automatically stand ter- minated from initial date of such absence, even if you have been confirmed in the company's service."

oi' Uic Management and as per the largel Hxcd by me ivC^jjOiiULjii a nu LJJUI- iiC jja¹! iaiieu to p r o m o te it gouii business ana juice Jie iiat> uxnai.isi.cu an me leave ajiu a|iso sunereu loss ui pay as uciaiitu uieiein, ne camiuL ue grained LUimei" "euve u* requested. UiC same nai, uv^n iAinuueu uy iiii. i ^iijuiiiwi iw u.z> lcp^y uaicd ja-l|-89 ana Le runner aujnittcd JJI tliai repiy mat uue to rus in iieaiin anu iiieieiicii'.ujjc mdiLiiJiUiiiai arc ne eouiu not acnicve i,n target, i'uiiner iic nas stated merein mat h'j assured LO achieve me target lixea and compensate liie kisi year s denciency pre- mituum. .by a. letter dated ^ - y - yu the Petitioner lias requested the Management to grant him Jive monms leave on loss ol pay lrum 2o-y-yu to 24-2-91. r or tins, the Management nas sent nun a reply uaieci l l M - yi slating tliat as per rules, leave on loss of pay can ue gramed lor a\ maximum oi i.W days and Jreuee his request ior leave on loss ol pay upto ^4-2-91 cannot be coirsideied and he v. as aavised to report lor duly immediately, .because of Jus irregu- larity in attendance, a charge memo daled 1-4-9 J wap issued to the petitioner alleging that his un- authorized absence irom duty amounts to gioss mis- conduct under Rule 3U and such continuous absent lor more than 90 days amounts to abandonment of post. Subsequently, by a letter dated 21-6-91, the Assistant General Manager gave a final warning letter and directed the Petitioner to improve his performance, lnspite of all these things as the petitioner could not im- prove his performance, the Management had decided LO hold a domestic enquiry for the charges of irregu- larity in attendance of the Petitioner ior duty as levelled against him in charge memo dated 1-4-91. Accordingly an order dated 2-8-91 was passed by the Management appointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against the Petitioner. In that domestic enquiry, the Presenting Officer filed a report about the irregular attendajice for duty by the Peti- tioner and his absence lor duty without obtaining permission or leave. In that report, the Presenting Ollicer has also stated that the Petitioner has not reported for duty even after his leave was refused, besides, the Petitioner also has not done enough busi- ness. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated. 16-12-91. It is seen fiom the enquiry report the Petitioner as charge shsetcd employee, has taken part in the enquiry along with his defence assistant. But he has not cross examined the only witness Assis- tant Branch Manager of Villupuram Branch for the management. The charge sheeted employee was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. After considering the materials and evidence placed before him, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding in his report that the charge sheeted employee has remained unauthorisedly absent for a period as men- tinned by the Management and his business perfor- mance also was very poor since, 1984 and has con- cluded that all the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employee, the Petitioner herein have been proved. So from this it is evident that a proper en- quiry was conducted, wherein the Petitioner as de- linquent employee has taken part and on the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in his report Ex. Wrt termination order was issued by the Management. Subsequent to the issuance of notice of termination to the Petitioner, the appeal dated 3-6-93 filed by the Petitioner was duly considered by the Appeals Committee. Tn that termination order no reason has

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed anJ

typed by him, corrected and pronouncvel by me in tiie opjn couit on ihis day the 13th August, 2001.)

K, KARTH1KEYAN, Presiding Ofiicer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS M A R K E D:

the Respondent'¹, lnsuiaiice Company has not shown progress in developing the insmancc business, as expected by the company bat the records show for seven years consequently hi h is done business of Rs. 1.3 lakhs only. Lrom the available recouls, it is seen that after giving full opportunely, the i -ti- lioner has been teiminared frutn seivice, in uccor- dance with the teims and cuiaufions me-i itioned in tiie appointment order. In li.<. W^ termination order. it is stated that his services h;ive Leen terminated unuer para 11 of the Scheme.

Foi T PartvlWorkman :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 29-6-83—XCIOK copy ot the letter from the Management to the Fctitioner.

W2 5-5-93—Xerox copy of the lettei from the Management to the Petitioner.

VV3 3-6-93—Xerox copy of the lettei from the Petitioner to lhe Management.

W4 9-ri-93—Xero< copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Managcemnt.

VV5 9-6-93—Xerox copy of thf letter from the Management to the Sr. Divisional Manager, Trichy.

W6 Nil—Xerox copy of lhe letter from the Management to the Petitioner.

\V7 17-8-93—Xerox copy of lhe letter lrom the Petitioner lo the Management.

W8 26-10-93—Xer

WO 30-11-93—Xerox copy of the letter from the Regional Office to the Divisional Office.

WIO 24-2-94—Xerox copy ol lawyer's notice sent to the Respondent on behalf of the T Party.

Wl 1 11-7-94—Xerox copy of the letter from Sr. Divisional Mmincer to the Petitioner along with 9 D.

WI2 6-8-94—Xerox copy of the letter from

the Petitioner to th: Management.

For lhe 11 Party[Manar;emcnt :

Ex No Date Description

Ml 13-2-87—Xerox copy o! notification of in- surance scheme.

M:

5 4 60 T I I F. G A Z E T TE OF T N D TA • S E P T E M B ER 1 9. 2 0 0 1 / A S V I NA 7, 1 9 23

N -w Delh'. b 4 li Sep e ribe \ ." 001 S.O. -597. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as ihown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employer¹-- in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on O.V9-'C/O1.

f[\o I,-l2012/467/86-DJKA)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Bet'oie Shri B. L. Jatav. Presiding Olncer

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh.

Case No. ID 29/89 D. K. Gupta,

Cashier-cum-elerk, represented by All India Dena Bank Stall' Fedration and Punjab Bank Employees Congress, Head Office, Ludhiana. . .Workman, V*.

1. Dena Bank, Central Post Office Road l.udhiana, through its Manager. 2. Dena Hank, Regional Office, Kelt ion Chambers, 2nd Floor, 18/7-8, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. . .Management.

APPLARANCT.S

For the workman : Shri T.C Sharma. For the manage'vent ; Shri Ashok Jagga

AWARD

(Passed on 10th of August 2001) The workman has tiled an application U/S 33-A of the Industrial Dispute . \.\, 1047, which has been treated and roistered a>; iiukU]i;i1 dispute by this

[ P A RT I T — S r . r, 3 ( i i )| Tribunal. This application is being disposed oil" finally by passing the present order.

2. The case of the workman in brief is that the management had imposed the penality of stoppage of two annual increment-, with cumulative effect upon him and transferred him from Ludhiana to Pathankoi. Therefore, the workman raised an industrial dispute before A.L.C(C) Chandigarh vide his letter dated 2nd June 1986. The A.L.C.(C) issued notice to the management and the management filed its reply alleging therein false grounds. The coucilia- tion proceedings were held by A.L.C.(C) who sub- mitted the report of failure of conciliation proceed- ings to Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi vide his report dated 6-10-1986. The Central Govt. referred the industrial disupte to this Tribunal for adjudication, which has been registered as re- ference No. ID 62 of 19X7.

3. U h:ib b-e.i all.'g ] HI the complaint thatihe irumugcinJtit acted, in arbitrary nviiiner and ignoring the provisions of law, issued n memorandum dated 20-5-1937 causing tliroai to the workman tlvt in case he did not ivpovt for di\ty ard sub n't a satis- factory reply within 30 days, the ccrscqiv'i c^s will follow as detailed in 4'h Bipiri.iJ L- S^tfJi n. n, dated 17-9 1984. The workman submitted his reply re- questing the m;ni3L't"mei!t t0 allow him to resume duty at Ludhiana tvjt the minagrment .nrbifarily and illegally issti'-d a ktler dated 29-7-1987 stating therein, thc.t they wc-iv tiv;ui,i£ that th>: workman had ab'W'Jone'd the job of his own. This letter was replied by Uie worlnuiii but th- management did not consider his rtply and issued a letter dated 19-11-1937 stating th-tvin that ihe workman had brcn tr^atr-d as voluntarily ivtircd. Thus tlr.' lu'inapi.-- ment h^s violated th • provisions of S'.vtkm 3.1 of the I.D. A.t, 1947 du'-iug tlv: pjnde.icy oT I.D. 62 of 19X7. Tnerofore, th; ord,-r passed by (he manage- ment are liable io be qu'ished. The said ord ;r bo quashed ami allow tlvj vvorkmin lo resume duty at Lud'iiana. Thj cost of thepi'oewdinjis niuy also be awarded lo the workman.

4.' Tlic ma lajeni'Jiil IVJS fil'.-d its w.-itKn reply alleging that the service- conditions of the workman haw not been changed by the management. He was transferj jd from Ludhiana ID Pathankot Branch in the interest of bank business but he refused to join his duties at Pnthnnkot. The workman did not obey the orders of the management and he acted in defiance ol' the lawful orders issued by the manage- ment by insisting on his retention at Ludhiana branch. He remained absent from duty and he did not submit leave applications for sanction and to \egularise ^ absence. The notices were issued to the workman to join his dulK-s but he did. not join h's duty at Pailu'.ukoi. Und.rT ihex. cireum lances'5461 the management was compelled to issue notice dated 20-5-1987 to The workman about the volun'ary cessa- tion of employment after expiry of 90 days from, iho relieving of workman from Ludhiana branch '">!' 4-6-1986. Jn this notice i'gvin (he pejied of 30 days was giv.-n 1o him for reporting on duty at Pathankot but the workman did not join duty there. Therefore, the management issued final order dated 19-7-1987 of voluntary cessation of employment by the workman. Under these circumstances the complaint- filed by the workman under Section 33-A is not maintainable which may be dismissed in the interest of maintaining discipline in the banking industry.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder reasserting the facts already alleged in the complaint.

6. Tn this case the admitted facts ore that the management had imposed the penalty of stoppage of increments and the workman was transferred from Ludhiana to Pathankot. It is also an admitted fact that the industrial dispute was raised by the workman before A.L.C. (C), Chandigarh and 1 he conciliation proceedings resulted in failure report to Appropriaic , Govt. The appropriate Govt. has referred the dis- pute to this Tribunal which has neen registered as I.D. No. 62/87.

7. The workman has submitted his affidavit Ex. WI and the .documents Ex. W2 to W12. The management has submitted the affidavit of Amar Singh which is Ex. Ml5 and the affidavit Ex. Ml6 of Shri R. V. Kalgavnkar. Besides these affidavits the documents Ex. Ml to M14 have been submitted by the management.

8. In this case the material facts are admitted facts which are essential to decide the complaint. The first point for consideration is that whether the services of the workman wL-re treated, as abandon- ment of job during the pendancy of any proceedings before this Tribunal. Jt is an admitted fact that the conciliation officer sumbmitteci the report of failure, of conciliation proceedings to aporopriate Govt. vide his report d?.ted 6-10-1986 which is Ex. W13. These conciliation proceedings relates to the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect of the workman. This punishment was awarded by the management after the departmental enquiry which was held 'or the alleged misconduct of the workman. The reference order No. L—12012/467/ 86-D-1KA) dated 18-8-1987 wa*" passed by the appro- priate Govt. on 18-8-1987 which was registered in this Tiibunal on 25-8-1987 as r.D. No. 62/87. The management issu;j the letter da'ed 20-5-1987 Ex. W2 directing the wo"kman to join his dudes at Pathankot Branch within 30 days of the notice. But the workman A'd net joia 'iuties at Pathankot and submitted his reply ide his letter dated 26-5-19871 which IIHS b?m exhibited as Ex. W.-S. The manage- ment issued anoth r memorandum dated. 29-7-1987 Ex. W6 which was ivccivrd by iho workman on 7-8-1087. He repii.-d. "n 8-8-1987 i n ^ ' i n? upon the monageni'.'H lo r^U'in him at Li"'hj..ma. The woik- man did not join his duties at Pi>{ha.nkot. Thus it is evident that the workman was trented as volun- tarily retired from service after 6-10-1986 and p-ior to 18-8-1987, vide letter dated 29-7-1987 (Ex. W6). Undei these circumstances it can rot b^ held that during, thu pendancy of any proceedings before this Tribunal the order dated 29-7-1987 Ex. W6 was issued by the management. Therefore, the com-"U>int U/S 33-A is not maintainable

9. The appropriate Govt. has referred the indus- trial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which relates to the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. This penalty was imposed for the misconduct of the workman. The management has treated the workman that he had abandoned his job on his own violaiion. There- fore, the action taken by the management is not connected with the industrial dispute which is pen- ding before this Tribiwi. Therefore, the pc-mission for taking alleged action is not required in this c a e. When the alkged action is not conn cted with the main reference the management can not be held liable to bo held responsible for the contravention of Section 33 of the Jndustual Disputes Act. 1947.

10. Both the parties have cioss-examined the witnesses of each other. But in this case all the material facts are admitted therefore it is not necessary to discuss their testimony. Other documents filed, by both the parties are not material for un- folding the real controvcisy between the panics.

11. Taking into consideration the discussion made in preceding paragraphs the complaint filed by the workman is not maintainable. Therefore, it is dismissed with ro relief. Both the parties shall bear their own cost of 'hese p*oce?di"gs. Appro- priate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer 10-8-2001.

New Delhi, the JrU September, 2U01 S.O. 2598.—In pursuance of Scdion 17 ol' the Industrial Dispute Aet TM7 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes [he award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabal- pur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory and their workman which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-14OI1|5!91-JR(DUJ]

KULDIP RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO. CGIT'LC!l<:45|92 PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRT K. M. RAI Shri Rakcsh Kumar Verma and others, C o. General Secretary. Mazdoor Sangh. Type A : I [ 1. East Land Estate, Ordnance Factory, Katni.

• • Applicant.

Versus

General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kaini.

• • Non-applicant.

AWARD

IVtsscd on this 3rd day of July, 2001 ], The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-14011 |5l91-TR: DU dated 4-3-92 has referred Y:he following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : —

2. The case for the workmen is that the applicant Union is a (.ratio Union registered under the provisions of iuduin Trade Union Aet, ' '.20 beJring ih u;;iMr,ition No. 2754. Tiv. Union ib Uyaiiy compL^nl to Kpresent the cusV of workmen who were employed to the post of ticket sorters by the management vide i-rdcr dated 31-10-80. This recruitment was made for the post of LDC after conduct- ing the written tcsL followed by interview. The workman appeared in the written lest and came onL succcsfully for the appointment to the post of LDC. Subsequently the management employed them on the post of ticket sorters for which 'he minimum required qualification is Higher Secondary. For the post of ticket sorter, there is no condition for appearing in the test and interview.

The test and interview are taken only for clerical stall'. Instead of giving appointment to the post of LDC, they were employed, as ticket sorters. They were informed by the management to join the post of ticket sorters with a condition that if they failed to join the snid post, their appoinfment orders would be cancelled. In such a circumstance, the workman had no alternative but (o join the post of ticket sorter.

3, The workmen further allege that the job assigned to the ticket sorter is as under : —

L'A workman able to identify English letters and figures and sort out metal tokens, passes etc. and hand them on Boards serially or as re- quired."

Initially thev were given the pay scale of Rs. 196-232 w.e.f. 1 1-86 which was subse- quently revised as per recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission. They were per- forming the duty of LDC since Oct. 1980 though they were frwen the apnointment as ticket sorters and therefore they are entitled to be absorbed in the nost of f .PC or !hey sho:.'!-i be promoted as LDC. Since- Oct. !9sn (hey are performing the duty of LDC and 'heref^re they nre entitled to Dromo'ion as LDC. The duties which th."' ire perform- jiv¹ HY ^s i""!f!er : —

"Whether the management of Ordnance Factory, Katni Distt. Jabalpur is justified in not promoting and re- gularising Shri R"kesh Kumar Verm a, Mahendra Pratnp Singh, Vijay Kumar Shivhare, Sheikh Mustak, Vijay Shankar Shukla, Prakash Kunrir Sriv.^tav. Yashpal Sin5463 (iii) Endorsement of annual increment, leave and accident leave on receipt of unauthorised documents.

(iv) Calculation of late arrival time while mustering IN [OUT deduction of sortjpetty leave period day to day basis and endorsement thereof.

(v) Calculation]totaling of whole month working at the end of month for the purpose of payment calculation.

(vi) Calculation of casual (systematic overtime performed by the each individuals in the particular month for the purpose of payment.

4. The workmen further contend that they are continuously performing the duty of clerk and therefore they are entitled for absorp- tion! promo tionjregularisation to t ne Po st °f L D C. In spite of repeated request the manage- ment has refused to promote them as L D C. To frustrate the claim of the workman, the General Manager of the Ordnance Factory has illegally and without the approval of the Ordnance Factory Board amended the job specification of ticket sorters and circulated among the workers. This amended job speci- fication is meaningless as it has been passed without jurisdiction. The management has promoted some of ticket sorters as L DC and they have been regularised also. The work- men are performing the duty of L DC and therefore they are entitled to promotion as L DC with other consequential benefits. The management has illegally refused their re- ques: in this connection. A suitable order in this connection is therefore solicited.

5. The case for the management is that the applicant Union has not been recognised by the management. The workmen were not recruited for the post of L DC but they were recruited after written test and interview for the post of ticket sorter only. They qualifi- ed in the: written test and interview and there- fore they were selected for the post of ticket sorte". The job specification submitted by the workmen does not bear any date. The job specification relied by the management is Annr-cute A-T which shows that the work involved is identical with the actual work beimT o r r i cd on* b.v the workman. It is wronft to SPY thft for the ticket sorters there is r,o condition for ennearins in the test and irtf'Tvicw. The workmen are performing the dirty of f"Hcpf sorter or>'v and not that of L DC 2863 GI/2001—15

as alleged by them. They are not entitled to promotion for regularisation as LDC. In view of this fact, they are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them.

6. Following issues arise for decision in this case :—

1. Whether the workmen are entitled to promotion and regularisation as L D C?

2, Relief and costs ?

7. Issue No. 1.—-The workmen had claimed that initially they were called for interview to fulfill the vacancy of the post of LDC in Ordiu.nce Factory, Katni. The vacancy for clerk was notified for which they had sub- mitted their applications. They were declared successfull in the interview. Instead of giv- ing appointment to the post of LDC, they were employed as ticket sorters in the year 1980. After getting the appointment orders, they joined their duty and performed the duty of LDC though they were appointed as ticket sorters. They are continuously per- forming the duty of LDC since the date of their appointment as ticket sorter and there- fore they are entitled to be promoted as LDC.

8. The workmen have not filed the copy of noiiiicTtipns to show that the vacancy for LDCs were notified and they had applied for this post. In the absence of this document, it will not be proper to hold that {he workmen had actually applied for the post of LDC and after being successful in the test, they were given the appointment to lower post of ticket sorter by the management. The burden was on tlv, workmen to prove that they had applied for the substantive post of LDC only. They have failed to prove it.

9. The management has filed the copy of letter dated 8-2-99 ( M i) addressed to ' the employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Katni for recruitment of ticket porters. The em.piovmenf officer wai requested to submit the ]\H of the candidates to f M vr" the vacan- cies of ticket sorters as per notification. This document has not been challenged by the workmen. The contents of th's document go to shov that the vacancy of ticket sorter were ro*^.'fi Pnd " fw thz selection of the candi- date'- the appointment letters for filling j>p the vperuiev of the ticket sorter w^p issued. Thn VPC?ncv of LDC v.mv povpr notified nor T" f^-t iyfc ronc!'i"trvi frs*- the same The5464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 200J/ASVTNA 7, 1923 (PART JI—Sec. 3(11)1 claimed in this case. The reference is accord- ingly answered in favour of the management and against the workmen.

14, Copy of (he award be sent to die Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

contention of the workmen is therefore belied by this documentary evidence, The workmen have not filed any copy of the noufjapion to show that they were interview for the post of LDC in the year 1980. On this basis, their claim for promotion cannot be held to be justified.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer 10. The copy of job specification (Ex. M. II) has been filed by the management to show that the ticket sorters are not a skilled labour. This fact also gets support from the statement of office supdt. of the manage- ment Shri K. D. Sahu. He has stated that the

t i c k et s o r t e rs h ad b e en c l u b b ed w i lh u n s k i l l-

ed l a b o u r.

„. ., ^ . • M V V -. (; , X ':

New Delhi, (he 3rd September, 2001

A,.,'licniit.

11. For getting promotion as LDC, the workmen has to undergo the test as per rules and after being successful in the test, the promotion order is issued. In the present case, the workmen has not been able to show that the cleared the test for getting promotion as LDC. Without clearing this test, no worker can claim any promotion as a matter of right. The workmen have not been able to show any statutory rules to prove that they are entitled to get automatic prorao'ion as LDC because of their length of service as ticket sorters. They canno'. get in the absence of such rules, get automific promo- tion as LDC. They must face the test for getting promotion failing which they will not be entitled to be promoted as claimed. The workmen who cleared this test were given promotion as per rules. It cannot be snid thai, the management has discriminated in giving promotion +o the workers who were successful in the test for the said purpose. The workmen therefore cannot get any benefit of the argument that som<* ticket sorters have been promoted and 'hev had not been consi- dered for the same.

Passed on this 1st day of AURU',', 2001

12. Fn view of the foregoing riiscussions.it is held that the workmen were bnsiccilly ap- pointed as ticke* sorters in firms of the notification. They never .appeared in ihe test r>ir filing Ihc vacancy of LDC n¹'. claimed by them. They have neither Mpp^ared nor clear- ed the test as L DC ns net- rules nvd therefore they cmnot cbi'm the promotion ,TS a ma<

"i?. T^sue No, ?..—Tn view of my f>d

niviT. on 'ss'.'e ro. I, the wo^i-p.m nrc not enti+led tn pro^iotjo'i ,is T PC¹ r"s claimed bv them, They ire nof entitle! to r iv r^Ticf as

management. The workman admittedly c"t re-employment \Vjih effect from 31-12-1980. Initially he was appointed on JK-5-1 y62 by the management and remained in continuous acivice till 4-7-1972 i.e. the date of icimiuutiun. Fiom tlie action of the management, it appeals that the woikman did not commit anv serious misconduct and therefore he wns thought fit to he icemployed w.c.f. 31-12-1980. At the same time the management has failed to piove thai a proper ami legal Depci [mental 1'iiquiry was conducted against him. Further the woikmun has retitcil from service w.e.f. May, 1194. Takinj{ n |l these facts into cotisiJei ation, I think it piopei that the absence of woikman fioiti seivice w e.f. July 1972 till 31-12-lytiO be tieatcd as continuous service only fo rthe purpose of pensionery benefit. The workman '.hall not be entitled to back wages for the said period.

4. In Ihe light of the forejr^inK icaoons, it is held that the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous seivice w.e.f. 1-7-1972 to 31-12-1980 for the purposes of pensioneiy benefits only. The w-nrkmnn shall not he entitled to any back wages. for the said pci iod. I he management shall pav the pension- eiy benefits available to him within the period of 6 months as per rule.

5. Copy of the aw aid be sent to the Mmistiy of Laboui, Government of India as per rules.

K. M, RAT, Piesidinp Officei New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 2600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cuin-Labour Court, Banga- lore as shown in the Anne/uire in ihe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-14012|25 97-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA- Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN F INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

"SHRAM SADAN",

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE. TUMKUR ROAD YESIIWANTHPUR. BANGALORE Dated : 24th August 2001 PRESENT :

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

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R. No. 51|98

I PARTY

Shri Shivananja- BonnnenahalH Village, Thyag.ilur Post, Gubbi Taluk, I iimkur District, Advocate—Shri P. G. Siddesh.

II PARTY

The Management, Military Farm, Ilebbal, Rangalore-5 60024, Advocate—Shri V. P. Kulkarni.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising ihe 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-14012|25!97-IR(DU) dated 28-5-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Military Farm, Bangalore is juslili- fied in terminating the services of Shri Shivananja, If so- to what relief Shri Shivananja. If so, to what relief ?. The First partv was working with Ihe Second Party in the Farm House at Hebbal. He was dismissed from service and therefore. Industrial Dispute is raised.

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

4. The c;ise >>f the first party is that he was appointed by the Second Party as Gawala in the KJ m of the second p-ir'y on 1 6-1983. Ear- lier to this appointment also he was working vvilh the second party for some time. He work- ed sineerelv and to the satisfaction of the in;m.r\".:ment. The mnnai_vment without issuing any rofkv 1 nninated the services of the ficit pi.rty on 26-10-1 OSS which is not correct.

11. It is clear from the records thai the management removed him and thereafter re- instated on 2 or 3 occasions, it is not proved by the management that the first party remain- ed absent and left job on his own accord as alleged by the management.

5. It is the further case of the first party thai on earlier occasions when he was termi- niiled he requested for reguiaiisalion and iie was regularised. Afier conciliation proceed- ings again he was regularised. The Second Pany deliberately and intentionally in order to harass the first party terminated his ser- vice very often for no reason. He is depend- ing on his job and the enure family is starv- ing for their livelihood. First pany for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. The case of the second party in brief is

12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first party that the first party has work- ed for more than 5 years and tins proved from the records. The order of termination with- out any enquiry, charge sheet or compensa- tion is not correct and in support of this argu- ment he relied the following 2 citations :

as iollows :

(i) JT 2 0 00 ( 3) SC'Pat-e 1 (ii) JT 2 0 00 ( 9) SC page 4 57 7. The first party was appointed as daily rated casual labourer whenever there was work.

13. I have read the decisions carefully. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decisions and the evidence of the work- man I am of the opinion that the order of termination is not correct and this dispute has merit. Accordingly proceed to pass the follow- ing Order :

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. The order of termination is set aside and the manage- ment is directed to reinstate the first party from the date of termination with con'inuiiy of service. In the given circumstances no backwages are given.

(Dictated to PA transcribed her corrected

and signed by me on 24th August 2001).

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding Otlicer 8. It is further stated that on 26-10-88 the first party left the job without intimat'ng the second party on his own accord. He sub- sequently approached the Labour Commis- sioner for conciliation and the management agreed to take him on duty and he worked from 5-8-1989. He again came back to work on 2-11-1989 and got his 17 days wages. He was instructed not to remain absent but he did not report to duty. After the lapse of 5 years and 8 months he again approached the Labour Commissioner and the allegations that the Second Party used to terminate his services very often is false. The first party himself voluntarily stopped coming to work. The first party has made all false allegations. The dispute is not an industrial dispute as stated in para 2 of Ihc Counter. He has work- ed as only a casual labourer and he has not worked for more than 240 days continuously and therefore the second parly has prayed to reject the reference.

9. It is seen from the records that the management remained absent even after giv- ing adjournments. The management has not examined any witnesses. First party got examined himself as WWI.

New Delhi, the 3rd September- 2001 10. According to the evidence he says that he has worked for 5 years. His father was also working with the management. He was removed on 3 occasions and again he was regularised. He had given detailed date. He is not cross examined by the management because the management remained absent. There is no reason to discard his evidence. The first party has tiled Ex. WJ and Ex. W2.

S.O. 2601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act- 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabulpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputes between the cmnloyers in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory and their workman which was rccc'v- cd by the Central Government on 3-^-2001.

[No. L-14012S3 9I-TR(DU)| KULDIP RAI VERMA, >A>k Oilic.i

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI BUN AL-LUM-LABOUR COURT. JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT|LC,R 182,91 Shri K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer Shri O. P. Yadav, President, Ordnance Labour Union, Khumana. C|o. Shri Rajkuinar Sonkar, C|o. Shri Munnu Lai Hansraj Shankar, Ghamapur Chowk. Khatik Mohaila. Jubalpur.

. Applicant.

546/ On the basis of records, the charge was not proved against him and even then the En- quiry Orhcer gave a perverse finding holding the charges proved against him. The manage- ment had failed to produce relevant material to prove the alleged misconduct against the workman during the enquiry proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted the report of the Enquiry Olficcr and terminated the services of the workman illegally w.e.f. 5-8-90. The termination order therefore deserves to be quashed and die workman's widow Meera Bai is entitled to receive the monetary benefits from the management.

Versus

The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur.

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of August, 200 J 1. The Government of India, Ministry oi Labour vide order No. L - 1 4 0 1 2 I 8 3 | 9 1 - I R- DU dated 22-11-91 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication by this tri- bunal :—

"Whether the action of the management oi' Ordnance Factory Khamaria Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Rajkuinar Ex. O.F.K. T. No, Q. C,4l69 w.e.f. 5-8-90 is justilieJ ? If not, to what relief is the work- man entitled ?"

2. The case for the workman Shri Rajkuinar is that he was employed as fitter (intruments) by the General Manager, Ordnance F.'ictorv, Khamaria Jabalpur. During the course of his employment, he was served with a charge- sheet dated 28-5-88 by the management for attempted theft of Govt. material from the possession of the management. The workman demed all the charges levelled against him. The management was not satisfied with the explanation and consequently the DE was con- ducted a;r\ins1 him for the in id misconduct. The encmirv OHirer conducted the enquiry in \iolntion of the principles of natural justice.

3. The case for the management is thai the workman Rajkumar was apprehended while he was trying to go out of A-4 section of Factory premises along with fuse 117 brass shutters blank kept in a Navy blue cotton bag which was kept in a strap plastic bag. The plastic bag was kept on the cycle carrier of the workman when he was apprehended at about 12-50 hours on 16-5-88 by the Staff and the foreman of A-4 section. On receiving the infor- mat'on, the security staff immediately reach- ed the spot and took the workman to the security olfice for interogation. Thereafter he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 19-5-88. He was served with a chargeshcet dated 28-5-88 for committing gross misconduct of attempted theft of Government property, un- authorised handling of factory material with an intent to commit the offence of theft and acting in a manner which was an unbecom- ing ot a Government servant. The workman denied the charges levelled against him and therefore the DE was conducted against him.

-1. The management further alleges that the enquiry was conducted in a just and pro- per manner and the workman was given an ample opportunity to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer. He was given all rele- vant documents to defend his case properly. The Enquiry Officer himself considered the enliie material on record and held the charges proved against the workman. The Discipli- nary Authority accepted the enquiry report and terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 5-8-90. The workman had committed a ^e:"ious misconduct and therefore the penaitv of dismissal from service is absolutely p-oporlionnte which doesnot require any inteifercnce. The workman has been rightly iemoved from service by the management and tlicivfoiv ho is not entitled to any relief as claimed by his widow.

5. The following issues arise for decision in this ease and my Jindings thereon are noted hereinafter —

1. Whether the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the workman is just and proper ?

2. Whether the workman was illegally dismissed from service by the management w.e.f. 5-8-90 ?

3. Whether the workman's widow Meeni Bai is entitled to monetary benefits as a legal heir of the deceased work- man ?

4. Relief and costs ?

b. Issue No. 1.—It has been held by this tribunal on 3-5-99 that the Departmental En- quiry conducted against the workman was just and proper. In view of this finding- this issue needs no further consideration at all.

2. Issue No. 2.-—The Departmental en- quiry conducted against the workman by the management has been held to be just and pro- per. In view of this fact, now the sole ques- tion remains to be answered is as to whether the charge of misconduct has been proved against the workman from the material avai- lable in the enquiry proceedings or not. The enquiry papers go to show that the Enquiry Officer had given the ample opportunity to the workman to defend his case properly. He participated in the Departmental Enquiry along with his defence Assistant. The prose- cution witnesses were cross examined effecti- vely and the possible defence was put forth during the hearing of the case. The Enquiry Officer has reasonably considered the entire evidence on record in a judicious and fair manner and after due consideration he held the charges proved against the workman. The report of the Enquiry Officer does not appear to be perverse. This report is based on sound reasoning. In such a circumstance, this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence available for the Enquiry Officer by sitting ay a court of appeal over the order of Disci- plinary Authority. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is held that the charges of misconduct have been proved against the workman and therefore the report of the En- nui ry Officer docs not rcquhv :my interference by this court.

8. The workman Rajkumar was charged with the misconduct of attempted theft of Government property from the premises of the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. The fact of kajkumar necessarily involves a serious misconduct. In such a condition, the im- position of penalty of dismissal from service cannot be held to be unjust and improper. The management has rightly imposed the proportionate punishment or dismissal from service on the workman w.c.f. 5-8-90. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

9. Issue No. 3.—In view of my findings given on Issue No. I & 2, the workman Rajkumar's widow Meera Bai is not entitled to receive any monetary benefits from the management in the present case. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

10. Issue No. 4.—On the reasons stated above, it is held that the charges of miscon- duct were properly proved against the workman in the Departmental Enquiry which was conducted in a just and proper manner. The penalty of termination from service im- posed on the workman is perfectly legal. The workman's widow Meera Bai is not entitled to receive any monetary benefits by virtue of being legal heir of dceased workman Rajkumar. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

11. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAL Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 I S.O. 2602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Bangalore as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relat'on to the management of H. 0., K. K. G. Sub Area and their workman which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-14012il32|98-lR(DU).

No. L-14O12'122'98-IR(DU),

No. L-1401211 99-rR(DU)l KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

"SHRAM SADAN",

G. G. Palya, Tumkur Road, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560022 Dated : 27th August, 2001 PRESENT :

V. N. KULKARNI. Presiding Officer C.R. No. 37|99

I Party

Sh. A. Sagaya, C o. Sagam Tea Stall, Shop No. 5, Corporation Building. Dr. BSA Road, Frazer Town. Bangalore-560005.

II Party The Chairman, Commander H. Q., KKG Sub-area, Bangaiore-560001.

C.R. No. 41199

T Party

Smt. Nageswari A, W'n. M. K. Krmpa Shetty (DO), District Officer for the Kamataka, Backward Classes Minorities Corpn., Baii'nrpet Circle, Dharmrayanagan Near. Microwave Soft, Kolar District, Koiar-563113. II Party The Chairman, C^nrnander H. Q.. KKO Sub-area, B.vi.cilorc-560001.

5469- C.R. No. 55 [99

I Party

Sh. J. Narayan, C]o. Shankarappa BotnaiiL No. 626 A, III Sector, H M T Colony, Bnngalore-560013.

II PARTY

The Chairman, Commander H Q., KKG Sub-area, Bangaiore-560001.

Appearances :

I Party.—A. J. Srinivasan, Advocate. II Party.—Col. Bhupindcr Singh (Re'd,) Advocate.

COMMON AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause "(d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 has referred the following disputes for adjudi- cation vide their Reference Numbers : —

C.R. No. 37!99

(j) Mo. L-140J2' 132 QS TR(DU) dated 22-4-J999

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Canteen Run by HO Karnataka Kerala & Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether (he action of the Canteen Mirunucmcnt run by the HO Karnataka Kerala and Goa Sub Aren Banealore in terminating the scivico. of Sh. A. Saeavm is legal ancf justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entiileJ '?" C. R. No, 41'99

(b) No. L-14OI2!122|9S|IR(DU) dt. 22-4-99.

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the Ca-iHeen run by HO Karnataka Kerala and Goa SuVAreu. Bangalore is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and If so, whether the act;>>n of the Canteen Management in terminating the services of Smt. N.ifu^wari A is legal and jusfilcd ? If not, to what relief she is entitled '."'

C.R. No. 41/99

(c) No, L-146>12I1I99[IR('DU) dated 04-05-1999

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Canteen Run by HO Karnataka Kerala & Goa Sub Area, Bangalore is an5470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART IT—SFC. ? ( P )1 induslry under the Induslrial Disputes Act, 1947 7 If so, whether the action of the Can- teen Management in terminating the ser- vices of Sh. J. Narayan is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled ?

2. Advocate for the I party is present. Advocate for the II party is present.

3. I party has filed Memo seeking permission to withdraw the matter. This is a reference by the work- man, wherein, the workman has challenged the Termination Order by way of the Industrial Dispute.

4. The Claim Statement is filed. Counter is also filed by the TI party.

5. Tn view of memo filed by the I parly, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

Permission is granted to withdraw the cases and the cases are disposed off accordingly. i (Dictated to the LDC in open court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 27th August 2001)

V. N. KULKARNl, Presiding Oilicer New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 2603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Trihunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Coaxial Cable Project and their workman, vhich was received by the Cen- tral! Government on 3-9-200!.

LNo. L - 4 0 0 1 1 / l l / 9 0 - I R ( D U )l KUI.D1P RAl VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CG1T'LC!R!?.10]90

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai,

Shri Mnnohar and 18 ohers,

. . Applicant.

1 he Circle Secretary, lihartiya Telephone Kuimachari Line Staff and Chaturth Ward, -i4|2-6. South T. T. Najiar, Briopuil.

Versus

The Director, Telecom Coaxial Cable Project, G.T.B. complex, Sablok, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal.

. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this l'/lh day of July 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-40011| UJ90-IRDU dated 21-10-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : —

"Whether the action of the Director, Telecom Coaxial Cable Project, Dhopal in termina- ting|retrenching the services of Shri Munohar and 18 other casual labourers with effect from 1-4-88 is wrong ? Tf wrong to what relief the workers are entitled for and from which date."

2. The case for the workmen is that (hey were employed by the telecom Deptt. as casual worker on daily wage basis for coaxial cable project for digging trenches, laying cables, maintaining the cable line and removing the fault etc, iv the year 1983. They JcontlnuouslLV Served the telecommunication depart- ment for the said purpose till 1988. Their services were terminated w.e.f. 1-4-88 without giving one month statutory notice and retrenchment compensa- tion according to the provisions of Sec-25-F of the l.D. Act, 1947. The management did not prepare the seniority list of the workmen and they recruited new workers after terminating their services for the purpose for which they were employed earlier. The present workmen were regularly paid their wages on monthly basis and their attendance were maintained by the management. They had continuosly worked for more than 1500 days prior to the termination of their services. In this way they aie entitled to the recularisation of service in the Telecom deptt. The fiction of the management in terminating their services have violated the provision of Sec-?5 of l.D, Act, 1947 and therefore they arc entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential monetary benefits.

3. The case for tin: manavment is that the work- men were engaged Durelv as casiuil worker fcfr Coaxial Cable project to lay down the cabl; after divine trenches etc. Their emolovmsn' was for ih's narti- cujnr project onlv and after the completion of fhe proiecf their emnlovnicrit automatically r;inv to .^m end. Their services wor^ not terminated bv 'he mnnnpemenf. Their claim ^ not covered¹ imr)er the nrvisions of See.-25 of thr; T.D. Act 1947. Their pnrointmen* v is not mrtHf tbrnii"h the emniovment crhanpe which is mandatory. At \hc same time, thp workmen never worked np'^nst the sanctioned nncK Tn vi'ew of nil thei;^ flirts, thf*v are not f*n- i''iVr! t.> rptniin'vntinn vvifn back wnnf^- and o'hiT monetary benefits.

4. The following issues arise tor decision in this

case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter:—

1, Whether the workmen are entitled to regula-

risation with back wages,?

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur ap shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D|d Post and their workman, which was received¹ by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

2. Relief and costs ?

5. Issue No. 1:

[No. L-40O12|67|96-TR(DU)1 KULD1P RAt VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT|LC|R|18|91

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

...Applicant.

Shri Wahid Ali, S|O Shahaldat Ali, R O H. No. 2, Near MLB College, Naiyo Wali Gali, Budhwara, Bhopal.

Versus

..,Non-applicant.

The Post Master General, M.P. Circle, Dak Bhawan, Hoshamgabad Road, Bhopal. The Manager, Mail Motor Services (P&T), G.P.O. Campus, Bhopal fMP)

informed that theie was no sanctioned post of Auto Ek\:i.rickiri in the depjilment. In such a state of affairs when there is no sanctioned post then no appoiniment can be made against the same by any ;iiiiihori(v unless the po^t is sanctioned by the depart- meni. On this point, the workman cannot be re- gularised as an Auto Electrician in the Deptt, as cla'med by him.

8. On the above '.aid reasons it is held that the management was prefectIy right in terminating his service as Auto ElectricMn w.e f, 4-9-89 as there was no sanctioned post of A J IO electrcian in the depart- ment. His appointment was illegal Tssue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

9. Fssuc No. 2 :

3. The claim of the mm igemcnt is that the work- man was given a contract to carry out. all electrical repairs and maintenance ol all vehicle-, of RMS. Bhopal w.e.f. 28-7-87. i he workman was novLT given an employment of Auto Electrician against the regular post as claimed by him. Ht WM purely a contractor to cany .>ut the electrical repairs of the vehicles, There v\as no relationship of employer and¹ employee between the parties to this case. The woik of the applicant was not found satisfactory and there- fore his contract was tcnninaled by the management. The management has i:ot violated the provision (if Sec-25"-F of the I.D. Act as the workman was never retrenched by the management. There WHS no sanc- tioned post of the Auto Electrician in the DepU, and therefore the workman ha* no right to post. The Department could not g-ve any employment as Auto Electrician in the absence of sanctioned post. The workman is therefore not entitled to any relief as claimed by him:—

4. The following issues aiisc ior decision in Ibis case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter: —

In view of my finJi^g given on Issue No. ), the workmajn is not entitled to regulansation as Auto ElccHcian in the flep-arhTtent. He is also not en- titled to back wages and other monetary benefits as claimed by Tvm, Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

1. Whether the services of the workman were

JO, Tssue No. 3:

illegally terminated by the management?

2. Whether the workman k entitled 1o reinstate-

ment with back wages?

3. Relief and costs ?

tn the light of the foregoing reasons, it is held that the termination of the workman w.e.f, 4-0-89 passed by 1'ie management is just and proper. The workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and ujrivn.st the workman.

5. Issue No. 1 :

II. Copy of the aword be sent to the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M, RAT, Presiding Officer5473 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL G O\ iIRNMiiN I INDUSTRIAL TRIUUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R, 12/96 Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Kai.

Shri Ram Sevak Kori, Thi'ough the Secretary, Council of Trade Union, 1123, Wright Town, Opp. Telegraph Gate No. 3, Jabalpur.

Applicant.

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom. 1123, Wright Town, Opp. Telegraph Gate No. 3, Jabalpuv.

Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of August, 2UU1 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-40012/224/94-IRDU dated 28-12-95 has referred the following dispmc for ad- judication by this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management in m.t regularising the workman Shri Ram Suvak Kori, S/o Shri Parsadi Lai Kori Ex-casual Labour and terminating his .services w.e f. 31-7-94 is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" the action of the management •uuvs not amount to re- trenchment of the workman. His dis-cominuunce from service is juU and proper. He himself had left the work voluntarily. In view of all these facts, the work- man is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

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

1. Whether the management had illegally ter- minated the services of the workman w.e.f. 31.7-94 ?

2. Whether the workman is entitled to re- instatement with back wages ?

3. Relief and costs?

5. Issue No. I .—The claim of the workman is that he was appointed as electrician in the month of February, 1988. In support of his claim, he has not filed any written order of appointment. He has cate- gorically admitted in his cross examination that his name was never sponsored through the employment exchange for I he appointment as an electrician. The management gave employment io him wherever some urgency arose, In this way, he was a casual worker. For getting the temporary status in the department, he should have continuously worked for 240 days prior to 22-6-88 as per the scheme of the Govern- ment of Tndia, copy of which has been filed as An- nexure A-9. In view of this circular, the workman is not entitled to get the teniprnviry siatus for getting regularisation in the telecommunication department. 6, 'I he workman also woikcd only for a period of 31 days in the month of .January, 94 and (hereafter no proof of his serving the department has been filed. It appears that he himself had left the job voluntarily and therefore he cannot claim to be regularised in the deparlmcnt. In such a circumstance, the work- man cannot get the benefit of provisions of Sec-25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he was never retrenched by the management. He himself had left the job and therefore the question of termination from service does not arise at all.

7, In view 'M' the foreg-.ing reasons, it K; held that5474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVlNA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)1 New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O 2606.—In pursuance of. Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publisher the award of ihc Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lubour Court Idukki, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-40(H2|568|2000~lR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI

(Dated, this the 20th day of July, 2001) PRESENT;

Shri P. V. Abrahan, B.Sc, L.L.B., industrial Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 2001

BETWEEN

The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Kattappana Sub Division, Kattappana-685 508.

.Management.

AND

L Shri S, M. Binumon, Souriyamkuzhil House, Padamugham PO.. Murickassery-685 604.

. . .Workman.

REPRESENTATIONS :

Shri S. Krishnamurthy, Advocate, Kochi-11 —

For Management.

AWARD

The Government of Tndia, as per order No. L-40012/568/20OO/I R(DU) dated 26-3-2001 refer- red this industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

The issue referred for adjudication is the follow- ing :—

"Whether the action of the Sub Divisional Ins- pector of Post Offices, Kattappaua in ter- minating the services of Shri S. M. Binumon, Extra Departmental Mail carrier at Padamu- gham Post Office on 20-12-97 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the work-< man is entitled'?"

Even though the management as well as the work- man had appeared before this Tribunal initially, the workman remained absent subsequently. Therefore, the workman was declared ex-parte. The management has filed an affidavit substantiating their contentions.

The workman has not filed any claim statement. The complaint submitted by the workman before the 'Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kochin,L has not been appended to I he reference order. The management has stated in trie affidavit that the work- man was provisionally appointed as Extra Depart- mental Mail Carrier, Padamugham from 19-6-1997. During that period Shri S. M. Binunion had worked only on 172 days. Therefoie, the workman is not eligible for any relief.

The workman has not filed any claim statement and he has not adduced any evidence before this Tribunal, The management has stated in the affidavit that the workman had worked only on 172 days iduring the period from 19-6-1997 to 20-12-1997. In the circumstance, the termination of service of the workman cannot be regarded as illegal or unjusti- fiable.

In the result, an award is passed holding that the workman is not eligible for any relief.

P. V. ABRAHAM, Industrial Tribunal New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 2607.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Trihunal-cum-Labour Court.Clu'iinai JIS shown in Ihc Annewre in Ihe In- dmtri.'il Dispute between the employers in relation to5475 this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

the management of Central Coltage industries Corpn. of India Ltd. mid their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

AWARD

|No. L-42012/230/2000-IR(DU)| KULDIP RA1 VERMA. Desk Oi' .a

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN I" INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAJ

"Whether the termination and non-regularisation of Shri R. Vishal Anand by the Manage- ment of Central Cottage Industries Corpo- ration of India Ltd., Chennai, is legal and justified ? Jf not, to what relief the work- man is entitled ?''

Thursday, the 9th August, 2001

2. I he averments in the Claim Statement hied by PRESENT :

the I Party/Workman aie briefly as follows :—

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officei.

Industrial Dispute No, U1/2U01

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of Sub-section (0 and Sub-section 2(A) oj' Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri R. Vishal Anand and the Management of Cential CotLage In- dustries Corporation of India Ltd. (Chcnnai), New Delhi.)

BETWEEN

Shri R. Vishal Anand. . .1 Party/Workman.

AND

The Branch Manager, Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd., (Chcnnai), New Delhi. • .11 Party/Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : M/s>. V. Chandrakanthan P. Karunagaran, M. Aravindan, and R. Sri- vidhya, Advocates.

For the Management ; Sri M. K, Kannan,

Advocate.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudi- cation vide Order No. L-42012/230/2000/IR(DU) dated 17-11-2000.

The I Party|Workman Sri R. Vishul Anand (heie- alter referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as Steno- typist in the II Party /Management, Central Cottage in- dustries Corporation of India Ltd., Chcnnai Olhce, with clfect from 1-9-1998. In the oider of appointment dated 8-10-98 it is mentioned that (he period of pro- bation is one year which is liable to be extended lor a further period of one year in two spells of six months each and the services are liable to be termi- nated vvithout any notice and without assigning any reason. The Branch Manager Mr. M. Anantharaj was enemical towards the Petitioner, threatened him that he will not confirm the Petitioner in service and humi- liated the Petitioner before the visitors for no fault of the Petitioner. The said Branch Manager with a mala fide intention and in order to terminate the Peti- tioner from service indulged in illegal activities. The one year piobation period of the Petitioner expired on 31-8-99. After that date, the Petitioner continued in service as a permanent employee. But the Manage- ment had passed an order dated 12-2-2000, extend- ing the probationary period for six months with re- trospective effect from 1-9-99. It is contrary to law, illegal and unjust. 'I here cannot he an extension of probation period retrospectively. On and from 1-9-99, the Petitioner became a permanent employee of the Management and therefore, the extension of proba- tion retrospectively cannot curtail the rights of the workman, who under law became a permanent work- man. The Management created some documents and chaiged the Petitioner for some misconduct. The alleged misconducts arc incorrect and untenable. No enquiry was conducted ior the allegations and charges levelled against the Petitioner, The Management by its order dated 27-5-2000 Icrminaicd the seivices of the Petitioner with elfect from 31-5-2000. It is con- trary to law, illegal and unjust. The termination order passed by the Management is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. No charge memo was issued to the Petitioner. No enquiry was con- ducted. No explanation was called for and no final show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner before passing the termination order. The dispute raised by the Petitioner before the conciliating authority ended in a failure. On submission of a failure of concilia- tion report by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai, this reference for adjudication of industrial dispute by this Tribunal has been made by Ihe Ministry. Hence, this Tribunal may be pleased to pass nn award holding thnl (lie order of termination of the Peiitionei by the Management dated 27-5 2000 When the matter came up before me for final hear- ing on 15-06-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, other material papers on record, upon perusing the oral evidence lei in on the side of the II Party /Management and the docu- mentary evidence let in on either side and upon hear- ing ihe arguments advanced by the lennied counsel on either sjdc and this matter having stood over till5476 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii;l is illegal and unjust and direct the Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the

h Parly/Management arc briefly as follows : —

service in writing. As per clause 2 of the appointment letter, the Petitioner was terminated from service, since he was found not suitable for confirmation in service. 1 heretore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief inucii less the n.ncf of reinstatement with full back wages. Hence, this Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the reference as well as the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner.

4. When the mailer was taken up for enquiry, only one witness lor the Management has been examined as M\V1 and with the consent of the counsel on cither side have been marked LIS EXS, Wl to WS and Ml to M6. By examining MW1, Ex. M6 has been marked. No one has been examined as a witness for the Petitioner. On conclusion of the evidence on either side, the learned counsel on either side have advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point for my consideration is --

"Without regukuisation the services of Sri R.

vishal Anand, the action of the Management of Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd., (Chennai), New Delhi, in terminating his services is legal and justili- ed ? Tf not, to what relief the workman is entitled V

The Petitioner Sri R. Vishal Anand was appointed as Steno-typist in the Chennai Oliice of Central Cottage Industries Corporation (Jf Indii Ltd. with effect from 1-9-1998 Ex. Wl is the xerox copy of an oilice order No. 241 dated 8-10-98 containing the terms and conditions of the appointment. As per the clause 2 of that appointment order,, tl;e period of pro- bation is for one year lrom the date of appointment and the same is liable to be extended for a further period of one year in two spells of six months each. Ex, W2 is the xerox copy of order dated 21-12-99 passed by the Deputy Manager (Pei sonnel) recom- mending the extension of probation of Mr. R. Vishul Anand on the ground thai his performance as per the fourth quarterly report is not satisf.aci.ory. Ex. W3 is xerox copy of the another ofliee order dated 12-1-2000 by the same Deputy Manager (Personnel) extending the probation period of Mr. R. Vishal Anand, the Petitioner herein by six months w.c.f. J-9-99. Ex. W4 is the xerox copy of another odice order dated 29-2-2000 by the same olliccr emending the probation period of the Petitioner by three months w.e.f, 1-3-2000, All these things have been admitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's services were ter- minated with effect from 31-5-2000 (AN) by an order dated 27-5-2001) of the General Manager (Admii,). A xerox copy of that order is Ex, W5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed only as a steno- typist and not as a P.A. to the Manager. In clause 15 The Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd., Chennai, ttie 11 Party/Management (here- inafter referred to as Respondent) has admitted that the Petitioner was appointed on probation for the period of one year which was liable to be exteiyjed lor a further period of one year in two spells of six months each. In clause 2 ot the letter of appointment, it is provided that during the probation period the services of the Petitioner could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reasons and his ser- vices could be terminated by either party by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. Ihe per- formance of the Petitioner during his probation period was found not satisfactory, by a memo dated 8-5-99, the Petitioner was advised to improve his performance. Since in the fourth quarterly report received from the Manager, Chennai Branch, that the performance of the Petitioner was found unsatisfactory, the pro- bation of the Petitioner was extended for a period of six months by an office order dated 12-1-2000. In spite of extension of the probation period, there was no improvement in the performance of the Petitioner. A memo dated 28-1-20UO was issued to the Petitioner informing him that in spite of repeated oral instruc- tions, he had not rectified his mistakes and had not shown any improvement in his performance of jobs/ duties assigned to him and that his quality of work was not upto the mark and he was advised to improve the same to avoid any further action. On completion of the extended period of probation on assessment by the Management, it was found that the performance of the Petitioner had continued to remain unsatisfac- tory. So the Manager, Chennai Branch recommended that the services of the Petitioner be terminated as his performance was unsatisfactory and he was unabie to overcome mistakes. In spite of that the Manage- ment decided to allord one more opportunity to the workman to improve his conduct and accordingly extended his period of probation for a further period of six months w.c.f. 1-3-2000. Even then, the Peti- tioner showed no improvement in his work perform- ance. He was issued memorandums dated 10-3-2000, 16-3-2000 and 24-3-2000 bringing to his notice about his poor performance. Having found that the perform- ance of the Petitioner was highly unsatisfactory and that the Petitioner had shown no improvement, des- pite extension of his probation period twice, the Management concluded that he was not suitable for confirmation in service and as such his services were terminated on the expiry of the extended period of probation by its letter dated 27-5-2000. So it does not constitute retrenchment, even then the Management paid the Petitioner retrenchment compensation equal to 30 days wages besides one month's notice pay. The termination of the services of the workman on the expiry of the probation period is valid and in accord- ance wilh law. As n prolnlnn •-. iv Petitioner has no right to continue in service on the completion ot his probation period, unless he is conhrmed in the1 I ;' ' oi' the appoiutment ordei. Ex. Wl, (hough mentioned nboul the work to ['k for the .stcno- typist and in the iiell'-LisscsMiient report lie hits admit- Ici that he was doing the woik a r g u ed by the Manager and ihaf alter the compl;iion ni the period of probation neither he was continued in service nor His piobatjnn was extended and here in this c:,ic the Deputy Manager only 'nay extende 1 the probation period anj it has not been done by (lie General Mana- ger and only the General Manager can extend Ihe period of probation or confirm the services of the Petitioner. He would further argue that termination of service of the Petitioner by the Management is illegal and unlawful. Since on the- expiry of probation period on 3I-S-99 neither it was extended nor confirmed and hence, the Petitioner is deemed to be a permanent employee and subsequent extension of probation period on 12-1-2000 with retrospective effect is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel lor the Petitioner has cited a case decided by the Supreme Court reported as ATR I960 SC 1210 The State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh and had advanced an argument that "the extension of pro- bation period beyond the maximum period fixed in the service rule without an express order of confirma- tion cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a probationer by implication". This decision of the Supreme Court in the cited case is not applicable to the present factt, of this case, because, in the cited ease, as per the Service Rules there is a prohibition of extension of probation beyond three years and the probationer was allowed to continue in that post after the expiry of three years without any order of con- firmation, so it was deemed to have been confirmed in the post, whereas in this ease, the Petitioner/Work man was appointed for one year in probation as per clause 2 of Ex. Wl and it was liable to be extended for a further period of one year in two spells of six months. Ex. W3 is a xerox copy of the order dated 12-01-2000 for extension of the probation period by six months passed by the Management with effect from 1-9-1999. Ex. W4 is the xerox copy of the order for an extension of probation period for the Petitioner for three months with effect from 1st March, 2000. By an order dated 27-5-2000, the Petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 31-05-2000 (AN). From these exhibits, it is seen that as per clause 2 of Ex, Wl the services of the Petitioner has been terminated even before the completion of the second extended period of probation. So, the decision of the above mentioned Supreme Court case is not applicable in this case.

of allegation, misconduct and passing of an order of termination without holding enquiry amounts to stigma attached to termination". 1 he learned counsel for'the Petitioner would argue that in this ease also the Petitioner's services \^:re terminated on the ground that his service was unsyUsfnefory and the termina- i'on order without holding any enquiry lor the alleged misconduct, without holding an enquiry amounts to a stigma attached to termination. Me nee, as held in the above High Court case, the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement of service. Here, again the cited case is not applicable to the present facts of this ease, be- cause in the termination order Ex. W5, nothing has been stated as misconduct as a reason for termination, so it cannot be said that any stigma has been attached to the termination order. Further, in that cited case the employee on probat'on was allowed to continue in service without probation being extended and his services were terminated on the ground of miseoncuVt without enquiry, Heie, in this ease, the Petitioner's services were terminated when he was in the extended period of probation. Furthermore, as per clause 2 of appointment order Ex. Wl, the services of the Peti- tioner could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason. Further it is seen from Ex. W2 that the period of probation has been extended since the performance of the Petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. Ex. M6 is the self-assessment report given by the Petitioner himself dated 5-5-99, wherein he has stated clearly that he was assigned Secretarial job i.e. typing, attending calls, maintaining proper re- gister, receiving all letters and other correspondence etc. and he is rectifying his defects one by one and he is learning and improving his performance and he is improving day by day. From this self-assessment report, it is seen what that has been reported by the Management about his performance as unsatisfactory is proved to be correct. MW1 the Manager also has given evidence to that effect that the Petitioner was not performed his duties satisfactorily to the satisfac- tion of the Management and he was issued memos as and wihen his work was not found upto the mark and the xerox copies of those memos are Ex. Ml to M5 and thic Petitioner did not object to these memos. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of MW1 to discredit such evidence in the Chief Exami- nation. In the cross examination, he has categorically stated that the Management gave him two more chances by extending the probation period to correct himself and he recommended for the termination of the services of petitioner, since his performance of duty has not been satisfactory. MWI has cU-nrly stated in his evidence that ther; was no ill feelings and enemity between himself and the Petitioner. So from the evidence of MWI and the memos of Fx. Ml to M5, it is proved by the Respondent/Manage- ment that the Petitioner was not performing his duty satisfactorily as per the expectation of the Manage- ment and that was why he was civen five memos dur- ing his probation period nnd his period of probation was extended only to enable him to rectify himself and to perform his duties to the satisfaction of the Management. Having found that the Petitioner could no( improve himself, the Mannpement thouphf it (it to terminate his service without assigning any reason during the period of probation itself, ;^ Per clause ? of appointment order Ex. Wl. II is held in the case 6, It is the further argument of fhe learned counsel for the Petitioner that the services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Management without any enquiry and the Petitioner was terminated from service for unsatisfactory work wl hence it amounts to a stigma attached to his termination. So. the termination cf service by the Management cannot be considered ¹ as a valid one. He has -elied upon a case decided by the High Court of Gujarat reported as 2001 (2) LLN 739 Deputy Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Mag- dalla Port Development Scheme Vs. Sukhabhai Gandabhai and Others. In that case it is held that "the services of the workman was terminated because5478 THE GA7E-TT.E OF INDIA • SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3(iu] reported as 1992 II LI.N lO2h Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute ol Oncology, Bangalore vs. Dr. Pandurang GodvvaH.ar :iiul Another by the Supreme Court of India' (hat "'when an appointment is made on probation it presupposes that the conduct, performance, ability and the capacity ol the emplo- yee concerned have )o watch i>nd examine during the period of probation. These >o he confirmed after the expiry of probation only when his service during the period of probation is found to b.¹ satisfactory and he is considered suitable Kir (lv_- post ..gainst which lie has been appointed"'. It is funliei held in that case that "termination of service during period of proba- tion after taking into consideration over '^U perform- ance and botne action or inaction on the part of the employee does not amount to removal from service on punishment. This decision of the Supreme Court in this case is squarely applicable to the facts of this present case. In a case reported as 1997(10) SCC 682 it is held that "on consideration of adverse service records, termination of service of an employee by a non-stigmatic order cannot be held as punitive. Hence, it is not illegal merely because of being passed without holding departmental enquirv''. This decision also would squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has cit.d the cases reported as 1998 II LLN 67 1999, (3) SCC 60, 2000(3) SCC 239 as the cases decided by the Supreme Court of Tndia are in support of his con- tention that the termination of service order passed /by the Management against the Petitioner/Workman is with stigma and hence the termination of service of the Petitioner without conducting anv domestic enquiry is illegal. A perusal of these quoted judgements show that in the order of termination passed by the Management against the employee concerned, rea- sons have been give for the termination of service, as stigmatic. So those orders of termination are not termination simpiicitor and (hose orders cannot be compared with Ex. W5 termination order in this case, wherein no stigma is attached. So, the argument ad- vanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner stat- ing that above cited three cases decided by Ihe Supreme Court is helpful to him cannot be accepted as correct. Under such circumstances, it can be easily concluded tint the termination of Sri R. Vishn] Anand without regularizatinri of his service bv >he Manage- ment of Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd, (Chcnnai'New Delhi i, is legal a|nd justified. So, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

8. Tn the result, an a-wrrd is passed holding that termination and non-regularisrition of Sri R. Vishal Anand by the Mana^-ment of Central Cottage Indus- tries Corporation of Tndia Ltd., (Chcnnai) New Delhi, is legal and justified. Hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cosl.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed a'nd typed by him, corrected and ironmmceri iw 'tie in the open court on this day the 9th August, 2001).

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

Eor I Party/Workmrm: None.

Yov II Party/Management :

MW1 Shri M. Anantlruaj.

Documents Marked :

For 1 Party/Workman :

Fx. No. Date Description

Wl 8-10-98—Xerox copy of the office order No. 241 Containing terms & conditions of appointment Issued to [he Petitioner.

W2 21-12-99—Xerox copy of the office note proposing extension of probation period of the Petitioner for six months.

W3 12-1-2000—Xerox copy of the office order for extension of Probation period w.e,f. 1-9-99.

W4 29-2-2000—Xerox jopv of he office order for extension of Piobation period w.c.f. 1-3-2000.

W5 27-5-2000—X^rox copy of the Termina- tion order.

W6 2- 6-2000—X'.'rox compy of the petition filed by the Petitioner before the Conciliation Officer.

W7 Nil Xerox copy of the written statement filed by the Management before the Conci- liation Officer.

W8 1.9-7-2000—X^rox copy of the Counter Statement filed by the Petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C'cniral).

For the JI Party/Management :

Ex. No. Date Description

M1 8-5-99—Xerox copy of Memorandum issued to Petitioner.

M2 28-01-2000—Xerox copy of Memorandum issued to Petitioner.

M3 10-03-2000—Xerox copy of Memorandum issued to Petitioner.

M4 16-03-2000—Xerox copy of Memorandum issued to Petitioner.

M5 24-03-2000—Xerox copy of Memorandum issued to Petitioner.

M6 Nil Original self-assessment report of (he Petitioner.

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2001 S.O. 2608.—In pursuance

[No. L-42O12[243!98-1R(DU)| KULD1P RAT VF.RMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANF.SWAR

PRESENT :

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

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 257 2001^ Bhubaneswar, the 13th .August, 2001 BETWEEN :

The Management of the Director, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar. . . 1st Party- Management

AND

Shri Manas Ch. Mahara, Cjo Rajendra Naik, At. Jharpada, Harijan S.ihi, P.O. Jharpada, Distt. Khurda. . . 2nd Party- Workman APPEARANCES :

None—For the l"t 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 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following disputes for adiudication vide their Order No. L-42012/243/98/lR(DU), dated 23-4-1999 ':—

"Whether the action of the management by terminating the services of Shri Manas Charan Muhara and engaging another per- son in his place is legal and justified ? Tf not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed ?"

2. lnspite of notice sent by the Ministry and by the Tribunal since 1999 neither party have made their appearance before the Tribunal. The work- man who is to lile his Claim Statement has remained absent inspite of receipt of .notice. 2R63 GI/2001—17

3. The indifference attitude, snlence and absence of Ihe workman would suggest that no dispute exists between the parties and the workman has got no cnusc of action and he has got no relief to claim.

4. Hence, no dispute award is passed.

5. The reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S.O. 2609.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Anne- xurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-9-2001.

[No. L-40012|31|99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRT B L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM^LABOUR COURT, CHANDTGARH

Case No. I.D. 162|99

. . Workman, Shri Bakshi Ram son of Hardayal, V. & P.O. Mohamandnur Sotter, Teh. Ratia, Distt. Fatehabad (Haryana).

Versus

The Supdt. Post Offices, Hissar Division,

(Haryana )-Hissar.

. Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Workman in person.

For the Management : Tara Chand Sharma.

AWARD

(Passed on 30th of July, 2001)

Tlie Central Government vide gazette notification Mo, L-400l2!3l[99!lR(DU) dated 22nd of July,5430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART JI—SEC. 3(ii)] Between

1999 hiis referred the following dispute to this Tii- bunUl for adjudkitiiion :

Thiru N. Ramcsh., S/o Nallana Naidu, EDDA, Kuppinayakanpatti, Kamachipuram S'.O. 626 520.

And

"Whether tlic ad ion ol' the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hissar Division Hissar in ter- minating the Services of Shri Bakshi R'am son of Shri Hardayal is legal und justified'.' If not, to¹ whiit relief the workman -is en- titled-?"

The Sr. Suptd. of Post Office, Mofusil Division, Madurai-625 002,

54S1

himself in para. 5 of his cluimstntc.ir.cpt. , It is per tinent to note that the antecedents were not verified before 'appointing' the peiiliontr in vi^w of the exigences of Govt. service and when vc.-ified, the veijficaiion report wo ^Id contain the report upto the date qf verification only. The impugned order of termination, is qyitc legal and is in conformity with the principles of natural juitice. Hence there is no valid ground to set aside the order. It is therefore prayed that this Tribunal may bo ,plcas'ed to accept this Counter statement, dismiss the claim petition.

4. On behalf of PLtitjpne.r/Workman,, Ex. WI to W10 were marked by consent. On behalf of res- pondent, Ex. Ml to M3 were marked by consent. No witnesses were examined for both fJdcs.

5. The Point .for cp.nside.njtion • is w^ietfyer the action of the Supdt. of Post offices, Madurai in termi- nating the services of Sri N. Kamesh.w.e.f.. ,30-11-90 is justified'/ If not, to what relief he is entitled to 7 appointed permanently agajnst;the E,D. post, and his appointment was only provisional and initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of E.D. Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964 is not necessary. Aggrieved by the illegal Order of termination, the petitioner raised a dispute under.Section 2(A) f*f the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent have violated the principles under,Articles 311(2) of the Constitution of India, if the petitioner's services were terminatod for any adverse report on his works. The contention of the respondent is untenable is as much as that he had acted on the report of the District Collector who had submitted an adverse report of the antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistratc-I, Usilaropatti by an order dated 5-8-93 in C.C. No. 555/91 (Crime No. 147/88) "nd as such the allegation against the petitioner CiiJs, and the petitioner u entill- epdi for reinstatement as EDDA,. KuppinayaJtanpPtti BwCX It is therefore prayed that this Tribunal may be picked to .call for the records pertaining to Memo No. EDDA/K.N. Patti dated 30-11-90 issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Post offices, Pcriyakulam Sub Divn. and to ,sej aside ^hc same, and to pa^s an award directing the rpetjtioner with all attendant service and monetary benefits.

3. Tjie main ayermenfs found in the Counter

statement of the Respondent arc as follows:

6. THE POINT: The p.titjoner was first appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent at Kuppi- nayakanpatti hranch, office, orily on a provisional basis by the Assistant Superintendent of Post offices, Periyakulam. HLs,date of ajpp ointment is 12-4-1986. As per Memo, dated 5-9-90, the District Collector, Madurai communicated the misconduct of the peti- tioner in as much as he had involved himself in a Criminal case in Crime N.o, 147/88 under Sec. 334 of l.P.C. at Kadamalaikundu Police Station. T^herc was a show cause notice through Ex. W2 dated 12-11-90 for which the petitioner replied with his explanation dated 20-1J -90 through Ex. W3. Not satisfied with the explanation there was an Order of termination daU.-d 30-11-.90 through Ex, W4...The appeal of the petitioner through .Ex. W5 and his further representation through Ex. W6 went in vain. There- fore, there w.;s a p tition iiMder Sec. 2-A of the I.D. Act which also failed.

7. Oiiginally there was an Order by this Court that there was no jurisdiction and subsequently in the Writ petitioner No. 11566 of 1998, dated 20-7-99, the matter was remanded with a finding that there is jurisdiction.

8. Tt is now found that the petitioner had been reinstated through Ex. M 1 Order dated 23-2-2000. The reinstatement was w.e.f. 12-6-95. The TRCA certificate was also produced and marked as, Ex. M 2. The Acquittance roll regarding the petitioner was marked as Ex, M 3. Thus it is seen that the petitioner had been reinstated.

The service of the petitioner cannot be termed unblemished since, enquiry with the payees of the Money orders revealed that the petitioner had committed, irregularities in t^he, payment pf money orders. The explanation dated 20-11-90 of the petitioner was taken into due consideration while a decision on his termination was taken On 30-11-90. The appointment of the petitioner made on 12-4-86 was on Provisional basis. This had to be regularised after reeeiot of Police verification report. When this question of regularisation was taken up, he was declared to be unfit to hold any post under Government. Hence there was no other way but to dispense with his services. The petitioner was given every opportunity to defend himself and hi" representation was taken into consideration. The order was not unilateral but based on a verification report prepared by an indivi- dual authority not connected with the Postal Depart- ment viz. the District Collector who had, in^ {urn relied on the basis of the investigation Agpncv viz. the Police Depaitment. The order was passed with reference to the letter of the District Collector dec- laring the pitjtioner as unfit to hold a post under Govt. and that was made explicit in the letter No. EDDA./K.N.) Patti dated 12-U-90 in which the ex- planation of the petitioner was called for. A show cause mtice was issued as admitted hy the p:titioner

9. The reason for the dismissal was that the petitioner had involved himself in a Criminal case in C. C. No, 147/88 under Sec. 334 of l.P.C, within the limits of Kqdamalaikujidu Police SUtio i In para 17 of the claim petition, it had548: THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II- -Src. l(h)] been stated that the petitioner was acqu'tted hy the Judicial Magistrate-' Court, Usilampatti ty an order dated 5-8-93 in C. C. No. 555/91. This has not been repudiated by the otherside. Therefore, it has now become clear that the Chargo against him is no more in existance. It is on that besis only he h aj been reinstated w.e.f. 12-6-95. When once he has been reinstated from 12-6-95 the claim of the petitioner that he has to be paid with backwages and continuity ol' service from 12-6-95 is logically acceptable. There was also no substantial contention against.

10. Therefore apart from the plea of reinstate- ment that the petitioner is to be awarded with backwages and continuity of service from 12-6-95. Award passed accordingly. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this 14th da} of August, 2001.

S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal 1. D. No. 8/95

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner/Workman : None

For Respondent/Management : None

Documents marked

For Petitioner/Workman

Ex W 1 27-9-90 : Order of Put-off.

Ex. W2 12-11-90 : Show cause Notice.

Ex. W 3 20-11-90 Explanation by the petitioner.

Ex. W4 30-11-90 : Order of Termination.

Ex. W5 10-12-90 : Appellate order.

Ex. W 6 8-1-91 : Representation by the petitioner.

Ex. W7 31-7-91 : Appellate order.

Ex. W 8 — : Petition u/sec. 2(A)ufl.D. Act. Ex. W 9 — : Reply filed by the Respondent.

Ex. W 10 5-8-93 : Order in CC No. 555/91

Cr. No. 147/88.

For Respondent/Management

Ex. M 1 12-6-95 : Letter No. AC 2/2981/Bok dt. 18/23-2-2000 Asst. Superin^ tendent of Post Offices, Theni to the petitioner.

Ex. M2 30-11-99

30-4-2000 : TRCA Certificate Ex. M3 11-5-2000 Acquittance Roll.

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S.O. 2611.— Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 19^7), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-L^bour Con.t, Chtnnai us shown in the Aimexurc in the Tnduitiial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of D/o Post and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 4-9-2001.

[No. L-40012/212/93-IR (DU)J KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI—104 Monday, the 13th day of August, 2001

PRESENT

Thiru S. R. Singharavclu, B.Sc.B.L.,

Industrial Tribunal

Industrial Dispute No. 161 of 1994

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1 )(d) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 between the Workman and the Management of The Supdt. of Post Offices, Pattukkottai).

BETWEEN

Sri K. Ravindran, S/o Th. Karuaajiidhi, Ex. Branch Post Master, Neivilakku Branch Office, Karuvapuralam, S.O., Vedaranyam Taluk—614 808.

AND

The Supdt. of Post Offices, Pattukoltai Division, Pattukottai - -614 601.

REFERENCE : Older No. L^t00i2/2l2/93-TR(DU), dated 13-7-94, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Wed- nesday, the 11th day of July, 2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter statements and all5483 other mate-rial pipers on record and ipon hcarirg The argument of Thirumathi S. Jcthivani, r.c'vcrate appearing for the Workman ;'i.d uf Tiiii u R. Kun.na- karan. Additional Standiiig Central Government Counsel appearing for (he Mnra1." a- tion, this Tribunal m.,de the folk wirg :

AWAkD

The Govt. of India has referred the following

issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Supdt. of Post Offices, PattuVoltai in terminating the services of Shri K. Ravindran w.c.f. 25-11-92 is justified ? If not, what relief he is c.ititkd t o" ? 2. The main averments found in the Claim State-

ment of the Petitioner are as follows :

enquiry officer has refused for supply of additional documents for the reason that those are irrelevant. During the course of inquiry the statement of one Sri Ezhilan dated 31-12-91 which was obtained by the Sub Divl. Inspector (Postal) behind the back of the applicant was marked as State Document (SE-6), The petitioner submits that the said Ezhilan during the conduct of the enquiry denied of having given a statement, and when the veracity of the document has not been proved reliance on the same will amount to relying a document obtained behind, the back which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. During the course of inquiry the depositor of the amount Thiru V. Ezhilan had denied that he had deposited amounts on 23-8-91 and 25-9-91 and as such the charges were framed against the petitioner without any basis and as such the charges leve-Iled against the petitioner are failed. The imposition of the punishment of removal from service is exemplary in nature comparing with the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is therefore prayeJ that this Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant service and monetary benefits till reinstatement.

3. The main averments found in the Couhter

Statement of the Respondent are as follows :

The petitioner Thiru K. Ravindran, Ex. BPM was provisionally appointed as BPM, Neivilakku B.O. account with Kuravapulam Sub-Office on 7-11-90 on a monthly allowance of Rs. 660/- by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Pattukottai. While working as BPM, Shri K. Ravindran has committed serious 3 (three) Saving Bank and I (one) RD frauds to the tune of Rs. 6,170.50 which warranted him to proceed both departmental and Police action. During the verification, the SD1 had unearthed the following frauds committed by the BPM Sri K. Ravindran. SB Account No. 462068

Shri K. Ravindran, Ex-BPM had accepted the following deposits on the dates noted and made necessary entries .in the SB Pass Book and impressed with date stamp but failed to credit the deposit amounts into Government records such as SB journal, BO account etc. and utilised the deposit for his personal gain*, maintaining a parallel account.

As per BO SB/

As per SB Journal/BO Pass Book Account

Date

Deposit With-

Deposit

drawal

With- drawal3 4 2 1 550 The petitioner was appointed a-, Extra Depart- mental Post Master at Ncivilakkn Branch Office in a/c Kuruvapulam Sub-Office under the Respondent on 7-11-90. The respondent U the appointing autho- rity as well as the Disciplinary authority. Tn t|ic month of August, 1991 a verification was eondueted by the Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Thiruthu- raipundi of the Saving Bank accounts and alLgcd a shortage of Rs. 150.50 in the accounts and placed the petitioner under put off duty. The petitioner sub- mits that further the Sub Divl. Inspector, Thiruthurai- pundi coerced the petitioner to credit the aleged shortage of 150.50 into the accounts and that in failure the petitioner wil} be handed over to the Police and also given an oral undertaking that the put olf duty will b; revoked and the petitioner will be reinstated in service. As per the undertaking given by the officer, the applicant was reinstated in service on 7-4-92 and the petitioner continued to employ till the date of his removal from service. The petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated 24-2-92 alleging the charges against the peti- tioner. Since the petitioner.had denied the charges the respondent appointed, Sri R. Baskaran, Sub- Divl. Inspector, Pattukkottai west Sub Division as Enquiry Auihoiity. The enquiry officer appointed was a Subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority hoiking under him. The Inquiry Offieer has sub- mitted his report concluding that th<_ charges levelled against the petitioner aie proved. The petitioner also submitted his explanation and without consideiing the same, the disciplinary authotky has passed the impugned order of removal from service vide Memo dated 24-12-92 at Patmkottai. The petitioner ref- ferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services on 1-2-93 which was rejected by the Order dated 13-5-93. The petitioner was denied reasonable oppor- tunity in defending his case which caused prejudice. The materials relied by the respondent to fraim the charges were not supplied to the petitioner. The

200 300

14-8-91 18-8-91 2"i-9*9i 28-9-915484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : $&fa®t*!l&®k 29, 2001/ASWNA 7, 1923 [PA"RT II—SEC. 3 00] t 1 4 3 l-I0v91

200 —

— —

5vlQ-9J

100

S.B. A>/c46H061

— —

6-8-91* Ifr8*91' 27-8-91

700 — —- —

— —

50 250 300

685 —

4^91 6-PA91

7-9-91

14*95-91

50 25 300' — —

16-9-91

— — —

700 — — — — — — —

28-9-91' 1-10*91

— — 50 50' 250 250 —

4*1O*9'1

770 2155 1200

855 1555 Total

600 462062

S,H; A/c No. 10-7-91

500 —

34-7-91 4-9*91

6-9-91

— — — — —

17-9-91-

27-9-91

— 500 — — —. — -—

30-9-91

•—• — — 80 100 50 500 —

4-10-91

— —- —

730

255 755

515 — — — — 470 1485

22199

50.00 5OJ0O 50,00 150.50

Total RE) A/c No. 23-8-91 23-8-91 25-9-91 Total

was rejtfctpd by the appellate authority. Thro peti- tioner had fully availed) thr services of one defence counsel to Assist him in the departmental enquiry and every reasonable opportunity provided to the petitioner at every stage of the disciplinary case, the memo of chargfc was issued to the potitioncr citing the following documents in support of the charge.

(i) The Pass book of RD Accont 22199 (ii) BO' RD journal of Neivilakku from 30-5-91 to 11-11-91 (book form).

(iii) B6 Journal oT Neivilakku from 11-6-91 20-11-91 (book form).

(iv) BO daily account'23-8-91 and 25-8-91.

(v) Statement of Sri V. Ezhilan, RD depositer.

(vi) Statement of Sri K. Ravihdran, Ex. BPM (petitioner)Among the above six documents, copies of statement of witness mentioned'in the list referred tp Annexure-IIl of Charge sheet supplied to the petij^bne'r a,s prescribed in Rule 14(iii of CCS (CCA) "Rules, 1965 and he was permitted to peruse and take copies, of ttie documents mentioned in the Annexure'-Ttl of Charge sheet, In the Inquiry officer's report th" TO has perrrfitted all the'listed documents mentioned in the Annexure III to the" Charge siiect. pertaining to thtpasc through the' preventing- office at the very outset of thtenqXiify fbrr perusal on 29^-92 and persued the additional defence documents on 16-7-92 and the examination of state witness was commenced only op 31-7-92"and'no violation of RHile 14 and 15 of 66$ (ftCA)K\liti, 19(>5 was dorie~as argued by the petitioner. For departmental'enquiries the preponderance of probability of¹pfroif is enough to decide the departmental' enquiry. The deposi- tor Sri V. Ezhilan' has categorical^ admitted tfi'dt'he had actuary deposited a sum of Rs. 150/- in his RD account'22l99Jand tlr; balance shown in the pass bool is correct. Hehcf,' the charge trained against the petitioner is proved both oi*al and documentary evidences. The punishment awarded' is based on concrete evidences an'd it is justified and reasonable. It is pra^efi" that this Tribunal may be pleased'to dismiss the petition.

4. On behalf of petitioner Ex. Wl to W. 13 were marl&ed by consent. On behalf of respondent, Ex. Ml to M5 were-marked by consent.

The statement 6f Th. 'Ravrndram, the workmen dated 20-11-91 acorded by the Sub Divl. Inspector, Tbiruthuraipopndi was marked jis Ex. M5. In that Documents thc following was mentioned :

Other Language

9. The other documents were also produced to show the non-availabih'fy of the mentioning of the deposit into the accourft of Thiru Ezhilart. Eihrtan himself has given a stfftemeW Ex. !vf4 dt. 31-12-91 before the Sub Divl. Inspectqr ^Namakkal whore in he has spoken abpu{ his deposits. This was also found in para. 3 ofthe Findings of the Enquiry offi- cer,

10. When onpe the document of confession of workman has been produced, it is for him to prove that it was obtained b'y the coersion as ht so alleged in his Ex. W5 Wfehce W&'f. There is no etf<*ertc" forthcomiftg "o s'hdw What was the coersion applied against ^he, ^oxJ^ma'¹- Tlnerapore, the albged coerskwi is found not true.

IK Whenone^tftecoefsWnaiteg&ibythe work- man was not piroVed. then his statement and his contents thereof becomtes wftrthy of credit. Simir larly, Th. Ezhilai> ^Ifio. grven his statement in, proof pf the deposits made by ty,m. The very contents of these two statements would go to show that the mis- conduct on the part of a workman.

order. Subsequent to the remand. there was no fresh evidene produced on either side. The individual workman by name JC, Ravindcran was terminalcd on 25-11-92 due to cortain misconduct on his part. Ex. Ml is the Ch.ar.ge Mcrno dared 54-12-92 issued to the said Mivjdual. The same was marked as Ex. Wl on the side ofthe workman. Annexurc II in Ex. W) mentioned that Mr. Ravindran while work- ing as ppppjil, Neivjlakku, B.O. acceRled a sum cf Rs. IOQ.5,0 towawjs monthly deposits for July '91, August, 91, a sum of Rs.50/- per month a default fee of Rs. p.5Q p. on 23-8-92 and a sum of Rs, 50/-to- wards monthly deposits for Sep 91 on 25-9-91, for credit ityo the Account Wo. KVM 22199 standing open at; Nejvilakku BQ ji} the name of V. Ezhtfan, ttiafcrti$g, t|re U>*6Cv*sfidtts of Rule 172 and 175 by BO rnjes. It was also men- tioned therein that S,ri Ez^jla^n, the D$positcvij of. the said R.D. account in h'is statement d^ 31-12191 given the Sub Divi. inspector, Namalckal West Sub-DM. stated that the said deposits along with* the pay in slips an4 the passbook ifcjt, tftfttfered. to the s4M BPM on the said dates. The workman Ravirjdrafy in his Statement dated 20-11-91 given beforethe SubDiv. Inspector, ThiruthuraipooiKJi admitted the atccpiartcc of th; said deposits and recofdirtg trie transactions in thc Passbook and of his KJhWe to account for them in thc BO records on tfafc said dates. He also admitted, that the rfrth'ted pay in slips were des- troyed by him and that the said amounts were uti- lised for his personal expenses. Therp-was an An- nexure Til to Ex. Wl i^ which ai| t^c. dp^uineMs relied on by the, managements were copied and suppfid to the workman;

7. E,x. W5-dated 20^1Qw92,is the defence Beief, whereinthe pica fof absolving the workman frqrfl th* allegations was asked for by stating that the. cvj- don*_e adduced in the enqvjry do not confirm the charges. All the statements relied on by the manage- ment was attacked by contending that they were obtained by coersioil dven thc payment of amounts were also challenged.

8. Therefore, we have to see as to whether the management, had produced enough evidence in proof of the allegations levelled agaist the workman In this connexion,, the proceedings of the en mark'ed as Ex-M2 has to be, looked int i

12. Th^leaFn^d cottftSoJ for the Workmaij angued that there cannot be a conviction sustainable based only on the alleged admission gjven by the work- man. This is so becaifsc no one is expected to give any statement against his owti interest. More piarti- cuterbji therfc is specific allegations in this case that thfcstatfcmtent of the workriien was obtained by coer- siort. U was further argued that though the coer- sipn. is not prov.ed that by itself cannot make the so called statement of the workman, as an admis- sion. There should be some evidence atleast to provt ttyft existence of thftr deposit in favour of Thiru Ezhilan, his payments and the non-crediting of the same on the part of the Workman. These thirtgs can be proved by the; documents. But those docu- ments have not becH niaifced in this case. Thus there are two instruments on Cither side. THe management is holding, the admission of the statement of work- man; the workman is holding the instruments of lacuna of evidence. Irv these circumstance^ the perceptibility of the offence is made known from the Statement of workman; there is so because there is no proof that it was efbiaih&l by coe"rsion. In these circumstances, the plea of- the learned counsel for the workman that application of Sep. llTA of I.p. Act may be cdnsidered. Sirice the antount is small, a punishment of dismissal: may not be warranted, as if is unproportional, Thus th* terrriination is5486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3('ii)l set aside and reinstated without backwages and con- tinuity of service. Award passed. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this 13th day of August, 2001.

S. R. S1NGIIARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner/Workman : Non

For Respondent/Management : None

Documents marked

For Petitioner/Workman

Charge Memo Letter to the Enquiry officer 24-2-92 : 29-5-92 :

Ex.Wl Ex.W2

-do-

9-6-92 :

Ex-W3

Brief by the Presenting officer 16-7-92 :

Ex.W4

Defence brief

20-10-92 :

Ex.W5

25-11-92 :

Ex.W6

Letter from Superintendent of Post offices to K. Ravindran

: Explanation against T.O. Re- 10-12-92

Ex.W7

port

Tmpugned order of removal 24-12-92 :

Ex.W8

from service

Appeal

1-2-93 :

Ex.W9

13-5-93 : Appellate order

Ex.Wl 0

5-7-91 :

Ex.Wl 1

Petition under Sec. 2A of I.D. Act

Reply filed by the Respondent Ex.W12

Rejoinder filed by the peti- 10-93 :

Ex.Wl 3

tioner.

For Respondent/Management

Ex.MI 24-12-92 : Memo No. FJ/04/91-92 dated 24-12-92 of Superintendent of - Post offices, Pattukottai Divisoin, Pattukottai-614601 13-5-91 :

Ex.M2

Memo No. STC/3-21/93 dated 13-5-93 of Director of Postal Services, Thiruchira- palli, Thiruchirapalli-621001.

Ex.M3

Acknowledgement for receipt of Appellate orders duly signed by the petitioner. 31-12-91 :

Ex.M4

Statement of V. Ezhiian depo- silor of R. D. account No. 22199

20-11-91 : Statement of K. Ravindran, Ex.M5

BPM, Neivilakku BO.

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2001 S. O. 261?.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra] Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Trihi'tial-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Hyderabad as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managment of Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-9-2001.

[No. L-4OO12/143/92-TR(DU) KULDEEP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-! AT HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Sycd Abdullah, B Sc. B. L. Industrial Ttribi'naM.

Dated : 31st day of July, 2001.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 7 OF 1994.

Between :

S,- Narasaiah, S/o S. Venkaiah, aged about 28 years, Casual Telecom Mazdoor, Gandhi Road, Husnabad, Kprim Nagar-505476,

Petitioner/Workman And

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, Karim Nagar^-505002.

. .Respondent/Management Appearance :

Sri C. Suryanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Sri P Damodhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. 40012/I43/92-IR (DU)JdatedJll-l-1994 made a reference to this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (l)and Sub-section (2 A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 on the "issues annexed to the scheduk :

"Whether the action of the Management of SDO (T). Karim Nagar in not regularising the5487 services of Shii S Narasaiah is legal nd

3. Briefly stated, the averments made in the

counter are as under :

justified ?

If not to what r. lief the workman is entitled

to ?

After appearances of the parties, they have filed

thtir respective pleadings

2. Briefly stated the averments in the claim

staterrent L,I arc as under :

The claim of the Petitioner-workman is a stale one and a reference ought not to have been made, The law of limitation prescribed 3 years time for raising a dispute or asserting a right. The Petitioner-workman was not recruited on 18-6-1982, as claimed by him, in the post. He was a casual ma

4. The point for adjudication is whether the Petitioner-Workman is cntitleJ to the relief claimed for?

According to the Petitioner-Workman, he was ini ially recruUted as Casual Mazdoor w.c L 18-6- 1982 by Suh-Divisiona] Officer (Telecom) Karim- N^'gar. He was employed fora period of 726 days from 18-6-82 to September, 1985. But thereafter he was not employed either due to non-availa- ability ol work or due to cessation of work or due to Departmental reasons, However, tic was again employed from Januaiy 1986 ior 87 days His name was included in the Muster RoJls From April, 1986 to June 1991 the Petitioner- workman suffered from T.B Abdomen. He was under the treatment of Dr. M. -Raghupathi Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Headquarters Hospital, Karim Nagar. After recovery, the Petitioner-wGik- man approached the Respondent for his rein- statement in service by producing the mediea' certificate of fitness along with his representation dt. 15-7-1991. The S.D.O. (T) sent him a reply through his letter dt. 30-7-1991 stating that the facts in his representation aie contradictory from the Doctor's certificate. The Respondent failed to verify the working days statemtnt through Muster Roll numbers in proof of his employment. The Muster Rolls Nos. as furnished by the Petitioner workman, in pi oof of his employ ment. The Respondent held that though he worked during the peiiod from 1-3-1985 to 28-2-1986 he did not complete 24Q days. Ignoring the previous service i.e., 18-6-1982 to 21-6-1983 for 352 days and from 20-7-1984 to 30-6-1985 for 513 days. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner-workman worked nnm: 256 days during one year, period. The Petitioner- workman name was not at all removed from the Muster Roll nor any notice was sent removing his name from the Muster Rolls Muchless any notice was published in the News paper. The Respondents refusal to readmit the Petitioner- workman to work is retrenchment and attracting Section 25-F of the I. D. Act, as per law. Hence prayed to hold and 'declare that the retrenchemnt of the petiionei-workman is aibiliary, illegal., null and void and consequently to direct the Rt>- pondent to reinstate him in service with full back wages w.e.f. 30-7-1991 in the interest of justice

5. This Tribunal passed an Award dt. 17-9-1994 in I.D. No. 7 of 1994 holding that the action of the Management (SDO(T) Karimnagar) in not regu- larising Sri S, Narasiah is legal and justified and thereby the Workman is not entitled to any relief. Aggrcived by the said Award, the Petitioner-Workman had filed a Writ in W.P. No. 8333 of 1996 of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to set aside the Award holding that it vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and remitted back the dispute (or fresli consideration to adjudicate the reference direc- ting that this Tribunal shall confine itself to the reference and adjudicate the same in according with law.

2863 GL 2001—185488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1023 [PARI I F - S K C, 3(V)] 6. In view of the directions, again 111 - e n :, *v i, taken up on file and proceeded with. During the enquiry, the Petitioner-workman recalled himself for further examination to let in additional facts about his illness and other aspects which he had put forth in the claim statement. In support of the oral evidence, documents li\s. Wl to W12 have been relied on and the same was marked.

7. As a rebuttal evidence on I he side of the Res- pondent, the Sub Divisional Officer, Telecom worked during the relevant period and the present incumbent were examined as M.WI and M. W2 and they reitera- ted the stand taken in the counter by filing documents Exs. MI to M3 for consideration, in support of their stand,

8. While remanding the dispr'e for fresh adjudi- cation the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed this Tribunal to confine itself to the reference and to adjudicate the same in accordance with law. The reference is "whether non-regularisation services of the workman is legal and justified.'"

9. Subsqucnt to the remand and pending adjudi- cation, on behalf of the workman, his counsel had addressed two letters EAS.WI 1 and WI2 to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of Tndia, Mew Delhi, praying to amend the schedule in the reference to the effect that the retrenchment is arbit- rary, illegal and null and void and consequent to direct the Respondent to reinstate him into service with back wages, continuity of service, protection of seniority etc. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India ha-, not at all taken congnizanee of the matter and at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the aspect of it, in view of the HoiVblc High Court's direction.

10. While adjudicating the dispute covered by the reference in respect of regularisation of services of the workman, this Tribunal has to consider the salient features i.e. (i) as to the continuous service of the workman as required under Section 25-B(2) of the T.D. Act, (ii) whether any termination or retrench- ment had taken place, (iii) the workman's light to claim for regularisation of his services and (iv) law or rules permissible for directing the Respondent- Management to regularise the services of the workman considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. Undisputedly. Ihe workman was engaged as casual mazdoor as and when work was avail- able. The workman asserts that he worked exceeding 240 days in a year during the period of service right from 18-6-1982 to 1986. So his service was conti- nuous without any interruption except on account of his sickness for the period from April, 1986 to 12-7-1991, and the siekne-s period is also to be counted for the continuous service as p:r Section 25B(2) of the I.D. Act. On the other hand, the Respondents stand is that there is a wide gap without any conti- nuity of service during three periods of service (between the peiiod of his service in three spells) i.e., from IH-6-1982 to 3 I-I 2-19X2, 20-7-1984 to 26-3-1985 and 1-4-1985 to 28-3-19X6 and it does not amount to continuous period of service for computation of 240 days'.

12. As per the record 28th March 1986, was the last working day and thereafter he did not turn up for duty. While so, on 1-5-1991 he submitted a representation along with Medical Certificate Ex.1 to condone his absence and to continue him in ser- vice as casual labour which was rejected as the rules did not permit him to take him into service and es- pecially after a lapse of five years. A ban for appointments casual worker has been inforce. So also on account of the developments hi the technology, the manual work for laying telephone cable, or lines has been cut short to a major extent and if any manual work has to be done, it is done through contract labour. The Management took the defence that the departmental rules and instructions issued from time to time covered by F.xs.MI to M.I prevents from issuing any orders.

13. Under Section 25-B(2) of the I.D. Act, the workman shall be said to be in continuous service within the meaning of cause (1) for a period of one year or six months, and he shall be deemed to be under continuous service, if the sub clauses a (ii) (b) (ii) are fulfilled. In a decision of Hon'blc Supreme Court in WORKMAN OF AMERICAN INTER- NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION vs. MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN INTER- NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION (1985 (51) FLR Page 481 Supreme Court) has clarified that the expression of actually working means all continuous days during which he was in employment of the employer and for which he has been paid wage whether under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statue, Standing Orders etc., Sundays and Statutory days of course to be calculated for computation of 240 days. So applying this for- mula from the last working day i.e. 28-3-86, the coupling of working days backwards, the actual number of working days within a period of 12 months in total to he worked out. By this mothod it is clear that the workman has worked for 240 days within the period of 12 calender months commencing (i.e. 18-6-82) and counting backward (i.e. 28-3-86).

14. The next aspect to be considered is whether then." was any lermin ition oi retrenchment by the Management attracting Section 25F of the I.D. Act for non-comclianee of th^ conditions which entitle for reinstatement. It is undisputed that the workman voluntarily remained ab.iriit from the work w.e.f. 2H-3-1986 and thereafter nph for the first time on 1-5-1991 alter a lapse of live years he had come for- ward with a Medical Certificate lo take him back into5489 t.ervice, for which the Management gave reply that his employment was not a permanent service, as he was engaged "i casual niazdoor vvhenever there was work. So it is not binding on tli'J employer to pro- vide employment, uliuvjver he comes forward with Fitness Certificate. Further stated that there is dis- crepancy ia his version lhat he was under treatment upto June, Iy9l and vheieas the Doctors in his certificate declared that he was ill only from 12-7-91. Thereby it i^ coniradieiory about his sickness and undergoing treatment l'roni April, 1986 to July, I9yl for a period of five years. He failed to intimate the fact rv> Sub Divisional Ollicer (Telecom), Kunmnagur through any letter or telegram during the past live years and even otherwise he had not comp- leted 240 days of service du'.ing the period from 1-3-1985 to 2K-3-198u to invoke the provisions of the J.D, Act to claim rs a matter of right.

15. In this contert. Circular Ex. Ml issued by the Telecom Depaitment, New Delhi in a letter No 269- 392-STN dated 21-10-1992 is Televant which has prescribed a procedure for condonation of break in service of Casual Labourer. The earlier instructions of the Director by Lctler No. 269-29|87-STN Vol. 1 dated 30-8-1989 were reconsidered vesting the power wifh (lie DiviYona! Ungineus arc! Chief General Manager depending on the duraiimi of the condona- tion of break in service upto one month for any reason, the Divisional Engineer is competent. For condonation of six months sickness or non-availability of work provided ihe reccssary Medical Certificate/details of lay-off are suitably prerhecked, Only condonation of break in service of upto one year can be done by the Chief Gnneial Manager for any reason on the merit of the case such as sickness after chocking the medical certificate, non-availibili'y of work, afkr checking the details of lay-off. Where a any condonation beyond enc year cannot be consideied ;ind need not bo referred to Telecom Commission, Head Quarters. So it is clear that the maximum period of condonation of break in service even on sickness certificate was only upto one year but beyond one year cannot be considered at all. So it can be said without hesitation that the Respondent was helpless on account of the Departmental Guidelines.

laying work and (4) line construction/dismantling work. Lvcry effort should be made to reduce the number of casual mazdoors employed and in no case fresh recruitment/employment be made. In Ex.M3 Departmental Instructions dt. 12-2-1999, clear instructions are given that the scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regu- lanrsation) Scheme 1989" was communicated under which casual workers who were engaged before 30-3-1989 and had completed 10 years of service, were made eligible for regularisation and in this regards earlier letters dt. 17-3-92, 6-7-1993, 20-5-1994, 8-5-1995 and 30-9-1996 were issued and inspite of the ban, there is a recruitment of casual workers. There 'Mo instances where casual labourers were recruited after 30-3-1985, some problems have arisen and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court on the subject, instructions were given to create posts for rcgulari- sation of casual labourer-, to giant temporary status who havc completed 10 years of service as on 31-3-97. In view of the ban covered by Ex.M2 and on account of the scheme introduced requiring minimum of 10 years of service as on 31-3-1997, such of those daily wage workers who are engaged prior to 30-3-1989 were only eligible to be given the regular status. The department could not budge further to given work of pass any orders in favour of the workman. It is also clear that the recruitment of casual labourers was completely banned w.e.f. 22-6-1987 itself. Though the workman had continuous service as a casual worker, he could not get the temporary status. The departmental rules to struck off the name will apply to regular workers but not to casual-workers. In case a regulr worker absents, the management cannot struck-off his name from the muster roll without complying with the principles of natural justice. After issuing notice or holding any enquiry only his nanv s to bo struck-off irrespective of the fact lhat the Standing Orders permit removal of his name frcm the muster rolls and under those circum- stances, if such steps were not taken it would amounts to a retrenchment which is an illegal one- The con- tention put forth for the workman lhat since his name was not struck-off from the muster roll he is deemed to be a casual worker is neither tanablc under statute nor have any precedent as per the facts and circumstances of the case.

16, The loamed counsellor the Petitioner-Work- man contended that when ;he name of the Petitioner- Workman was not cancelled from the Muster Roll Or that no notice Or publication was given to him to report for duty, it is deemed lhat non-continuation of him, amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) read with Section 25-F or the J.D. Act.

IX. Tho leaned Counsel for the workman has emphasised on the principles laid down by the Apex Court as to the meaning of 'retrenchment' set out in 1. Sunder Money Case (AIR 1976 S.C. 1111) 2. Santosh Gupta's Case (AIR 1980 S.C. 1219) 3. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Limited (AIR 197s S.C. K) and pointed out lhat the respondent's in-net Ion would amounts to termination of service for any reason what so ever attracting the term Of 17. Under Fix.M2, instructions are given by tho Head of Ihe department, Now Delhi dated 30-3-1985 with regard to fresh recruitment and employment of casual labour for any type of work that it should be stopped forth within Telecom Ciicles/ Districts. The casual labour already in employment should be utilised only (I) for the work of casual nature, (?) all installation works of temporary nature (3) Cable5490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART J I _ S E C. 3fii)] 20. A:i pui the reftiviiee 'he Tribunal hrs to answer whether non-iviniUinsMtion. of the services of the workman is cither legal or justified. On this aspect, the- evidence, the admissions on ncord and the Departmental Rules are v.iy clear that th<~ work- man is not LT.titlud for ar;y ivgularis'Jtion of service. Even assuming I hat the workman had completed 240 da>s continuous service in a calendar yuir it does not confer any right to seel; for protection for regu- larisation of service or to contend that in view of his past continuou, service non continuation or regu- larisatiou would amount to retrenchment, within the meaning of Section 2(OO) and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The Division Bench decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Tarun KmuU'.e &Ois. Vs. State of West Bengal &. Ors. [2001 (1) LLJ page 258] in which it has been held as follows :

"Law no where states that if a p-rson worked

for more than 240 days, in a year, he is entitled to

regularisation in service:".

retrenchment falling under 2(oo). There is no dispute as to the principles laid down in the above decisions. But the facts of the case on hand are different. The workman himself absented from work for over a peiiod of five years without imimation or production of medical certificate tit the appropriate time. Even from a cursory look of Ex.WI Medical Certificate it gives any amount of doubt or suspicion.Thcre was no necessity for the Department to refer tho workman for second medical opinion or to find out the genuiness of the Medical Certificate. Ex.WI is not issued in proper proforma following the procedure. As per Medical Rules, a Doctor first of all has to examine the workman and to certify his illness and to advice the treatment or the rest for the required period for recovery. After completion of the treatm.cn ! and on examination, he has to certify that the patie U is fit to attend to his duty. If such certificate is issued and produced in the department, then there will be an obligation on the part of the Officer concerned to send him for the second medical opinion or exami- nation by the approved Govenment Doctor of its department. Even otherwise when there is gyp of five years, rules do not permit condonation of delay at all. The chief General Manager is vested with his power only upto a maximum period of six months to condone the absence on medical ground. When the Central Government's clear guidelines are that the condonation beyond the period of six months should be recommended or roferred. The responsible was helpless is the matter.

Provisions contained in Chapter V of the I.D. Acv had been enacted merely to protect the right of work- man from illegally dismissing from service. Section 25-F of the I.D. Act merely contemplates payment of compensation at the rate of 15 days wages per each year on completion of service and only in that context, it has been provided such y^ar of comple- tion of service shall b? deemed to have been comple- ted if a person worked for more than 240 days in a year. Section 25-F of the Act therefore, does not contemplate creation of any right ef absorption in favour of any person. The decisions of the Apex Court in Madhava Sikshaw Vs. Anil Mishra (AIR 1994 S.C. page 1638) and Swamy Vs. Union of India [1999 (V) SLR p-ige 807] have b;on referred in support of the said principle. On the same analogy, it can be said without any hesitation that the work- man is not entitled for regularisation of service much- less to attribute that his services were retrenched,

21. For the aforesaid discussions, the Petitioner-

workman is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

22. In the result, Award, is passed holding that

the action of the management of S.D.O. (T), Karim- 19. From the admitted facts and evidence on record, it was neither a ca^e of termination nor retrenchment of the workman concerned from service so as to fall within the meaning of Section 2(OO) read with Section 25-F of the J.D. Act. It is a case of cessation of work by the workman himself. Ques- tion of awarding compensation under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act would arise when an employee has a permanent status or a regular worker. In a contract of employment where on the expiry of the period of work, non-compliance of Section 25-F would not nullify or have the effect of termination, especially the workman was absconding from duty for over 5 years. The facts of the case are identical to the facts of the decision M. Venugopal Vs. DIG M.L.C. Muralipant A.P. 1994 (1) LLJ 597 (referred to S.C. decision).

nagar, in not regularising the services of Sri S.

Narsaiah, Ex. Ma?door of Telecom Department,

Karimnagar Division is leg?I and justified. In the

circumstances of the case, there is no order as to

costs.

Dictated to the Senior Stenographer, transcribed Similarly, when appointments are regulated by statutory rules, tliu daily wages who are not appoin- ted to the posts in accordance with the rules bul were engaged, on the basis of need of work, are tem- porary employees working on daily wages and there- fore disengagement cannot bs construed as retrench- ment as laid down in Himanshu Kumnr Viclyarlhi Vs. State of Bihar 199S (2) LU 15 (S.C).

by him, corrected by me and given uncU ' my haftd5491 and the seal of this Tribunal, this the 31st clay of July, 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH, lmjust ial Tribunal-1 Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined lor Workman

Wi./.ess [ vim' , J. f. r the Mn^s'LCiiK.it : Af<>"r remand W.WI S. Narsaiah M.WI T. Gi'nga Rao M.W2 S. Nagi Reddy Documents marked for the Workman 12-7-91

Ex. Wl

Xerox copy of Medical C-iti- ficatu issued, by Dr. M. Ra^nupathi Ri.o.

Ex. W2

Original book let of the working days particulars of the workman.

Ex. W3

— Xerox copy of Ex. W2 (Ser- vice particulars).

15-7-91

Ex. W4

Copy of repn.SL-p.nuion, oi" the workman.

Ex. W5

Reply of the Respondent to F\. W4.

17-10-38

Ex. W6

Xerox copy of In? letter No. 269-69,88 STN 17-10-88. 7-11-89

Ex. W7

Xerox copy of Order No. 269-10/89 STN dt. 7-11-89. 23-8-91

Ex. W8

Copy of the complaint U> the Regl.

18-11-91

Ex. W9

Comments of the Respon- dent.

Ex. W10

Copy of the Minutes of Con- ciliation of the Rcgl. Labour Commissioner.

Documents marked after remand by High Court of Andhra Pradesh

7-12-2000

Ex. Wll

Copy of the letter sent to Ministry of Labour reques- ting for correction in the reference.

24-5-2000

Ex. W12

i Letter addiessed to the name of Sri Vinod Vaish. Secre ary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

Documents marked for the Respondent after rim and 21-10-92

Ex. Ml

Circular of the D.O.T., New Delhi. Condition of break in service of casual labour. 30-3-85

Px. M3 12-2-99 Circular of Govt. of India withdrawing the powers of engaging casuals and filled staff.

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2001 S.O, ;61?.--In pursiVJrce of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Cou't, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispu,c between the employers in relation to the management of National Thermal Power Cor- poration anc their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-9-2001.

[No. ^4^012124]I94-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL T R I B U N A L - C U M - L A B O UR COURT, JABALPUR

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai Case No. CGIT/LC/R/104/96

R. M. Malpani, Supervisor, Gradi.-l (Safety), National Thermal Power Corpn. Limited, NTPC, Pragiti Nagur, Korba.

Present Address : —Workman DRT-65, Bangui- Nagai, P.O. Dandcll, Distt. Uttar Kannaja,

Karnataka State.

V/s.

Ex. M2

Circular of Govl. of India restricting the engagement of casual workr-rs I'.M- n long period.

Goiieral Manager,

Korba Super Thermal Power Project, NTPC, Prugati Na[>.ir, Korba. —Manaivuicnt5492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PAUT II—SEC. 3(10] AWARD

(Passed on thih 23id day of August, ?00l) The Govcniniciil ol' India, Minisiry of Labour, New Diihi, lias referred (his dispute Cor adjudication vide order No. L-42U12241,94, dated 27th March, 1996, as under :

"Whether Shn R. M, Malpani. Supervisor, Grade-1 (Safely), National Thermal Power Cor- poration Limited, is a "Workman" and if so whether action of I he management of NTPC Limited in not allowing Shri R. M. Malpani on duties considering him medically unlit is justified 7 If not, what relief the workman, concerned is entitled to ?ni

2. The Management has raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the dispute before this Tribunal.

3. Admitledly, the workman is an employee of NTPC, which is a schedule Industry under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act.

4. The present depute is not covered by Ihe provisions of ihe aforesaid MP1R Act, Cor which the appropriate Government is State Government. 5. This dispute is not covered by the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as the dispute in this Act is referred by the appropriate Government, i.e. Government of India.

6. In view ol' this fact, tins dispute is not main- tainable bilbre this Tribunal,

7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the present dispute is not maintainable before this Court.

8. The workman can move the appropriate forum provided under he MP1R Aci for his redressal.

9. Copy of the Award be sent to the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, as per rules.

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

SO 2

[No. L-12011/7/98-[R

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS I RIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, BI1UHANESWAR PRESENT :

Slui S.K, Dhal, OSJS CSr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.O.I.T.-cum-Lahour Couit, BhubancNWar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 234]2001 Date of conclusion of the hearing 21-8-2001 Date of passing Award 21-8-2001

BETWEEN

I he Management ol the Chairman, Balasore Gramya Bank, Vivt-kananda Marg, Srikamhapur, Balasore-l, Orissa. .. lit Paity-Managemcnt.

AND

Their Workman icpresented through The General Secretary, Balasoie Oramya Bank Employees Association, Vivekannnda Marg, Srikanthapru, Balnsore-1, Orissa. ,. 2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES:

Shri Rnmcsh Chandra Mohakud, Senior Manager, v. For the 1st P.irly-Mnnagcment. None.

., For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the MinKtiy of Labour, in c.xeicise of Powers conferred by Clause ul) of sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have rclcired the following dispme for ad- judication vide (heir Order No. 1,-1201 l|7|9K-IR(B-I), dated 26-2-1999 :—

"Whetlicr the action of the lVfanagemeiH of Ralasoro Gramya Bank, Balasore. in tiansferrins Shri Dhi- rendra Kumar Pani, Teasurer of the Union without observing the direction or the JTon'blc High Court of Orissa is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled lo?"

Since the dale of refeience i.e. 26-2-1999 the Union who has laised the dispute has not complied the direction of the; Ministry of Trilumal to file the Claim Statement. Thc case is Ivlwcen the pailies and thc Union has got no interest in the negligence of the Union. Th'j ML-IKC and (he indifferent atti- tude of the Union suggesls that presently no dispute exists between thc paities and the Union has got no interest in the matter and has yot no cause of action.

3. In view of the above tacls no dispute awaid is passed and the Union is not entitled for any relief.

4. Reference of the above facts no dispute award is passed Dictated nnd Conectrd by me.

S. K. DUAL. Presiding Officer5493 Now Delhi, the -!th September, 2001 S.O, ?.b\5.— In pmbiiiiiicc of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ol I'M"), the Central Government hereby niii.'INhci the award o£ tlie Central Government Industiinl Frihunal/L.ihour Court, Chandigarh, ns shown in the Annexiue in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relw:on to tin' management of Suite Bank of India and l^eir workman, whuh was icocived bv the Central Govern- ment on 3-y-2(!01.

I Nu. L-12012/202/96-IR(B-I)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNKXURK

BF.FORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH C.ise No. in 7.19/QR

Workman, Sliri MesMor Lnl C/o The A.sslt. General Secictary, State Bank of India, Stuff Av^ciii'-nn. S.B.T. Main Branch, Rohtak

Versus

Management.

The A'.stt. General MunHfjer, S.B.I. Zonal Office. Haryana. Sector-S-C. Chandigarh. APPEARANCES:" J-or Ih'i workman : None. For the inaiiauemcni : None.

AWARD

(Pav.eJ on 1st of August, 2001)

Ih: Central Govi. vide notification No. L-12012l202|<>C FR (H-l) dated 12-R-1947 has refer*-A! Ihe following d'spufe to this Tr'hiinal for ndjud'calion :—

New Delhi, the -Ith Scplrmber, 2D01 S.O. 261/i.—In pinsiiatici.' i.f Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, l'J47 (14 of 1447), the Central Government hereby publishes the nwaid of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/1 abour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Induslrial Dispute between tin; employsis in i elation to (he m.tnngemenl of Stale Bunk of India and their workman, vv!':>.h was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

['No. l.-IIOnHTSIOO-IRtB-ll!

A I AY KUMAR, Desk Ollker

ANNEXURE

HEORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESfDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-. CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No ID 17/9fWin

Shri Knnhiya Lai, C|o Bhartiya Vfazdoor Snngh. Oflfice-Vishwn Karma Bhawan. Ncelftm Bata Road, Faridabad.

Workmaa Vs.

The Manager, State Bank ol" India, Chawla Colony, Balhibhgarh. fHaryana)

Management.

APPFARANCES : For the workman : None. For the management : None.

AWARD

(Passed on 30th of July, 20011

The Central Govt. vide notitficalhi-i No. L-12012|375|y9 1R(H-]) dated 13th of January, 2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the m.mjeenu-nt of S.B.I, in terminaliiiR the services of Shri Kanhiyn Lai w.e.f. 1l-12-iy"R is just and lewl¹.' If not, to what relief the workman is entitled lo?" 2. Today the ease was fixed for filling of claim statement. Despite several notices n.'ne has pvf up nppeurance on behalf of the workman nor any claim statement has hetn filed for the last about 1-112 vears. ft appears that wuik- man is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of Ihe wirkmnn. since no cla'm statement has been filed, the reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate G'.ivt. he informed

Chandigarb

30-7-2001.

B. L. JATAV, PiL-siiliny Offic'.r5-194 THE GAZLTT1Z OP INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 20U1/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—Sfcf. 3fii)] New Delhi, llio 4th September, 2001

S.O. 2617.-- In puisu;!iicc uf Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [14 ol l'J47l. the Central Government hciehy publishes the uwnid of the IncUistii.il Tribunal|I.abnur Conn, Visakhapatnam as shown in the Annexure in ihe Tn- dustral Dispute between the employcis in relation to Ihe management of State Bank of India and tlieii workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

i'No. L-i::()14|01|200I-IR(B-l)|

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNBXURE

IN IHE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAI.-CUM- LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAI'A I N,\M PRESENT :

~r Sri K. Veerapu Nuidu, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman and Presiding Officer.

Dated : 20th day of Inly, 2001

r.T.I.D. No. (C)24|2000

This- Petition is filed U/Sec. 2AI2) of the T.D. Act. 1047

BET WREN

. . Workman.

Oanircddy Nagaraju, So Padautayya, R|o Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mundal, Anakapalli, Visakliapatnarn Distt.

AND

fl) The Regional Manager, Stnte Bank of India, Regional Office, RTC Complex* Visakhnpalnam

(2) The Branch Manager, State Bank of Tndia, Amakapalli Branch, Near Sub-Registrar Office, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam Distt. . Management.

This dispute coming on for final h^uing before me in the presence of Sri Moimiddiii, Advocate for workman and Sii M. Rarodas, Advocate for management Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing Ihe tntire material on record, the Oourl passed the followinu :

AWARD

(1) This is an application filed under Sec. 2A(2) of Ihe Tndustiial Dilutes Act, 1947 for rrinstalcnient with back wages and also to regularise the servicei of the workman.

(2) The workman is an ex-serviceman. He is employed by the management, to work in its brunch, Anakapalli us temporary security jvmnl vv.c.f. 24-12-|y<)2. 7he workman approached (lie miiiupfiiicnt for rcgularisation of his services in the year 1497 and the Chiv'f Sc;urilv Officer informed him thai he has- 10 undergo cataract operation and obtain fitness certificate from H'e IN.U.S. Kaly;

(3) I he management opposed the same stating that this application is not maintainable. The claim made by the appli- cant do not made under the retrenchment, dismissal, dis- charge or Iciminulion so as to approach this court under Sec.~2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Fv-.-n otherwise, it is the Central Government that has to refer the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, as Ihe petitioner is claiming re- gul.ir.sation of stivices. It is also the further case of, the management that the services of the petitioner were taken as and when thj services arc needed in case the regular employees goes on leave and the management engaged the workman only on temporary basis in November, 1999. There- after his services were not engaged .is' he attained the ape of 45 years and even otherwise the management is not bound to engage the services of the temporary workmen. He worked temporarily in the leave vacancies for 3 days in the venr 1992, 73 days in the year, IW., 56 days in the year 191H, 63 days in the year 1995, 76 dnys in the year 1996, 105 days in ihe year 1997, 126 days in the year 1998 and 116 days in the year 1999. The details thereof are set out in the statement appended to the counter. The petitioner work- ed only on daily wages and his sei v'ces could noi be regularise ed when the regularisation drive took place in the yenr 1997 on account of the Caiuract in the eye of the workman, There is not promise given by any officer to th? workman to regu- larise his services because he attained the age of 45 years by 2K-I 1-1999 and 45 years is the upper ntic limit. The work- man was disc-nosed when he attained the age of 45 years and therefore there is no question of retrenchment as per Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Hence the petition js liable to be dismissed.

(4) The second respondent adopted the coutner filed by the 1st respondent.

(5) On behalf of the workman, the workman is examined as WWI and got marked Exs. Wl to WI5. On behalf of the management, no witnesses are examined E^s. Ml lo M3 are marked,

(6) Heard both sides.

(7) The points that arise for consultation in this appli- cation are ;

(11 Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages?

(2) Whether the services of the workman are to be re- gularised on par with the 'Other similar employees whose services are regularised by the respondent?

(8) Point No. 1 and 2 : 1 he learned counsel appearing for the workman contends that the petitioner is an ex-seivice man and his services were taken as a security guard by the respondent bank on 24-12-1992 as his name is sponsored by Distt. Sainik Welfare Board. In the year 1997 when his case has come up for consideration f'.T rpsularisalion of the tervoes. he was asked to undergo an operation for cataract and liin case will be considered later. Accordingly he under- went the Cataract operation in the month of May. 1997 and obtaned medical filness certificate tor Civil Employment dated 15th April, 1997 which is marked as Ex. W9. But his case was not considered and he was allowed to work even thereafter til) 28-11-1999 and terminated his services on the ground that he attained the superannuation age of 45 years. He made representations to the Labour Officer, Anakapalli. Asstt. Commissioner of Laboui, Vis-ikhapatnam, Reuional Manager and Branch Manager of U'e respondent and nl^o sent a copy to the Zilla Sainik Board and he worked for 618 davs continuously and his name was alfo renewed for employment registration upto 11-10-2001. Hence his services are lo be regularised.

(9) The workman is examined as WWI and through the workman, Ex.Wl, the represe.il.ition to the Secretary and others dated IK 2-20(10. l"x. \V? the Security Training certi- ficate. Ex. W3 the army certificate of cducaion, Ex. W4 is the xerox copv of the discharge certificate, Ex. W5 is the record sheet, Ex. W6 is tho identity card, Ex. W7, the certit-5495 lieu to iviiit'd by Llio medical ofheer, 1INHS kalyaui, VLsakha- puinam Ex. WN the genuineness certilieatc, Ex, W10 xerox copy of the statement, Ex. VV11 office copy ot the lawyers notitce aie marked. WW1 in his cross-examination admitted that he never worked in any year fo/ .110 days continuously and that whenever a regular incumbent is tin leave he was appointed in thai post during the period oi absence of ihc regular employee. He also admitted that in tlie year 1997 he did not get the call letter for the interview as he has to itndeigo cataract operation. But his colleagues were culled tor Ihe interview and the services of 100 to 150 guards were fegulaiised. He also admitted that for recruitment of a secuiity yuaid the maximum a,

(10) Therefoie, from the above said admission;; it is clear thiit he will he allowed to serve under the respondent till he aitains the age of 45 years, he was not culled for interview tor reguJansation along wjth his colleagues, as he was hsvvinjj the catamcl,

(\l) On the other hand, the counsel app'.-a'in;j for the respondent bank contends that because of the cataract in the eye of the workman, he is disqualified for regularisation and as such he was not called for the interview and the regularisation drive took place in the yv.tir 1J97 as admitted by the*workman himself and th at as per Fx, 1VO. the maxi- by the workman himseli and thni as per Ex. M3, the maxi- ancl Ex. M3 is the circular No. PLK[42j')0 dated 27th Octo- ber, 1990. The educational qualification prescribed as per the circular dated 17th August, 1991 F.x. M2 for a security guard is 5th standard pass a nd Ex, M I is the lelter received from the Government of Fndia, Ministry of Finance dated 8-8-1990 prescribing the educational qualifications as 5th Standard pass for the post of security guard.

iinpknri-, as Ainv.-il Cniard^Valchman of the management. Accordingly, a direction crrild be given while disposing of this application,

(14) In Ihe result, the application is dismissed, nil award is passed. However, a direction is givun to the management to consider Ihe case of the petitioner in the coming recruit- ment duvc for Armed Guaids[Walchmen from the ex-service men employees and that the pctitionei is also directed to submit his application lo the concerned when called for. However, there is no Older as to costs and each party is directed to bcui its own costs.

Dictated to steiw transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the 20th day of July, 2001.

K. VRERAPU NAIDtJ, Presiding Officer APPFNDfD OF EVIDENCE : WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Workman : WW1 : G. Nngarajii For Management :

None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

ii For Workman :

^ E\. W1 : 18-2-2000 : Representation lo the secretary and others and corresponding acknowledgements.

: 17^-1992 : Security Training Certificate.

Ex. W2

: Army certificate of education.

1 \. W3 •.

Ex. W4 :

: Certificate of discharge.

: Record sheet. %j K\. W5 :

F\ W6 :

: Identity card. "' : 24-7-97 : Medical certificate.

F.x. W7

(12) Therefore, the counsel appearing for the management contends that by the time of recruitment drive for lVjulari- sation in ihe year 19y7, the workman was medically unfit because of the cataract and there was no subsequent vegiila- lisation drive till 20-11-1999, the date of superannuation of the workman. The ape of superannuation for the post of a security guard of ii\ service man is 45 yrs, as per Ex. M3. Therefore, this is not a case of retrenchment and it is only a case as retirement on attaining the superannuation. Further, it is not a case where the services of the. workman were not regularised on par with the other sinvlar employees because he was medically unfit by them and he was ntt called for the interview and as such, his services wen; not n.'jjulniiscd in the year 1997. Therefore, regularisaiion ulso cannot be ordered to this workman. Even otherwise, an application under Sec. 2A(2) of Ihc I.D. Act d^es not eive the relief of rcgularisation lo the workman and the dispute is to be referred by the Central Government under Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel nppeur- ing for the State Bank, this is not a case where the petitioner's services were illegally retrenched *ior there is any material for the workman lo show that he served for 240 days in 12 months preceding to his iclrericbmcnl. Therefore, the relief under Sec. 25F of the 1,D. Act jannot be cranled lo the workman, similarly the relief of rcgubrisatjun also cannot be ordered in this application as ?his is only an application filed under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Acl. Thus, ii: anv virw of the matter, the present application does not lie. Hence I answer both the pojnts against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

(13) However, the learned counsel appealing for the workman contends lhat the age of 45 vcurs is relaxed now by virtue of Fx. W15 circular issued bv the Head Office of the m^nancme.U and as per Ex. WI5 there is no asc limit prescribed to consider the case of ex-scrvicc man employee lor the recruitment/appointment as Aimed Guards or watch- men. However, the Fx. W15 also 'hows that the candidate slioiiM k'vr worlrcd for a inii"'mum aggregate period of 90 davs as on 31-3-2001 for ivcniilmenl of Armed Gmnisl Watchman and the present workman hns cot nil the rcanisitc eligibility criteria stipulated in Ex. W15 und a<= such, his enso is to be considered for rrcruitm"'"". \s riuhflv slated above sine thi? •'< ari application fi'ed nnd-T Sec. ?A(2), the relief for rcptilarisntion cannot be firdeicd. Hovrvpr. consMpriiTT th" facts and rircurnstrmcfs of Ihe case and th^ unfnrtiinatf situating ini'ler wh'ch thf nresent workman is placed, a di,'"i?e*'on to th'* rmn'i"vmrnt to '."onsidcr the cose nf ihe peli- lionT in "if (•nsiiinc recruitment if tin' ex-sffivice men 7JJ-A OT •••30(1]—iq

Ex. WS : 21-K-9K : Yerilication of Genuineness of medi- cal category.

Hv W9 : 15-5-1997 : Medical fitnrss certificate for civil employment.

FA W 10 : Xerox copv of the statement show that the workman worked in the bunk.

: 5-6-2000 : Office copy of the lawyer's notice.

Ex. W11

: 12-6-2000 : Postal receipts.

Fx. W12

: 13-6-2000 : Postal acknowledgement, * Fx. W13

: 13-6-2000 : Post.tl acknowledgement.

Ex. W14

Fx VV 15 • fi-7-2001 : Circular issued bv the State Hank t>f India Zonal Ollice, Repr-mal, Visakhapat- nitn.

Fov Manngement :

Fx. Ml : R-8-1990 : Circular issued bv the Govt, of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Fcono- mic Affairs.

F.x. M2 : 17-8-91 : Circular issued by the General MaTiapcr ""f-per.ii'iins) State Bank of Tndia.

Fx. M3 : — : Circular issued by the General Manager (Pianningi SBT.

Ncv, DJiu, the 5th Sepknibei 2001 S.O. 26IX.—-In piir-tunce of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of I'M7,. the Central Government •hereby publishes the awaid if the Central Government Industrial Tiibuiul No. IJ, Miunhai a- tliown in (he Annexure in the ilndiiMrinl Dispute Krvee'i the employers in relation to .he management of Development Credit Bank Ltd. and their workman, vvh ch was reeer.eu hv t\\? Central Government on 3-9-20(i I.

[No. L-12O12/197/97-IR(B-m AMY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANKFXL'RH

BFFOR1-: THE CFNTRAL OOVI-XNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBA1

PRESENT:

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer

Releience No. CGIT-2/45 of 1998 Employers in reln':on t:> t*v Management of Development Ci-edit Hank Ltd., Mvmbai.

TJie Managing Director,

'Dsvelopment Credit Bunk Lid. (New Name).

Development Coopeiatho bank (Old Name), O/o AGM Zone-.], 1st Floor, 154. S V. Patcl Street, Dongri, Mumbai-9,

AND

Their Wo/l.rnen

T.-c Via- P,esid™t, Development Co-op. Hank Employees Union, Fidai Baim, 9, Silver Jubilee BWg , V.P. Road, Artdhen-400058.

APPEARANCES :

For the Eniployet : S/Shri P. K. Rele, R. N. Shah & A. .M. Pota, Advocates.

For the Workmen : Shn V. A. Pai, Advocate. Mumbai. dated 2nd August, 2001

AWARD - PART-II By the interim Awatd dtd. 3id February, 2000 (Exhibit-29) my Learned Predecessor held that Mr. A. A. Charania is the workman of the Baik vviihin the meaning of Section 200 of lh'? Industrial Disputes Act, and that domestic inquiry conudcted by the hank-rm-.na.nement, against him, vitiates as it was against the Piir.ripJes of Natural Justice and fair play. He fuit'her held that the fii>d'ngs recorded by the inquiry officer however are not pervem-. Consequently he directed the bank management to lead evidence to justify its action, of dismissal of Mr. Charenia.

2. Facts of the case concerning to the point which is now to be determined by tlvs tribunal in short are as under :

lopment Cicdit Bank I.iiuilcd. The union filed contempt. P r- eceding No. 10 of 1995 for committing breach of injunction onlcr '"before the Mahauislitra State Co-operative Appellate Comt on 20-6-1995, which was not liked by the management.

3. It is contended, Mr. Chaianiu, General Secretary of the union used to attend the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Labour Couit and the High Court in connection w,th the union mutters. Consequently he was u.mble to attend the office in time. Therefore he was entrusted v.'ilh the job of attending cash book and trial balance. It is contended feeling uggneved against the filing of contempt pcti'ion as above, on 22-6-95, he was instructed by bank to take chaige of the Current Account Department with imme- diate effect, which job was nevei entrusted to him, during tiie en we period of his seivice. Mr. Charania was not allowed to sign the muster toll and he came to be marked as absent by" the Branch Manager though he was present in the office. It is contended the Branch Manager Mr. Gagwani peisiadsd him to withdraw the contempt petition which he did not agree, as the same was filed by the union, wherein h- had no" say. Consequently it is contended, the management chargesheeted him by the letter did. 7-9-95. charging that he committed ii) Wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order o\' the superiors (ii) absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days (iii) late ¹ attendance for not less than four occassions within a month Ov) commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour in the premises of establishment. The inquiry officer concluded the inquiry en 20th May, 1996 holding Mr. Charania ."uilty for the charged misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the inquiry report, passed order of dismissal of Mr. Charania from the services of the bank, from 28th May, 1996. Mr. Charania appealed the said dismissal order before the Appellate Authority who in turn, after giving; personal hearing, upheld the decision of dismissal on 6-1-97. Mr Charania contended that, he is a protected workman. who has been terminated for his union activities victimising by adopting unfair labour ptactice and consequently prayed for ie:ristatement in seivice with back wages.

a m' COIW"TO">fly the:r action is5497 5. Record shows that on leading evidence by boih the parties and healing the counsels. My Learned Predecessor pasted intcr.m Award did. 3-^-iOuu (L.\nibit-2y,) on preliminary lilies at Si. Nos. 1, 2 and J vide L\hiblt-12, dtd. 15-10-98. The ban.e wa, (.iwllcngjd by mujtHgcmeilt in Writ Petition No 755 of 2000 befoie tin.' Hon'ble High Court, Bombay. By the order dtd. 30lh Juue,4tn July, 2000 (Exhibit-33Ai the Honblo Single Judge of Bombay High Court, had dismissed the petition. The bank preferred appeal No. 675 of 200.) and Ihe Division Bench of Hon'bk High Court, by order did. 4-10-2000 (t:.\-34) and oidrr dtd, 25-1-2001 (Jixhibit-41) set aside the order of Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court, keeping open lo bolli the sides lo agiliatc contention:, urged in Writ Petit.on, befoie the HoVhle High Court in case the tribunals Award {roes against the bank and consequently directed the I lilMinal to decide the point regarding misconduct, under reference.

6. Now ihis Uibunal in view of ihc position, has to decide Issue No. 4, 5 & ;>, framed by my Learned Predecessor at Lxhibit-12, in the light of the evidence led by the parties, aitci passing interim Award. jVlamigement to lustily its action on dismissal of Mr. Chamnia examined Bank Manager. Mr. Ramzanali Lakhani (MW-I). Managei, Mr. Prakash Bachumal Gaqwani (MW-21; Assistant Olllcer. Mr. Nizar Nurali Parmar (MW-31; Mr. Heinant V. Karnik IMW4I; Mr. Nizar N. Dhuka (MVV-5), vide hxhibits-46, 50, 52, 53 and 54 and management closed evidence vide purshis (hxhibit-55). Shii A. A. Charania, examined himself alone, vide (Fxhibit-58) and closed evidence vide purshis (1 ;,hihit-60).

7. I lia\c heard the Learned Counsel Shri R- N. Shah tol tlie bank nianuyeivieni and Shri V. A. Pai for Mr. Charania. J have gone through the v, iitte.ii submissions filed by both parlies at l-..xhibit-f)4/6d. On hearing the Counsels at length and going through I he written submissions and the record as a whole. 1 record my findings on the issues for the reasons stated below :

Findings

Issues

Yes

4.

the ciiect that while VAirkina as Branch Managci on ihc material day in IIIL IK-JJIUIUIIB lie vcroaily inMiucteu IVn. Lliin.ivi.j IU UIKC CJI.UHC l)¹ euuen, Account., Depuumem as per the c.rculars ot ihc K.li.i. and Head Ulllcc, ncwevu he insisted for miiruciions io be given in writing and accordingly on the very day, l.e gave him inductions in writing pjj. iNy/txmbit-i.i/i-. However, he did noi take cnarge and iiaacd tnin on 2(.-f.-vJ^ Mr. Lnarunia in writing asked him as to winch duties ale to be performed in Ihe cunen. iicevunii department though tie was aware. He was given jiM of the duties of Cuiitnt Accounts Department on 5ih July, 1995 by page. 294/295 llixJubit-13/4). However inspile jecclpr of tnj iisi ol duties lie did not take charge. He disclosed that wilhm a penod ot two years staff member are normally rotated as pti the circulars. Mr. Charania wa, rotated aheady in Term Deposit somewhere in the year I98M and in Current Account Department in 1983, and that dujin.u •his tenure as Brunch Manager in Mohd. Ah Road Branch he hnd rotated many slalf members on verbal instructions and accordingly they look charge and reported to him. Mr, Parmar (.\iW-3) atlumed that he worked in various depart- ments/sections ol the bank from time to lime as per the oral instructions ot his superiors i.e. Branch Manager Assist,mi Manager and icported lo them. During the mater,al period he was posted as Assistant Officer in the Mohd. Ah Road Uranch where Mr. ("harjniu was posted as olllcer deal- ing in Cash P.ook and Trial Hiilance, Mr. Karnik (MW-4) allirmed lo the elrect llial, he also worked in various sections departments of the bank. After pionroting as Assistant Ollicer in 1993, he was posted in Advances, Current, Savings and Clearing Department and I'mLher affirmed that, he was rotated in various departments, on verbal instructions by the Branch Manager/Assistant Branch Manager, In Mohd, Ali Road Bianch he was lot; led (or preparing proposals for the financial limits, cuneul accounts, opening and passing the cheques etc., and he reported accordingly to Branch Manager, It is in the evidence of Mi. Dhuka (MW-5) that he wa. posted in various depal fitients of the bank and on promotion as officer, he worked in Operation department in 1998, in Central Recoveiy Cell in 199l< and presently posted in the sanv po.,t in 200;) and reported to Assistant Manager. He clearly affirmed that he was so transferred on verbal instruc- tions of his superiors, and that no instructions for job rotation were given in writing,

Whether ihe I'ction ol the management in terminating ihc services of the workman Chaiania is legal and justified '.'

Yes

5. Whether the action o\~ me management of non-payment of wages to Charania since July 1995 is justified ?

11 not, to what rtliei he is entitled to?

He is not entitled to any relief.

RHASONS

8. Al the thicshold it is to be noted that the bank-

10. In cioss-examination, Mr. Lakhani disclosed that during his tenure of two years no rotation was given to Mr, Charania. however, he admits Mr. Chai.ania was given rotation before he joined the Mohd. Ali Road Blanch and that he had seen him doinu work ot li\ed Deposit. He saw him checking entries and put inilLils and thai Mr, (.diagwani in his cross-examination, pointed out that, dining his tenure he did not give work o, Cnrroni Account Department to Mr, Charania except on 22lul lime 199V lie denied that as Mi. Charania filed contemp' petition agaiiv.t management on 20th June, 199.S he had rotated Mr. Ch.uania HI ;,bove. Mr. Parmar pointed out in hi, cioss-examination thai he h ul not seen Mr, Charnnia woikini; in C'nricril Account Department in Mohd. Ali Road Bianch.

manugement hud conducted domestic inquiry against Mi Charania. However, as slated above, thai held to be vitiated as Principles of Natural Justice and fair play were noi followed, Tlii'i'i-foic in view of Section 11-A ol the Industrial Disputes Act, and in the light of the observaiions made bv the Hon'ble High Comt in W.I', and the Hon'hle Supreme Court in Ncela Rapibsh Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1999 CT.R 2I'J this Tubuiial, OP giving opportunity lo ihe parties to lead ficsh (vidence, lo prove the charges, has to scrutinise the evident e and to adjudicate upon the basis ol" such fiesh evidence as to whether the action of the; management is justified.

'). To justify ihc action of the management on dismissal of Mr. Charanh from the hanks service.-, from 28-5-96 foi the charges as leproduced by mi- in para 3. relief on the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. So fai the first charge, wilful insuhoidinaiiun or disobedience of any lavfu] or leasonat.le orders uf the superiors is concerned Assistant Hianch Manager Mr. Liikhani disclosed that during 1993 to 1997 he worked in Mohd. Ali Road Brunch where Mr. Charnnia was wi-iking as officer dealing with cash book and trinl balance chucking and added that he was verbally rotated to current account dcparimeni on 22-6-95. where duties. I i alloi work to the 'intf woikinp under him. to check tiieli work, lo sanction Lheir leave and to reporl lo higher an ho rities, were to he performed. However, he did not take chare> of that department'^ection and insisted in wriline, Ihviuvl, the Bianch M:,n:i""r ^fr. riiarania minted Ihe offiori-; fi :., one -cciion to another, verbally. Mr. Cimswani ctenoid <

fer the employee in the interest of adminis- tration and no vested right is created in favour of the employee to a particular place of posting."

His Lordship of Bombay High Court in Shivaji More Vs. Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Cor- poration Ltd. and Another 1996(72) F.L.R. page 447 observed :

"It is well settled that in matters of transfer, the employee who has been served with, the transfer order must first report to trie place where he is transferred and thereafter make a representation to take out legal proceedings there against. The incon- venience arising from transfer have been held by the Supreme Court to be 'normal incidents' of service not justifying inter- ference with transfer orders. In lact these are considerations which would apply even cases of employee transferred from one town or city to another town or city.""

In the case in hand Mr. Charunia was not transferred from one place to another place but ftom one sec- tion to another section in ihe same branch i.e. Mohd. Ali Road Branch, Mumbai, Therefore Mr. Charania does not and cannot sock to claim a vested right in the cash book and trial balance department/ section. tiuns. Howcvci, in the second bio.ith, he stuics thai he dues not remember names oi such employees. It is to be noted m be forwarded la open the account. He denied that forms shown to him with list (Exhjbit-61|I ) bear his signatures, further he denied that he filed up performance appraisal frcm every year. He denied that the appraisal report enclosed with (Exhibil-6l|4) ale in his hand willing. However he had to admit in cross para 37 that cveiy employee|omcer has to give such form every year, and after seeing the appraisal form shown to him vide (Exhibit-f)l|4) he states, that pertains to him and contents therein arc correct. In cross-examination para 51 Mr. Charania admits, there are two to three sections/departments in the bank i.e. savings and current accounts section, advance accounts, receipt and payment, cashiers section .ind tcim deposit. He states that during his eniire tenure of service he only worked in cash hook and trial balance. The appraisal form (Exhibit-61|4) mentions, he worked in outward clear- ing, cash, cheques, term deposits including recurring depo- sits and general accounts. This shows that Charania worked also in other seetions|departments, and that he deposed iar from truth that, since beginning he woiked only in cash book and trial balance. Therefore it is not tint, for the nisi time, Chanmja was rotated to Current Account Department and that those duties were of MjnageriallAdministrative cadre. He admittedly did not take charge of the sectiin to whi'-h he was rotated till his dismissal, on 2Kth May, 1946.

13. Learned Counsel Mr. V. A. Pui for Mr. Chara- nia inviting attention of this tribunal to the written submissions urged that Mr. Charania attended some work other than cash book and trial balance in order to attend the customers in Ihe interest of the bank though he was not entrusted with that job, therefore it cannot be said that he was rotated for the other job than cash book and trial balance and urged that for the first time, during his career, nri 22-6-95 he was rotated feeling ill that, he had filed contempt petition. One can understand about attending the customers by Mr. Charania as Public Relations Offi- cer, but, making signatures on the valuable instrument-, like FDR's invites responsibility, and that has to be done only to whom the work is officially allolted. TDR's referred in list (Exhibit-6-l/?) pertain to the period 1987—1990, and not for a slray period. Since Mr. Charania categorically admits that he worked in TDR rfhd as seen from the record, he also curlier attended the work of current accounts, hardly can be said that for the frst time, he Whi rotated and if at all, he was so rotated as urged by Mr. Pai for the first time, in view of the decisions referred to above, -since no vested right is created in favour of I In; em- ployee to a particular posting, and when stall" is roiat- ed to oviate fraud, hardly lie in the mouth of Mrf Charania that he can not do allotted work except the work which according to him he is doing since beginning.

12. The Learned Counsel Mr. Shah for ihc man- agement submits that Mr, Charania in cross-exami- nation para 31 replied that employees arc rotated from one section to another section in the bank to oviate fraud. He questioned why Mr. Charania in- sisted to continue to work in one section only i.e. cash book and trial balance, for the purpose of com- mitting fraud. He was put question in para 31. "Whether employee has Jien in a particular post or section ?" He-implied saying not correct. However this has been answered in appropriate words by His Lordship of Bombay High Court in "The Jirnta Com- mercial Co-operative Bank, Akola Vs. Member In- austrial Court 1996 L.I.C. 2S12, para 5,

"Transfer is never a condition of service awl rather it is an incident of service and (hu^ it is always open to the employer to trans^

14. Mr. Charania admits in cross-examination para 37 that as per the settlement of l°8fi promotions are given on written test and interview and that he was promoted in 1988 by written test and interview. Since the promotions are given on written test, natu- rally one has to go through the circulars and banking rules. Mr. Charania, was General Secretary of ihe union nncc its inception till dismissal i.e. mote' thin 12 years, therefore, he nur.t be having experience5499 of sections concerned, therefore, it is difficult to say that he was not aware on Hie duties to be pcriormeJ in current accounts section, and that for the iirst time, he was rotated there, fbr alleged ulterior motive.

was not allowed to sign the muster roll and came to be marked as absent by Branch Manager, though in fact on the dismissal day he was present and served a notice of his dismissal in the bank premises, per- sonally. The Learned Counsel Mr. Pai submits tha' the Branch Manager, Mr. Gagwani did not take any action against Mr. Charania, itsejf indicates that the charge is meritless. Absence referred in charge denotes absence from duty assigned, and not Irom the pre- mises. Mr. Charania admits that he attended the bank for operating his saving accounts, but, he admittedly did not take charge of the work allotted to him which amounts to absence from duty without leave.

J5. It has come in the civsij-eAariunatioii oi' Mi. Charania para 41, that the dufi-"-. wJe h.'-t provni^i to him, were of Managerial cadre which he is unable to perform. He is not aware what ciutKs Mr. G\;gvv. ni as Brunch Manager was pcrl\.rniin^, "Whether he used to supervise the work of all sl:';r,'V.'ficcrs in various departments in the Bianch". He is also not aware which departments work Mr. Gagwani was doing. According to him, he had taken the matter on allotting him wcrk of Current Account Depart- ment, to the management through union as seen from cross-examination, para 43. Hovcver, he k, unable to show any documents to that effect. According to him letter pg, 102 (FA-1 I) is in connection with the same. However, this letter was admittedly written by Mr Charania in his personal capacity. This sh'^ws, union did not take up the matter in this context, though Mr. Charania was its General Secretary sinae begin- ning. Had this issue been against !he hanking rules and procedures, Charania would have Uiken il through union, however, that he did not do, for the reason that the work allotted to him, was to be per- formed by the eoncerned officer

16. Mr. Charania is subordinate officer to the Branch Manager, Mr. Gagwani and Assistant Mana- ger, Mr. Lakhani. He is duty bound to obey lawful orders of superior officers. It is apparently clear tlia* he has disobeyed the order discussed supra, and a person whos" disobeyance becomes insubordinate his conduct amounts to insubordination Th'-ir Lordships of Bombay High Court in Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M. S. Ajmere and Another 1980 1 L IJ pg. 295, held:

"A solitary instance of disobeying lawful nrd-T and not several repeated instances of dis- obedience are necessary for sustaining charge of insubordination."

The discussion supra clearly shows that the instruc- tions given by the superior i.e. Branch Manager were reasonable and lawful and that those were wilfully disobeyed by Mr, Charania.

18. The third charge levelled against Mr. Charania was late attendance tor not less tnan four occasions within a month. Mr, Gagwani disclosed that working hours in Mohd. Ali Road Branch were 9.45 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. with a grace period of 15 minutes. Further he added that employees who come late they used to report on them, to head office and disclosed that Mr. Charania used to report around 11,30 a.m. and there- fore, they could not write timing in the Daily Attend- ance sheet against his name, and that he had counselled him to report in time. Mr. Lakhani who was working as Assistant Branch Manager, when Mr. Charania was working as olhccr in the branch, disclosed that star! members who come late, used to sign in the Jate attendance register kept with the Branch Manager, However, Mr. Charania used to report on duty after 11.00 a.m. by making signature in the muster roll. Mr. Parraar also deposed in his evidence that Chara- nia was attending the office after 11.00 a.m. Mr. .Dhuka (MW-5) who was working alongwith Mr. Charania, in cross-examination disclosed that, as Mr. Charania was not coming to the oflice in lime, lie used to tell the same to Branch Manager and that Branch Manager used to allot the work of Mr. Chara- nia, to some other officer, Mr. Karnik (MW-4) who was working in the branch during material period disclosed that, when he attended office late, zonal office and Central Oflice had verbally warned him for improving his attendance and that Branch Mana- ger had counselled him to attend the office in time. in short, the witnesses above deposed that Mr. Chara- nia was attending the bank late. According to Mr, Cliarania as stated in affidavit para. 6 he was allowed to report late as he used to attend courts/Conciliation proceedings/grievances of stair, being the General Secretary of the union. In cross para. 35 he has dis- closed that whenever Conciliation work going on, he was attending office late. He replied to the question of the Learned Counsel for the management that in the settlement of the year 1986 and 1990 union had made demand to allow the General Secretary or any other office bearer to represent the union before the authorities, on duty, however, those were not settled, and still be continued to attend before the authorities on duty. The Learned Counsel Mr. Pai inviting atten- tion of this Tribunal to the record of the hank Hied with (Exhibit-24) submits that as routine, name of Mr. Charania finds place in the daily report and that no action was admittedly taken againsi him, as he was doing the work of union, Mr. Charania admits he was given ' Memo by Hie General Manager dated 21-2-91, by which letter he was cautioned to report ] 7, The bank management has charged Charania on his absence without leave for more than 10 conse- cutive days. It is in the evidence of Mr. Lakhani (MW-1) that Mr. Chnrania did not work at all, in Current Accounts Section though he was instructed and that he did not repoit for duty from 3rd July, 1995. Mr. Charania admittedly did not attend the work of Current Accounts Section till his dismissal i.e. 28th May, 1996. In cross-examination para, 44 he disclosed that he got three saving accounts in Mohd. Ali Road Branch. After 3rd July, 1995 he visited the bank for operating the said accounts. 'This shows he remained absent from duty assigned to him from 22-6-95 till the date of his dismfssal on 28-5-96. Ac- cording to Mr. Charania, as stated in para 16 of affidavit (Exhibit-58) he'was not allowed to do any job and started marking him niwnl since 3-7-95 and kept him in isolation and added in para. 18 that he5500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29. 2001/A$VlNA 7, 1923 rpA RT I I - S E C. 3fii>] Secretary filed contempt petition on 20th June, 1995 on the second day i.e. 22nd June, 1995, Mr. Charania was abrup ly transferred to Current Accounts De- partment from earlier work which can be done by him at any time since hz had to attend court matters. Ha submits Mr. Ck-nmia was given facilities as General Secretary to veniillate the grievances of the employees, however, these facilities have been with- drawn immediately after he went against the mana- gement, and that finding grounds, he was found at fault and inhumanly dii-missed him for his union activities, which is indicative of malafide[victimisa- tion, unfair labour practice.

in time and not. to do union work, on duty. In cross- examination para. 35, Mr. Charania admits, whenever Conciliation work going on, he was going to the office late and had not applied for leave. He had not taken permission for doing the union work during office hours, whenever he signed, the muster was kept at the entrance. From the evidence tif Mr. Charania, itself it is clear that he was late comer. Mr. Charania being the servant and the management being the master under the service contract, so as to have control over the servants whose prime duty is to serve the bank, attending the office in time, and that not attending the office in time amounts to act subversive of dis- cipline.

21. So far the allegation of mala fides is concerned, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Ltd. Vs. Its workmen 1966 I LLJ pg. 440 observed :

19. The management hai charged Mr. Charania for cemmibsion of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior.r on the premise; of the establishment. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Palghat BPL and PSP Toxhilali Union Vs. BPL India Ltd. & Anr. II LLJ 142 ruled that :

"The industrial tribunal should be very careful before it interferes with the orders made" by the banks in discharge of their Managerial functions, and that findings of mala fides should be reached by the tribunals only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of findings and that such findings should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy grounds."

In Sakhar Kamgar Union Vs. Kumbhi Kasari Saha- kari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. and Ors. 1994 I C.L.R. pg. 555, His Lordship of Bombay High Court observed :

"Transfer from one department to another at the same place would not amount to unfair la- bour- practice on the part of the Karkhana,"

In Ahmedmiya Ahmedji C/'o. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Ors., 1997 II CLR pg. 636, while considering the scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, His Lordship.of Bombay High Court observed :

"When inquiry is held unfair, while deciding the question as to whether the action of the employer is justified the court will keep in mind the genesis of the dispute which lead to the agitation of the workers."

While considering the point as regards victimisation it is relevant to quote the observation of Their Lord- ships of the Supreme Court in M / s. Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Ors., 1976 L I C p g. 4:

"Any act subversive of discipline committed even outside the premises is a misconduct." Further Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Disciplinary Au:hority-cum-Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Nikumja Bihari Patnnk II LLJ 1996 pg. 185 observed that "Acting beyond ones authority constitutes miscon- duct. It is clearly seen from the admissions of Mr. Charania that he was doing union work during office hours, without permission from the manage- ment, while on duty he v-as attending courts|concili- ation uuthoriticsjind'ustruil tribunal without permis- sion, he was not attending bank in time and signing the muJer without any leave application. He flout- ed the instructions of the superiors by not attending the Current Account Department, in the beginning, insisting for written instructions though not required and on receiving the instructions, also. The Learned Counsel Mr. Shall for the management at this junc- ture, urged with lorce that, the bank ca function without the union but the union cannot function with- out the bank. Ail the errspUyees of the bank have been selected and appointed only to perform duties connected with the banking operations carried on by the bank, their appointment to various categories ot post in the b:ink is for the performance of the duties attached to the respective post, the salaries fire fixed with refeience 10 the qualifications of the emp- loyees and the nature of- duties to be performed by theirs, the appointment of any employee in an indus- trial concern is not for his participation in trade union activities on salaries paid by the establishment but for his performance of duties at his respective post in the industrial institution. He submits that Mr. Charania went on to state that since he was General Secretary of the union management did not take action against him. He WPS supposing himself Supreme and in the puise of union, he flouted the ordersidirections of the superiors adamantly which many acts are subversive of discipline for this he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble courts filed with list (Exhibit-65).

"Ordinarily a person is victimised if he is made, a victim or a scapegoat and he is subjected to prosecution. Prosecution or punishment for no fault or guilt of his own in the matter as it were of a sacrificial victim. It is there- fore manifest for actual fault or guilt merit- ing the punishment is established, such ac- tion will be writ off the tan of victimisation. Victimisation is a '-criom charge be an emp- employee against the employer "and.therefore, it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employer to fullv meet them. The charge must not be vague 5.v'J

Further their Lordships observed :

or indelinite being as it is an amalgam of facts as well as inrcreiiccs and attitudes. The onus of establishing the pica of victimisa- tion will be upon the persons pleading it. Ihe charge of victimisation he ing serious reflecting to a degree upon the subjective attitude of the employer all particulars of the charge brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on a totality of the evi- dence produced,"

"Jrade Union activity has won universal recog- nition and it has a twin objective that is safeguarding (he interests of the workers ushering the industrial peace. Even so. its secondary role or character cannot get effaced. For whatever reasons the manage- ment may have deemed it fit or conducive to grant duty relief at an anterior point of time, the legal status of that act is only that of a concession and not a matter pertaining to the condition of service, and further ob- served that :

"Trade unionism is recognised all over the world but that does not mean that the office bearer of the union can claim as of right that he t*.in do union work during office hours,"

In the case in hand, it is apparent th;n Mr. Charania has not pleaded nor pointed out any instance except one on filing of contempt pctition"\vhieh is not at all concerning to the union wherein he had no say, as seen from his Statement of Claim. Mr. Charania dis- obeyed the orders of the superiors, he attended the office late, he absented himself from duty his acts are subversive of discipline, in the light of the obser- vations referred to above, it is clearly seen that the bank employee and in particular the bank officer fail- ed to maintain devotion to duty, diligence, integrity and honesty, hardly can be said that the banks action is vindictive and amounts to unfair labour practice.

In view of the observation by Their Lordships refer- red supra, the very bone nf contention of Mr, Pai that, Charnnid \v;.s doing woik of employees union therefore he was since begnning, dealing cash and trial baU'iicP, attending the b.tnk late, is devoid of substance.

14. Mr. Charan¹;) aflirnied in his affidavit para-25 (hot he is 'pn/.ected worL;ir.-'n' and therefore his dismissal is against law. In uosj.-examiruition para 53 he disclosed I hat he has evidence to show to that elfect. He relies on ihe kfleis dated 31-11-96, pg. lCS,Exhihil-l I :;nd pp. ^70-.P(> (F..X.-13), pg. 1 IIxhibit-57. Oil peiusal of those papers alongwith othor record, m.wherc finds 1'iat bnnk recognised him as a protected wort m,in. Assuming for the s'ke of argument, Mr, Charania is a protected work- in,]:!, considering Ihe niWcnndcct on his part in the guise of General Secretary '>!' Union, which is grave in nature, hardlv can he tolerated by management that too in hanking industry therein absolute devo- tion, diliiience. punctuality K to be strictly observed as held by Their T oicNhips of Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs VMiwa Mohan, 1998 4 SCC pg. 31(1 :

22. It is seen from the record Mr. Charania as General Secretary of the union had filed contempt petition against the management on conversion of the hank. He is share holder of the bank. In cross-exami- nation para 4t>, Mr. Charania admitted that Co-ope- rative Court directed him to withdraw name of the union and to proceed with the dispute in the capacity of a shareholder. Five shareholders Hied a dispute he- fore the Co-operative Court. In cross-examination para 44 he admits that even after conversion, the union continued, also the members. He is unable to tell as to what sort of prejudice is caused to the employees after the conversion and on the change of service con- ditions of the employees/officers. It is to be noted that Mr. Charania in his Statement of Claim, dearly aver- red that he had no say in the contempt petition. That petition was the outcome of the resolution passed by the ollice be;u;ers amongst which one Mr. F. A. Va/ was the President ol the Union and Mr. Hinayath Khan, Shukla and Menon were committed mem- bers. Out of these three, two were office bearers and one who was member of Managing Committee, are still in service. When Mr. Charania had no say in the matter, and that other office bearer referred to above, including the President who persuaded the petition are still in bank service, hardly can be said that action of the management is v'nd'ctive against Mr. Charania.

"Tt needs to be emphasised flip! in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, inte- grity and honesty needs to be preserved bv every bun!; employee and in particular the bmk officer. If this is not observed the confidence of the pLirilicjdeposirors would he impaired,"

23. It is clearly observed by "I heir Lordships of Bombay Hich Court in Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Blue Star Workers Union and Ors. 1996 T C.L.R. pg. 673 :

count Department disobeying the direction¹, c 1 the Munich M'.'.nrui/.T, dakd ?'2-<-lW5, thereby he ab- sented himself from duly. Mr. Charania clearly recited in lii.s thiim ^iitemenf para. 9 that bank directed him lo culled his It pal dues if any I mm, the bank, after completing the formalities as required, and that the bunk of their own, settled the accounts and paid certain amounts I.wards legal dues. Sinco Mr. Chanmia did not take charge of accounts section lill his disnvs-uil, the management is justified in not making him payment of Vwges since July, 1995. Consequently Mr. Cliarania is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, issues are answered accordingly and hence the order :

ORDifR

The action of ihe management, Development Cre- dit Bank Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of the workman, Shri A. A. Charania and not giving him wages since July, 1^95 is just, legal, proper and justified, and consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

^Tfftssft, 4 f t ^ r, 2 001

^T . W. 261 9.—sfaftftar 1WT srfafaTJT, 194 7

(1947 sfTT 14) tf\ srrn 17 % ^ q TT if, %Jjfta

qrqrTT JTTOT" $^ ^=T^ % y^WH^ % tfCJ tVfTWf

W\~r ^T% sfnforrf % sfN\ ^ i f sr if fsTuT^ *fr?fif*Pfi

f^TT if fcsflT fp"TR sffefTfa^ ^fm^/m 'q-RTf^JT,

TJ .1-9-2 001 sfff Srr?T S3TT "TT I

|>r. TTTT_4ioi2/Hfi/93-mf 5TTT (t[ v)/(t[-\)]

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001

S.O, 2619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 194T), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-41012.'ft6/93-TR(DU)/fB-])]

AJAY KTJMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURR

26. So fur I he action o[ dismissal of Mr. Cliarania from tin: 11LI11k^ service ir, concerned, the Learned Counsel Mr, Pai nryetl with I'oicc that it is shocking- ly disproportionate, lie submits tribunal can inter- fere wiili the older of maiKigenient considering Ihc particular conduct and his past record. He has put about 17 years in bank, he is r law graduate, officer in the bank, had been Gei'eial Secretary of the union since iti formation. Therefore error on the part, of the management on imposing severe punishment can be corrected by this tribunal relying on M xs. Hind Construction Engineering Co. Eld. Vs. Their Work- man, AIR 1965 SC 917 and the decision of the Bom- bay High Court in Ahmedmiya Ahinedji C/o Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co, Ltd. & Ors. Tie submits in the case on hand basic question crops as to whether lesser penalty can be imposed as has been pointed out in Alliance Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Stale of West Bengal 1940 I CI R 875 of which xerox copy is filed with Exhibil-66. On perusal of cross-examination of Mr. Churanin from which it is evident Mr. Charania in the first breath states that he had not signed any FDR's, however, later on he admits to have signed, he straight away stated that he nsver worked in his entire tenure in other depart- ments, in the bank except in cash book and trial balance sections, however, he had to admit that he did work in TDR and other sections including Current Accounts Section referred to above. He states on oath that he was General Secretary till his dismissal i.e. 1996, however, still he signed the State- ment of Claim as General Secretary filed in 1998, he claims to have challenged the election of the office beareis and named one Mr. Mahajan as General Secretary, however still he ventured to states that he does not remember the name of the committee mem- bers of the union, he states on oath that he availed the benefits of settlements of the year 1986 and 1990 meant loi workmen and also he availed the benefits for the office-is vide officers association. He, wno worked about 17 years in the bank and got promo- tion on the basis of written test and interview, dated to suite tint he does not know what work is to be done by the Manager. He ; • dmits straight awa,y that be went to Delhi for union work without leave, he did union work while on duly i.e. during office hours without permission of the management. The Learn- ed Counsel Mr. Shah at this juncture inviting atten- tion of th's tribunal to the detail cross-examination of Mr. Charania submits that this employee who is interested in doif\" only union activities, making false allegations on management, 1u..s no regard of oath, having tendency to depose else by suppressing facts is n burden to the bank who lost faith, cannot be re- tamed in the service of the bank, and from this point of view, onlv punishment of dismissal fs apt. I have pole tbrouah flv uilinps cited by Mr. Pai and the overall evidence on record, which clearly pointed out that Mr, Clvnnia committed major misconduct cannot be looked liphtlv, in order to keep peace in tvinking indir-trv I find such force in the submission of counsel for management Mr. Shah, Action of the maiMsemeni of dismissal of Mr. Charania from the service of the bank in view of the discussion supra, is just, legnl find proper, totally justified.

BFFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUMLA BOUR COURT "SHRAM S^OAN", ITI MATN. Ill CROSS, TT PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR. BANGALORE

Dated 27th August, 2001 17. nn oerii'.al the record it is apparently seen that Mr. Charania did not take charge of Current Ac-5503 PRESE-NT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kiilki-.mi, B. Com., LL.B., Presiding Oificer, CGIT-Cuni-I ab^ui Court, Bangalore.

C.R. No. 35/91

I Parly :

B. H. Kakargal, (Deceased) No. 7/3, Arvindnagar. Old Hubli, HuWi-24. (Advocate—Shri M. S. Anandaraman) II Party :

The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway. Hubli-580 020. (Advocate—Shri R, A. Daiveekan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by i.xercisin^ tin- powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute;; Act, t947 has referred this dispute vid- order No. K-4lf)l2/ 66/93-IR(DU) dated 28th Vlarch, 199^ for adjudi- cation on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of South Central Railway, Hubli is justified in removing Shri B. H. Kaka'rgul from service ? Tf noi, to what relief the workman is entitled '?" 2. The first party workman was working with the Second Party as Khalasi. Subsequently he was pro- moted. He committed misconduct and charge sheet was issued to him. Enquiry was conducted against him and on the basis of enquiry report he was re- moved from the service. Thetvfnre, Industrial Dis- pute is raised.

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

4. It is seen from the records that during the pen- dency of this dispute original workman died and his LRs were brought on record. The case of the work- man in brief is as follows :—

5. Late Shri B. H. Kakargal joined the services of the Second party with effect from 17-11-1962 as Khalasi. He was promoted and he was discharging his duties with utmost devotion. He bdong:, to Sche- duled Caste Community, Charce iheet was issued under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The charge was that he failed to observe the Engineering Speed Restriction Board art 78/1-2 KM and restricted the speed of his train 'to 30 KM per hour, apply brake and he failed to discharge his duties properly.

6. It is the further case of the first party lhat the enquiry was conducted against him but the Enquiry Officer acted as judge and Prosecutor and the en- quiry is not correct. The enquiry oificej- was biased. The report of the enquiry officer is net correct and the action of the management is not pioper. Late 2863 GI/2001—20.

first party workman for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

7. The case of the management in brief is as ful- ]ows :

8. It ,is the case of the management that the lats lirst party workman was involved in many cases earlier and he. was punished. Regarding enquiry it is said that the same is correct and enquiry was properly conducted.

9. It is further said that the appointment of pre- senting officer is not mandatory under discipline andi Appeal Rules, 1968. The enquiry was conducted as per rules. The misconduct was proved and on the basis of enquiry report workman was removed. Man- agement for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

10. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the management MW1 was examined and on behalf of the original workman his wife was examined.

11. It is seen from the records that both the. advo- cates did not appear and the matter being old, there- fore, the case was posted for orders.

12. T have carefully perused all the documents and the evidence. According to the evidence of MWl he conducted enquiry.

13. It is seen from the records that this tribunal by its order dated 3rd September, J999 has held that Domestic Enquiry is proper and gave finding in affir- mative.

14. Now that the enquiry is held as fair and pro- per the LRs of the Late First party workman has to establish that the enquiry is not proper and the Teport is perverse and the punishment is dispropor- tionate. Nothing is made out by WW1 so as to tay that the enquiry report is perverse.

15. There is no material before U*- to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and there is no merit in this reference. Further the original workman is also no more. 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 27th August, 2001>.

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer5504 THE GAZFTTE OF TNDJA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASV1NA 7, 1923 [PARI H —S I X. 3(ii>] New Delhi, ihe 4th ^i-pl^niber, 2001 S.O. 2620.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947 (14 or 1^47, the Central GoverniiHMn h.-rebj publishes the award of the Central Government Injiislnal TribunaljLahour Court, Chandigarh, as, shown in the Aniiexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ot Northern Railway and their workman, which was received bv the Central Gov- ernment on 3-9-2001,

[No. L-41012/127/87-D-IKB)/1R(B-I)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNHX.URE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL J R1BWNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CKANL.GARH

Case No. T.D. 50|89

General Working President, UUar Railway Karamchari Union, 901 ] 96, Roslian Bajaj Lane, Ganesh Ganj, T.ucknow, U.P. . . Union.

Versus

Management.

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman/Union—Shri V. C. Kalia, For the Management—Shri N, K. Zakhmi.

AWARD (Passed on 13th of August, 2001) The Central Government vide Notification No. L- 410I2H27J87-D.IHB) d;

"Whether the action of Sr Divisional Personnel Manager Northern Railway, New Delhi in deriving the piomotion to Shri Vidhya Sagar Sharma. Ambala Cantt. Driver 'A? urade(fl) w e.f. 30 fi-84 is legal and jusU- lied ? If not. to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"'

HT; promotion vi his juniois w,e.,l'. 30-8 19K4 be set aside.

3. The management has fled its written statement raising an pielimin.uY objecti'Ut thai II,. application tiled by the workman is not maintainable u s. 33-C (2) of the I D. Act 1447. 'I IT; management has pleaded tint The certain posrs of drivers grade B¹ in the pay .scale ot Rs. 425-640 were upgraded in the grade of Rs. 55O-7UO( RS) w.e.f, 1-6-I9S1. The workman was upgraded md placed in this scale on 1-6-1981 but ihcVrear-, wen- paid w.e.f. 10-5-1982 because he \\;>s working as power controller in the grade -of Rs. 550-700 (RS). During the period from 1-6-198! to 10-5-ll)S2. He WL'S promoted as driver (A) •-p^.-'al w.e.f. JiMiu-'i-y, ll'85. No person junior to him was promoted > uperseeding him. Shri Yash Pal son of Shri Dev Raj was junior to the workman who was promoted w.e.f. l'.'-I 1-1985. The work- man ha< not given the lather's name of other emp- loyees so the management is unable to give the full details. The management has prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed with heavy cost.

4. The vvoikman has filed his affidavit Ex. Wl and documents Hx. W2 to Ex. W10, The management has submitted the affidavit of Ram Kishan which is Ex. Ml. The workman li;r, deposed in his affidavit that the post of driver grade 'B' were upgraded w.e.f. 1-6-1981 but arrears were paid to him w.e.f, 10-5-1982. He was not promoted on 30-8-1984 whereas the other employees junior to him were pro- moted. The order of the upgnidation is Ex. W7 in which the name of the workman is appearing at Sr. No. 113, As per column No. 6, he was upgraded w.e.f, 1-6-1981 to the'post of driver grade W in the ^eale of Rs. 550-700( RS). At that time he was working as officiating A 1 1 . at Taglakabini. At that time he was getting his salaiy in the pay scale of Rs. 425-640. The directions for payment of arrears was given in this column. It has been mentioned thai his pav should be fixed in upgraded pay scale of Rs. 550-7(HHRS) w.c.f. UVI981.

w.c.f. 19-11-1985 who was junior to the workman. 'Ihe workman has pleaded in hft> claim statement thai Shri Ram Parkash, Hari Kishan, Gorkhu Ram, Ram Jiwan, Yash Pal and Shri Parkash Chand were promot- ed to the post of driver grade 'A' special wide order dated 30-8- 19H4 but in his allidavit he has not de- posed regarding his promotion. The witness of the management has deposed that the workman was pro- moted during the month of January 1985 and Shri Yash Pal was promoted w.e.t. 19-11-1985 who was junior to the workman. The testimony ol the witness of the management has not been controverted by the workman, therefore, it can not be held that juniors persun., wtr; promoted supeiselling the workman on 30-8-84. Thus the workman has tailed to establish that he was denied promotion to the post of driver grade LA' special on 30-8-1984. Consequently he is not entiled to get any relief from the management, 7. The learned representative of the workman has cited the case of Karam Dass and others Vs. Soni Parkash (AIR 198(1 Punjab and Haryana 89) in which it has been held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haiyana High Court that if any relief has not been claimed in the plaint but the pleadings and evidence is clear the relief claimed can be granted by the Court. This case law relates 10 order 7, Rule 7 of C.I.C. BtU this case law is not applicable because the Tribunal is required to give the answer with reference to the term of reference. This Tribunal can not go beyond the scope of reference order. Therefore, the relief relating to the arrears of pay can not be j>ran*ed to the work- man. Besides this the arrcais of upgraded pay scales has already been paid to him as per discussions made in preceding paragraph.

8. On taking into consideration the facts and cir- cumstances of the case and the evidence adduced the reference is answered by holding that the action of Sr. Divn. Personnel Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi in denying the promotion to the workman Shri Vidya Sagar Sharma, Ambala Canit. driver grade 'A' (S) w.c.f. 30-8-1984 is lcgul and justified. Con.equuit- ly hie is not entitled to get any relief. H'.vh panics shall hear their own costs, Appropriate Government be informed accordingly.

B. I.. JATAV, Presiding Orliccr Chandigarh,

13-8-2001,

" j New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S,O. 2621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the lnduslnal Disputes A cs 1947 (M of 1947), the Central 'Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial TribunaljLubour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Norihern Railway and their v,oil man, which was received by Hie Central Gov- ernment on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-41012|I30,94-lR(B-iyj

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI II. L. JATAV, PRESIDING Ol-FICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. l.D. 97|95

lOmwar Pal Singh So Shri Buccha Singh Co B. R. Pnibhakar, District President, 1 ok Mazdoor Sanghthan, 63-C, kailash Model Town, Ambala Cantt.

Workman.

Vs.

DiviMunal Raiilway Manager, Ambala Division, Northern Rly. Ambala CunU.

Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : None.

For Ihe Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 1-8-2001)

The Central Government v'tle notification No. L- 41012;13094-IR(B-I) dated 30th of April, 1995 has referred the lolinwinj.; dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

'"Whether the aelion of Ihe management of DRM, N. Rly. Ambala Cantt. Division in terminating the services of the Kanwar Pal Singh E.vgangman w.c.f. 11-12-1989 on (he medical ground and not considering him for the lower post after re-medieally e.xa- minaiion for the same, is just and fair and legal ? If not what relief the workman is entitled und from what elate ?"

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the woikman. Despite several notices, none has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. It appears 1h;tt worknrin i, not ink-rested to pursue with the present ivleancc. In view of the above situation, siiicc no body is appearing on behalf of the workman despite notices, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Government be informed,

Chandigarh

1-8-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S.O. 2622.—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 No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-41012/169/97-lR(B-J)] t, .". • . AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENI RAE GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CG1T-2/29 of 1998 Employers in relation to the management of Central Railway, Nagpur, Through its Divisional Operating Manager, Office of the Divisional Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur-440001.

AND

Their Workmen, Vinay S/o Sitaram Patrangc, R/o Gawande's House, Rahate Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur-440001.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Ms. IX Fernandes, Adv. holding for Mr. Suresh Kumar.

For the Workmen : Mr. V. Narayanan, holding Tor Representative Mr. Kazi.

Mumbai, dated 1st August, 2001 AWARD PART-TI

By the interim Award dated 13th July, 1999 (Ex- hibit-18) my Learned Predecessor concluded that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Central Railway against Mr. Vinay Sitaram Patmige, viliak's a? it wa° against the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play, and that findings recorded by the inquiry officer are perverse. He held that tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the reference. The interim Award was chal- lenged by management, Central Railway, vide writ petition No. 54 of 2000 and the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, vide their order dated tst February, 2000 (Exhibit-25) confirmed the order on fairness of In- quiry and the perversity of the findings, however kept open point as regards jurisdiction to be challenged alongwith the Award on merits before Hie Hon'ble High Courl and further directed the tribunal to decide the point on misconduct of the workman, on leading evidence. Therefore this tribunal has to decide whe- ther management's action of removal of Mr. Patrange, is justified.

2. Facts of the case concerning to the point which is new to be determined by this tribunal in short, are as below :

Mr. Vinay Sitaram Pat range was appointed with the Central Railway, Nagpur as casual mechanic in J970 and thereafter he was regularised as points man in the year 1979, and in 1991 he was transferred at Sindhi from Nagpur Main Station. It is contended on 20-4-95 the management ehargesheetel Mr. Patranjje alleging that he absented himself unauthorised manner during the period : —

February 1994 June 1994 July 1994 August 1994 September 1994 October 1994 November 1994 January 1995

—14 days •—08 days —<3 1 days —31 days —30 days —31 days —08 days —31 days

Total

184 days It is contended, by remaining absent unauthoriscdly Mr. Patrangc committed a serious misconduct. The inquiry officer held guilty Mr, Patrange lor thai mis- conduct. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Dis- ciplinary Authority removed him from service w.e.f. J 9-6-96. Mr. Patrange appealed the said order before the Appellate Authority, however that was turned down on 30-10-96, against which revision was preferred before the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, how- ever that ended in confirming the order of dismissal on 3-1-1997. It is contended Mr. Patrange made re- presentation against order of dismissal before the A.L.C. (C), Nagpur. However, conciliation failed. Consequently Ministry sent the matter by way of reference. Mr. Patrange contended that during the alleged unauthorised absence period he was ill and therefore he had submitted applications alongwith medical certificate. He contended that he has no source of income. His minor children and ailing wife arc depend on him. He has'not committed any mis- conduct and that the punishment of dismissal is shock- ingly disproportionate and consequently he be rein- stated in service with continuity and back wages. 3, Management's case is that Mr. Patrangc in one place contended that he was sick and in another place lie coniciiried Ihni hi", wife was sick. He has not ap- plied for lenve nor submitted medical certificate find that he remained absent from duty unauthoriscdly for about 184 days. It is contended that the workman is habitual absentee and therefore action of his dismissal is justified.

4. Record shows that on leading evidence by both the parties aod hearing the counsel, my Learned Pre- decessor passed the interim Award dined 131h July, 1999, on preliminary issues at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 vide Exhibit-10, dated 10-9-1998. The same was challeng- ed by the management in Writ Petition and that the Hon'ble High Court by the order, directed the tribunal on leading evidence, to decide whether Mr. Patrange committed any misconduct, as stated above, under reference.

5. In view of the position now this tribunal has to decide Issue Nos. 4 and 5 trained by my Learned Predecessor at Exhibit-10, in the light of the evidence led by the parties, after passing interim Award. Man- agement to justify its action on dismissal of Mr. Patrange relied on the affidavits of Mr. Gajanan Phuse, Pharmacist ( M W - 1) working in Central Railway Hospital ( N a g p u r ); Mr. T. B. Chowre, Station Master Sindhi ( M W - 2) and Mr. Topre, Head Clerk ( M W - 3) vide (Exhibit-38; 39 and 4 1) and closed evidence vide purshis (Exhibit-44). Mr. Patrange in rebuttal, filed affidavit (Exhibit-45) and closed evidence vide purshis (Exhibit-46).

6. I have heard the Learned Counsel Ms. IX Fer- nandes, holding for Adv. Sim Suresh Kumar lor the management and Shri Narayanan, holding for repre- sentative Mr. Kazi for Mr. Patrange. 1 have gone through the written submissions filed by the manage- ment (Exhibit-48) and the Representative (Exhibit- 49).

7. On hearing the counsels at length and going through the written submissions and the record as a whole, on the following issues, I record my findings tor the reasons stated below :

Issues

Findings 4.

No Whether the action of the

management in removing from service Shri Vinay Sitaram Patrange w.e.f. 19-6-96 is justified ?

5. If not, to what relief and

As per order below.

benefits the workman is entitled to ?

REASONS

8. At the outset it is to be noted that the manage- ment conducted domestic inquiry against Shri Patrange. However as stated above, that held to be vitiated as Principles of Natural Justice and fair play were not followed and consequently findings of inquiry officer were found perverse and when the manage- ment challenged the same, the Horrble Bombay High Court confirming those findings, directed this tribunal to decide the point as regards misconduct giving oppor- tunity to lead evidence. Therefore in that light and in view of Si'dion 1 1-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. and in the lip.ht of the observations made by ihc

5.SO7 Hon'ble High Court in W.P. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta Kapilish Vs. Presiding Oilicer, Labour Court, 1999 CLR 219, the management led evidence to justify its action on dismissal of Mr. Patrange re- maining absent for duty unauthoriscdly which accord- ing to them amounts to misconduct,

9. Mr. Chowre (MW-2), Station Master working at Sindhi where Mr. Patrange was working as points- man affirmed that during the period February 1 y94 to January 1995 Mr. Patrange remained absent, without application. He further affirmed that Mr. Pat range submitted medical certificate of Medical Superintendent Nagpur covering the leave period 29-10-94 to 8-11-94, but not filed the medical certificate for the period 24-6-94 to 28-10-94, and that according to him, he was habitual absentee. I he Head Clerk Mr. Topre (MW-3) affirmed that Mr. Patrange was absent Irora 24-6-94 to 8-11-94 for which he marked him absent, in muster roll and that as per the record he was sick. from 27-5-94 to 14-6-94 for which he produced medi- cal certificate from railway hospital, Nagpur. Mr. Phuse (MW-1) who works as a pharmacist in Central Rail- way Hospital, Nagpur allirmed that Mr. Patrange did not undergo any treatment at the lailway hospital during the material period.

10. Management had charged Mr. Patrange for his unauthorised absenteeism from duty from February 1994 to January 1995, and action of the management is based on the absence of this period. Unauthorised absence means remaining absent from duty without application for leave and medical certificate. Mr. Patrange in his affidavit clearly deposed that, he was sick during the maierial period and that he had sub- mitted applictaion alongwith medical certificate to the concerned department, and therefore he was not absent unauthoriscdly.

11. In the case on hand, crucial point is whether Mr. Patrange absented himself from duty unaulhonsed- ly during the period from February 1994 to January 1995, Admittedly during the material period he was working as points-man under the supervision of Mr. Chowre, Station Master, Sindhi, therefore evidence of Mr. Chowre is relevant. Needless to say, admissions of the opponent is the best evidence. Mr. Chowre in his cross-examination para 18 admits that employee had given application supported by medical certificate during the material period February 1994 to January 1995. On answering to the question put by Advocate for Mr. Patrange, he states that Mr. Patrange had produced medical certificate of railway dispensary for the period 27-5-94 to 14-6-94 and 29-10-94 to 8-11-94. which covers the period in dispute for the year 1994.

12. On plain reading the absence period as men- tioned in the charge sheet and staled in written sub- missions (Ex. 48/pg. 8) is about 184 days. However, on the findings of which inquiry, Mr. Pa I range was dismissed, absence period was shown 159 days i.e. 24-6-94 to 28-10-94 and 31-12-94 to 31-1-95. As- suming for a moment, Mr. Patrange was absent during February 1994 to January 1995 for 184 days, the Station Master Mr. Chowre under whose supervision Mr. Pal range was working, unequivocally poinnd out5508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVTNA 7, 1923 [PART II—SEC, 3(D)1 that the employee had submitted application support- ed, by medical certiiieale during the absence oi 1994 lo 1995. It is significant tu note that according to Head Clerk Mr. lopre on production oi medical cer- tificate, Mr. Patrange resumed duty al Sindhi Station on 22-1 1-95. As seen I'rorn the admission of Mr. Top re, department has no grievance on the absence of Mr. Patrange prioi to February 1994 to January 1995, necessarily follows that considering llie application supported by medical certificate, Mr. Patrange was allowed to resume on 22-11-95.

13. It is clearly seen from the cross-examination of Mr. Patran^e that as a points-man he has to show signal to the train, he has to work 8 hours during rotation period of 24 hours and unless reliever conies, earlier points-man has to continue alter 8 hours, thereby his services are essential as fortified by the evidence of Senior Clerk Mr. Topre. This Head Clerk who maintain the leave account of the staff including Mr, Palrange, reported on the absence ot Mr. Patrange to the higher authority tor the hrst time, on 13-6-95. Admittedly no memo was issued lo Mr. Patiange for his absence even before he was chargesheeted. It is in the cross examination of Mr. Chowre that two months after 31-12-94 for the first time, he apprised o\\ the absence of employee to his superior JJ.O.M. When services of Mr. Patrange are of essential cate- gory and that he was not informed even to resume on duty [ill chargesheet and that he was not given a single memo tor his so-called unauthrised absence, clearly indicate that Mi. Patrang.j had given applica- tion supported by medical certificate, therefore his absence can not said to be unauthorised.

14. Irue it is Mr. Chowre in his cross-examination para 18 denied suggestion that Mr. Patrange had informed time to time on his absence supported by medical certificate: The Learned Counsel Ms. D. Fernandes for the railway management at this junc- ture, submits that evidence of the witnesses will have to he read as a whole and if we read his evidence as a whole, shows that Mr. Palrange had not applied nor produced certificate. This submission appears to be meritless for the simple reason that while giving answer to the question Mr. Chowre a responsible ofli- cer of the railway department, lurther made it clear that Mr. Patrange had produced medical certificate for the period 2/-5-94 to 14-6-94 and 29-10-94 to 8-11-94 and not lor remaining period. This shows that, he was fully aware on the production of the medical certificate by Mr, Patrange, atleast, for the period as stated by him above. Therefore considering this hardly can be said that he did not appjy nor produced medical certificate, at all. It is seen from the evidence and also can be inferred easily from the evidence that, without pioduction of certificate on absence, no employee can be allowed to resume on duty. The fact that Mr. Patrange was allowed to resume on duty on 22-11-95, itself shows he was allowed, as from application and certificate, his ab- sence was found justified.

15. According to I'atrange he had produced medi- cal certificate from a private doctor, alongwith sick l e a ve a p p l i n i i o n. It N i i e ; i ' - !\ • vn f r om t he e v i d e n ce of Head Cletk Mr. 'lopre, a i.ulway employee can take irealinent from private Joe tor and that treatment from railway dispensary, is not compulsory, therefore it is not necessary tor Mr, Patrange to visit railway dispensary and on this background, searching cross- examination of Mr. Patrange is a iutile effort, more so Mr. Phuse, pharmacist of Central Railway, deposed that he does nol know Mr. Patrange nor seen him.

J6. The Learned Counsel Ms. D. Fcrnandes ior the management submits that, leave is a privilege and the same can be availed with permission and further submits that remaining absent without proper sanction of leave is unauthorised absence and that the ruic only permits absence without leave in case of employees sickness provided he is covered under medical rules. Inviting attention of this tribunal to the evidence of Head Clerk Mr. Topre he submits that, Mr. l-alrange is habitual absentee. He was absent on duty for many days as mentioned by him specifically in afiidavit para 7, during the year 1991 — i 995, and as his incre- ment was withheld for his unauthorised absence as al:;o Mr. Patrange admitted in CPJSS examianlion para J8, and therefore he being a habitual absentee and that in case of essential services like points-man, man- agement's action ot his dismissal is totally justified. Punishing an employee for unauthorised absence is different than remaining absent, giving application sup- ported by medical certificate. The Learned Counsel Ms. D. Fcrnandes for the management submits that during the domestic inquiry Mr, Patrange pointed out that his wile was sick and in the appeal pointed out that he was sick. He had no stable stand, and that his changed stand itself gives scope for doubt on his bona fides. Mr. Patrange has deposed that during the material period he was sick and that his wife was also bad-ridden by paralysis. Station Master Mr. Chowre clearly admits that he had given application supported by medical certificate, therefore, hardly can be doubted on his bona fide^, as urged by Ms. D. Fernar/Jes.

17, The Learned Counsel Shri Narayanan urged with force that Mr. Patrange was not informed to resume duly, he was not given memo pointing on his absence before chargesheeting him, he had put about 26 years of service and that though he gave applica- tion supported by medical certificate his absence was treated as unauthorised and that management's action based on the inquiry report is totally illegal and un- justified. On going through the evidence as a whole, and the submissions ol both the counsels the fact that management's witnesses admitted that Mr. Pat- range had applied for leave for his sickness supported by medical certificate, hardly can be said that, his absence was unauthorised. The management's action of dismissal in view ol' the discussion supra, can "afely be said to be not legal, proper and justified, [ssucs are therefore answered accordingly and conse- quently, management will have to be directed to rein- state him treat'ng him in continuous service and pay him all consequential monetary benefits and hence the order :

ORDER

I he action ol' the management of Divisional Ope- rating Manager, Office of the D.R.M., I cntral Railway N.¹ if pur in removing from service Shri Vinay S/o Sitaram Palrange,5509 Nagpur, w.c.1. ]<•>-<> 19% is not legal, pro- per and justified. He be reinstated in service Heating him in continuous service and pay him all consequential monetary benefits.

S, N. SAUNDANKAK, Presiding Olhcer New Delhi, the ->ih September, 7001 S.O. 2623.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Cen- tral Government hereby puHishe.s the award of the Central Government ' Industrial Tribunal/1 ahour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers it; ichtion to Hie management of Central R;iilwav and 'heir v.virk- man, which was received by 'be Central Government on 4-9-2001.

[No. L-41012/22/2001-1R(B-I)1

A) AY KUMAR, Desk Ollicer

ANNEXURT'

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIHUNAL-CUM-LABOUR r o i J P T, I lir'KMOW

Presiding Ollicer : R:drc?h Kumar.

Adjudication :

TD No. S2|2001

Ref. No. L~4IOI?.!22|2noi|TR(B-n

Dated 14-5-2001

RHTWEEN

Sh. Peter Jhon Slo Sh. Thomas Clo Sh P., K. Gupta 9^5, Gond Compound, (Opp. Seventh Fax School) Jhntnsi-284001.

AND

1. Work Manager ( R ),

Central Railway, W<^rkshon, Jh msi-?R40ni

2 Dv. Chief Me--!,. Fri^e-i- (R)

Conl'-al Railwiv, .Ihansi-284001 Chief Workshop Marmgci Central Railwav, Workshop, Jha'iiM .284002.

AWARD

By reference No. L-410 l2i.?::20ul HUB-I) dated J 4-5-2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ot powers conferred¹ by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I \ of 1047) mnde over this industrial dispute between Sh Peter John, Jhansi s/o Sh. Thomas and Work Mkvnauer (R), Central Railway. WorkJ.iop, Jhansi lor adjudication. The reference is proiliurd as under '

"Whether the action of the Work Manager ( R ), Central Railway, Workshop, Jhansi in termi, nating the services of Shri F'cter John S|o Shri Thomas vide order dated 26-5-1903 is justified ? If nor. what relief the work- main is entitled"?"

Despite notice by the Ministry of Labour under Rule 10;B) of Industrial Dispute (Central), Rule'-; (1957) and successive recisferc-d notices issued on 7-6-2001, 13-7-2001 and 7-S-2001 the workman did not tile any claim statement. Postal endorsement on the envelops mentions that the workmnn docs not reside on the given ,iddress. Management apneaired but d''d no* pie written slaiement in the absence of cliim petition.

These appears no prospect to procure iittciurance of the workman on !lv: ir'ven ;y.'dress. Hence this re- ferenre is returned wiihiiut 'ny av⁷:trd on merit as "no claim award."

LUCKNOW

31-8-2001

RUDRESII KUMAR, Presiding OfTiccr ?rf fr^ff, 4firi=Fwl 2001

TT . 5TT. 2^24 -—sfaftf^FF f^rR wftrfWT, 1947 ( 1 9 47 ^FT 14) qft Erm 17 % %i*m™r if, ^fm f^TztfT =ft."fV.TfV.TTnr. % SRSPT^ % ^^ faqH^i W*tT ^TT Wrf^FT ^^f\ t, ^T ^tm 'ffTTT ^"T 3-9-200] [w. ™i-2\)<)i 2/2/Q'l-mf.virr. (Tfr-T)] vv(. rr^-. TT'-^-T, vm? *rfa-3T New Delhi, the. 4th September, Of)I S. O. "I6')4 .—Tn pii.r5,upjice of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). t ie Central Government hereby publishes the av.ard of the Cent IT 1 Government Industrial T r i b u ml Dhanbad as shown in the Annexing "n the Indus- trial) D'spi'tc b'llwonP the employers in icbtion jO the munajjoment of BCCL tind their workman,5510 THL GAZViJTC OF TNDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASV1NA 7, 1923 [PART I I —S I C. 5(ii)l vvhic'i was received by the Cenlrul (Jovenimeni on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-20012/2/94-IR (C-h] S. S. CiUITA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRHSENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

Scclion 10(1 )(d) of the 1. D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 4 OF 1995

\irtics : Employers in relation to the management of Kankanee Colliery of M/s. BCCL a.nd their workman.

\ppoarances :

On behalf of the workman ; None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri S N. Sinha,

cally recorded his date of birth as 12-4-1937 in Ihe Form B Regis er. Thereafter in Tetulmai i Colliery he was transferred to Kankanee Colliery as Minor/Loader. |-"ven at Kankanee Colliery ins pile o[' repeated reminders to the management for rectification of his date of birth they did not consider necessary lo d<"> any thing in the matter. Jl has been alleged by th" concerned workman that ultimately the management considered his case and forwarded him along with some other work- man before the medical Superintendent for determination of age at Central Hospital Loyabad. But nothing was done there. On the contrary the management by letter dt. 28-10-91 disclosed that the da,tc of birlh recorded in the Form B reg isle red maintained by Terulmari Colliery was accepted by the management as the correct date of birth and for which they did not consider necessary to refer his v-asc further to Apex Medical Board for determination of his age As such the con- cerned workman raised industrial dispute before the ALC (C) Dhanbad for conciliation. As the conciliation failed, the present reference was made before this Tribunal.

Advocate.

j ' a te : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st August, 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 hits referred the following dispute to this Tribunal fo i adjudication vide their Order No, L-20012/(2)/94 l.R. (Coal-1), dated, the 20th February, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kankance Coif cry under Sijua Area No. V of BCCL in treating the date of birth of Sri Amrit Lai, Jaswar, Miner/Loaders as 12-4-1937 is justified '.' If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ".'"

2. The ease of the concerned workman as per

W. S. in brief is as follows :

2. The management on the contrary after filing W. S.-cum-rejoindcr has denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W. S. Admitting the fact, the management submitted that initially the concerned workman was employed at Tetulmari Colliery from where he was transferred lo Kankanee Colliery. The managemen s u b n i ' ed that on the basis of Last Pay Certificate issued by Tetulmari Colliery tho date of birth and service particulars were recorded in the Colliery register. Further on verification from Telulmari Colliery jt was found that the date of birlh recorded in the Form B Register and other register was 12-4-1937 and the concerned workman put his L. T. I in all the papers. In the year 1987 he was served with service excerpts after making necessary entries of various information including the date of birth recorded in it by the Colliery Authority with clear instruction that he may raise objection regarding wrong entry within 14 dayr- with supporting documents. The concerned workman inspite of getting opportu- nities did not raise any objection in the matter of his age recorded in the Form B Register¹ The management further submitted that age determi- nation committee. Central Hospital, Loyabnd also did not consider necessary to undergo medical examination by the concerned workman in absence uf any discrepancy in the matter of recording ot age in different papers. The management further submitted that as per Implementation Instructi >n No. 76 issued by tlit JBCCI the toncerned work- man ran only be sent to the Medial Board for It has been submitted by the concerned workman that initially h*; was engaged on the basis of contract labour in Coal raising at Tetulmaj-i Colliery h'foie nationalisation of the same. After nationalisation, the present management took step t<> all those contract workers including Ihe concerned workman as permanent miner/ loader with effect from 27-1-73 without any medical cKa.uiiatio i/asi^s uen: of age by the Medical 11,-anl. A* u l o ul , .he niangcment whirasi-5511 rc^aKsespmeri of age where there is a glaring difference of age appearing in different official papers. Hut as no such discrepancy relating to the recording of the date of birth of the concerned workman came into existence there is no scope on the part of the management LO consider the prayer of the concerned workman. In the result, ihc management has submitted prayer for passing necessary Award rejecting the prayer of the concerned workman.

4. The points TOr consideration in this reference

are :

"Whether the action of the management of Kankanee Colliery under Sijua Area No. V of BCCL in treating the date of birth of Sii Amril Lai, Jaswar, Miner/Loader as 12-4-1937 is justified. Tf not, to what relief the workman is entitled '?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

recorded by. the management but inspite of claiming so the concerned workman, was silent actually what was his date of birth. During hearing the concerned workman has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the date of birth recorded in the Form B register Ext. M-l was recorded erroneously and for which fhe same cannot be considered as an authentic document. It is seen that the year 1987 the management issued service excerpt to the concerned workman wherein his date of birth was clearly recorded as 12-4-37. The said service excerpts was duly received by the concerned workman. But inspite of issuance of that service excerpt the concerned workman did not raise any dispute at that time, ft is the specific claim of the concerned management that the concerned workman has falsely raised the dispute after receiving the notice of his super- annuation issued by the management (Fxt. M<-3). The concerned workman cannot avoid responsi- bility simultaneously to establish what was his exact date of birth. Particularly when from the available papers no discrepancy relating to his date of birth lias been transpired. The concerned workman has gel ample scope to produce relevant papers and also to examino witness in support of his claim hut inspite of getting opportunity he failed to take opportunity of the same.

7. As sucb after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances 1 hold that the con- cerned workman has failed to justify his claim reasonable before the Tribunal in the matter of recording his date of birth in the Form B Register. In the result the ease is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the following Award is rendered :

"The action of the management of Kan- kanee Colliery under Sijua Area No. V of BCCL in treating the date of birth of Sri Amrit Lai Jaswar, Miner/Loader as 12-4-1937 is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

3. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 5. The management in order to substantiate the claim examined one witness whilo the concerned woikman did not examine any witness in support of his claim. Tt is admitted fact that originally the concerned workman was an employee of Tetulniari Colliery and he entered into service there before nationalisation of the said colliery. It is seen that after nationalisation of the said colliery he was considered as permanant Miner/Loader under the management and thereafter he was transferred to Kankanee Colliery. It is the con- tention of the management that when he entered into service his date of birth in the service record i.e. Worm B Register was recorded as 12-4-37. After his transfer to Kankanee Colliery not only they verified the records of Tetulniari Colliery but also considered papers relating to the service matters of the concerned workman sent by them. The management further submitted that not only in the Form B Register but also in the I. I). Card issued in favour of the concerned workman tho same date of birth i. e. 12-3-37 was recorded. The age determination committee did not consider for medical examination of the concerned workman to determine his age as they did not find any discrepancy relating to the dispute about his date of birth. In support of the claim the management relied on Implementation Instruction No. 76. Referring this circular the management submitted under which circumstances the concerned workman can be referred before the age determination committee for determination of age. 1 have considered the Circular No. 76 and I fully at per with the view of the learned Advocate for the management.

6. It is the contention of the concerned workman

that his date oT birth 12-4-37 wvn not properly

2863 GI/2001—215512 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29. 2001/ASVTNA 7, 1923 [PART II—SILC. 3(ii)} New Delhi the 4th September, 2001 S. O. 2625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-20012/246/85-D-I1I (A)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B, Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

Reference No. 108 of 1986

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Sendra BansjOra Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Shri D. Mukherjce,

Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union.

On behalf of the management : Shri B. Jos hi.

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.

Dhanbad, the Dated, 26th July, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India. Minislry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (ij (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute Lo this Tribunal for adjudi- cation vide Ihoir Order No. L-20012 (246)/85-D- III (A), dated, the i9th February, 1986.

SCHEDULE

"Whothei the demand of Bihi-.r Colliery Kamgar Union that the management of Sendra Bansjora O llicry of M/s,. Bhai-at Coking Coal Limited should provide employmoji: as Bad li worker to Smt. Hqini Kamin, ex-rasual Wagon Leader, although she may not be having a male dependant to offer for employment in her place, is justi- fied ? If so, to what relief is the female worker entitled ?"

2, The case of the concerned workman in brief as p;r W. S. is as follows :

It has been submitted by the concerned work- man that originally she was appointed as permanent wagon loader against permanent vacancy by the management. She submitted that she had put in continuous service and had put in 240 days attendance. Inspire of her work as Wagon Loader the management had stopped her from duty without assigning any reason and without affording her any opportunity illegally and arbitrarily against the principles of natural justice. As a result she submitted her represen- tation before the management several times for allowing her to resume her duties but to no effect. Thereafter the management as per decision took a policy to employ the workman as Badli whosoever put in 75 days attendance in a calendar year of 1973-76, and according to that decision many workmen were re-einployed by the management but the management did not consider her case though her name was enrolled as Badli workman. Due to this discreminatioii and anti-labour policy of the management she raised an industrial- dispute before the ALC (C) for conciliation but tho same was ended in failure due to the adamant attitude of the management. Accordingly the matter was .eferjed to the Ministry resulting reference to this Tribunal. The concerned work- man has prayed for passing an Award directing the management to reinstate her in service wilh payment of full b?ck wages.

3. The management on the contrary after riling W. S.-rum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the ' concerned workman asserted in her W. S. They submitted that the concerned workman was employed as unlisted wagon loader in the your 1973 u iJ she worked there for some time in the .same year. She did not offer hcrjulf for employment a.> un- listed wagon loader subsequently for the reasons >x:s[ known to her. Thus she left her casual employment in the ye.tr 1973 on her own and accordingly the present belated claim for employment as badli worker is without any justification. The management further submitted that they issued a circular dt. 4-8-80 for employ- ment of Badli Miner/loader out of casual wagon loader as per the requirement ofdiifurent collicri'.•;; '•on the basis of number oi' days pat by them during Ik p^ri'id 1973-76, As female worker* could not5513 be employed as Miner/loader their case at that time was not considered inspite of the said circular. In certain cases at the request of the union the male dependants of female casual workers were en- rolled as badli Miner/loader taking into consi- deration the length of service of the female work- ers to meet the need at thut time. There was absolutely no scope of employment of female worker as Badli Miner/Loader because of the fact that female workers are not permitted to work inside the mine under the provision of the Mines Actv 1952. They are also unsuitable to carry on heavy hard manual jobs of Miner/ loaders apart from their being unsuitable for the job of underground employment. The manage* ment also denied the fact of existence of any circular to give employment to ex-casual wagon loader as Badli worker and the present claim is not based on any policy decision of the manage- ment. Accordingly, the management has prayed for passing an Award to the effect that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any Telief as prayed for.

4. The points for decision in this case are :

"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union that the management of Scndra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. B . C CL should provide employment as Badli worker to Smt. Harni Kamin, ex-casuu) Wagon loader, although she may not be having a male dependant to offer for employment in her place is justified '.' If so. to what relief is this female worker entitled ?"

5. Decisions with Reasons

It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that he was permanent wagon loader against permanent vacancy under the manage- ment. The allegation of the concerned workman is that he wns illegally and arbitrarily stopped from her work and as a result she made repre- sentation to consider her ease but the managa- ment did not consider her representation. The concerned workman further submitted that on the basis of policy decision many workman have been re-employed under the management and relink on the >,jid policy deijjoi) hi'T mime was also enrolled as badJi workman but sin: was not allowed to resume her duty The management totally denied this fact. It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that he worked under the management for more than 240 days in a calendar year durin;:; her employment there. It is also the claim of thu concerned workman that her name as per policy decision was also enro"ed as bad'i worker but her casr v/as not at Lil) considered. It is seen llvl a reference was made before the ALC (C) raising an industrial dispute by the concerned workman but as the said reference ended in failure the instant case is coming up for consideration before the Tribunal. It is seen from the record that in spite of giving several chance.-, the concerned workman did not consider necessary to appear before this Court in order to substantiate her claim. No evidence is forthcoming before the Court that the concerned workman w?s employed by 'he management and in a calendar year she worked for more than 240 days. No evidence is also forth- coming before the Court th>t as per policy decision her name was entrolled as bad'i worker but the management subsequently refused to give her emyloyment. I have considered the W. S.-cum- rejoindcr of the management careFuIly and the management categorically denied all the claim of the concerned workman to rebut the claim of the management. The concerned workman had the scope to adduce evidence and to call for the requisite document but the concerned workman did not consider to do so. On the contrary she absented herself for long years. As such just relying on the claim made in the W.S. at this stage I do not find any sufficient ground to up- hold her contention. In the result, the following Award is rendered :

"The demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union that the management of Sendra Bans- jora Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking CDal Limited should provide employment as Badli worker to Smt. Harni Kamin, ex-casual wagon loader although she may not be having a Tm'.le dependent to offer for employment in her place is not justified. Consequently, She is entitled to no relief."

B. BISWAS, [residing Officer Nev Delhi, the 4th September, 200 i S.O. 2551J THE GAZETTE OF fNDlA : SL-PfEMBER : o, 2001/ASV1NA 7, 1923 I PAW If--Snc. 3 bad us shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001

[No. L-20012/ 330/95-1R (C-I)] S S, GUPTA, Under Secy.

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

REFERENCE No 140 of 1996 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman s Noni. On behalf of the employers : Shri D.K. Venma,

Advocate.

State ; Jharkhand Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th August, 2001:

AWARD

The Govt. of Jndia, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-2O012/33O/95-IR (Coul)-I) doted the 7th Nov., 1996.

SCHhUULI'.

"Whether the demand by the Un'on for age review of Shi i Ram Prasad Noni a after his super- annuation by the management is legal and justi- fied ? ff so, to vhat relief is the workman entitled? "

2, Soon after tl.e receipt of the order of re- ference the same was registered as Reference No. 140 of 1996. Thereafter when the workman side ab- stained from appearing before this Tribunal for filing their W,S documents etc., Registered notices were sent to them. But in spite of the issuance of notices to them the workman side neither appeared before this Tribunal nor took any steps. It farther reveals from the record that as many as 21 adjourn- ments were granted and registered notices were issued to them. But in spite of the issuance of notices to the workman side did not consider necessary to appear before this Tribunal for filing W,S. docu- ments etc. The management side all along caused their appearance through their Learned Advocate Shri D. K. Vcrma. Since the workman side abstained from appearing before this Tribunal for taking steps in this reference on their behalf in spite of issuance of registered notices it can be presumed that no dispute is existing between the workman and the management presently. This reference is pending before thi; Tribunal since 1996 and it is of no use to drag the same for years together, Under such circumstances a 'No dispute' Award is ren- dered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the workman and the management presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S.O. 2627.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes :he award of the Con'ral Govenvnsm Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Dhanbad us shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001

[No. L-200l2/437/93/IR(C-I)] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURC

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

Reference No. 17 oi 1995

PARTIES :

Employers i a r d a ' i on 'o the manage- ment of Block II Area of M/s. Bhart Coking CualL'd. and tfieir woik;nan.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman None: On behalf of the employers : ShrJ B. Joshi

Advoca'e.

State :Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st August, 2001

AWARD

Tin: Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise (f the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the follwing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudi- cation vide their Order No. L-20012/437/93/I.R. (Coal-I), dated the 10th February, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad on the management of Block IF Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Dhanbad for the placement of Shri K.P. Singh, Dhowra Supervisor in Clerical Grade-! on the basis of performance of his work is justified ? If so, to what relief is the concerned workrrran entitled'?"

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-jvjoinder has denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in the W.S. It has been submitted by the manage- ment that the concerned workman was posted as Dhowra Supervisor at Block II area and as per his designation and nature of job required to be pci- formed he was placed in Clerical Grade-ITI - according to the provisions of Coal Wage Board Recommen- dations and NCWAS, The management further submitted that a Dhowra Supervisor is entitled to Cleiical Grade-lit and in no circumstances he can, claims higher grades viz. Gradc-11 and Grades-I. The management further submitted that the con- cerned workman all along performing the duties of Dhowra Supervisor and there was no cadre scheme for promotion of Dhowra Supervisor from Grade-Ill to II and from Grade-II to I, Accordingly in absence of any cadre scheme the concerned workman cannot decmand for his promotion by performing the job of Dhowra Supervisor. It has been futther submitted that the concerned workman made an attempt to make out a case that the persons who were appointed subse- quently to him were posted in Gradc-III or Grade If and have been promoted to grade I whereas he is con- tinuing in Grade-Ill. It is submitted that the clerical personnel have got different cadres such as accounts cadre store Cadre, secretariat cadre, finance cadre. Therefore, the clerical personnel belonging to a parti- cular cadre are grouped together and their promo- tions are decided according to the cadre scheme. So far Dhorwa Supervisor is concerned he docs not belong to any clerical cadere considering the nature of job required to be performed by him. He has to look after the well are matters relat- ing to Dhowra and sanitations, supply of fuel to the workers residing in the Dhowra. Accordingly the management submitted that the demand of the concerned workman for Clerical Grade-I is without any merit and the same is liable to be rejected.

4. The points for consideration in this refer-

ence aro :

'Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad on the management of Block II Area of M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad for the placement of Shri K.P. Singh, Dhowra Supervisor in Clerical Grade-I on the basis of performance of his workman is justified ? If so, to what relief is the concened workman entitled? "

5. DECISIONS WITH REASONS The concerned workman in his W,S. submitted that in Clerical Grade-Ill he has been working as Dfaowra Super vis or since the beginning of 1985 wheras S/Shti Sudhir Chand Jha and Umesh Chandra Mishra who were appointed initially as trainee in time rated category -I respectively on 21-2-84 and 1-3-84 were promoted directly in Clerial Grade-II on 15-5-85 and 1-3-85 respectively. They were fuithcr promoted to Gradc-I as Clerk on 27-3-92 Again Shri B.S. Choudhary, D. Kumar Dutta, Santan Singh and Shyam Narayan Choudhary who were initially appointed as trainee in Time rated Category-I respectively on 15-6-90, 3-6-91, 15-6-90 and 8.10.87 were promoted to Gradc-II Clerk res- pectively on 1.1.92, 1.1.92, 1.1.92 and 21-10-92. The concerned workman submitted thai all the em- ployees named above were junior to him in Clerical Grade but they superseded him in Superior Clerial Grade at the Whims of the management and thereby the management made serious injustices to him. The management also did not assign any reason of super- seding him by the workman named above. Accor- dingly the matter was taken up by the union and during concilation on examination of all papers the management was directed by the ALC(C) to consider his prayer. That too did not yield any resul'-, Finding no other way an industrial dis- pute was raised by the union which resulted reference to this Tribunal.

It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was Dhowra Supervisor and placed in Clerical Gradc-I 11. It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that S/Shri Sudhjr Chandra 2863 GI/2001—225516 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 20, 2001/ASV1NA 7, 1923 IPART II—SEC. 3fji)l 1 do not find anything rdying on which it can be said that the management illegally and arbitrarily and viol-Ming ;ho principles of natural justice ig- nore! the promotion of the cuni.inod workman. Accordingly the coi^crncd workman is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered- : -

"The demand of the Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad on the managment of Block-II Areas of M/s. Bliarat Coking Coal Limited Dhanbad for the placement of Shri K.P. Singh, Dhowra Supervisor in Clerical Grade-I on the basis of performance of his work is not justified. Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001

S.O. 26*8 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of 1ISCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-20012/471/94-IR(C-J)] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswa,

Presiding Officer

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

RFFERENCE NO. 157 OF '993 Jha, Umcsli Chandra Mishra, B.S, Lhoudhury D. Kumar Dulta, Santan Singh and Shyam Narayan Choudliury though initially were appointed in Clc. Jcu' Grade-Ill subsequently were promoted to Clerical 11 and 'hcici fl#:r 'o C!e'ie.il Grade-1 by orckr of the management though the management was fully aware that they were junior to the concerned workman. It is the sepccilic alle- gations of the concerned workman that the manage- ment illegally arbitrarily and vdlating the prin- ciples of natural justice ignored his promotion - co- sidering the promotions of the juniors. As a result of which he was superseded in a very ugly manner by them. On the contrary it is the contention of the management that Dhowra supervisor is entitled to Clerical Grade-IIL and in no circumstances he can dai°i higher Gradc-II or Grade-I. According to the nature of job of Dhowra Supervisor the concerned workman as per Wage Board Recommendations and NCWA was placed in Clerical Gradc-Hl. The manage- ment further submitted that clerical personnel have got different cadres and they have been promoted according to the cadre scheme. So far Dhowra Supervisor is concerned they did not belong to any Clerical Grade but placed in Clerical Gradc-III con- sidering the job performed by tham. Therefore, the point which has to be considered here is whether the job of Dhowra Supervisor comes within the cadre scheme or not, It i" seen iiom the record that after filing W.S. by the concerned woikman several opportunities were given to him lo cause his appearance and to take sLps in the mailer of hearing the instant case but jnspite of ge ting oppor- tunity the concerned workman did no. condidcr necessary to appear before the Tribunal. Onus absolutely lies en the concerned workman to estab- lish if Dhowra Supervisor is independent caare and the employees who were junior to him and who had been promoted to Clerical Grade-II and Grade-I hold equal status with the cadre of the concerned workman. The management has categorically denied the status of the concerned workman equal to lhat of the slalus of ;he workmen whose nairus the concerned workman referred in connec- tion with the reference ease Untill and unless this fact is established by the concerned work- man just on the basis of his claim ihere is no scope to consider his prayer lor getting his promotion to Grade-II or to Grauc-F. I have caiol'ully consi- dered all the facis and circumstance!- disclosed in the W.S. submitted by the concerned woikman and the W.S. cum rejoinder submitted by the management As excepting the facts disclosed in the W.S. no incriminating material is forth-coming before the Court in support of the claim of the deemed workman 1 do not find o ny just and proper ground to uphold his contention. Under the circumstances,

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the manage- ment of Chasnalla Colliery of M/s. 1ISCO and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Shri D.N. Dhiwar, the concerned workman workman himself. On behalf of the Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. employers

State : Bihar

Industry : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st August, 2001.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the l.D. Act., 1947 has referred the fol- lowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/471/94-T.R. (Coal-1), dated, the 26th October, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M/s. I1SCO Ltd., is justified in denial of promotion from Technical & Super- visory Grade 'C to Grade 'B' to Shri D.N. Dhiwar? If not, to what relief Shri Dhiwar is entitled?"

2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W.S. Thereafter the case proceeded along its course. Subsequently when the case was fixed for evidence a petition was submitted on the side of the workman praying to pass a 'No dispute' Award as the instant dispute has been settled between the parties. 1 heard both the side on Lhe said petition and no objection was raised on the side of manage- ment if 'No dispute' Award is passed in this reference Accordingly a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of the 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute' between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer between the employer* in relation to the management of 1BPC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-9-2001.

|No. L-20040/66/95-1R (C-I)J S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE NO. 117 or 1996 PARTIES: Employers in relation to the manage- ment of M/s. l.B.P.C. Ltd. and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : None.

On be half of the employers : None.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Petroleum.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th August, 2001.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the l.D. Act., 1947 has referred the foll- owing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20040/66/95-I.R. (CoaM), date-¹' the 26th September, 1996.

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2001 S.O.263U. hi pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management o/ CCL and their workman, which was received by the Cnetral Government on 3-9-2001.

[No. L-24012/94/86-D-W(B)(C-J)] IS.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BKFORH TUB CHNTRAL CiOVLRNMKNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Tndustiiul Dispute under Section JO(l)(d) of the l.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 55 of 19H7

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Management of Kathara Colliery of M/s. CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None,

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi. Advocate. STATE : Jharkhand

INDUSTRY : Con!

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20lh August, 200)

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of (he Mananement of Kathara Colliery of C.C. Ltd., P.O. Kathara, Dist. Giridih in retiring Sh. Bhuneswar Ram Rabani,. Cat, II Ma/.door ^s legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

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

The concerned woikmun in his W.S. submitted that he started his employment under the management with effecl from 24-8-57 ut Bokuro Colliery and thereafter lie was transferred to kathara Colliery on 16-6-72. It has been sub- mitted by ine concerned workman that the management muin- iami.il ad Uie iclcvant papers including service records ot each workman and taking., the opportunity of the same without lus knowledge the management surreptitiously recorded his date of birth as 0-12-24 arbitrarily and illegally. He submitted that when he came to know about his date of birth as 6-12-24 he raised his objection and submitted repre- sentation before the management on 5-7-84, But the rnanafie- ment kept the matter pending lor almost a year and thereafter sent him for medical exnmmaUi'ii on 27-9-35. But by that timo the management superannuated him with effect from 6-12-84. Even die management did not disclose the result of his medical examination iiupiu- of his appearance there, For such arbitrary act of the management the concerned woikman submitted petition before the ALC(Q for con- ciliation, But as it ended in failure the present reference was made,

3. The management on the contrary after tiling W.S.-cuin- rojoinder has denied all claims and allegations which the concerned workman sulimitted in his W.S, It has been cate- gorically submitted by the management that the date of birth of the concerned workman as on 6-12-24 was recorded in the Service Book in presence of the concerned workman and he duly attested the service book after verifying his service particulars, As such the concerned workman's claim of wrons rccord'ii£ of his date of birth in the service book finds no basis at all. In the result, the management has prayed for rejection of the piaycr of the concerned workman.

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

•'Whether the action of the management of Kathain Colliery of C.C, Ltd,, P.O. Kathara, Distt. Oitidih in letiring Sh. Bhuncswar Ram Rabani, Cat. IJ Mazdoor is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

5. There is no depute to hold that the concerned workman was an employee under the management and he got hit. superannuation from Ivathara Colliery with effect from 6-12-84. The management has categorically denied the fact that ille- gally and smrepliliously the date of birth of the concerned workman in the service book was recorded as 6-12-24 concealing his actual date of birth. It has been further submitted that the service book of the concerned workman was duly attested by him after recording all the service parti- culars in his presence. It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that his date of birth was wrongly re- corded in his service book but inspite of claiming so the concerned workman did not disclose what was his actual date of birth. The concerned workman had got ample scope to produce relevant papers in support of his claim, The record shows that inspite of giving several chances the concerned workman did not take any step for production of relevant documents. On the contrary it is seen that he remained absent for a long period, This silence on the part of the concerned workman shows clearly that though he raised the dispute relating to his date of birth as per W.S., subsequentlv receded from his claim. Had that been not so the concerned workman definitely would have appeared before the Tribunal in order to substantiate his claim. After careful consideration of all the facts and¹ circumstances I do not find any merit m the claim of the conc|rned workman as per his WS The claim of the concerned workman, as a result, is liable n be dismissed. Accordingly the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of Kathara Colliery of C.C. Ltd., P.O. Katbara, Dist. Giridih in retiring Sh. Bhuneswar Ram Rabani, Cat. II Mazdoor ;•• legal and Justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer5519 New Delhi, the 6th September, 2001

SO 2631.—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, Ahmcdabad us shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONC.C and tneir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-9-2001.

[No. L-30012|56|98-lR(C-I)|

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHR1 P.R. DAVE, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL) AT AHMEDABAD

Rcf. (1TO) No. 58 of 1999

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Mehsann. , . First party.

Vs.

The workmen employed under it. . . Second party In the matter of the demand for treating Shri Rushmi- kant N, PatcJ working at cantirn of ONGC Ltd. Mehsana as the workmen of ONGC Ltd. and giv- injj him appropriate wages etc,

APPEARANCES:

Shri K.V. Gadhia and Mr. M.K. PaLel for the first party, None for the Second Party.

AWARD

This industrial dispute between Oil and Natural Gas Com- mission, Meusami and the workmen .mployed under it has been referred for adjudication u|s. 10(1) of the I,D. Act, 1947 to this Tribunal as per the schedule given below: by the Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour, Govl. of India under the No. AD1.'5(30).'97-RLC Ltd. nil.

"Whether the demand of the union for treating Shri Rashmikant N. Patel working at canteen of ONGC Ltd. Mehsana as the wokmen of ONGC Ltd. Mehsana and demand for appropriate wages is proper and justified? If so, what relief (he concern- ed workman is entitled to?"

Notices were issued to both the parties calling upon them to file their respective statement on 18th March, 1999. How- ever as per 1'x, 4 as settlement mutually arrived at oy the parties was produced on 13-5-1999. 1 have gone throufch the terms of settlement and I find that it is just and propci at in the interest of both the parties. Hence 1 pass the following order.

ORDER

Both the parties have arrived at a compiomise and present this settlement before the Tribunal. Terms of settlement appear just and piopcr and aho in circumstances of the reference. Hence settlement is recorded and an Award in terms of settlement is passed.

Armcdabnd, 5th June, 1999.

P. R. DAVE, Industrial Tribunal BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD

REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 1996 & NO. 48|1999

BETWEEN

THE GGM (Projects), ONGC LIMITED, • MFHSANA PROJECTS, MEHSANA AND OTHERS.

FIRST PARTY

&

ITS WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER IT, SECOND PARTY

(THROUGH ONGC EMPLOYEES UNION, MEHSANA BR. MEHSANA).

It is respectfully submitted that second party had raised the dispute for treating 14 work- men working in ONGC canteen at Mehsana Project of ONGC as the workmen of the ONGC Ltd. The said dispute is referred to IT, Ahmedabad for adjudication by Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide Order No. L-20040|39|95-lR(Coal-l) dated 22-4-96 and was registered as ITC No. 12[96, the schedule of reference being, "Whether the demand of the union for treating the work- men (listed in the enclosed annexure) of the canteen working at ONGC Ltd. Mehsana as the workmen of the ONGC Ltd. Mehsana is proper and justified ? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date ?"

It is further submitted that during the course of proceedings before Hon'bie Tri- bunal, it was submitted by the second party that there are total 20 workmen working the canteen of ONGC Ltd. Mehsana. Besides, the 14 workmen, the 5 workmen have approached the Hon'ble Histfi Court vide SCA 4279 of 1992 for regiilarisation. With regard to one woi'kman one Shri Rashmikant N. Patcl has raised the dispute and referred to TT, Ahmedabad the schedule of reference is as under;

'•Whether the demand of the union for treat- ing Shri Rashmikant N. Patcl working at can- teen of ONGC Ltd.. Mehsana as the workman of ONGC Lid. Mehsana and demand for appropriate wages is proper and justified ? If55.20 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—Snc. 3(iij] so, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?

The said reference is registered as Refe- rence ITC No. 48 of 99.

During the pendency of these references both the parties have discussed the issue on various occasions and finally arrived at ami- cable settlement and requested Hon'blc Tri- bunal to pass final award in terms of settle- ment.

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT 1. That all the 14 workers whose names are given in the Anncxure to the reference shall be absorbed in ONGC as Khalasi Gr. Ill in the pay scale of Rs. 2340 w.e.f. 10-10-94 with full consequential benefits, without any benefits of whatsoever nature for period earlier to J 0-10-94.

2. That the canteen workers named Shri Rashmikant N. Patel who is involved in ITC No. 48 of 99 shall be absorbed in ONGC as Jr. Helper in the pay scale of Rs. 2282 with effect from 1-1-97 with fuii consequential bene- fits without any benefits of whatsoever nature for the period earlier to 1-1-97.

3. That the arrears of salary, on account of their absorption w.e.f. 10-10-94 and 1-1-97 in the post of Khalasi Gd. Ill and Jr. helper respectively shall be worked out after adjust- ing wages received by them since 10-10-94 and 1-1-97, the arrears of payment so arrived at shall be paid to them within a period of fortyfive days from the date of the recording the settlement by the Industrial Tribunal after making certain deductions as per the law.

4. The first party agrees that arrears pay- able to the workmen will be spread year wise under provisions contained in section 89 of Income Tax Act.

5. On absorption, of these workmen 14^1 = 15 canteen workers shall countinue their work in the canteen at Mchsana unless all or any of them are I is required to be posted elsewhere as per the requirement of ONGC and these workmen shall have no objection of whatsoever nature in this regard.

6. This settlement between the parties is full and final settlement in respect of all 14-M = 15 workmen covered in these refe- rence and nothing slui! sutvivc hereafter the settlement excepting, what have been agreed to here in above by both the parties under the settlement. The ONGC Em- ployees Union and all the 15 workmen cover- ed under the references shall not raise any demand or dispute in future against the ONGC for any benefits.

7. This settlement is arrived at by both the parties after fully understanding the im- plications thereof on their own volition and without any misrepresentation, fear, pressure or coercion whatsoever nature.

Dated : 13th May, 1999.

Ahmedabad.

Sdh

Signature of First Party

Sdj- Signature of the Advocate of first party

Sd|- Signature of Second party of Union New Delhi, the 6th September, 2001, S.O. 2632.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra) Government hoicb) publishes the award of I he Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as shown in the Atuu-xure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employer.¹, in relation to the mana- gement of Air India r.ud Their workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 5-9-2001.

(No. L-J1012j8]92-IR(Misc.)iC-IJ S, S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

"Whether (he action of the rn'iiuigement of Air Tndia in terminating the services of Shri Sushil Kumar Vcrma vv.e.f. • 30-12-1986 after having been employ- ed for different spells is iuslMk-il rind lcgul? if not to what relief the worker is entitled?"5522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • SEPTEMBER 29, 2001/ASVINA 7, 1923 [PART II—Sue. 3fu)j • T S ew D e l h i, i he I 2 L II S e p t e m b e r, 2 0 01

S.O. "633.--In exercise of the powers conliTrcd by Sub-section (3) of Section I of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October, 2001 us the date on which the provisions of Chupfer IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and Y7 (except sub-section (i) of Section. 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Pondicherry namely : - "Areas comprising the Revenue Villages of Manalipet, Chettypei, Kunitchampet, Mannadipct, Vadhanur, Kalithirthalkuppam, Madagadipet, Thir- ubuvanai, Sanyasikuppam, Thiruvandarkoil, Sorapct, Vambupet, Kodalhur, Thelthampakkam, Suthukcny. Pudukuppam, Katlery, Kuppam & Scllipjt in Mannadipet Comune (Thirubuvanai), Villanur Sub-TaUik."

[No. S-38013/21/2001-SS.I] M. C. MITTAL, Dy. Suy, Mew Delhi, the 17th September, 2001 S-O. 26M- —Whoreiis the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services in the Cement Industry which is covered by item 3 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should bj declared to b^ a public utility services for the pin poses of the said Act :

Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by suh-elause (vi) or clause (n) or Section 2 of tho Tndiv-lrml Disputes- Aet, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months.

|No. S-ll()17/12/97-IR(PL)] H. C. GUPTA, Unc'er Secy.

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2001 S-O. 3635.—Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so re- quired had, in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clause (vi) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Indus- trial Disputes Aet, 1947 (14 or 1947), declared by the Notification or the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 582 dated 7th March, 2001 the services in the Banking Industry to'be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 19th March, 2001.

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said Industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 19th September, 2001.

[No.S-ll017/5/97-LR(PL]

H. C. GUPTA. Under Secy.

Printed by tbc Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Public^tioBS, Delhi-110054, 2001