This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 401 NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, OCTOBER, 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 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

(Department of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs)

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2001

S.O.2636.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (No. 43 of 1954] and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs number S.O. 713, dated the 18th March, 1960, and number S.O. 1400, dated the 23rd May, 1960, the Central Government hereby appoints until further orders,

2948 GI/2001—1

(5523)55?4 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, T923 [PART I I - S E C. 3(ii)] Joint Director, Directorate of Field Publi- city, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Jammu as Marriage Officer for the Jammu Pro- vince [comprising Districts of Jammu, Kathua, Doda, Udhampur, Poonch and Rajouri], of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in addition to his/ her own duties; and

Tncome Tax Officer, A-Ward, Srinagar as Marriage Officer for the remaining areas of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in addition to his her own duties,

[No.11013/13/2001-K(DO.O]

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, Desk Offiecr

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 2637—:It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organisations mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (I) of section 35 of the Income tax Act, 1961, read -with Role *6 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions :

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain-sepa- rate books of accounts for its research activities;

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research acti- vities to the Secretary, Department of Scien- tific & Industrial Research, 'Technology Bhawan' New Mehrauli Road, New Ddhi- 110 016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year;

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government to (a) the Director General of Income-tax (Exemp- tions), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor5525 Caicutta-700071; (b) The Secretary, Depart- ment of scientific & Industrial Research; and (c) The Commissioner of Tncomc Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), having juris- diction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income &, Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (I) of section 35 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of Income Tax to the designated assessing officer.

s. Name of the organisation approved

Period for which Notification is

N"

effective

1. The Mother's Institute of 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2002 Research, 16/601, East End Apartments, M&yur Vihar Extentionj Dalhi-110 096:

Notes.—The notified Institutions are advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to. the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions-) -having jurisdiction. Three copkis of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scien- tific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 3O6/2QO1/F. No. 203/34/2001- 1TA-I1 ] Dr. RAJENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 2638.—Tt is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organisations mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Insti- tution" subject to the following conditions :

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain sepa- rate books of accounts for its research acti- vities;

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research acti- vities to the Secretary, Department of Scien- tific & Industrial Research, 'Technology Bhawan', New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi- 110 016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year;

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta— 700071, (b) The Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research and (c) The Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Tncome Tax (Exemptions), having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (1) of section 35 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in addition *o the return of Income Tax to the designated assessing officer.

S. Name of the organisation No. approved

Period for which Notification is effective

1. 1NYS Medical Research Centre, 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

INYS Complex, Jindal Nagar, Tumkur Road, Banglorc 560073.

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001 Notes.—-The notified Institutions are advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scien- tific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 307/2001/F. No. 203/35/2001- 1TA-II ] Dr. RAJFNDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

S O 2639.—It is notified for general information that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for the pur- pose of section 10(23G) of the Tncom-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2 The approval is subject to the condition that -

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, lead with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

5 J :/ (;i) the Central Governtnent shall withdraw this

approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking:

"M/s Bengal Pcarlcss Housing Development Company Ltd., Krishna Building, 224, AJC Bose Road, 2nd Floor, Calcutta-700017." (a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or

[Notification No.301/2001/F.No. 205/23/2000-ITA-II] Dr. RAJENDRA KUMAR .Under Secy.

(b) fails to maintain books of account and ;:ct such accounts audited by an accountant JS required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or

(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3 The enterprise approved is—Power Generation Projects namely, Tarapur Atomic Power Project, Units 3 & 4—{1000 MW) Maharashtra; Kaiga Atomic Power Project, Units 1&2—(440 MW); Karnataka and Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Units 3&4 (440 MW), Rajasthan by M/s Nuclear Corpoiation of India Ltd , 424-425, World Trade Centre, Bara- khamba Lane, Connaught Place, Nev Delh-110001, (F.No. 205/13/98/ITA.II—Pt.I)

[Notification No. 300/2001/F.No. 205/I3/98-ITA-1I Pt.I]

DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

CORRIGENDUM

New Delh', the 21st September, 2001

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001

S.O. 2641.—It is notified for general information S.O. 2640.—In exercise of the powers conferred in clause 23(G) of section 10 of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Central Government hereby makes the following correction in the name of the enterprise approved vide Notification No. 57/2001 dated .14-3-2001.

2. In para 3 of the Notification, the enterprise

approved shall be corrected to read as—

that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section IO(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5Q5528 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART IIT-SEC. 3'Ji)] 2. The approval is subject to the condition that—

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10(230)-of the Incoma-tax Act, 1961, read withmile 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking:

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub<-rule (7) of rule 2E of the lw.aoma-tax Rules, 1962; OK

(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3. The enterprise approved is—Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in Tdmrlnadu' Circle of M/s Aircel Limited, 19,-Cathedral GardartRoad, Nungambakkam Chennaih6OOO34.

[Notification; No. 302/200I/E. No. 205/178/99-ITA-II] Dr. RAJENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001 S.O. 2642.—It is notified for geneial information that enterprise, listed: at para (3) bslow has been approved by the Central Government i'or the purpose of section 1O(23G) of the Incomertax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of. the IncomeTtax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005,

2. The approval is subject to the condition* that—

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of sectio n 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking:—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an, accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or

(c) fails to furnish thei audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962,

3. The enterprise approved, is—Power Genera- tion Project at Khaperkheda Thermal Power Project (Units 3&4) of Maharashtra State Eloctricity Board for generation of 210MW power by each Unit at Khaperkheda, Nagpur by M/s Maharashtra State Electricity Board, "Prakashgad" Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051

[Notification No. 303/2001/F.No. 205/2/98-ITA- II Vol.11] Dr. RAJENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw

this app.oval if the enterprise industrial undertakings; --

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accoun- tant as roquited by sub-rule (7) of rule .2E of the iBcome-tax Rules, 1962 ; or

(c) fails to furnish the .audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962.

3. The tnterprisc approved is project of Telecommunication service (Cellular)) in executing the license granted by the DOT for the State of Harvard, UP (West) and .Kerala Telecom Circles by M/s. Esootel Mobile Communications Ltd., A-36, Mohan Co-operative industrial .Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 110044.

[Notification No. 304/200I/F. No. 205/51/98-

TTA- I Wl. I]

Dr. RAJEMDRA KUMAR, U de. Secy.

New TJclhi, the 21st September, 2001 •

S. O. 2643.—It is notified for general infor-

mation that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for thepurpose of section 10 (23 G) of the Income- tax Act,| 1961, read with rule2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The app/oval is subject to the condition

that —

(0 the enterprise industrial undertaking will con- form to and comply with the provisions of section 10 (23 G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2Eofthc fncome- tax Rules, 1962, or

3. The enierpjisc approved is — Basisc Tele- phone Scivico in the Sta'c of Madhya Pradesh & Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in the State of Himachal Pradesh of M/s. Bharati Telenet Ltd., Qutab Ambience (Near Qutab Minar), H-5/12, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110030.

[Notification No. 305/2001 /F. No. 205/4/98— ITA-H, Vol. I]

Dr. RAJENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001

S. O. 2644.—Tt is notified for general infor- mation that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10 (23 G) oftheTncome- tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition

that —

(i) the enterprise industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10 (23 G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with mle 2E of the Jncome- tax Rules, 1962 ;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise industrial undertakings:—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accoun- tant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or5531 New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001

S. O. 2646.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan bearing No. : SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/248 dated 19th April, 2001 of the area covered by this notification can bs inspected in the Office of the Collector, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House, Street, Calcutta-700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495 006 (Chhattisgarh).

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Chargc/Head of 294S GI/2001—25532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 20Q1/ASVTNA 14, 1923 [PART II—S.EC. pi)] the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh), within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette,

SCHEDULE

Chhal Block (Extension)

Raigarh Area

District -Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

Plan No. SECL/BSP/GM (Plg)/Land/248 Dated 19th April, 2001 (Showing the land notified for prospecting)

Tchsil

Halka No.

District

Name of Village

Remarks

Area in hectares

SI. No.

30

Dharamjaygarh

Raigarh 8.550

Bandhapali

Part 1.

31

Dharamjaygarh

Raigarh 3.299

Nawapara

2.

Part

Dharamjaygarh

31

Raigarh

Khedapali

1.750

3.

Part TOTAL : 13.599 Hectare (Approximately) or 33.60 Acres (Approximately)

Boundary Description:—

A-Al-B Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Khedapali and BandhapaH and passes through village Bandhapali and meets at point 'B'.

B-C Line passes through villages Bandhapali, Nawapara and meets at point ' C.

C-Cl-D Line passes through Nawapara Village then, partly along the common boundary of villages Nawapara, Pusulda, Bandhapali-Pusulda and meets at point ' D\

D-E-A Line passes through villages Bandhapali, Khedapali and meets at the starting point 'A'.

[No. 43015/12/2001-PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Deputy Secy.

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2001

S.O, 2647.—In exercise of Powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Silk Board Act, 1948 (61 of 1948), the Central Government hereby notices the nomination of the following persons to serve as members of the Central Silk Board for a period of throe years from the date of this notification subject to the provisions of the said Act.

1.

Nominated by the Central Government under Section (4) (3)(b) of the Act. Shri K. Rajendran Nair, DC (Handlooms), Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi.

2.

Nominated by the" Central Government under Section 4(3) (d) of the Act Shri R. Suresh, Secretary, Commerce and Industries Deptt. Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalora,

3.

Shri V. Umesh Commissioner of Sericulture, Development and Direclor of Sericuliure, Govt, of Karnataka, Bangalore,

4.

Shri Mahadevappa, No. 126-K (1127) 19th A Main Road, 14th Cross 1st " K" Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore-5600115534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART I I ^ S B C. 3(ii)] Smt. Jayanthi,

Nominated by the Central .Government 5.

under Section 4(3) (e) of the Act. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Handlooms Handcrafts Textiles and Khadi

Deptt. Secretariat, Chennai,

Nominated by the Central Government Shri Subhendu Choudhury, MLA,

6.

under Section 4(3) (f) of the Act. Village-Jote, P. 0. Arapur,

Distt. Malda,

WestBengaJ. 732143

Shri S.K. Thade,

7.

Director, Sericulure, Govt. of West Bengal,

Kolkata.

Nominated by the Central Government Smt. Parul Debi Das,

8.

under Section (4) (3) (g) of the Act Commissioner and Secretary Handloom Textile

and Sericulture Dcptt. Assam

Shii Anjar Hassan,

9.

na.

Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Govt. of Bihar, Pat

Shri S.M-F- Bukhr.ri,

10.

Commissioner, Cottage and Rural Industries, •

Govt. of Gujarat, Gandhi Nagar.

Shri Swadeep Singh,

11.

Commissioner, Secricukure, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh,

Bhopal.

Dr, A.R. Trag,

12.

Nominated by the Central Govci] DirecLor, Sericulture Development Deparlment, under Section 4(3) (h) of the A,ct. Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar.

The Secretary to Govt. of Chattisgarh, 1

13.

dominated by the Cen'.ral Government Rural Industries Deptt.

under Section 4(3)(i) of the Acl.

Director of Sericulture, Govt. of UttranchaL

14.

15.

The Secretary to Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh,

Dcpit. of Industries.

IF. No. 25012/56/99-SilkJ-

T. NANDAKUMAR, Jt. Secy.

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2001

S.O. 2648.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 5B of ihe Textiles Committee Act, 1963 (41

of 1963) and in suppression of the Ministry of

Textiles Notification S.O. 2003 dated the 9th

July, 1999 published in the Gazette

of India Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii), the Central

Government hereby constitutes the one person Tri-

bunal comprising Shri P.K Molhotra Joint Secretary

and Legal Advisor, in the Ministry of Law, Justice

and Company Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs

at Branch Secretariat Mumbai (Aaayakar BhBvan

Annex, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020),

2. Shri P. K. Malhotra shall, in addition to bis

duties and function as Joint Secretary and

Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affiairs,

Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affiairs,

exercise the powers and discharge the functions

conferred or imposed on the Tribunal by or under the

said Act.

3. This notification shall come into force on thedate

of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[No, 12020/2 8/96-A& MMT(TC)]

Y.P. SINGH, Director533" THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 20G1./ASVTNA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 301)]

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

S.O.264 9.—-In exorcise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unathorid Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table bdow being an officer of the National Thermal Powere Corporation Limited and equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government of India to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act who shall exorcise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officers by or under the said Act within tho local limits of their jurisdiction in respect of the categories of public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

Categories of public premises and local limits of Juris- Name and designation of officer

Serial Number

diction

2

1

1.

All lands, quarters, estate properties and other accom- modation owned/ leased and rented by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited TANDA.

Shri Thomas Varkey, Manager (P& A) National Thermal Power Corporation Limited TANDA.

[F. No. 8/6/92. Th. I] Dr. K.V. JACOB, Deputy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th Septembet, 2001

S.O. 2650.—In oxercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below being an offi::r of the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited and equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government of India to bo Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officers by or under the said within the local limits of their jurisdictions in respect of the categories of public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

Categories of public premises and local limits of Serial Number Name and designation of Officer

jurisdiction

1.

All lands, quarters, estates, properties and other accom- modation owned/leased and rented by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Simhadri.

ShriK.K. M. Naidu, Personnel Officer, National Thermal Power Corporation Lini'ed, Simhadri.

[F. No. 8/6/92-Th. I]

Dr. K. V. JACOB, Deputy. Secy.

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 17th September, 2001

S O. -651. —In partial modification of the Notifications quoted below, the revised designation of Estate Officers in terms of Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), is notified with effect from October 14, 2000, as indicated below :

Designation of the Estate Officer changed

Notification

Centre/

SI."

From To

No. & Date

Unit

No.

Administrative Officer I Administrative Officer 1.

No. 9/2 (2)/82-m

dt. 14-9-1998

Civil Engineering Division, Dcp.t. of Space, Bangalore

2.

Administrative Officer 1/ Administrative Officer/ Administrative Officer II Senior Administrative

No. 9/2 (2)/84-HI

di. 8-10-1986

Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram

Officer

Administrative Officer II Senior Administrative 3.

Officer

No. 9/2 (2)/82-HI

dt. 21-9-1983

SHAR Centre, Sriharikota, Nellore Distt. A. P.

Administrative Officer I/II Assistant Administrative 1SRO Liaison Cell, Mumbai

4.

No. 9/2 (2)/82-III

dt. 9-11-1982

Officer/ Administrative Officer.

[No. 2/3 (2)/2001-IV] V. DATTAGURU, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2001

S.O. 2652,—In exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) Section 3 cf the Oil

Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the

Central Government hereby appoints with immediate

effect and for a period not exceeding two years, Shri

B.P. Misra, Additional Secretary (Expenditure),

Department of Expenditure, New Delhi, as a Member

of the Oil Industry Development Board, or until

further orders vice Shri M. Vcnkateswaran Iyer.

[No. G. 35012/2/91-Fin. II]

K.P.K. NAMBJSSAN, Urder Sec.

2948GI/2001—3

[PARTII—SEC 3(ii)J5541 5542 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (u)| 5543 3544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 5545 5346 THEGAZE1TEOFINDlA:OCrOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PARTH—SEC. 3 (ii)]5547 5548 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 5549 5550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 5551 5552 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2(MASVINA 14,1923 [PARTE—SEC. 3fii)] 5553 5554 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 5555 2948GV2001—5 5556 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PARTII—SEC. 3 (ii)]5557 5558 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASV1NA14,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]5559

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2001

s. 0.2653.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2330 dated the 16th October, 2000, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transport of crude oil from Haldia in the State of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar, by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 06th November, 2000 ;

And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (•>%) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report to the Central Government; And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said repdjft, is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appendfetl to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule to this notification are hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of sectfon 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from tne date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Schedule

State : West Bengal

Burdwan

District.

Police Station : Khandaghosh

Area

Plot,

Jurisdiction

Village

Centiares

Ares

Hectares

No.

List No.

6

5

4

3

2

1

39

5

106

Muidhara

91

0 0 13

33 34

35

0 0

37

89 59 87

0

35

11 0 2 8

0

70 73

24

8

0

87

2

0

74 775560 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l

1 2 3

6 15 79 35 34 56 80 69 91 41 29 86 72 20 02 89 26 20 19 05 58 20 14 65 07 20 20 71 34 39 50 68 87 20 20 41 46 39 20 18 67 20 80 20

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

78 142 143 144 145 146 147 250 251 252 255 256 .504 506 .507 .508 509 511 512 514 527 1024 1025 1026 1029 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1057 1058 1062 1073 1Q74 1075 1Q76 1.Q77 1078 1079 1080 1083 1084

5 8 4 5 0 6 8 7 8 9 3 4 7 0 14 1 7 0 1 9 1 0 1 5 8 0 0 3 5 1 4 5 1 0 0 2 A 1 0 4 0 0 1 05561 1

2 105

Induti

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 17 0 10 10 4 0 1 5 0 0 6 5 0 0 12 2 2 15 0 6 12 14 3 6 2 0 10 1 11 1 7 1 3 0 4 0 1 1 3 0 3 2 0 4 3

3 34 35 37 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 80 81 181 184 272 273 274 275 276 288 289 295 296 297 298 408 422 423 424 425 429 441 444 445 446 448 449 450 451 453 460 461 462 463 464

6 82 20 30 77 51 34 38 85 34 20 91 96 20 93 25 56 78 08 20 13 63 29 34 68 29 20 02 16 36 39 10 86 90 20 31 20 42 88 16 20 74 05 20 01 34

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5562 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14.1923

[PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3

465 466 467 468 469 470 853 859 860 979 980 981 982 984 987 988 991 992 993 995 1069 1279 1280 1281 1288 1289 1290 1293 1294 1298 1299 1305 1306 1307 4346 .4147 4148 4150 4151 4154 4157 4158 4159 4160 4161

5 2 3 3 2 0 10 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 16 1 3 1 0 6 16 1 1 0 1 6 2 1 0 5 0 1 5 6 10 0 7 1 10 7 1 7 5 3

6 55 45 34 51 20 40 20 48 20 55 10 67 36 20 06 97 39 55 44 21 68 41 61 83 20 44 68 23 37 20 57 20 78 85 04 08 20 38 22 85 43 36 71 79 71

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05563 3

1

2

4183 4184 4185 4190 4191 4207 4208 4209 4210 4220 4221 4222 4223 4224 4225 4226 4227 4268 4269 4270 4271 4272 4273

4528

33/1451 853/1444

1080/1446.

1279/1445

1281/1455

1289/1352

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 8 4 2 13 10 1 7 ' 4 0 0 0 2 12 1 9 7 0 13 6 8 6 2 2 0 7 0 0 0 1 5

6 22 39 57 64 00 66 36 68 20 20 42 63 04 86 58 61 20 09 82 26 57 48 16 20 49 20 56 56 30 29 Torkona

1100

104

1136

1142 1143

1144 1145 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1187 1188 1189

37 20 20 12 20 23 61 20 78 98 20 34 86 20

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

13 0 5 5 0 1 9 0 2 7 0 1 8 0

2y48GI/2001—65564 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3 (ii)]

1 2 3

1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1207 1208 1209 1211 1212 1322 1552 1553 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1563 1564 1579 1580 1583 1584 1586 1587 1588 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1773 2182 2183 2184 2187 2190 2191 2232 2233 2234 2237 2238

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 4 4 4 0 0 6 0 4 2 9 3 2 1 0 7 6 5 1 4 11 5 5 3 0 7 0 0 7 8 0 9 4 11 0 6 1 3 2

6 20 51 17 30 20 93 88 53 18 51 83 70 31 83 63 10 00 45 15 76 70 24 88 48 21 46 03 94 68 90 35 80 42 20 80 03 75 61 81 14 20 64 22 36 235565 1

2

3 2239 2267 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2275 2276 2277 2280 2283 2284 2285 2286 2049/2355 2234/2314 2234/2315 2280/2353 2286/2354

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 4 5 6 9 0 0 0 7 4 0 1 2 7 3 0 2 1 0

6 20 20 32 94 96 33 53 20 20 41 46 20 95 41 38 67 20 38 37 20 Balabati

100

10 1 5 0 1 11 0 8 0 9 4 2 0 5 0 2 1

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

236 237 238 239 241 242 243 245 255 256 258 259 279 280 281 282 279/490

08 11 24 42 49 99 20 35 20 52 79 34 22 41 20 83 67 Gopinathpur

97

0 0 0 0 0

8 0 8 10 2

636 641 642 643 644

52 20 35 02 955566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 1

2

6 34 10 46 13 23 41 38 51 98 85 38 55 67 33 30 20 34 64 24 75 45 42 57 19 55 20 91 69

3 646 647 651 653 662 667 670 671 672 706 707 825 838 844 845 848 851 852 855 856 857 874 877 878 883 885 901 609/908

5 11 1 4 6 2 2 5 4 5 5 5 11 1 9 21 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 9 9 0 2 7

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kaiar

96

34 39 40 54 55 57 58 59 74 75 76

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 32 56 09 37 51 84 31 97 89 45

0 0 5 5 1 0 2 2 1 0 25567 1 2 3

5 2 0 1 0 3 3 7 1 1 1 1 0 4 3 4 0 1 12 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 5 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 3 1 3 1 7 1

77 78 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 217 224 225 226 228 229 230 261 262 263 264 265 271 277 278 279 282 283 284 285 286 287 298 318 319 320 321 1810 1811

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 23 20 67 40 79 88 29 53 82 56 13 20 84 02 23 20 86 03 34 41 78 20 78 49 04 38 43 78 83 10 92 53 27 72 • 34 16 25 89 40 75 5568 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,200]ASVINA14,1923

[PARI - I I- S EC 3 (ii)| 1

2

3 1812 1814 1865 1866 1867 1901 1903 1904 1905 1906 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1933 1934 1939 1865/3215 331/1785

5 2 0 1 10 0 9 1 1 1 10 2 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 4 0

6 37 93 86 74 23 84 31 82 67 10 40 20 18 65 84 20 20 20 95 20

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gopalpur

87

174 175 176 177 179 180 190 191 192 195 196 197 198 647 649 650 652 653 661

20 46 68 90 76 14 20 28 20 17 04 57 06 45 18 28 20 70 85

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

0 4 6 5 2 1 0 9 0 8 2 5 3 1 4 9 0 0 55569 1

2

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 2 3 3 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 3 5 2 7 11 3 1 1 2

6 51 16 34 18 20 61 20 23 25 20 05 17 01 00 80 59 48 11 00 55

3 662 663 669 670 671 672 673 674 679 680 681 721 723 724 725 779 780 781 782 785

95

Kamdebpur

0 12 4 10 0 0 5 0 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 53 46 86 82 20 90 20 90 69 50

16 30 34 35 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

Pitambarpur

99

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

278 279 280 281 282 283 284

0 2 6 3 5 7 3

20 66 03 11 20 52 02 5570 THE GAZETTE OF IhTOIA: OCTOBER 6 , 2m ASVINA14,1923

[PART II— SEC. 3 (ii)] 1

2

6 20 54 20 97 20 14 68 23 92 21 04 51 02 49 54 08 84

3 296 297 298 299 301 326 327 328 329 330 337 338 339 343 344 346 347

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 8 0 1 0 2 6 2 6 1 2 2 10 0 9 2 3

Chintamanipur

89

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 183 186 187 194 195 196 197 270 271 276

20 91 20 82 18 29 60 57 22 26 68 20 69 73 20 57 29 81 50 20 84 20

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

0 4 0 2 1 1 0 1 4 1 2 0 10 3- 0 5 5 2 6 0 0 05571 2

1

/yigram

88

5 6 0 2 9 1 0 2 24 3 0 4 0 8 9 4 2 5 1 7 4 11 0 1 5 2 0 6 6 0 0 20 0 18 0 4

Shankan

70

3 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1233 1237 278 279 280 303 306 307 308 311 312 313 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97 r107 108 109 135 140 141 143 144 141/720 141/734 1195 1196 1199 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1222 1223

0 6 2 4 2 1 0 6 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 50 20 41 93 76 20 72 61 01 38 68 42 60 36 46 44 79 62 05 21 32 85 14 57 00 26 70 03 20 89 38 20 94 20 79 ?8 42 48 41 73 78 81 42 13 20 2948GI/2001—7 5572 THEGAZETTEOFINDIAiOCTOBERe.lOOlASVINAM, 1923

[PARTII—SEC 3 (ii)J 1 2 3

1238

1377 1378

1418 1419

1420

1421 1426

1427

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

c

0 0

o

5 0 9 11 6 4 13 2 2 14 7 2 4 6 13 0 3 0 8 0 4 1 5 4 1 4 1 6

i

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

r \

1432 6023 6025 6026 6027 6028 6029 6385 6386 6387 6388 6389 6390 6391 6392 6398 6399 6400 6401 6402 6403 7003 7004 7005 7007

6 70 00 14 45 18 65 65 78 42 63 36 CT 49 64 93 99 34 22 20 73 39 57 15 45 73 89 96 25 18 35 14 89 20 81 77 02 73 17

^ -7 Z I

4 1 3 9 0 1 8 1 5 6 3 5

7 i

20 80 40 18 25 20. _

4 4 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7008 7009 7011 7013 7014 7015 7016 6380/8165 6403/7247 7003/7245 7009/72065573 1 K.ishnapur Kukra 2 83 3 G 7 29 38 39 40 537 538 578 579 580 581 582 586 587 588 589 608 609 611 618 619 622 623 624 625 626 627 629 658 661 662 663 665 666 1178 1179 1180 1453 1500 587/1130

624/1122

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 81 14 96 97 99 59 20 36 24 52 91 92 98 19 93 67 47 51 97 23 59 25 60 99 95 36 18 46 51 91 22 34 65 79 23 20 80 01 06 89 56 09

5 • 1 9 7 2 2 3 0 10 7 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 4 4 5 2 - 6 1 1 5 4 0 9 5 3 7 1 25574 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)| 2 84

1 Chagram

6 10 95 60 41 00 17 08 20 20 24 85 25 20 71 01 20 23 40 20 26 19 99 35 20 93 56 88 70 75 .63 96 33 19 35 40 73 01 81 51 76 82 27 49 35

3 1834 1835 1836 1837 1839 1840 1841 1848 1851 1852 1854 1855 1856 1860 1885 1887 1889 1890 1891 1896 1897 1898 1899 2189 2207 2209 2211 2230 2231 2236 2238 2239 2242 2244 2245 2246 2249 2250 2253 2254 2256 2257 2258 2649

5 19 4 1 6 1 7 5 0 0 7 5 13 0 5 1 0 3 3 0 8 10 3 5 0 1 1 0 11 9 8 6 14 6 7 4 2 3 12 0 6 8 2 1 8

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05575 1 2 3

2651 2652

2653

2654 2655

2659 2660

2661 2665

2666 2667

2670 2671 2899

2902

2903

2905

2906

2907 2908 2913

2914

2915

2916 . 2917

5787

5788

5791 5861

5868 5870

6 58 18 56 07 98 70 53 39 86 90 20 20 79 64 51 75 26 56 04 68 50 24 51 23 34 29 04 13 28 71 65

1g

5871

j i

5872

5876 5877

5895

lM '•'•'0 43 ?!1

:". 1

5896 5999

6000 6003

6004

6005

0J J1 38 5." ¹ J 1

6022

88

6023 6024

5 1 5 1 7 6 6 0 4 10 3 0 0 7 4 10 5 0 1 1 8 4 7 4 3 3 4 2 30 0 5 0 9 21 11 0 16 0 11 2 1 9 3 0 2 1

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6,2001ASVTNA14,1923 [PART Tt—SEC. 3 (ii)J 1 6 3 4 5 2 6025 0 2 69 6032

6033

6034

6038

6039

6134

6136 6137

2240/6281

2667/6411

2899/6395

2973/6431

5899/6212

6134/6215 1535 Napara

56

1536 Mashila

57

446 447 448

449

452

453

1276 Police Station : Burdwan

11 Nala

20

14

15

16

17

18 23

36

37 38

5137 5140 Police Station : Galsi

2934

161

Konarpur

0 11 47 0

4

46 0

7

43 0

2

35 0

0

0 11

0 17

0

0

0

1 3 1

0

2

0

3

0

1

20 68 38 67 07 25 12 06 86 0 0

1 3

91 25 20 0 37

80 0 0 4

88 0

82 0

40 0

75 0

5 3 0

70 0

0

28 0

3

87 0

70 0

15 57 0 0

1 7 18 5

23

23 0

0

20 10 0 0

3

0

84 78

0 10

85

1

0 0

37

0

0

45

33

0

53

40 0

[No. R-31015/40/2000 OR-I] S. CHANDRASEKIIAR. Under Secy5577 M78 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OCTOBER 6.2001ASVINA14.1923

[PART II—SFC. .1 (ii)]

Ncu ->eUii, Die 2Hth September, 2001

S. 0.2654.—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 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 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. • Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342 005.

SCHEDULE

[No.R-31015/20/2001 OR-1T]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

5582 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PARTII—SEC. 3 (ii)]5583 5584 THEGAZE1TEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PART H—SEC. 3 (ii)]5585 5586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OCTOBER 6,2001ASVINA14,1923 [PART II— SEC. 3 (ii)] 5587

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2001

s. o. 2655.— 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 (ROU) in the land dfiaribett 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 powers conferred by -jub*9ection (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. f Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342 005.

2948GKZ001—9 5588 THEGAZE1TEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

SCHEDULE [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)l Tehsil Jalore District Jalore State Rajasthan

Name of Village Survey No

Part if Any

2

1

3

544

ROU Area Hect Are

4

24 0

ALASAN

545

551

552

553

533

Cart Track Field to Field G.L

532

531

562

563

564

568

569

570

571

18 0

17 0

22 0

09 0

01 0

21 0

01 0

19 0

0

07

32 0

0

04 . 14 0

02 0

01 0

Cart Track G L

485

484

481

Cart Track Field to Field G.L.

449

448

447

440

442

445

444

435

431

0

06

66 0

02 0

01 0

47 0

13 0

05 0

18 0

0

23

06 0

07 0

GOCHAR G.L

1011 431 ; Cart Track G.L.

1012 431 , GOCHAR G.L

415

243 Cart Track Field to Field, G L.

334

251

252 Cart Track Field to Field G L.

255

321

Cart Track G L.

295 262

49 0

0

04

36 0

44 0

02 0

0

54

17 0

0

02

48 0

14 0

02 28 0 0

f.... -

Tehsil : Jalore District: Jalore State Rajasthan

Name of Village

Part if Any

ROU Area Hect. Are 4

19 0

ALASAN

18

0

16

0

03

0

01

0 0

04

36

0 0

01 09

0

03

0 0

02 0

34 01

. 0

0

04 (Ummedabad)

07 15

0 0

20

0

15

0 0

16 36 12

0 0

0

11 06

0

Road Ummedabad to Keshwana

13 04

0 0

10

0

20

03 22 26 04 KATRASAN

77 41 37 02

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 0 0 0

0

02 33 12 42

0 5590 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PARTII— SEC. 3 (ii)] Tehsil Jalore District: Jalore State Rajasthan

Tehsil Jalore District: Jalore State Rajasthan

Part if Any Survey No

Name of Village

2

3 1

ROU Area HecL _[ Are. 4

0

05 DANGRA

733

868

742

01

16

16 0 0 . 0

Cart Track Field to Field G L

850 867

866

865

860

859

01 0

05 0

08 0

37 0

01 0

Cart Track G.L.

857 746

745

751 754

755

824

830

820

812

Q^^

0

03 34 0

03 0

13 0

07 0

25 0

38 0

02 0

20 0

12 0

02 0

Cart Track Field to Field G.L

784

785

786

783

53 0

02 0

07 0

07 0

Oran G.L.

551

05 0

Cart Track Dangra to Mandavla G.L

560

557

556

555

543

552

544

549 532

07 0

17 0

20 0

21 0

01 0

0

42 41 0

0

Oran G.L

0

RATUJA

377 Cart Track G L

382

404

405

403

402

30 03 07 0

0

0

0

16 20 14 0

23 0

08 5592 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)] Tehsil : Jalore District Jalore State Rajasthan

Tehsil Jalore District: Jalore State Rajasthan

Name of Village Survey No

Part if Any

1

ANVLOJ

2 684

Cart Track G .l

682 680 681

667

136

324 ROAD G.L.

325 ROAD G.L.

326

328

329

340

341

339

334

336

353

354

352

356

396

359

364

365 390

389

385

386

377

THALUNDA

445

448 480

457

455

456

428

429 Road Thalunda to Anvloj G.L.

BALWARA

1314

864

867 852 848 847

0

28

880 Oran G.L.

0

01 5594 THEUAZtiTrEOFINDIA:OCrOBER6,2001ASVINA14,1923

[PARTII—SEC. 3 (ii)] Tehsil . Jalore District: Jalore State : Rajasthan

[N0.R-31015/22/2001OR-II]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi, the 7th September, 2001 S.O. 2656..—In pursuance ol Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), in: Central Government hereby publishes the. award of the Government Industrial Tribunal ILaboiir Court, Hangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employeis in relation to the management of Corporation Bank ami their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-2001.

[No. L-l2012/415/92-IR(B-II)l C. C.ANGADHARAN, Under Sccv.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE TIIH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM S A D A N ", III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORR Dated : 31st August, 2001 PRESENT •

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

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C. R. No. 23 [93

I PARTY

The Secretary, Karnalak'a Pradesh Banks Deposit Collectors 'Federation, H-5, 7th Floor, Manish Tower, 84, J.C. Road, BangaIore-560002. (Advocate Late Shri K. Dinakara Holla)

II PARTY

The Chairman, Corporation Bank, Head Office, Pnndeshwav. Mangalore-?75001 (Advocate-Shri Pradccp S. Sawka>)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dis- pute vide order No. L-12O12[415|92-[R(B-I[) dated 12th Afurch, 1993 for adjudication oil the following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management Df Corporation Bank, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri J, Rnjcndran, a Janata Deposit Collector is justified? Tf not, to what relief he is entitled t o" 2948 GI/2001—10

2. The first party was Janata Deposit Collector to (he Second Party. He was removed and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Cliu'm Slutcmcnt and Counter rcspectvely,

4. This is the dispute raised by the Karnataka Prndtsh Banks Deposit Collectors Federation.

5. The case of the first party in brief is as under :

6. The first party workman wa.; employed as a lanata Deposit Collector at Robcrlsonpet, KGF branch since 8-6-79 and he became the member of the first par(y union. He was employed for mobilising deposits for the brink, He was paid monthly wanes. His work was manunl as well as clerical. The Federation has stated duties in para 1 of the Claim Statement.

7. It is the further case that he winked honestly and sincerely. During the beginning of January 1991, the manager of the bank instructed the officials of the concerned depart- ment not to issue fresh claim to the wrkman. The manage- ment wherein enquired and issued show cause notice. The first party workman was terminated fiom service. The action of the management is not correct. The workman has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

9. The reference is bad in law because the dispute is not maintainable. There is no causr and there is delay. The first party was not the employee of the Second Party and there was no relationship of master and servant.

10. In para 5 the details of the Jana'u Deposit Scheme is stated. The main contention of the bank is that there is no relationship of employer and employee. There was an. agreement between the bank and the first parly workman. The first party workman executed an agreement on R-6-1979. Ho was not a regular employee and service conditions were not applicable to him. The first party woikman was only an agent to collect the deposits.

11. It is further stated that on many occasions the first party workman failed to remit the amount collected by him on the next day. In para 12 specific instructions are stated. First party workman was directed to improve himself but he failed to do so. Public notice was issued and oaency was terminated. The second riarty for these reasons and for many other reasons has prnyr-d to reject the reference,

12. It is seen from the records tn;u on behalf of (he mana- gement'MW1 was examined. It is also seen from the records that since many days the first party is not attending. It was informed that the counsel appearing for the first parly work- man died long back, Thcrefoiv, the matler was posted for evidence and even then lh? first party failed to appear to give evidence. Therefore arguments were heard, I have read the evidence of MWI and perused the available documents.

13. [ have read the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Others, the judgement dated 13th Feb- ruary, 2001.

14. MWI has given evidence that the first party workman was a Pigmy Agent. Ex. Ml is the agreement. It is his further evidence that the first party workman was remitting short amounts and Ex. M2 is the report regarding short remittances. In his evidence Ex, M3 to Ex. M8 were marked. He has also stated that agency WHS cancelled because the workman was not rrmittin.it the full amount collected by him from the Customers.

15. On fioing through the Counter, first main contention of the management is that there is no leTationship of employer and employer and the first party Is not the workman. In view of the decision of ihe Hontle Supreme Court of Tndia referred earlier, the first party is the workman. Now that point is clear.

16. In the instant case another contention of the manage- ment is that first party was not remittiop full amount collect- ,ed by him in the bank as per the agreement. There is no reason to discard (he evidence of MW1 because the first early workman has not crass examiner? MWI and not re- butted the documents marked in the evidence of MWI. In other words it is a fact that the first paity was not remitting 5 5 9 6. T HE G A Z E T TE OF f N D lA • O C T O B ER 6. 2 0 0 1 / A S V I NA 1 4, 1 9 23

full- amount collected by liim from the customer and there- fore the management is right in lermin-.Uinj the agency under Ex. MW1.

17. The first paity i-mwinid "bscnt and has not proved anything to pass award in his favour. In view of this ( am of the opinion that there i^ np merit in this reference and accordingly I pas* the following Order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected,

(Dictated to PA transcribed by hei corrected and ligned by me on Jlst August, 2001).

[ P A * .T I I- S i c. 3 ( i i )]

Yndav, Deputy General Secretary of the Union appeared before the Tribunal and sought time vide his application dated 30-5-2001 for filing the statement of claim in the case. On the said application of "hc Union, th; cn';e wai adjourned to 13-7-2001, but on the date fixed in the case neither the representative for the concerned workman appeared nor the itittement of claim in the case *as filed on his behalf.. How- ever, the case was further adjourned to J 4-8-2001, but on that date too neither any one appeared in the case nor statement of claim was filed in the case.

3, Thus from the conduct and behaviour on the part of the

V. N. KULKARNI, Presidinu Officer

New Delhi, the 7th September, 2001

S.O. 5657.—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 Ttr}bun,al|Labour Court, Kanpur as showu in the tfpneturc. m the industrial Dispute between the employers in reladbji to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-2001.

representative of the Union as well as of the concerned work- man it bepomes abunduntly clear that they are not interested in contesting the cast any more. In view of it, the tribunal is left with no other option but tto hold that the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief in pursuance of this reference for want of pleading and proof.

4. Reference is answered accordingly against the concerned workman.

R. P. I'ANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 7th September, 2001

[No. I.-12012/212/20OO-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R, P. PANDEY PRESIDING, OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRlBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT SARVODYA NAGAR, KANPUfe

Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 2001

The, President PNB Employees Union Gumti No. 5 Kanpur

AND

Punjab National Bank Regional Manager Punjab National Bank Regional Office 59|29 Birhana Road (CHnpur. AWARD

1, Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide, its notification No. L-12O12|2I2|2OOO|IR(B-II) dated 10th-.January, 2001, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the manaaement of Punjab National Bank in withdrawing the special pay of Sri Ti K. Awasihi. AL.P.M.O. with effect fiom 8-7-W99 is justified? If not to what relief he is entitled to and from what date?"

2. In this ca"e after receipt of icfercnce order registered notice* were "ent to the Union raising the dispute on behi"li pf the concerned workman Sri. P. K. Awasthi, for filing the statement of claim. After receipt of notice cne Vijai S.O. 2658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1-947 (14 of, 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes thee award of the 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 by the Central Government on O6-09-20O1.

[No. L-120t2/55/9"-IR(B-H)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated : 31st August, 2001

PRFSENT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkami. B.Com., LL.B.. Presiding Officer CGIT-Cum-Labour Court. Bangalore.

C.R. No. 102/98

I PARTY

The General Secretary, Vijaya Bank Workers Organisation, 37(1, 1st Floor, Car Street, TJlsoor, Banpqlorc. , . (Represented by Shrl Suresh Kamath)5597 II PARTY

now we will have to see whether the punishment imposed is proper or is not correct.

The General Manager (P), Vijaya Bant Head Office, M O. Road, Bangaldre-560009. (Advocate—Shri Pr&deep S. Sawkar)

AWARD

15. It was argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the second party that the iirst party workman was a regular un- authorised absentee and on earlier occasions four chargeshects were issued for unauthorised absencb and the workman admitted all the- charges. Minor punishments were imposed and even after this the Jirst party workman remained absent unauthorisedly and therefore, enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry rtporf the management has 'rhjhtly dismissed the workman.

16. In support of this argument he relied the following

citations :

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-120l2/53/98-IR(B-II) dated 24th December, 1998 for adjudication uti the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

(1) 19S6 Lab IC 754(SQ

(2) 2000(5) SCC 65

(3) 1995 (l)LLI 1065. (Karnataka)

"Whether the action of the Management of Vijaya Bunk in dismissing the services of Shri L. Surgapathi Yadav w.e.f. 22-2-95 is legal and justified ? If not. to what relief the said workman is entitled 7"

17. 1 have read the above decision of Hiflh Court of Karnataka carefully. The learned counsel appearing for the Management has not given other two citations but only gav" notes and I have considered the same.

2. The first party was working with the second party. First party committed misconduct and he was dismissed from service therefore. Industrial Dispute in rasied.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter

respectively.

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

5. This dispute is raised on bclialt of the Union.

18. It is a fact that the first party ha* not jn'vcn evidence before this Tribunal to explain the absence. Keeping In mind the principles held in the decision of High Court of Karnataka referred above and the fact that the misconduct is proved, I arn of the opinion that ends of justice wlH meet if order of dismissal stands modified to one of termination. Because the order of dismissal in the given circumstances appear to be too harsh, This 1 have SHKI because if order of dismissal is not modified to one of termination the workman will be deprived of few benefits Which have accrued to him by virtue of his earlier service,

19. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

6. First party was working from 18-9-J 989 onwards. Charfte sheet issued to him was not correct. He has given detail* of charges iri para 2 of the Claim Statement. He was working, as a sub staff member In" the bank'. It is stated by the work- man that he met with an accident and due to fracture he remained absent and applied leave for a long period.

ORDER

7. In paia 5 and 6 also it is stated that he applied for leave and dates are also given and leave was on account of sickness. The management has not considered all this and issued chargesheet and conduced enquiry.

The reference is partly allowed. The order of dismissal is set aside and it stands modified to one of termination. This wil] only help the workman for few benefits if have accrued to him by virtue -of his earlier service. No other benefits are given.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and sinned

by me on 31st August, 2001.)

8. Regarding enquiry it is said that the enquiry is not correct. Charge is not proper. Punishment is excessive and the workman for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour,

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 9. The case of the Second Party in brief Is as under :

10. It is true that the first party workman joined the services of the bank on 23-1-1984 as temporary Peon and he was confirmed in 1984.

11. It is the main contention of the management that the first party workman was not punctual In duties and conti- nuously was absent without obtaining leave or any information. In para 3 of the Counter it it stated that earlier cbargeshtet were given for unauthorised absence and many punishments wen! imposed.

New Delhi, the 7th September, 2001 12. It is also contended by the management that the work- man had admitted all'the rbove charges. Departmental enquiry was conducted and misconduct is proved. Regarding enquiry it is stated that thechargssheet is correct and full opportunity was givfen to the first party to defend himself. The enquiry report is correct. The first party workman remained un- authorised absence for long periods. Therefore the action of the management is correct. The management for these reasons and for ro*ie other reasons has prayed to reject the reference. Rejoinder is also filed contenting that the first party workman ha* applied leave.

13. It is seen from the record that on behalf of the management orfe witness MWI is examined. The first party workman has not participated in the proceedings and has not cross examined by MWI. Various documents are marked in the evidence of MWI.

S.O. 2659,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the &waid of the 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 by the C:ntral Government on 6-9-2001.

|No. L-12012/151/98-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Und"r S"cy.

14. It is seen from the records that this Tribunal by its order dated 14th lune, 2001 k held that tha Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper. On 30th August I have heard both the counsels appearing for the parlies and I have perused the record*. The fact (hat the enquiry Is held as fair and proper,5598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 200l/ASVlNA 14, 1923 [PARF II—SEC. 3(ii>J ANN1ZXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE- Dated : 27th August, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Cojn,, LL.B.. Presiding Oftieer CGlT-eum-Labour Court, Bungalorc.

C.R. No. 25/99

X PARTY

The Regional Secretary, Vrjuyu, Bank Workers Organisation, Mangaloie Region, C/o Vijuya Bank Zonal OiUcc, Mangaiore-575003. (Represented by Sliri Surci.li Kamatn, Treasurer)

11 PARTY

The Deputy General Manager. Vijaya Bank, Zonal Oiliee, Vijaya Tower, L.H. Hill Road, Mangalore-i"750U3. (.Advocate—Shu pjadeep Sawkar)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- levied by clause t,d) ot siu> section 2A of tne Section 10 oi' the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vuie ordec No, JL-12012 151/9!MR(B-11) dated 8th March, l99y tor adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHLDULb

"Whether the action of the Management of Vijaya Bank, Zonal Othce, Mannalore, in terminating the services Mitt. Gmja, part time sweeper who lias put in a long service ot ejgln years trom 1989 onwards to 1997 under the pretext that she was not recruited through employment exchange is justified V If not to what relict the same Smi. Girija is entiled 7" 2. The hist party was working with the Second Party. She was refused job therefore Industrial dispute is raised.

3. Parlies appeared aud filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

4. The case of the lirst paiiy in brief is as follows :

5. It is the case o[ the first party that Vijaya Bank is a Nationalised Bank and lust party was working at Surathkal Branch from 1-4-89 to 5-8-87 and 1-11-97 to 30-11-97. She also worked at Pakshikere Branch from 2-12-95 continuously upto 30-8-97.

6. It is the furlher ea,e of the first party that on 30-8-97 her services were teiminati'd abruptly, The action of the management is not correct. She lias cited some decisions in the application itself¹. First paity for these reasons has prayed to pass award in her favour.

7. The case ot the Second patty in brief is as follows :

never worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year, It is prayed that lel'crence be rejected.

11. It is .seen from the records that on behalf of the manage- ment one witness Shri N. Viswanath Hegde is examined. His evidence is that the first purty was working as temporary Part time Sweeper. He has given details showing that in the year 1989 who worked only for 127 days and again she worked for 23 days and she was paid Rs. 25 per day. It is also stated by him that on 30-12-95 her temporary engage- ment as part time Sweeper camo to an end. Whenever there was work she has yiven work. He has also stated about Ex. Ml, Ex. M2 and Ex. M3, MW1 is not cross examined as stated that no appointment order was given to her.

12. Against this we have the evidence of WW1. According to her evidence she worked on daily wage basis as Sweeper. I'ivst party in her cross examination has stated that she worked for 127 days trom 1-4-89 to 5-8-89 and again sho worked from 2-12-95 to 30-12-95 for 23 days. She also worked from 1-7-97 to 30-7-97 at i'akshikere Branch. She also worked from 1-8-97 to 30-8-97 at Pakshikere Branch, She categorically admits in her cross examination that it is true that she was working as Part time Sweeper and not a regular employee. She further says that she registered her name on 21-2-95 and before that her name was not registered in the Employ- ment Exchange.

13. With the above cross examination, it is abundantly clear that she was given work of Sweeper whenever a regular staff was absent. She never worked for 240 days continuously. Absolutely there is no material to say that she worked conti- nuously and she was a regular employee,

14. Admittedly she was a temporary Sweeper engaged on daily wages whenever the regular staff is to be on leave.

15. I have considered all the documents relied by the parties. Considering all this, 1 am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The refvience is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transciihcd by her corrected and signed by me on 27th August, 2001.)

HON'BLE V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer5599 ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAC.AR KA"NPUR

Industral Dispute No. 295 of 1999 In the matter of dispute between : I he General Secretary,

Central Bank. Workers (Juganfrution (U.Pl, 3j 13 Mathura Nagar, Aligarh U.P.

AND

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Sanjay Place, Regionnl Offl'ce, Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. J..-120I l|9fi|"J9 IR(B-LI) dated 25-10-99, has referred the following dispute for adjudica- tion to this tribunal

Whether the action

2. In this case nftsr considcrinn the pleadings of the parties following preliminary issue was framed :

Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and prcpsr ?

•3. After considering the^ pleadings of the parlies and evi- dence on record and ahef giving opportunity of hearing to both the parlies, finding was recorded by this tribunal on the preliminary issue and it was held tb.it full opportunity of hearing was given to the delinquent employee by the Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry and inquiry was properly and fairly conducted in the case,

4. I have heard the ailth, Representatives for the parlies on the point of quantum of punishment also. Punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the concerned workman vide order dated' 24-5-94.

5. The authorised representative for the workman has argued that the punishment- of dismissal from service im- posed on the delinquent employee h disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct,' hence a le.ssur punishment should be imposed on him by this tribunal in exercise of powers given to it under section 11-A ,}f the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other-hand tbi- authorised representa- tive for the management' has argued that the concerned employee not only made forgery in the leave records of the bank while working as head cushier at Serum Branch •of the bank but also Wok Rs. 5108.84 paisn being the amount of leave encashment for 30 days on S-10-92. He has also argued that he was not entitled to avail the bene- fit of leave encashment of 30 days and also was not entitled to avail 12 days ordinary leave from 20-10-92 to 3M0-92 for availing LFC because only 14 days leave were in his credit. He afgued that the concerned workman inflated the leave due of 14 days into' 140 days by forging the leave record of Semra Branch of the bank with a view to take undue advantage by taking the amount of leave encashment of 30 days and by taking ordinary leave of 12 days for nvailing LFC when only 14 days leave wns due to him. He has further argued that as the concerned workman was in fact holding a post in the service of the bnnk where the bank discharges the duties of n trustee of public money and such dishonest person has no place in the service of the bank. After goinj; through the record of the case, T find force in the contention of the authorised representative for the bank.

6. The evidence on record shows that Sri Ashok Kumar Mittal the concerned workman joined Semra Branch on 19-3-92 ns Head Cashier on promotion from Tamkauli Branch. When he came from Ifiniknuli Branch in the leave record of that branch only 14 days ordinary leave was due to workman. Sri Mittal himself posted his leave record at Semra Branch and entered in his leave account in iljc leavo register showing his ordinary leave to be 140 days whereas only 14 days leave was due to him. The record shows that in the year 1991 before being posted in Tamkauli Branch he had taken leave without pay because no leave was due to him. Thus Sri Mittal very well knew that no leave was due to him but he inflated his ordinary leave m the leave lecord from 14 'u 140 days and deceit- fully received Rs. 5108.84 paisa as amount of leave encashment for 30 days on 8-10-92. In addition to that he also availed 12 days ordinary leave from 20-10-92 to 31-10-92 for availing LFC although he did not avail LFC at all. This shows that he not only forged the leave record of Simra Branch of the bank by inflating his leave of 14 days into 140 days but also took Rs. 5108.84 paisa as the amount of encashment of leave ior 30 days. Record shows that when this forgery made by him was detected and he was asked to surrender the amount of leavo encash- ment he deposited the same after moie than 3 months. This conduct of Sri Mittal the concerned workman goes to show that he could make forgery in the records to make monitoiy gain from the bank where he was employed. Only a man of absolute integrity fan be kept in the service of bank to serve the, public where the money cf the public is deposited by the public with confidence that their money will be in the same hands.

7. Considering the aforesaid misconduct of the concerned workman, if the punishing authority came to the conclusion that this employee is not fit to be retained in the service of the bank and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, 1 do not find any illegality in that order of punish- ment such punishment can not be held to be disproportionate io the gravity of misconduct because the misconduct com- mitted by him appeals to be of grav; nature and warranted the punishment of dismissal from scrvce.

8. The authorised representative for the management has nrgued that the concerned workman did not plead in his statement of claim that punishment vf dismissal from ser- vice imposed upon him was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, hence the plea raised by the authorised representative for the workman during the course of argu- ments should be rejected out right. There is no doubt that the workman did not plead in his statement of claim that punishment imposed on him was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. However, the arguments advanced by the authorised representative for the workman on the quantum of punishment have been considered by me and I do not find any justification for mating interference with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon him.

9. In view of findings recorded on the preliminary issue and also in view of findings recorded by me on the quan- tum of punishment, 1 do not find any ground to interfere with the order of punishment passed against the concerned employee, I, therefore, hold that the action of the manage- ment of Central Bank Of'India in dismissing Sri Ashok Kumar Mittal from the service of the bank is legal and justified. Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in pursuance of this reference.

10. Reference is answered accordingly,

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officersouu i Ht U A t f i i in Uf JJNLUA : UCTUJJJBR 6a 2001/^SVTNA 14, 1923 [PART IT— SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

S.O. 2661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus-

Iria) Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947\ the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Jaipur aft shown in tile annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-09-2001.

[No. L-l2011/54/2001-IR(B-U)1 C. OANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

S.O, 2662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industri Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governme: hereby publishes the award of the Central Qovernmei Industrial Trlbunal-cum-LC, Chennal as shown in tl unnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and' their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 11-09-2001,

INo. L-12011/157/99-IR(B-IIJl C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 14th August, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 29/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal l.D. No. 23/2000)

(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 Sri Arokia Anburai, S/o late C. Stanislaus and the Management of Dena Bank, Chennal.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, I Party/Claimant Denfl Bhnk Employees Union, Chennai,

AND

The Regional Manager, II Party/Management Dena Bank, Chennai •

APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant: M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.

For the Management: S/Sri M. Rajamanickarm & R. Raiesh Vivekananthan, 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 Dirpim: for adjudication vide Order No. L-12011/157/99-lR(B H) dated O7-O2-2UO0.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nad it State Industrial.Tribunal, where it was taken on file as 1,D. No. 23/2000. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour wa-, pleased to order transfer of tilts case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D, No. 29/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them abew; the transfe- of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 22-01-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side were present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

This matter came up before me for final hearing on 01-07-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the docu- mentary evidence let in on either .side and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:—

AWARD

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

"Whether the Management is justified in ordering Voluntary cessation of employment to late Shrl C. Stanislaus 7 If not, is Shri Arokia Anburaj. S/o Stanislaus entitled for compassionate appointment in the services of the bank ?

% The avermenti in the Claim Statement of the I Party/ Claimant Union are briefly as follows:—

ground?. It is therefore, piayed that this Tribunal may b: pleased to hold that the action of the Respondent/Bank m ordering voluntary emotion o£ employment to late C. Stanislaus is not justified and consequently direct the Respondent/Bank (o provide employment lo Sri Arokia Anburaj S/o late C. Stanislaus in the clerical cadre w.e.f. 5-2-96 i.e. the date of the demand for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II Pany/ Management, Dena Bank are briefly as follows;—

The petition filed by the Employees Union as the repre- sentative of one Mr. Arokia Auburaj is not maintainable in law on facts as the said Mr. Arokia Anburaj has never been an employee of the Respondent. As such the Petitioner, the employees union has r.o authority to describe him as a member of the union pertaining to the Respondent/Bank. Mr. Stanislaus who was wo:kius as cash peon in the Nun#ambakkam branch of tho Respondent/Bank remained unauthorlsedly absent from 1-1-93, He has not submitted * applications for sanction of leave, He has not replied to the branch letters dated 8-11-93, 6-1-94 served on him by the branch at his then available address. In view of the continuous unauthorised absence of the said workman Stanislaus without prior sanction/information/leave at..credit, the then Regional Authority has issued a notice dated 9-7-94 for voluntary abandonment from the bank's service. The fact that Mr. Stanislaus did not report for duty had been admitted by the Petitioner. Further, the wife of Mr. Stanislaus, Mrs. Lily Alphonsa has informed the Respondent by her letter dated 1-2-94 that her husband was missing from 8-9-93. She had also enclosed a copy of tlu- FIR of the complaint she filed before the police in that connection. Stanislaus has been served wjlh the notice of voluntary abandonment from the banfc's service in terms of Bipartite Settlement governing the service conditions of award staff in banks. The said provision inter qlia states that an employee can be served with a-notice of voluntary abandonment from the bank's service after one month's notice, in case, if he does not report for duty after absenting himself for 90 days without prior sanction/ intimation/leave at credit. As per the Bipartite Settlement any service of notice at the last available address- in the bank records and such service tantamount to jjood service. The notice of voluntary abandonment from the bank service was sent to his residential address by the registered post with acknowledgement due, which was however, returned by th; postal authorities with a remark "not known". As he had not reported for dutie* within the stipulated date i.e. on or before 7-8-1994, his name has been struck off from the Muster Roll of Respondent/Bank, Nungdmbakkam branch w.e.f 9-8-94 as voluntarily abandoned'retired from the bank services in terms of the settlement in force. The Respondent had received the communication of Mrs. Lilly Alphonsa only on 24-1-96 informing therein that her hiwbarjd Mr. C. Stanislaus has been expired on 15-10-95 evidenced by death certificate issued by the Corporation of Madras on 27-11-95. Mr. C. Stanislaus has expired much after the date of his voluntary abandonment from bank's service. The request made by Mr. Arokia Anburaj S/o late Mr. C. Stanislaus to provide employment on the compassionate ground was not considered favourably by the bank. The services of Mr. C. Stanislaus has been terminated under the relevant provisions of voluntary aban- donment from the bank's services in terms of Bipartite Settle- ment in force and the request for appointment on the compassionate ground has not been made within a Period of one year. The settlement of terminal benefits of Mr C M?¹¹ Ar*.-iS A n "£ *? '^ WJth ^ '^^ °f the c l a™ of 5 ^ M£ 2 ^dt ls Hencc-the dZ -^ 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the counsel on either side marked the documents of the respective parties by consent a, Exhibits Wl to W14 and Ml -and M2 Both the parties hiive not let in (my oral evidence. The learned

a ° S n Kn ' *** h°VC advam*d thcir re£ffi

The I Party, the General Secretary of Dena Bank Employees Union as Claimant.(herein after referred to as Petitioner) has raised the dispute espousing the cause, of the workman, late Sri C. Stanislaus and his¹ son Srj Arpkia Anburai. _ The concerned workman Sri C. Stanislaus joined the service of Dena Bank (herein after referred to as Respondent") as a subordinate staff om-1-9-84,,He did not report for work from 1-9-93. His wife Mrs. Lilv Alphonsa gave a complaint to th" police on 29-lr9i about her m'ssine husband. She produced the copy of the FIR on 1-2-94 alone with a letter infornvnft the Respondent/Management, that her husband Stanislaus was missinc.. On 9-7-94. the bank issued a--notice a"kine the employee to report for work as lie has been, absenting him- self for over 90 days end hence he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services of the Respondent/Bank from 9-8-94. Thit wife of the workman Stanislaus came to know that her husband has expired on 15-10-1995. After obtaining a denth -certificate the son of late Stanislaus one Arokia Anburai requested the bank on 5-2-96 to provid* him employment under compussionate - from the dote of deatj; of the workman Stanislaus and that the termination of workman Stanislaus was on account of voluntary ressaiion. The claim of com- passjonnfe anr"^'n'Wi'nt made bv the son of the decea^erl workman on 5-2-96 N wHl within one vear from the dflte of his father's death. The hank has settled the eraMiitv of thf deceased on the irronnd that tHe emnloyef hpd died and nn> nn recount of voluntary cessation of work. Hence the b^nV \% ncxiii'-cc?d from takine thr stand that the ^mnlover hal vnlnn'm-Mv rfli'i"[| from service After th" show ruiKp rtnt:fi" da^d 9-7-94. the bank had not separately issued any order voluntarily retiring the employee, which Li a must, according 1o the Bipartite Settlement. The action of the Respondent/ Bank in ordering 'Voluntary cessation of employment to late C. Stanislaus is illegal, contrary to the admitted facts an^ hnvlnsr settled the employee's terminal benefits on the eronnrl th;"r he d*d in the course of his employment, So. Amtin Anburai S/o C, Stanislaus is entitled to compassionaf'" annoin'mept. Such .appointments are given on the basis nf v'wernment guidelines. Hence the .bank Is not justified in denying employment fo Sri Arokia Anburaj on compassionate 5. The point for my consideration is

"Whether the Management is justified in ordering voluntary cessation of employment to late Shri C Stanislaus 7 If not, is Shri Arokia Anburai S/o Mamslaus entitled for comnasnionate appointment In the services of the b"nk ?"5602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6/2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Point :—

retired frorr service from 9-8-94 on his own will and- accord and his name got struck off from the muster roll of the Kc.spiHjdent/Banfc Nunfiambdkkuni branch with immediate effect. So under such eiiTuniitances, it cannot be said that (lit: action of the Management of the Respondent/Bank in, ordering voluntary cessation of employment of the deceased workman Sri C, Sianifu'aus is unjustified.

6. The son of flic deceased workman C. Stanislaus has.

given a representation to the Respondent/Bank on 5-2-1996 tor the first time requesting an appointment on compassionate giuiind. The xerox copy of iliat letter is Ex, W4. Ex, W5 is the reply given hy the Rc;.-pondent/Bank for the request mad; by the son of the deceased workman for an appoint- liijiit on compassionate gnmnd, In that letter it is clearly stated Unit because of the unauthorised absence of the con- cerned workman Stanislaus from 1-9-93 onwards he was .treated tn voluntarily letireJ fiom the service of the bank and his name was struck ofT from the muster roll w.e.f. 9-8-94 and that tljc scheme lor appointment for dependent of deceased employee is extended to dependent of employees, who dies in harness and that the request for appointment under the scheme should have been received by the bank at Ilij; earliest, in any case, not later than one year from the i.h)te of death {4 the employee. Kx, W6 is the xerox copy of the another letter diitcd 3rd February, 1998 sent by the Respondent/Bank, Branch Manager to Arokia Anburaj son of f/ie deceased wort man. In that also it is stated that his request for compassionate appointment could not be con- sidered since his father had not died in harness and the request for appointment has not been received by the bank within one year. No I'ueunwufury evidence lias been filed on the side of the Petit iontr to show that the request for Pn, appointment on ccMnpussionate ground made by the son of the deceased workman within one year of the date of dcurji of the deceased workman was received by the bank in time. Hence the stand taken bv the petitioner in this recard hns nol been substantiated. Adhi t(edly the concerned employee Sri StnnisJaus has not, died m harness as'per EX. W13 death certificate, he was shown to have died on 15-10-95 lont> subsequeni to. the Manajwment had treated his absence for dutv ns voluntarily retired fiom service on his own from 9-8-94. Further no evidence has been let in, in this case bv the Petiiioner Union in respect of a financial condition of the family of the deceased workman for providing an em- niovment to on*- of the heirs of the deceased by the Respondent/Bank on compassionate ground. On the other li.ind it is 'eon from the plea in the Cla;m Statement itself thnt- the tfrnvnnl hrnofirK of lhe deceased employee have bepn£eft'cd bv the Rcsn'.nnlen>/Banfc Nothing has been stated >n t';"! Clu'm Statement about the economic condition nf the fam'lv nf the d'WH'wd workman to make a request for tin apnnfJiimertMo the Ircol heir of the deceased workman n eomn^vionnte "rounds, So, under wch circumstances, it ^ ftecri thnt tlic Tvlnnacment ii justified in orderinit that Sri ArnVia Anburai. S/o C Stanhhw is nof entitled for com- pa^sionriie jipsoinimcnt in the scr\ice': of !he bank. Thus, the pc'nt is answered accordingly,

7. In the result, nn award is passed holding that th^ Afnnnccment j\ iust^fiefl in orrlerin.' voluntary cessation of emplovm-nt in late Sri C. Stanislaus nnd Shri Arokin Anblirai son of S'ini\l(ins is not entitled fnr compassionate appoint- ment in the services of the bank. No Cost.

(•Dictated tn the- Slcnopiapher. transcribed and typed bv him -corrected nnd nronouncfd by me in the open court on thi? day the T4tli August, 2001.)

K. KARTH7KEYAN. Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On cither side: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I Party/Claimant:

Ex. No. D;i!e. Description

Wl 27-11-94; Xerox copy of the First .Information ' ,

Report.

\V2 01-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Lily

Alphonsa to the Management.

W4 05-02-¹"} Xerox copy of letter from Shri Arok Anburaj 1o the Management

W5 23-01-98 XLTOX copy of the letter from Asst. General Manager, Dcna Bank to Branch Manager.

Wfi 03-02-98 Xerox copy of the letter from the Management to Shri Arokia Anburaj.

W7 2K-O2-Q8 Xerox copy of letter from Shri Arokia Anhuraj In the Management.

W8 03-06-9R Xeiox copy of the letter from Asst. General Manager, Derm Bank to Branch Manager Nungambakkam, Chennai.

\V9 05-Qfi-98 Xerox copy of the letter from the Management to Shri Arokia Anburaj.

W10 24-07-98 Xerox copy of the dispute raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) by the claimant Union.

W11 09-09-98 Xerov copy of the Counter filed by the Respondent 'Bank before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Contrail.

W12 April '94 Xerox copy of the SSLC mark sheet of Shri Arokia Anburaj.

WI3 27-11-95 Xerox copy of the death certificate of Sri C. Stanilaus issued by Corporation of Madras.

W14 Nil Xerox copy of the legal heirship certificate of C. Stanislaus.

For the IT Pni"ly/Ma.nai;cment:

Fx. No, Date Description

Ml 22-05-2000 Xerox copy of the scheme for appointment of Dependents of deceased employees and dependents of employees retired on medical grounds.

M2 Nil Voluntary cessation of employment bv the Employees—provision in the Settlement (Xerox copy of the (wo nnges Nos. 7 & 8).

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S.O. 2663.—Jn 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-cum-Labour Court, Chcnnai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dcna Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 11-9-2001.

[No. L-12012/51/99-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy 2948 Gl/2001— JJ

ANNEXURE

BEFORF THH CKNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHBNNAI Tuesday, the 14th August, 2001

PRESENT :

K. KARTH1KEYAN, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. l?2|2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I D. No, 165|99) (Tn the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and rub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1 y47 (14 of 1947), between the workman Sri S. R. Manickam and the Management of l>nn Bank, Mumhai,)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Deua Bank Employees Union, Chcnnai.

.. I Party/Claimant

AND

The Chairman and Managing Director, Dena Bank, UO. Mumbai.

II Party|Managemcnt.

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant : M|s. Row and Reddy, Advocates.

For the Management : S'Sri M. Rajamanickam and R. Rajesh Vivekannthan Advocates.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). have referred the concerned Industrial Dis- pute for adjudication vide Order No. L-120l2|5l |99[TR( B-1T) dated 10| 12-6-1999 and 6| 12-8-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Slate Industrial Tribunal, where i) was taken on file as 1 D. No- 165/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, Ihc Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of record;; from that Tribunal, the case has been t'iken on file as I D. No. 132|2OO1 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on cither side, informim; them about l!ie transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with n direction to appear before this Tri- bunal on 1-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel ot\ rither side present with their respective rarties and prosecuted this case further.

This matter came ur> before me for final hearing on 3-7-2001. unon pending the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the docu- mentary evidence let in on the side of the I PartylClaimant union and upon hrarirm the arguments of Icnrnfd course! on cither side nnd this mutter having stood over till this date for consideartion, th:s Tribunal has passed the fol- lowne :

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to m thr ohovc order of reference by the Central Government for adjudication by this Trbunal is as follows ; —

"Whether the Management of Denn Bank is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by one sfaee in the scale of r>ny uoon Shri S. R. Manickam, Data Entry Operator? Tf rot, what relief is the concerned workman entitled ioT

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of (he T Parly| Claimant TJnion are briefly as follows :—

The Genera] Secretary, Denn Bank Employees Union has raised this industrial dispute espousing the cause rvf tin- work- man Sri s R Munickam emnloved as a Data Entry Operator in the TT PartylM-inaeementlDena Bunk Thondiarnrt Branch. Chcnnfi. The T PartvlCInimant Union (hereinafter referred to ,•".• Ppt;t;Oneii has raised ihis difpntc chiilennin" the action of the IT Parly'Manngi-ment/Dcnn Bank (hereinafter referred to us Respondent) in Imposing the punishment against the5604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II Parlyl

Management are briefly as follows;—

As the concerned workman Sri S. K Manickam had reach- ed the maximum in the lime scnlc of pay, the punishment could not be implemented and thereby the order of the Disciplinary Authority has become iiifructuous. Uinder such circumstances, keeping in view the gravity ot the charges levelled and proved against the concerned employee Sri S.R- Manickam, modification in the punishment order was imposed by letter dated 20-2-1997. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to make his submissions to the modification of the punishment order. The concerned employee attended the peisonal hearing along with his Union Representative and appealed to set aside the punishment proposed. Though there is no explicit provision in the Bipartite Settlement to reopen the case .suo muto, it docs not prohibit the employer to modify the punishment, particularly when the punishment proposed earlier and order was not implementable. The punishment implemented subsequently was of less severe when compare to the punishment awarded. The modified punishment order is in line with the provision of Bipartite Settlement and there is no violation involved in respect of the punishment imposed, The charges have been adequately proved during the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority has acted only on the basis of the findings of 'he report of the Enquiry Officer. The allegation of the Petitioner that the misconduct is outside the course of business and not committed by the employee in discharge of the. duties will not hold good as the acts of misconduct includes incurring the debt by the employee which considered as excessive bv the Manage- ment. Hence, the charge was In order. Modification of the punishment imposed only was oidered and not denovo enquiry. The concerned employee Sri S, R. Manicktfm. was charged to have committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank which is a gross misconduct and the penalties listed out in the Bipartite Settlement includes the punishment imposed on the emplyee. Hence, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the petition with cost.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, documents were marked by consent of couusel on either side as Ex. W-l to W-3. No document has been exhibited on the side of Hie Management. No oral evidence was let in one either side. The learned counsel on cither side have advanced their respective arguments,

5. The point for my consideration is :—-

"Whether the Management Of Dena Hank is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of pav by one stage in the scale of pay upon Shri S. R. Manickam, Data Entry Operator? If not, what relief ,is the concerned workman entitled to?"

Point :

for the reason that the concerned workman Sri S. R. Manic- kam has already reached the maximum in Ihe time scale und he has no increment to earn except the stagnation increment, he issued a memo dated 20-2-1W to the concerned emp- loyee modifying ihe orders yf punishment dated 27-3-96 by imposing a punishment of reduction by two stages in time tcale with cumulative effect. For that proposed punishment an opportunity was piovided to the concerned employee by the Disciplinary Authority to rrmke his submissions in the personal hearing on 8-3-1997. The xerox copy of the memo dated 20-2-1997 is. Ex. Wll. Ex. W12 is the minutes of the personal hearing held at the Regional Office by the Disci- plinary Authority, li is fecn. from that document the con- cerned employee Sii S.R, Mauick.im attended the enquiry with his defence representative and made his submission;:. Ex. W13 is the xerox copy of the Corrigendum dated 30-4-97 issued to the modification of the punishment issued earlier by the Disciplinary Authority to the concerned workman Si I S. R. Mwnckam. The modified punishment has been slated as reduction by two stnges in the scale of pay I.e. reduction of basic pay from Rs. 5500 to Rs. 487i.

employee for the charegs is Ex. \V6. Ex. WS is the xerox copy ot the enquiry proceedings. Ex. W3 series are the xerox, copies of Management exhibits relied by the Management during domestic enquiry. Ex. W4 series arc the xerox copies of derence exhibits filed in Ihe domestic enquiry. All these tnings were admitted by ihe Petitioner Union. Jt is alleged in para 4 of the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner Union hat the bank conducied farce cf ar enqnjry. But it is not alleged in the Claim Statement that the concerned employee was trot given sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence ctlectively and the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural justice. Jn para 6 ol the Claim Statement, it is alleged that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Au- thority had taken note of the fact that the alleged charges were ot established through evidence in the domestic en- quiry. Ex, W7 is the xerox copy of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer dated 6-l-199b. The perusal of the enquiry proceedings Ex. W5 and findings of the Enquiry Offlcci- Ex. W7 belies the contention ot the Petitioner in the Claim Statement that the bank had conducted farce of an enquiry and the alleged charges were not established to evidence in the domestic enquiry. Ex. W3 scries are the exerox copies of the exhibits filed by the Management during the domestic enquiry to substantiate the charges levelled against ihe concerned workman under ihe Charge Sheet Ex. W2. It is seen from Ex, W5 enquiry proceedings that the charge sheet- ed employee Sri b. K. Msmickam was represented by the President Of Dena Bank Employees Union as his defence representative. The charge sheeted emptoyee and his defence representative have taken part in the entire proceedings of the domestic enquiry and have subscribed their signatures in all the pages of the enquiry proceedings Ex. W5, From this, it is evident that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the domestic enquiry in a fail and proper manner following the principles of natural |Uslice. The witnesses examined on the side of the Management were cross-examined by the defence representative in detail. A persual of the findings of the Enquiry Officer under Ex, W7 clearly show that he has given his findings about th

8, It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the charges levelled against, the concerned workman arc with regard to a totally private transaction of the concerned workman and the concerned employee did not file any appeal as the punishment did not give any effect since he reached the maximum in ihe time scale by Ihcn. But on 20-2-97 the Discipinary Authority suo moto reopened the enquiry in conduct tunher proceedings as he realised that the punishment given earlier could not be fiiven effect to. The further enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority and hence the employee protested against the further enquiry. The reason given in the memo under Ex. Wll issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the concerned employee is that the snid punishment for stoppage of three annual in- crements with cumulative eirert imposed on 27-3-1996 can- not be imposed as the concerned employee bas already reached the maximum in the time scale and the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment by an order dated 30-4-97 under Ex, W13 by imposing the punishment of reduction by two stages in ili; time scale with cumulative effect. He would further contend that even assuming that the employee had borrowed in excels, it can be treated as a minor misconduct nnd the maximum punishment under the Shastri Award for the same fa only stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect for the period of six months. So, the action taken by the Management through Disciplinary Authority by modifying the punish- ment already imposed is without any authority, since he has no locus slandi to re-open the case. Therefore, the action of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the scale of pay upon the concerned employee Sri S,R. Mankkam is unjustified and has got to be set aside and consequently, the Respondent! Bank has to be directed to r;!ease the amounts deducted pursuant to (hat order of punishment, with all consequential ^..^ benefits.

6. On the basis of the findings given by the Enquiiy Oflicer in Ex. W7, the bank [Management has sent a letter dated 24-1-1996 to (he concerned employee Sri S. R. Manickam enclosing a cbpy °f the report of the Enquiry Officer informing him that if he desires to make any representation to the Disciplinary Authority he can do so withir fifteen days from the receipt of that letter The xerox copy of that letter is Ex, W8. For that the concerned employee has sub- milted his ieply dated 14-2-1996. Then the Disciplinaiy Au- thrity had issued a memo dated 17-2-96 to the concerned employee mentioning the proposed punishment as stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and also informing the concerned employee to make his submissions, if any, regarding the proposed punishment during the per- sonal hearing fixed on 29-2-1996. The xerox copy of that memo is Ex. W9. Ex. W10 is the xerox copy of the proceed- ings of the personal hearing held by the Disciplinary Au- thority on 29-2-1996. From that it is seen that the con- cerned employee along with defence representative attended the personal hearing. It is also admitted thnt as per the memo dated 17-2-1996, the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was proposed nnd by a subsequent memo dated 29-2-1996 the same was con- firmed after personal hearing held on 29-2-1996.

9. The learned counsel for the Respondc-irt|B;'.nk would argue that though it amounts hi outside borrowing the con- cerned employee happened to be the Rcspondent|Bank emp- loyee, it affected the image of the bank very much. Such net el misconduct of issuing cheques to a person to whom the concerned employee was due a huijc amount, without sufficient funds in his account is nothing but affecting :he image of the bank by the concerned employee. The En- quiry Officer in his findings ha;; clearly stated two charges out of the three charges levelled ugainsl the concerned work- man have been proved. So, on the basis of the finding cf the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 27-3-1996 for imposing punishment of stoppage of thie? annual increments with cumulative effect. It is admitted that at thai time he snid workman Sri S.R. Manic- kam had already reached the maximum in the time scale and he has no increment to earn except the stagnation increment. So the said punishment became infructiious and could not be imposed. So the Disciplinarv Authority having found that the punishment ordered could not be imposed had proposed In modify the. punishment by imposing reduction by Iwo stages in time scale wHh cumulative effect for which a memo was issued by him under Ex. W l l, si vine an oppor- tunity to the concerned employee for a personal hearing. That was why the Disciplinary Authority had re-opened the case only to modify the punishment imposed enrlier and later in the appeal, a lenient view fins been taken by the 7. The Disciplinary Anlborily after coming to know that the said punishment is infructuou* and cannot b" imposed5606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVlNA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Disciplinajy Authority and lie has given a punishment of lcuuLMun ny iwo stages 'n tne scale ot pay i.e. reduction ol basic pay ironi ka. 5500 lo Ks. 4N/5. lucre is no bar tor the Management or lor the Discipliu.uy Authouly lo ic- open ui^ei deeding the delict in the cariier outer passed tor punjshment tor tnc pioved nusconducL in the propeily con- ducted domestic euquny. So, it c.uniot be said that the uetion ol the Management m. imposing tlie punishment lor reduction ol pay by one sidgo in the scale of pay upon the conceined employee is unjustified.

10. A peiusai of the entire materials by way of lecords available in this cuio, it is seen that the concerned employee lius committed the misconduct as alleged in the charges levelled against him, as it 13 found by the Enquuy Officer in the domestic enquny. So, it amounts to pioved mis- conduct by the concerned employe^. On the basis of the findings ot the Enquiiy Officer, the Disciplinaiy Autlionty has imposed a punishment for the proved misconduct and having found that the punishment has become mliuctuous on the date it was imposed, he haj ic-opened the enquiry ioi modifying the punishment and after giving due and pioper oppoitunity to the concerned charge sheeted employee and after hearing his representation in the personal healing, he had modilied the punishment. There is no bar for the Disciplinary Authority lo re-opon the enquiry in lespccl of imposing punishment after detecting the defect i" the earlier order. This is not the case wheiein the Disciphnaiv Autf(Jiity hns imposed two punishments toi a single pioved miscunducl. It is admitted that the modified punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for the proved misconduct of Ihe charge shceled employeo has been reduced by the Appellate Authority in the appeal piefencd by the concerned employee Sri S.R. Manickam. So, from all these materials available 111 this case it cannot be said that the Management of Dena Bank is unjustified in imposing the punishment of reduction °f pay by one stage in the scale of pay upon Sri S. R. Manickam, Data Entry Opeiator. So, the concerned woik- man is not entitled lo any relief. Thus, the point is answcied accordingly.

11. in Ihe lesult, an awn id is passed holding that the Management of Dena Bank is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction ol pay one stage in the scale of pay upon Sri S. R. Manickam, Data Etry Operator. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to Ihe Stenogiapher, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open couit on this day the 14th August, 2001.)

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer "Witnesses Examined :

On cither side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For 1 Party]Claimant :

Ex. Date and Description. No.

Wl 21-4-94 Xeiox copy of show cause notice.

W2 25-8-94 Xerox copy of the Chrge Sheet.

W3 Series (5)—Xeiox copy of the Management ex- hibits.

W4 Seiies (2)—Xerox copy of the Defence Exhibits.

W5 25-3-1995 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings into charge sheet.

W6 9-1-95 Xerox copy n[ the Enquiry Officers icporl.

W7 6-l-y6 Xerox copy oi the findings of Enquiry Officer into the charge sheet.

W8 24-1-96 Xero\ copy of the letter fiom the Manage- ment to the Petitioner.

W9 17-2-96 Xerox copy of the Memorandum issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner, W10 29-2-96 Xerox copy of the minutes of pers-onnl healing held at the Regional Office.

Wll 20-2-97 Xerox copy of the memorandum issued by the Disciplinaiy Authority to Sri S. R. Manic- kam.

W12 Nil Xerox copy of the minutes of personal hearing held at the Regional Office.

W13 30 4-')7 Xerox copy of the letter from the Disci- plinary Authority to the Petitioner.

For the II Party[Management : Nil,

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

SO. 2b64.—-In puisuance oi Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Luitral Guvernment hereby publishes the award of (he Central Government Industral Tribunal-cum-LC, Chennai as siinwi in the anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between Ihe employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and¹ theii worokman, which was received by Ihe Central Govern- ment on 11-9-2001.

[No. L-12O12/55/96-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNtXURE

BEORE THE CENTRAL OOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the 14th August, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 430'2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 34/97) [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause fd) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Claimant Union and the Management ol Indian Over- seas Bank, Chennai.J

BETWEEN

The General Secietary, Employees : I party/Claimant Indian Overseas Bank/Trade Union, Chennai.

AND

The General Manager, 11 Party/Management. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai.

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant : Mi. K.. V. Ananthakrushnan, Advocate. For the Management : Sri S. Kanniah, Advocate. The G'ivt. of India, Minisliy 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, 5SM 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012|J5|96|IR (D-1I) dated 08/09-05-J 997.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 34|97. When the matter was pending enquiiy in itut Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour v.^s pleased to order transfer of this cu>c from that Tribun.il u> this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt o£ records fi'jm that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file ns l.U. No. 43012001 and notices were sent to the counsel on lecord on cither side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tri- bunal on 26-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side present with their res- pective parties and prosecuted this case further.

This matter came up before me for final hem ing on 12-06-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the docu- mentary evidence let in on the aide of the I Party]Claimant Union and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on either side and this matter havinji stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal hag passed the following: —

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tri- bunal is us follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in imposing the punishment by reducing the basic pay to tj.ie next lower stage for a period of two years on Shri )\ Raju, Recoid Keeper and withholding of two future increments without cumulative effect on Shri F. R. James Nelson, Clork/Shroff of Central Office of Indian Overseas Bank is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief they are entitled."

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party/

Claimant Union arc briefly as follows : •

honty is "S^inst the principle of %w. Therefore,

preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, the Deputy General Manager. 'Ihe Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment without considering the representation raised in that appeal. Against the order of punishment, the present industrial dispute has been raised. The staif co-operative office, the union offlce of the recognized union and a re- creation ioom ;ire all in the same premises having one main entrance. After the office hours, the delinquent employees had gone to the Co-operative Society in connection with the dclegalcship representation. They did not enter the union premises of the recognized union :irnl did not pick up any quarrel. The concerned employees as stall and mem- bers of co-operative society have the right to enter the office premises in the course of their employment and therefore, it will not amount to tresspass. The altercations alleged to have been happened between the delinquent employees anil Sri Shunmuganathan has not been proved. The charge of alleged tresspass has not been proved. Therefore, the findings of the linquiry Officer on these grounds are mala fide and not based on evidence or material. The charge that the employee Mr. James Nelson was under the influ- ence of alcohol is false. That charge has been made out only to support to the other charges of assault and riotous behaviour between two rival group of union leaders when serious dispute and discussions were going on regarding dclegateship of co-operative society. The delinquent em- ployees only questioning the control of the society by the majority union in a democratic way they were entitled to against theh majority union for neglecting the minority union members from delegateship. This incident happened after office business hours without affecting the business transac- tions, cannot come under misconduct under Service rules. Hence, the charge memo is ab initio void. The Management put a complaint given by ShanmugamUhan and issued the charge sheet against these employees and failed to lake ac- tion against Shanmuganathan. The allegation of using un- parliamentary words has not been proved in the enquiiy by evidence. The charge that Mr. Raju physically tried to assault Mr. Shanmuganathan is false. The Security Officer categorically deposed in the enquiry that he did not witness any physical assault by the delinquent employee except that they were shouting nt each other. The Enquiry officer gave a wrong finding that the charge of assault has been proved, After one and half months after suspension the charge sheet was given The Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer rolled into one acted with prejudicial and biased manner. Issuing of (he charge sheet by the t r ' fl U?/n the findings are perverse and liable f0 be set aside. The Enquiry Officer has acted in the biased manner. The Disci- plinary Authority imposed double punishment of beinjj dc- Z H J³ fV , °r ;n"c m e nt '"eluding notional increment nnt £ Pc f of suspension Double punishment can- not be imposed for the same chaiges. On the doctrine of A u C; t h e, Pu n!s^ "t ™posrd by the D?Scip]ina?y Authority is illegal and has to be set aside. The Respon- dent has failed to consider the unblemished pa "service of Sri P. Raju, the workman joined the II PartylManago- ment, Indian Overseas Bank (herein after referred to as Respondent) on 7-5-1970 as messenger. He is presently employed as a Record Keeper at Tiruvanmiyiir Branch, Madras The workman Sri James Nelson joined the Respondent/ Bank on 25-5-82. While both these workmen were at * i^n,,.. O m c c r- thcY w e re suspended from service on 6:1-1994 on the alleged misconduct of unruly riotous violent behaviour alleged to have happened on 3-l-iy94 within the Central Office premises. The charge sheet was issued on 17-2-1994. It is alleged in that charge sheet that il 1 r , r n / "- these two emPloyees tresspassed

I K ,C, i al O f f l ce Pr e m i s" and went to the Union

tinn T °yCCSl XMC ow?rdi"" Pu™hment. The aUerca tions between the two rival union activities after office fce'S "lve.";e Management locus standi to °*ue charge sheet against the concerned employees for the s S ^ t ^V ¹T- Tht: Chalges IevdIed <^ "ofhave legal Hen (h TWh!!,T l aW lr U n d cr l hc B l>a r t i te Settlement.

K?n.d,HpPan- . w l l° T

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II

Party|Management are briefly os follows:_!

?i "* "B, b e I o ns i ne to majority union inside the Cen- tral Office and that Mr. James Nelson under influence of alcohol assaulted the inmates of the Union office bearers using unparliamentary words and tried to assault Sri S ^hanmuganath™, an offlce bearer of the recognized union' The charge sheet was issued by the Disciplinary Authority als" ac"=d as Enquiry Officer aixl mnrin t thaiMIf L CTl r y- ,, "e B"ve his findings dated 18-6-94 were L %' VC' Cd £ "m n st l he delinquent employees were proved. He gave a show cause notice dated 8-6-94 to

ZnLlnV''mCi ^ t h r e^n ed t⁰ assauh lh< 'n^esof the union office bearers. They also attempted to destroy l u a b l e\ w h i eh was locate in the hank prem Ses w-th v a

t

to James Nelson proposing the punishment of withholding two future increments without cumulative effect and en titled them for the usual salary and allowances during fhc Fn ^ r T ^T T h£ T PonylClnimaiit b n i o r ( h e r e- in after referred to as Petitioner) opposed the nronosXl pumshrnent on the delinquent employeesV the r er^ da ed 24-6-94. Without considering and discussing any of the

WwTin,™ ?l™Vlmary ^uthorit? by a" oX dated

i /-I994 imposed the proposed punKhment of reducino ihp increment and wi

I he Enquiry Ofhcer iilt.niMely found them guilty of the teM' , "e n e evby a" order dated 1-7-94 they were im posed with punishment. Aeainst that they preferred an5608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVTNA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] upi>eal aDd the Appellate Authority, after careful considera- tion, has rejected tlieir appeals and confirmed the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. Having aggrieved by the said action of the hank, the Claimant Union has raised ihi" industrial dispute. The records of seivicc of the delinquent employees in, the Kespondent|Bank are not upto the mark. The delinquent employees were given sufficient opportunity to defend themselves before the Enquiry Olticei and "t Well as before the Appellate Authority. The delinquent employee aid not make any objection about tne conduit 01 the enquiry at the appropriate stage. As the proved charges were of serious in nature, the delinquent employees are not entitled to any salary or increment including notional increment dining the period of suspension other than the subsistence allowance already paid to them. The evidence let in by the bunk during enquiry proceedings have suffi- ciently proved against the delinquent employees. The delinquent employees have used unparliamentary words and 1he same was proved during tho course oli the enquiry and the enquiry was fair and proper. The delinquent emplo- yees were given sufficient opportunity to disprove the charges levelled agiiinst them. The punishment imposed on the delinquent employees for Ihe proved misconduct is valid and in accordance will) the clauses contained in the Bipar- tite Settlement. The same will not amount to double jeopardy. Undor "such circumstances, there is no merit in the case hence the claim of the Petitioner Union may be dismissed.

4. When the matter was pending enquirv before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal by the consent of the counsel on either side, Kx. Wl to W27 were marked. When the matter came up for enquiry before this Tribunal, no further evidence as oral and documentary was let in on either Me. The learned counsel on either side advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point for my considtuatian is :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in imposing the punishment by re- ducing the basic pay to the next lower stage for a period of two years on Sim P. Raiu, Record Keeper and withholding of two future increments without cumulative effect on Shri F.R. James Nelson, Clcrk|ShTolT of Central Office of Indian Overseas Bank is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?"

Point :—

lu be therci at that time when they have no business to enter tlic union ollice at that time. The enquiry conducted by the Management was fair and piopcr and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authori'y for the proved misconduct of these charge tJKvted employeo is quite proportionate to the giuvity of the misconduct. 5i>, it cannot be said that the action of 'he Manufiwiii:nt taken against these two employees hy imposing tlie punishment as mentioned in this case is illegal and unjustified.

7. The perusal of the entire records go to show that there arc sufficient evidence available in this case, as the evidence let in by the Management bviore the Enquiry Officer, fur the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the clwiae sheeted employee Sri P. Raiu and F. R. James Nelson have been proved. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Management has not proved the charges with adequate legal evidence is incorrect and the findings of the Enquiry Officer is only perverse. On the other hand, it is seen from the Enquiry Officer's report that he has analysed the evidence let in on either side both oral and documentary nnd has come to the conclusion that there wos sufficient reliable evidence to hold that the charges have been proved. So it cannot be said that 'he Enquiry Officer's finding is a perverse one i.e. without any evidence. Merely because itu- Enquiry Officer happens to be the Disciplinary Authority, who is (he punish- ing authority cannot be said that he had acted in a partial manner. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no direct evidence for the alleged charge of drunkenness. But there are sufficient oral evidence through the Management witnesses that both the chartre sheeted employees were under the influence of alcohol and they were in drunken stage and had created disturbance. So, from all these things it is seen thnt the argument ad- vanced by the learned counsel $or the Petitioner cannot he accepted as correct, while the arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondent have got nome basis as material evidence in this case. Further, it is seen from the records that the proved misconduct of these two concerned employees are serious jn nature to award punishment as mentioned in the order dated 1-7-1994 by the Disciplinary Authority "nd the punishments have been im- posed by the Disciplinary Authority only as per the provi- sions in the Bipartite Scttjemcnt dated 14-12-1966. So it cannot be said that the nunishrnent imposed by the Discipli- nary Auhority against the concerned employees were exces- sive and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of those employees. So, under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in imposing punishment by reducing the basic pay to the next lower stage for n period of two years on Sri P, Raju, Record Keeper a-id. withholdina of two future mc'-emenk without cumulative effect on Sri F. R. James Nelson. Clerk/Shroff of Central Office of Indian Overseas Bank is legal and justified and the concerned employees are not entitled to any relief, Thus, the point is answered ac- cordingly.

R. In the result, an awnrd is nnsscd holding that the aclion of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in imposing the minishnvnt hy reducin.q the basic pay to the next lower stace for a nenod of two years on Sli P. Raiu, Record Keeper nnd withhoidine of two future increment? without cumulative rfr^t on Sri F. R James Nelson. Clerk/Shroff of Central Office of Indian Overseas Bank is letral and Justified. Ht*nce the concerned workmen are not emitted to any relief, No cost.

(Dictated t0 (he Stenographer, transcribed nnd typed by firm, corrected and oronounced hv me in the open court on this day ihc 14th August, 2001.)'

K, KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ;

For T Party|Workman :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl Nil Xerox copy of Ihe investfgittioti report.

W2 3-1-94 Xerox copy of the Notes.

\V3 4-1-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Sri R, Sflmpuibkumar to Sri R. M. Muthalgappan.

\V4 4-1-94 Xe-iox copy of letier from S, Shaninuganalhan to the Assistant General Manager.

W5 6-1-94 Xerox copy of the suspension order of James Nelson.

\V6 17-2-91 Xerox cor>y of-the charge sheet of James Nelson,

W7 6-1-94 Xerox copy of th~ suspension order of Sri Raju.

W8 12-1-94 Xerox copy of the reply given by Raju.

W9 17-2-94 Xerox copy )f the chri^c sheet of Sri Raju.

W10 3-1-94 Xerox copy of the complaint niven by S. Shanmuganathan,

Wit 10-1-94 Xerox c.iny of the anticipatory tail.

W12 4-3-94 Xerox copy of reply for the charge sheet given by Sri James Nelson to the Management.

W13 4-3-94 Xerox copy of reply for the charge sheet given by Sri Raju to the Management.

W14 21-3-94 Xerox copy of th_- enquiry proceedings.

W15 15-4-94 Xerox uopv uf the enquiry proceedings.

W16 Nil Xerox copy of the submission

W17 Nil Xerox copy of the submission of Defence ar- guments by the Defence Representative.

W18 8-6-94 Xerox copy of the show cause notice to Sri James Nelson,

W19 8-6-94 Xerox copy of the show cause notice to Sri Raju.

W20 Nil Xerox copy of the enquiry findings.

W21 24-6-94 Xerox copy of the letter from the Union to Disciplinary Authority.

W22 1-7-94 Xerox copy of the suspension order of Sn James Nelson.

W23 1-7-94 Xerox copy of the suspension order of Sri Raju.

W24 11-7-94 Xerox copy of the transfer order to Sri Raju.

W25 5-8-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Sri James Nelson to the Appellate Authority.

W26 12-9-94 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority in the case of Sri J.imes Nelson.

W27 12-9-94 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Au- thority in the case of Sri Raju.

For the II Party/Management: Nil,5610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, ihe lT.ili September, 2001

S.O. 2665, Jn pursuance of Scelion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awaid of. the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in the anni-xurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in ielation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on H-C9-2001.

[No. L-12012/199/98-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNIiXURE

BKFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference No. 181 of 1999

Reference No. 6(c) of 2001

Management of UCO Bank, Patna and their workman Sri Shyam Kishorc Pandey represented by UCO Bank Employees Association, Pntna.

For the Management : Shri P. K. Chatterjeo. For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees As>ociation, Palna,

PRESENT :

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

Patna.

AWARD

The 5th September, 2001

The Government of India in the Ministry of. Labour by order No. 12012/199/98-IRiB-IH dated 14-5-1999 have refer- red the following industrial dispute between the Management of UCO Bank and their workman Sri Shyam Kishore Pandey as represented by UCO Bank Employees Association to the Industrial Trihiinal-cum-Lubour Court, Dhanbad (Bihar) for adjudication :—

"Whether Sh. Shyarn Kishore Pandey has worked from 27-3-1992 to 5-4-1997? If yes and whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank, Patna in terminating his service w.e.f. 5-4-1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. The Cen'ral Government by subsequent order No. 12012/ 199/y8-lR(R-TI) dated 2T-11-2000 withdrew the proceeding* in relation to the said industrial disnute from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. H Dhanbad and trans- ferred it to Ihis Tribunal for adjudication.

3. Both parties have Illed their written statements in support of the.'r respective casts, The case of the workman Sri Shyam Kishore Pandey as it appears from the written statement filed on his behalf in brief :s that he was orally appointed by the Management of UCO Bank to discharge the duties Af Peon at Sangrampur Branch w.e.f. 27-3-1992. The workman discharged his work upto 5-4-1997 continuously, Tn the even- ing of 5-4-1997 at 5 P.M. he was informed that his services were no longer required. The workman used to discharge his duties from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on every working day. He discharged the duties of a regular Peon, He worked from 27-3-1 'J92 to 5-4-1997 continuously. Initially he used to receive wages at the rate oC Rs. 12 pur day which was subsequently raised lo Rs, 35 per day. Prior to termination of his service the workman was neither given a notice nor pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman was not paid wages for Sunday?. Holidays. No Bonus was Hlso paid to him under the Payment of Bonus Act After termination the workman approached the Management for his reinstatement but to no avail. The workman finding no other alternative approached the union to raise an industrial d;spute and accordingly the union raised an industrial djsputc before the A-L.C.(c). Patna who held several conciliation proceedings on different dates. The conciliation efforts ended in failure due to stub-born attitude of the Management and the Con- ctiation Officer submitted Ivs failure report before the Ministry of Labour. Government of India, Ultimately the Government of India has made the present Reference for adjudication. According to the workman the action of the Management in terminating his services without compliance of the mandatory piuvisions of Section 25F of the I.D, Act it, illegal and unjustified. The Management also ignored the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' as per the provisions of Directive Principles of Slate Policy as contained in the Indian Constitution. The workman has therefore, prayed for his, reinstatment in service w.e.f. 5-4-1997, for rcgularlsation of his service ;is a Peon in t'x Bank's subordinate cadre and for payment of due wages fee the period of his working.

4 The case of the Management as has been made out in its written statement in briel is that the workman had been en"aged by the Manager of Sangrampur Branch, UCO Bank on casual basis for performing certain contingent nature of work. According to the Management the Branch Manager had no authority to make such engagement and hence, the engagement is void ah-initio. Ever since Nationalisation of the UCO Bank it has become 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitulion of Iiiditt and is obliged to function withm the pammcters of Arts. .14 and 16 of the Constitution of Tndia hi the matter of appointment. The prescribed pro- cedure oL reciLiitmcnt was not followed. There was neither advertisement of the vacancy nor any requisition was sent to the local Employment t'.xchange before engagement. There was also no vacancy of Peon in the Branch. Since Sri Shyam Kishore Pandey had been engaged unconstitutionally and un- authorised, he can not maintain a legal right for continuation of such workinc in the suise of provisions of the I.D. Act. Further it has been poinied out that the Bank has been incurring heavy losses since last several years. The expenditure incurred over payment to unwanted and illegitimately engaged individuals comes to Rs. one crore approximately per year in B:hnr alone. On 29-3-1997 the Zonal Manager of Bank issued a circular directing that there should not be any further enpapement of casual workers excepting those who stood empanelled as casual workers. It was made clear in the circul.ir that Hie Branch Mtmaper/the Head Office whn engages nnv C;>SUH1 worker disregarding this directive would ncrsonslly be lesponsibie for such encasement. The said dirrrt'on wi's reiterated by tTip Gen"ral Manager of the Rant in b't Hrculnr d itf'd "'8-^-1997 The zerox copies of letter of the Dv CiPiieroi Manager of the Bank dated 31-3-1997. Zerov copy of the leiler of the Zonal Manager dated 29-3-1997 nnri thn 7rrnx conv of t'hi? letter of the General MnnnRer frMed 2R-4-1997 have been nnneved to the written statement Hi* Hip !Unri.'H'pmv_-nt took no step for marking them as Exhibits in the pr^"cnt case.

5. It is dep;ed by the Mnnaeemcnt that Sri Shvam Ki'hore "iTirl>-v had Ivep cneaeed to perform the duties of Peon Whatever wis nuid to the workman was in consideration of rloin" cfisi'nl nnci con'incnt nature of iob. It is denied that "'-i Psndev wm niaintnin'itr ;? t'me fchedulc in attendant" TJ,- wn pot F'animr on th<- Mister-roil. Tt is said th"t Sr; Pnndev WK tiever trrm;naf"c1 since there was no formal nnnnin'"!^' Af'-r>ri1in1'"inf>nf rr for naviynt of hack wnces or for rc-ruiinrisation of his sen ice as a Peon.

6. A rejoinder to the written statement of the Management has also been filed on behalf of the workman. The case of the workman has been reiterated. According to the workman the basic questions for adjudication is whether Sri Pandev is a workman or not within the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, whether the Management Bank is an 'industry' as per Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and whether the termination of Sri Pandey is covered u/s 2foo1 of the I.D. Act. Once the Reference is mad? for adjudication, the dispute is to be decided within (he conceptual frame work of the I.D. Act. The term authoriscd]unauthorised[regular|irregular are alien to Industrial Disputes Act, The Bank being incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under- takings) Act. 1970 is a Slate within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India ard so it is expected to behave like a model and enlightened Employer, The question whether the Bank is incurring loss is irrelevant. It has nothing to do in the present case. It was the duty of the Management beinjt a State to enter the name of Ihe workman in the Muster Roll and to pay him wages equal to that of his counter part performing similar nature of duties It was not the duty of the workman to snatch the attendance register, to enter tys name and to sign in it,5611 7. The following issues arise for determination :—

(i) Whether Sri Shvum Kishoie Pandey has worked from

27-3-1992 to 5-4-1997 ?

(ii) If yes, whether the action of the Management of the UCO Bank, IJatna in terminating his service w.e.f. 5-4-1997 is justified and if not, to what relief lie is entitled to '.' -

FINDINGS

8. As all the issues arc interconnected the same arc taken

up together for deicim nation for sake of convenience.

9. The Management has examined only one witness namely Sri Bhup'-ndia Kumar (M.W. 1). He is Hie Assistant Chief Officer ot the Regional Office, UCO Bank, Patna. In hi* examination in chief the witness has said that there was no vacancy when Sri Pimdcy wa- engaged in the Branch. According to him Si'i Pandcy was bringing and supplying water to the 'staff and also used to purchase and brintj to the Branch items iequired by the Branch Manager and staff. In cross-examination he lias admitted that Sri Pandey worked in tht Branch from 1942 till the year 1997. Further he has admitted that he never woikcd in Sangrampur Branch and hence he has no personal knowledge as to what nature of work Sri PanJey was discharging in the Branch. But he has addc-d that it is within his knowled.qe that Sri Pandey had been engaged on daily wage basis.

12, The Management has filed zerox copy of the letter of the K.B.I, dated 16-12-1997 (M.xt, M) wher"!in it is stated Hut the earlier ban would continue for fresh recruitment of skiff including replacement of retirements,-resignations except- ing recruitment of specialised Probationary Officers with the pnoi approval of R.B.I.7G.O.I. Ext. M/l is the zero* copy of the circular of the Hank dated 29-12-1983 relating to the procedure to be followed for recruitment to the posts in subordinate cadre. It has been filed by the Management to show that (he- procedure for recruitment was not- followed while engaging the concerned workman, 'ijjxt. M/2 is the 7ero.x copy of the older of the Calcutta High Court dated 4-K-1999 passed in W.P. No. 1390/1990, It was a writ petition for absorption by some of the empanelled daily wage workers. in the vacancies of the subordinate staff in pursuant to the agreement dated 12-10-1989 made between the Manageme/it of the UCO- Bank and the Unions. The order shows that undtr the said settlement between the Management and unions the casual- workers working conti- nuously 240 days or more in the subordinate cadre during; the -p 'riod of three years immediately preceding the* settle- ment were to be absorbed in (he permanent vacancies. The casual workers entitled for bcinji absorbed in terms of the said settlement were empanelled for such absorption- in the vacancies as find when arose. The order further shows that altogether 4f>0 casunl workers were empanelled for absorp- tion, out of whom only 69 casual workejs could be absorbed. Som"' of the remain in IT empanelled workers filed the writ petition before the Calcutta Hieh Court stating therein that - throuc'i there were vacancies they were not being absorbed, • Thr Hon'ble Calcutta High Court ordered that the Bank authorities should consider the case of (he petitioners and shall ahsorh the rrst of the- cnsuni workers as and when restriction for appoirtmen' bv the R.BJ, was lifted.

13. Thus, after having n careful consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced in this case 1 find that Sri Shyam Kishore Pandry w"rked from 27-3-1992 to 5-4-1997 as ;i casual worker. H? pcrfo'iupi! the normal duties of a rcr-ninr Peon 1 also find t1u:t his services wer-¹ terminated wef. Hv cvenin? of 5-11997 i.e. from 6-4-1997. Tt is not diluted thni the mandatory piovisions of Section 25F were not eompl'ed with while terminating the services of the workman

10. The workman Sri Sin am Kishore Pandey has been examined as W.W.I, He has supported his case and has stated that from 27-3-1'WJ U> 5-4-1997 he worked conti- nuously. His services were teiminated w.e.f. evening of 5-4-1997. He has stated that he wan performing the duties of H regular Peon as per the direction of the Branch Manager 'such ns 'unlocking of Almiiah, bringing out registers, ledpers, tokens, from I In." Aimirah and placing them on the Tables, visitinn Post Office for hrinins and posting mails, distribution of rhks 'thro'H'h Peon Book, sunplvinjr'water and tea to the stuff as and when ^Mjnired. siik-hing currency notes and vouchers r\< H" worked from 10 AM. to 6 P.M. on ever- wnrkin" d:iv. Sometimes he worked t*ven tipto 8 P.M. Altogether hr- worked iihout 5 years in the Branch. He worked more than 240 davs_ in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. He has ndmittfd th;it he cannot snv whether there- wa'- pnv vncancy of Pt~on in' the Branch. In cross- e\am;nat;nn he has submitted th.nl his brother Sri F'shnn Kumar Pnnd™ wn" i'1"o \vfirViiT> in the Branch ns a casi'a' worker when he ioincd the service,

14. li was submitted on behalf of the Management that n=; Sri Pnndey had never been appointed arid as his services vvm- not t n n r m t rd there was no requirement for compliance of provision* of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, But it is well settNl low that for the applicability of the provisions of Sec'ion 25F of the T.O. Act (here need not be any formal li-ttei- of appointment or formal order in writing of termina- tion Terrnin.-il'on effected not bv anv voluntary order will HKO com- wifhin thr meanincr of the retrenchment u/s 2fco) of the ID AH (1994 1'T. T.-R page 612). The picas of the Management that Ihc Branch Manager who had engaged Sri Pandcv hail no :;iilhnri*v -o make such engagement or that the prnctfduie prescribe! fur n-.-nuimcnt to sub-staff wns not MlfWL-d whil,' rnc;i'.nns Sri Pande-v nnd that since Sri Pandev hud bfen rnc,iui>d i)i-ca]1v nnd nnauthori"cdlv he cannot be ivinstated to such ill'-ml am^ointment cannot be of anv ava>| 1O the Maiiflppmcnt. It is now well settled law that the r-rov.vion* of See^on ?5F ;n-e annlicabie even to a daily rM-d wort man v hi hud coritinunusiv served for 240 riiiys in a vp.,r (1997) 11 S.C. CHWS p-"- 1%—Rnttfin Smn'h Vs TTr,ion OF Hn and .itiot'ier A dnilv rnted work mi n W'IO has <-nmniete.-l rervee for 240 davs within the meanin^ of SPC'IOP ...'-B, -innot he

Ser .?n -.,,v^ nf f-., rn A,., T, ,p jdM of .„

r' '-.., \,>m-"- s,nr-h V-- Rlut" of nihar).

11. It may be noted that a petition was filed on behalf of the workman on 21-7-1999 for a direction to the Manage- ment to produce the details of work (date-wise, month-wise, nnd year-wise) performed by the workman along with details of pnvment to him. Accordingly a direction was made bv this Tribunal to the Management to furnish such details of work. In compliance with the said direction the zcrox copv nt work-sheet of Shyam Kishore Pandey haa been filed by the Management, This document has been used by the work- man r>ncl has been marked as Vxt. W/3, This work-sheet shows that the workman was em.-aeed in the Branch in March. 199?. It further shows thift in each month from April, 1992 till March. 1997 Sri Pander worked between 21—25 davs. He hr>J worked only three days in April, 1997 when his service was terminated. This work-sheet clearly Proves the claim of the workman thnt he .worked from 27-3-1992 to 5-4-1997 almost continuously. He worked more than 240 davs in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment, There is • nothing in this worksheet (p indicate that Sri Pnndev was doing only rontinpent natiue of work or that he was not performing tv- duties nf a p?on. Rather if shows that he worked is a driilv rnied workmnn. Fxt. W is the zcrov copv of the M ^r of the Branch Mnnager, Sancrampur Branch dnVJ fi-3-1995 annevinn the particulars 6f the workman, Tt ••bow-' 'hai in Pundcv was working in the Branch since 7-1-190?, pyt W / 1 js the ttntcment of the Branch Manner. SnnTimniir Brunch" dnh'd Q-3-199K submitted hv him before the Reform! -T -ibnnv Commiss'oner- in connection with the nr.-^n* industrial dispute. Tlv statement shows that Sri Pand<-v worked :n th* Planch from 27-3-1992 to 5-4-1997, he wns pa VI w ws of, Rs 1?. Rs. 20- nnd Rs. 30 The statement further .slimy th.it Sri P'lndftv had been endapfd dun to ^lio-trurp, of i-nTvstafF find he performed all tvnrs of work or

p m -n T• „ ( •; \ \ ' /? r, t he p h o to e o nv of n a v m e nt v o u c h er d ' l t e¹

5-4-1997.

o T''20Q1--135612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—Sue. 3(ii)1 ANNEXURE

Management of (he UCO Bank in terminating the services of tlic workman was not justilicd,

Before Sri R. -P. Pandcy, Presiding Officer

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour 16. I further find that tt.c workman Sri Shyam Kishore Pundcy is entitled to be ivjnstalvd in service w.e.f. 6-4-I9y7 with puyment of full hack wayes.

Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur Industrial Dispute No. 12 of 1994 In the matter of dispute] beween Sri S. K. Bhargava House No. 30 Krishnapuri Mathura U. P.

And

Dy. Genera] Manager, Syndicarte Bank, Zonal Office Skylark Building, Naval Kishore Road, Lucknow.

17. The Representative of the workman relying tne decision of thu Honhle Supreme Cuurt in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others reported in 19y2 S.C. cases ( L i t S) page S25 submitted that since Sri Pandcy has worked "i a casual worker for ii long period he has a right to be considered for reguiai isation. I also agree with the view of the Representative of the workman, but it is not possible for regularisation of the concerned workman right way since the order of the Calcutta High Court (Ext. M/2) shows that some of already empanelled casual workers had not yet been absorbed in subordinate c:idrc in the light of 1989 settlement in view of the restriction pieced by the R.B.I, with regard to the fresh recruitment. So the- Management is directed to absorb Sri Shyam Kishore Poiidey in the permanent post of iub-staff with other empanelled casual workers when the restriction of fresh recruitment is lifted by the R.B.I, and when vacancy will be available for such absorption.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-12012/215/ 93-IR. (B-2) dated 17-2-94, has referred the folio win g dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

IS. It is further ordered that until the services of the workman is regularised, he be paid the wages equivalent to minimum salary plus allowances payable to a regular peon in Bank'! subordinate cadie from the date when he will actually be taken back in service. He will be entitled for Payment of hack wages nnlv at the old rate. According the Refercnc- is answered. Let the Management implement the iiward within the period of 30 days from the date of publication of the Award,

19. This is mv award.

Dictated & corrected by me,

S. K. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

5-9-2001

Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing the services of Sri S. K. Bhargava, clerk, Mathura Main Branch with effect from 14-5-92 is justified ? If not to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

S. O. 2665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-09-2001.

[No. L-12012/215/93-TR (B-II)]

2. The concerned workman filed statement of claim with the allegations that the management of Syndicate Bank that is Disciplinary Authority on the basis of charge sheet dated 30-3-90, illegally dismissed the services of the applicant besides imposing punishment of stoppage of 4 increments with cumulative effect vide letter dated 14-8-92 on the finding of Inquiry Officer dated 29-2-92. The above referred inquiry was conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice and no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the dcliquent workman to defend his case during the course of inquiry. The workman was deprived of services of defence representative due to non sanction of advance for T. A. and D. A. for his defence representative. The workman was denied service of legal prac'itioner as his defence representative, although he made a re- quest for the same becauso the charges were of serious nature and if proved would have ruined the life of the workman, Various vital documents required by the concerned workman were not provided to him during the course of enquiry. The workman requested the inquiry officer to summon six wit- nesses who were under the control of the management but the enquiry officer refused to summon them and asked the concerned workman to bring his defence witnesses at his own expense. The Inquiry Officer after holding enquiry submitted the report C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy,5613 which was a non speaking one. He believed the witnesses of tho management and disbelieved the submissions of the workman without giving good reasons for the same. The finding of the inquiry officer recorded in his inquiry report dated 29-2-92 were perverse- The disciplinary authority served a show cause notice on the concerned workman and also gave him a personal hearing. During the course of personal hearing the concerned workman wanted to avail the service of the legal practitioner but he was not allowed by the disciplinary authority. He also pleaded before the disciplinary authority on 7-7-92 that the struck off entry of Rs. 8000/- was simply a clerical error and there was no fictitious entry of Rs. 10,000/- as alleged by the management but the disciplinary authority did not pay any heed to his explanation. The disciplinary authority passed the impunged order of dismissal dated 14-8-92 and also imposed the punishment of with holding of 4 incre- ments with cumulative effect without giving good reasons for the same.

3. He alleged that in an earlier case of granting over draft to customers Sri Subhash Rawat was awar- ded punishment of one increment whereas the con- cerned workman has been punished .with penalty of dismissal. Thus the disciplinary authority has dis- criminated against the concerned workman in the matter of awarding punishment which is violated of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of these allegations the concerned workman has prayed that enquiry proceedings and the punishment order dated 14-8-92 be declared illegal and be quashed. It has also been prayed that the concerned workman may be reinstated in service alongwith full back wages,. He also piayed for awarding interest at the rate of 18% on the back wages.

justice. The inquiry officer repeatedly advised Sri Bhargava to name his defence representative but ho did not mention the nams of his defence tcprcsenlative to the enquiry officer; The sundiy advance was not sanctioned for his representative because he did not disclose tho name of his defonco representative. Tn the absence of the above in- foiamtion, the manager Mathura Main Branch expressed hisinability to sanction the advance. Furthci the defence representative has to avail sundry advance from the branch office Where he is working. After recoiding the evidence of the parties and considering documentary evidence of tho parties the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 29-2-92 holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 20-6-92 to the concerned workman proposing punishment after concurring with the findings of the inquiry officer. The disci- plinary authority also allowed personal hearing to Sri Bhargava. As the management representative was a ordinary officei of the bank and was not a legal practitioner, the concerned workman was also not allowed to engage legal practitioner to defend himself during the course of inquiry, hence neither the inquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority violated the principles of natural justice. Reason- able request of the concerned workman for supplying the documents was accepted and relevant documents were furnished to Sri Bhargava during the course of inquiry. The findings recorded by the inquiry officer were based on the evidence on record and were based on reasons. It was established during the course of inquiry that Sri Bhargava has caused fictitious entry of Rs. 10333 -, in saving bank aejjunt No, 15074 in order to provide undue advantage to a third party known to him whose account was opened under introduction of Sri Bhargava. He made forgery in the record oi¹ the bank with a view to cause loss to the bank and |o cause financial advantage to the person known and close to him. The disciplinary authority passed order of punishment against other employees of the bank considering the firtness and circumstances of those cases and the case of the concerned workman was quite different from others specially when Sri Bhargava was held guilty for committing serious misconduct causing financial loss to the bank and pecuniary advantage to a person known to him and closo to him. On the basis of these allegations the management has prayed that the inquiry should be held to have been conducted fairly and properly against Sri Bhargava and it may be declared that order of punishment dated 14-8-92 passed against him is legal and justified and is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by him.

4. The management of Syndicate Bank has contested the case and has filed written statement with the allegations that when Sri Bhargava was employed as clerk and was posted with temporary special assistant duties in Mathura Main Branch of the bank, he committed financial irregularities which amounted to grave misconduct and therefore a charge sheet dated 30-3-90 was issued against him. In pursuance of charge sheet dated 30-3-90 a depart- mental inquiry was instituted against him, The inquiry officer conducted the departmental inquiry fairly and properly and Sri Bhargava was given fair and proper opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the principles of the natural justice. The concerned workman was afforded full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the management and to produce his defence witness. The inquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural5614 THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART I I - S T = C. 3(ii)] 5. The concerned workman filed rejoinder ia which he has reiterated the allegations made in the statement of claim. He furhter alleged that it is true that disciplinary cases arc to be disposed of on merits but on the same and identical charges different punishment cannot be imposed on two employees and if it is done it is clear violation of article 14 of Constitution of India. He again prayed that impungned order of punishment of dismissal be quashed,

6 iThc management, filed a number of docu- ments relating to the domestic inquiry held against Sri Bhargava.

7. In this case following preliminary issue was framed by this tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper?

8. in this case the parties had made a state- ment before this tribunal that they will not adduce oral evidence on the preliminary issue and the papers filed in the ease may be exhibited and be read in evidence, hence the tribunal after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties recorded a finding on the preliminary issue on 1-8-97 holding that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the same is set aside. In- the same order dated 1-8-97 this tribunal fixed 2-9-97 for the evidence of the management to prove the charges a fresh on merits and notices were issued to the parties accordingly. There- after the management examined Sri V. Sadanand Sanbhog, Manager Z. O. of Syndicate Bank, Mangalore, MW-1, Sri Y. A. Madhyastha, Manager Inspection, as M W. 2 and Sri Alok Kumar Saxena, Lead Bank Office, Syndicate Bank Ghaziabad as • M. W. 3. Management also filed documents marked Ext. 1 to M 37. The workman examined himself as W. W. 1 and did not file any document in his defence.

9. 1 have heard the concerned workman Sri Bhargava and the authorised representative for the management of bank and have gone through the record of the case.

10. Sri Bhargava concerned workman has argued that when the domestic inquiry held against him by the management of the bank was not held to be fair and proper by this tribunal and the management had not made any request in its written statement to lead additional evidence if the domestic inquiry was found vitiated, and did not move any application for addu- cing additional evidence before this tribunal, it was not open for this tribunal to invite suo-motu the management of the bank to adduce additional evi- dence before it to justify action taken by it against him. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in Delhi Cloth Mills versus Ludhbudh Singh AIR 1972 SC 1031 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at page 1047 has observed as under :

"If the employer relics on the domestic en- quiry and does not simultaneously lead additional evidence or ask for an opportunity during the pendency of the proceedings to adduce such evi- dence, the duty of the tribunal is only to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the findings recorded therein and decide the matter. If the tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly it is not its function to invite suo-motu the employer to adduce evi- dence before it to justify the action taken by it".

11. Relying on the aforesaid, observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of. India, the, concerned workman moved an application dated 3.-7-2000 before this tribunal with contention that in this case when this tribunal suo-motu fixed a date for evidence of the management after the domestic inquiry was held to be unfair, it acted beyond its jurisdiction and the evidence adduced by the management thereafter could not be taken into consideration and the case should be decided as if there is no legal evidence on the record from the side of the management.

12. After going through the record of this case and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, and looking into the Tacts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the aforesaid contention, in the case of Delhi Cloth Mills mentioned above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was not considering a case in which the tribunal had invited the manage- ment to adduce additional evidence for justifying its action taken against its workman the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in that case that the management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the tribunal if the domestic inquiry has been found vitiated. Where there is a right there must be a corresponding duty on the tribunal/court also to permit the management to adduce such additional evidence when its domestic inquiry has been found vitiated.

13. Tn Neeta Kaplish versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court ATR 1999 (SC) 698 (1999 Lab. I.C. 445) the management even after providing an oppor- tunity to lead evidence on merits failed to do so. Such an opportunity was given to the management to lead evidence in support kof its order, after labour court found that the domestic inquiry was not fairly and properly held. But the management wanted to rely upon the domestic inquiry proceedings already held by the inquiry officer including the evidence recorded by him, by contending that it is entitled5015 torely upon the material on the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after referring to the earlier judgements observed as under :

In view of the above, the legal position as emerges out is that in all cases where inquiry ha, not been held or the inquiry has been found to be defective, the tribunal can call upon the manage- ment of the employer to justify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evi- dence, that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If the management does not lead any evidence by availing of the opportunity, it cannot raise any grouse at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity and the tribunal in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. Jf, however, the opportunity is availed of and the evidence is adduced by the management the vali- dity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinised and adjudicated upon the basis of such fresh evidence.

14. In Desh Raj Gupta versus Industrial Tribunal (IV) U.P. Lucknow, and another, 1990 Lab. l.C. 1892 (SC) the facts were that the Tribunal, after it had found the domestic ^iriquiry defective, asked the management to justify the order of punishment on merits, whereupon the parties led their evidence. The Tribunal gave the finding that the charges levelled against the workman were established by the materials on record and that the workman was not entitled to any relief. Exception was taken to the action of the Tribunal in asking the management to justify the order of punishment on merits. On the facts of the case in para eight at page 1894 it was observed. :

Analysing the situation it appears that by asking the respondent to justify the punishment by adducing additional evidence, the tribunal merely reminded the employer of his rights and the employer promptly availed of the opportunity. We do not find any illegality in the course adopted which could vitiate the award. The first point is therefore rejected.

17. So far as the merits of the t^se is concerned, three charges were levelled'against SriS. K. Bhargava which are contained in the charge sheet dated 30-3-90 marked Ext. M-46. I wiH like to discuss the third charge before discussing the first and second charge levelled against the concerned workman. There is no dispute about the fact that Sri Bhargava was working as clerk at Mathura Main Branch of Syndicate Bank between 5-11-80 to 6-6-86 and during that period he was entrusted temporarily with the duties of special assistant from time to time. The third charge against Sri Bhargava is that the saving bank account No. 15074 in the name of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta was opened at Mathura Main Branch of Syndicate Bank on 14-1-86 wth an initial deposit of Rs. 100/- and the concerned workman introduced the party to the branch. Immediately on the next day that is on 15-1-86 here was a credit of Rs. 8,000/- into the account thereby raising the credit balance in the account of Rs 8,100/-. On 17-1-86 Sri Bhargava prepared a debit slip for Rs. 8,000/- earmarking a credit towards account No. 10028 of Sri H. K. Bhargava, his father- He authorised the said debit slip and initialled it for having debited the sum fowards saving bank account No. 15074. However, the debit entry of Rs. 8,000/- made in the saving bank account No. 15074 was cancelledby the concerned workman and a credit ^ntry of Rs. 10,000/- was made in the said account under his authorisation. The said credit entry of Rs. 10,000/- does not pertain to any genuine transaction that has taken place at the branch on that date. The cllect of these entries is that while the debit entry of Rs. 8,000/- made in the account of Sri Gupla wa$ not at all given effect to a credit entry for Rs. 10,000/- was made in the account thereby raising the credit balance in the account to Rs. 18,000/- as against the actual credit balance of Rs. 100/- therein. On 28-1-86 Sri Bhargava autho- rised the debit of a withdrawal slip bearing No. 568718 dated 28-1-86 for Rs. 18,000/- to be passed in the account and caused the amount to be paid in cash. The said withdrawal slip is filled in and was made in the handwriting of the concerned workman. The above circumstances go to show that by resorting to falsification of accounts and records of the branch, the concerned workman made available pecuniary advantage to be derived by a person known to him which was detrimental to the interest of the bank and thus the concerned workman committed an act of gross misconduct.

15. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the contention of the work- man that this tribunal had no authority to ask the management to adduce evidence and additional evidence adduced by the management should be rejected, is liable to be rejected.

18. ]n support of the aforesaid charge the manage- ment examined Sri V. Sadanand Sanbhog, M.W. 1 and Sri Alok Kumar Saxena, M.W. 3. Both the witnesses have stated that the account of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta was opened o" the introduction of Sri Bhargava and (he debit slip Ext. M.35 whereby Rs. 8,000/- was debited from the account ;o 16. I, therefore, hold that the additional evidence adduced by the management as well as the evidence of the workman recorded during the proceedings of this case is valid evidence and that has to be consi- dered by this tribunal on the point whether the action of the management in passing the order of dismissal of the concerned workman is justified or not.

branch of the hank and thereafter he scored off the debit entry of Rs. 8,000/- and by showing fictitiously a credit of Rs. 10,000/- raised the credit amount to Rs. 18,000/- and again on 28-1-86 he allowed with- drawal of Rs- 18,000/- from the account of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta when actually there was a balance of Rs- 100/- only in his account. Thus he by making false and forged entries in the account of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta caused undue pecuniary advantage to his father as well as to some person known to him at the cost of the bank. The aforesaid conduct of Sri Bhargava makes his integrity doubtful. Thus charge No. 3 is proved against him.

19. So far as the charge No. 1 is concerned which has been mentioned in the charge sheet Ext. M.46, it appears that Sri Bhargava in the capacity of Special Assistant allowed unsecured debit balance in the current account No. 1075 of M/s. Hari Om Industries, Current Account No. 1097 of M/s. Briji General Stores, Current Account No. 1036 of M/s. Radha Krishna Sarce Centre and Current Account No. 1196 of M/s. Sharma Spare Parts. In all those cases heavy withdrawals wert allowed to the parties when there was little amount to thcircredit in their accounts. Thus he acted against the interest of the bank with a view to give undue advantage to those parlies. The details of those amounts for which unsecured debit balances were, allowed by the concerned work- man have been given in the charge sheet as well as in the order of punishment passed against the con- cerned workman on 14-8-92 Ext. M.49.

Sri Nagesh Chandra Gup a and the credit slip Ext. M,36 whereby Rs. 8,000/- was credited to the account of his father were prepared by the concerned work- man. They stated that the debit entry of Rs. 8,000/- made in the account of Nagesh Chandra GupLa was cut off by the concerned workman and he made a fictitious entry of Rs. 10,000/- crediting the amount in the account of Sri GupLa. They stated that this entry of Rs. 10,000/- was not based on any genuine transaction and the concerned workman again on 28-1-86 made withdrawal of Rs. 18,000/- on the basis of aforesaid fictitious entries whereas only Rs. 100/- was in balance of Sri Nagesh Chpndra Gupta. It has also comc in evidence of M.W. 3 that copy of ledger folio is of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta which is Ext. M.34 on record. Both the witnesses were cross- examined by the concerned workman but there is nothing in their cron-examination which may dis- credit their testimony. Their testimony on this point is supported by documentary evidence on record filed by the management. The concerned workman did not adduce any evidence to show that transaction of credit of Rs. 10,000/- made in the account of Sri Gupta was genuine. He did not even state on Oath whether this amount was deposited by cash or was credited by transfer. When that credit entry of Rs. 10,000/- was said to be fictitious in the charge sheet Sri Bhargava could have examined Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta to prove that aforesaid transaction of crediting Rs. 10,000/- in his account was genuine transaction but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him. He did not deny that the debit entry of Rs. 8,000/- made on 17-1-86 in the account of Sri Nagesh Chandia Gupta was not scored off by him. On the other hand in his statement on oath made before this tribunal Sri BSargava admitted that Ext. M.34, M.36 and M.37 were prepared by him. He admitted during the course of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority, that striking of entry of Rs. 8,000/- made by him in the account of Sri Gupta which was a clerical error and he will try to recover that amount from the party concerned. Admittedly the amount of Rs. 8,000/- was credited in the account of his father although there is nothing on record to show that Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta had authorised to do so. That amount of Rs. 8,000/- has not been paid cither by the concerned employee in the bank or by the concerned party who was benefited with the fictitious and forged entries made by Sri Bhargava in the records of the bank. Thus the evidence of the management bank on charge No. 3 goes almost uncontroverted and I am there- fore inclined to believe the case of the management that Sri S. K. Bhargava, firstly debited Rs. 8,000/- in the account of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta and credited the same amount in i\v: account of his father who Was holding saving bank account in the same

20. The second charge against Sri Bhgrgava is that he allowed over drawals in the OD Account of Sri Subhash Rawat (clerk), Smt. Sushma Rawat, M/s. K. K. Electric Stores, Sri Som Nath Chatur- vedi and Rasju Chaturvedi beyond the limits of overdraft sanctioned to these persons. Thus he acted beyond his powers and in violations of the limits prescribed for over drawals allowed to those parties which was detrimental to the interest of the Bank. The copies of ledger accounts of those parties have been filed by the management in support of his contention. Sri Y. A. Madhya- astha M. W. 2 has. stated that the concerned work- man had allowed over drawals to Sri Subhash Rawat, Smt. Sushila Rawat for which he had no authority. He stated that he made investigation of those over drawals in May 1986. The concerned workman cross-examined this witness but he did not say that the afore said drawals were not allowed by him. He did not state that he had authority to allow those over drawals against the prescribed limits. The over drawals and unsecured debit balances allowed by the concerned workman have been described in (he charge sheet as wel as in the order of punishment. Sri Bhargava5617 22. The reference is answered accordingly

against the concerned workman.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

New Dolhi, the 12th September, 2001

S.O. 2667.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 Of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncxurc in the Indur- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of Tndia and their workman, which was received by the Central Govcrr - ment on 11-09-2001.

[Ne. L-l2012/294/95-1 R(B-ll)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

in his statement on oath stated that he received charge sheet dated 30-3-90 from Zonal Ofiicc of the Bank. He stated that charge no. 1 and 2 related to over drawals and he wanted to slate regarding those charges that similar over drawals Were a||owcd by other employees of the bank also but no charge sheet was given to them. In his statement of claim the Workman has stated that on similar charge of allowing over drawals an employee of the bank was punched With penalty of with holding of one increment whereas for similar charges he has been dismissed from service which action of the bank is dis- criminatory and hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. Thus in so many words he has admitted the charge nos. 1' and 2 levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 30-3-90. There is nothing on record to show that other employees of the bank a)So allowed over drawals of such heavy amounts as have been allpwcd by the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that over drawals allowed by other employees were not paid or recouped by the account holders to whom benefits of over drawals were granted by those workmen whereos in the present case in which the concerned workman allowed unsecured debit balances and over drawals beyond limits, were no* recouped and paid by ihose accovm holders for several years wiiich caused pecuniary loss to the bank. Secondly the manner in which the concerned workman made fictitious and false entries in the account of Sri Nagesh Chandra Gupta and gave pecuniary advantage to his father as well as persons known and close to him goes to show that this man is not reliable person and such person cannot be retained in the ser- vice of the bank which is trustee of the public money. In these circumstances it cannot be said that management has discriminated against the concerned workman while awarding minor punishment to other workman, because that employee does not appear to be guilty for committing forgery and giving undue advantage to his relative' and to other known and close persons.

21. In view of above considerations T find that charges levelled against the concerned workman arc established by cogent and reliable evidence and I do not find any illegality in the impunged order of dismissal dated 14-8-92 passed against Sri S. K. Bhargava. T, therefore, hold that the actioW of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing Sri S. K. Bhargava clerk Mathura Main Branch from service of the bank with effect from 14-8-92 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pursuance of lh;s referenca.

294S GI/2001—135620 THE' GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER- 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001

S.O. 7668.—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-LC, Kolkata as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the omployers in relation to the management of United Commercial Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 11-09-2001.

[No. L-12012/489/86/D-IKA)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Roference No. 99 of 1988

Parties: Employers in relation to tho management of Burdwan Division of Unitod Commercial Bank

AND

Their workman

Present: Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma

Presiding Officer

Appearance: On behalf of: Mr. H.R. Khan, Logal Retainer Management of thn Bank. On behalf of : Mr. S. Majumdar, Advocate. Workman State : West Bengal Industry : Banking

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012(489)/86-D.TIA/IVB dated 20th June, 1987 and corrigendum of even number dated 3rd August, 1987 the Contra! Gove rnmmt in exorcise of its powers under section 10(l)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Burdwi-.n Division of Unitod Commercial Bank in not giving opportunity to Sri Subhas Chandra Konar and 53 others (as in the Annexure-A) after termination of thoir services for ro-employment under Sec. 25H of tho I.D. Act alongwith other candidates is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are

entitled?"5621 Temporary sub-staff of United Commercial Bank at the different Branches of Burdwan Division-II Name and Address SI. No

1

2

1. Subhash Ch. Konar Vill. & P.O. Burdwan, Dist. Burdwan.

2. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Vill. Bandra, P.O. Gopalpur, Durgapur-12, Dist. Burdwan.

3. Chandan Prakash Sflukherjee, Vill. & P.O. Birudiha, Dist. B urdwan.

4. Pradip Banerjec Vill. & P.O. Hateasuria, Dist. Bankura,

5. Dhannadas Dubcy, Vill. & P.O. Banjora, Dist. Bankura.

6. Debasish Gupta Vill. & P.O. Hateasuria, Dist. Bankura.

7. Shahadeb Kr. Mondal Vill. Bhiringi, Middyapare, P.O. Durgapur-13, Dist. Burdwan.

8. Jiban Kr. Mukherjee Vill. Kuldia, P.O. Durgapur-12, Dist. Burdwan.

9. Tapan Kumar Laha Vill. Sundiora, P.O. Tilakchandpur, Dist. Burdwan.

10. Sukumar Laha Vill. Shokna, P.O. Birudiha, Dist. Burdwan.

11. Amal Kr. Das Vill. & P.O. Rajbandh, Dist. Burdwan.

12. Shymal Kr. Mishra, Vill. Andal Gram,. P.O. Andal Gram, Dist. Burdwan.

Working days Name of the Branch

4

3

Steel City

16-11-1983 to 30-11-1983 3-1-1984 to 29-2-1984

6-8-1983 to 18-10-1983 Steel City

Steel City

12-7-1984 to 29-9-1984 Steel City

5-10-1984 to 30-12-1984 Steel City

18-10-1983 to 31-12-1983 Steel City

31-12-1984 to 14-3-1985.

Bud Bud

24-10-1984 to 5-1-1985 Bud Bud

11-10-1983 to 24-12-1983 Bud Bud

12-7-1984 to 22-9-1984 Bud Bud

26-12-1983 to 9-3-1984 Bud Bud

7-1-1985 to 22-3-1985 Bud Bud

10-3-1984 to 23-5-19845622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/A&VINA 14, 1923 [PART Tt—SBC. 3(H)J 1 2 3 4 13

. Monohar Mondal

Vill. Kururia, P.O. Amarai, Dragapur*3, Dlst. Burdwan.

, Bablu Mondal

14,

Durgapur Hattola, Kesh Market (Rice Shop), P.O. Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan.

. Dhiren Banerjee

15

C/o. S.N. Banerjee, Vill. Gopalmath, P.O. Durgapur-3, Dist. Burdwan.

16. Durgapada Dutta Steel Market, P.O. Durgapur-4, Dist. Burdwan.

17. Khetra Nath BhattEcbarya Vill. & P.O. Maliapara, Dist. Burdwan.

18. Anadi Dutta D.T.P.S. Old Colony, Qr. No. CH/12A, P.O. Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan.

19. Sailendra Nath Sarkar B2-344/3, P.O. Durgapur-10. Dist. Burdwan.

20. Ltthit Baran Singha Vill. Danapara, Dist. Burdwan.

21. Sahadeb Kundu C/o. Khandulal, Sutradhar, Vill. Pursha, P.O. Durgapur-7. Dist Burdwan.

22. Ramjiban Mukherjee Vill. & P.O. Birudiha, Dist. Burdwan.

23. Sudhir Kr. Mondal Vill. & P.O. Amar Gar, Dist. Burdwan.

Benachity

13-1-1984 to 20-1-1984 1-2-1984 to 2-4-1984 Benachity

14-5-1984 to 19-5-1984 24-10-1984 t6 10-11-1984 3-9-1984 to 15-9-1984 Benachity

2-7-1984 to 31-7-1984 17-9-1984 to 22-9-1984 12-11-1984 to 17-11-1984 Benachity

10-5-1984 to 10-1-1985 Benachity

12-9-1985

Benachity

13-3-1985 to 4.5-1985 20-5-1985 to 27-5^1985 29-5-1985 to 31-5-1985 1-6-1985 to 11-6-1985 Benachity

11-3-1985

City Centre

from 12-1-1984 City Centre

from 14-1-1985 Steal City

13-6-1985 to 28-8-1985 Bahulla

7-1-1985 to 22-3-1985 5"234 1 3 2 1984 24. Madhusudan Majhi Vill. Chaktetual, P.O. Rondia, Dist. Burdwan.

25. Rupnath Mondai Vill. Musefpur, Dist. Burdwan.

26. Kartma Sankar Samanta, ViU. Chakteual, P.O. Rondia, Dist. Burdwan.

27. Dinesh Kr. Ghosh Vill. Chajidul, P.O. „ Dist. Burdwan.

28. Ram Pr. Haldar, Vill. P.O. Lakuddhi Dist. Burdwan.

29. Dilip. Kr. Nag Vill. Rathtela Ambagan, P.O. Kanchannagar, Dist. Burdwan.

30. Ashoke Kr. Chakraborty Vill. Mobarakpur, P.O. Debipur, Dist. Burdwan.

31. Kali Sankar Biswas Kalibazar, Kachari Road, P.O. & Dist. Burdwan.

32. Chira Jiban Das, Boronilpur, P.O. Ambagan, Dist. Burdwan.

33. Dipankar Dey Burdwan.

34. Prodip Kr. Dutta Sarbamomgala Para 43 No. D.N. Sarkar Dist. Burdwan.

35. Basudev Mandi, Vill. P.O. Paharihati, Burdwan.

36. Gopal Ch. Mukherjee Vill. Daspur, P.O. Kaligram, Dist. Burdwan.

37. Tarun Kr. Mukherjee Vill. Dalui Bazar, P.O. Rasulpur, Dist. Burdwan.

Chera

18-9-1984 to 3.12-1984 Burdwan

15-11-1983 to 16-11-1984 Burdwan Main

18-8-1984 to 29,10-19*4 Debipur,

27-12-1983 to 10-3-1984 Debipur

From 18-1-1984 Burdwan Main

Burdwan Main

14-U-1983 to. 17-1-1984

Flora. 2i-1-1985 Debipur

2U1-1983 to 19-1-1984 Burdwan Burra Bazar

15-2-1984 to 13-4-1984 Div. Office

14-11-1983 to 17-1-1984 Div. Office,

From 17-5-1984 Burdwan Main

Debipur

30-3-1985 to 28-5-1985 Burdwan Main

From 2S-7.I9S45624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; OCTOBER 6. 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 ' ' 3 4 38 . Seailen Kr. Banerjee Vill. Dalui Bazar, P.O. Rasulpur, Dist. Burdwan.

39. Chandranath Chakraborty P.O. Bcdia, Dist. Burdwan.

40. Barun Kr. Mondal Vill. & P.O. Mirjapur, Dist. Burdwan.

41. Gopinath Goswami, Tea Corner, Dist. Burdwan.

42. Nitish Kr. Sarkar Nutan Pally, Ambagan, Dist. Burdwan.

43. Sk. Nujibar Rahman, Metia, P.O. Mohachandi. Dist. Burdwan.

44. Ashish Kr. Das Raniganj, Burdwan

Bijan Chowdhury

45.

Burdwan Main

From 18-9-1984 Div. Office

12-9-1983 to 14-11-1984 Burdwan Div. Office, 9-2-1984 to 13-4-1984 Burdwan Main

From 9-34985 Burdwan Main

12-9-1983 to 17-11-1983 Burdwan Main

From 11-4-1985

Chora Branch

20-12-1983 to 21-12-1984 2-1-84 to 25-2-84 5-3-84 to 31-3-84 2-4-84 to 21-4-84 Bhandarhati Branch

Rudra Deb Roy

46.

47. Shanti Nath Maji Vill. & P.O. Mohachanda, Burdwan.

Nirod Baran Down

48.

49. Sri Kanta Mondal Vill. Gopalpur Dist. Burdwan.

Fatick Ch. Sadhu

50.

Bhut Nath Nandi

51.

52. Ajit Kr. Mondat Vill. Gopalpur, P.O. Durgapur-3, Dist. Burdwan.

Brindaban Mandal

53.

54. Sadhan Kr. Banerjee Vill. Dungapara P.O. Hadigoria Dist. Burdwan.

1983 to 1984

Benachity Br.

1983 to 1985

Dcbipur Br.

75 days

Benachity

75 days

Benachity

75 days

Bahula

75 days

Steel city

75 days

Chora

75 days

Banachity

75 days

City Centre

75 dayi5625 selected they may have to undergo probation." But, the Bank did not adhere to this principle and adopted unfair labour practice. According to the union all the posts against which these candidates were appointed were of permanent nature and there- fore tho candidates were eligible to be confirmed and treated as permanent sub-staff of the Bank. It is stated that all the"e persons were duly sponsored by the Emp Oyment Exchange at Durgapur and Burdwan and they got offer of appointment after waiting for a long time. Thus they also lost their seniority and chance of future prospects. It is stated that large number of vacancies still exited in the grado of sub-staff in the Bank in Burdwan Division and also in other divisions of the Bank in West Bengal as also in other states of the Bank. It is stated that the concerned employees have been terminated/ retrenched from service in illegal manner and since they arc workman of the Bank as per section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, they arc eligible to be employed and absorbed as pcrmanont employee s of sub-staff cadre of the Bank as per Section 25H of the said Act. Therefore, it is stated that the termi- nation or retrenchment of the aforesaid persons is illegal and malafide. Accordingly a prayer has been made that all the 53 employees in the schedule to tho roference be reinstated as full-time staff of the Bank from the date of their appointment. It is also prayed that they are entitled to tho salary and wages for the period for which they have remained out of job because of illegal retrenchment and thev are also entitled to afaer benefits, such as, bonu- end to seniority also.

2. The prosent reference rolates to the claim of re-omployment of 53 workers who were terminated/ letrcnched from service by the management of UCO Bank. It is stated on behalf of AH India UCO Bank Staff Fcdoration, which has sprnsorod the dispute, that the UCO Bank which was earlior known as United Commercial Bank is one of the nationalised Banks having its Head Office at 10, Brabroune Road, Calcutta. It has its Divisional Office at Burdwan and the Divisional Office controlled the branches of the said Bank in the districts of Burdwan, Midnapore, Hooghly and Birbhum in West Bengal. It is stated that there wore 75 such branches under this Divisional Office and a Divisional Manager happens to bo the chief of the said office. It is further stated that there are large number of vacancies of sub-staff in the division due to increase in the business of the Bank and due to opening of now branches and also duo to retirement of some staffs. It is further stated that from March, 1983 onwards the said Divisional Manager asked the Employ nont Exchange of Bu~dwan and Midnaporc to s^nd names of candidates for appointment a^> sub. staff and tve Employment Exchange forwarded the names of such candidates to the Divisional Office The Divisional Office then called the candidates or authorised the Branches to take interview of the candidates. Aflcr the interview there were medical tests when the candidates were selected and a panel of names were preparzd rega-din? the selected candi- dates. It is also further stated that from this panel the Bank gave employment to the candidates as sub- staff and pOjtcd them in various branches of the Bank in the Division. It is stated that though the candi. dates were interviewed and selected before empan- nelment, after completion of 75 days of service the Bank terminated the services of the sub-staff as appointed ai d again gave temporary appointment to another batch of people from the said panel prepared by the Bank after calling candidates from tho Employ- ment Exchange. The said batch was also removed from service without confirming them in service This way about 53 persons were appointed tempora- rily from the panel and were remeved. They were also given appointment letters and wages were paid, but subsequently the Bank terminated their services illegally. Tt is, thcroforo, stated that the action of the Bank in terminating the services of these porsons instead of confirming ihom is malafide, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Desai Award and Bipanito Settlement of 1966, The relevant clause 20.12 of tho said Bipartite Settlement has been quoted which reads as follows,:

"Other things being equal temporary workman (other than godown keoper's) will bo givon pre- ference for filling permanent vacancies and if

3. A written statement was also filed on behalf of the management to contest the claim of the union and it has been stated, inter-alia, that the reference is misconcieved and tutiers from misjoindc- of causes of action. It is, however, admitted that the 54 cmpR- yees regarding whom thi roVsnci hi? been made did not work in the same establishment of the Bank and therefore the matter could beconiid.-n.fi o n l y u- garding a particular establishment sepcratcly 1+ has further been stated on behalf of the m a n a f w nt that tho UCO Bank has its Divisional Ofli-oft Burdwan which used to control all tho b r e n ts of the Bank in the districts of Burdwan Bankura Midnapore, Hooghly, Purulia and Birbhum in wesl Bengal before 1983. But now the area of administra- tion of Burdwan Division of the Bank is confWd to tho districts of Burdwan, Bankura, PuruHa "nd Hooghly only. It is stated that the branches of Birbhum district has gone to the jurisdiction of a separate Divisional Office at Suri in Biibhum district and branches of Midnapore distrct have come under the control of a separate divi- sion as Howrah. It is stated that vacancies caused due to transfer promotion, resignation. A5626, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fli)l nature were caused due TO subordinate staff geing- on leave or transferred to other branches without joining of substitute in the different branches. There- fore, the Branches where such situation occurred requested the local Employment Exchange to send the names of eligible candidates for temporary appoint ment for a period not exceeding 75 days. It was done for the purpose of managing the business of such branches. The persons whose names appear in the annexed list were offered employment purely on temporary basis and for a period of 75 days only. As frequently 1he necessity of sub-staff arose in such branches due to transfer or staff and due to staff proceeding on leave, the branches called for the names from the local Employment Exchange and temporary appoini- ments were offered to such persons. It was for the purpose of obviating the difficulties of administrative problem of the branches. This practice is followed from time to time. Accordingly, these concerned persons were also temporarily appointed for a period not exceeding 75 days and as the stipulated period expired, they were terminated. Therefore, it has been stated that there is nothing illegal in the ter- mination of these workman, because they were appoi- ted only for a fixed tanure. Such appointment of purely temporary nature for a fixed period docs not entitle any workman to reinstatement or reappoin- ment or absorption or confirmation as claimed. It is also stated that actually no vacancy is presently existing in any branches of Burdwan Division, because whereever a few vacancies arose in some branches it was filled up by redistribution and re- allocation of duties and jobs among the existing staff and no appointment is being made in the vacancies existing in the branches due to the ban on recruitment It is, the therefore, stated that the circumstances are clear enough to show that the 54 concerned workman arc not entitled to be re-employed or ab- sorbed. It has been clearly denied that any vacancy exists in the branches in the Division at Burdwan or that any recruitment on such post has been made. Therefore, the question of absorption or re-employ- ment of these persons does not arise. It has also been stated that no panel was actually prapared by the Divisional Office as alleged on behalf of the union and actually different branches requested their local Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of 5/6 candiates from which they made appointed on purely temporary basis for a period not exceeding 75 days and that was also to meet the exigency caused due to transfer and the staff proceeding on leave. It has been clearly stated that wrong allegation has been made in the statement of claim filled on behalf of the union that in place of the concerned after their removal, fresh appointment have been made from some other candidates* As a matter of fact, iill such are part of conllnnous process of an institution like bank. However, in 1984 Government of India imposed ban on recruitment in all public sector undertakings, including the banks and therefore no vacancy .could be filled up even though such vacan- cies arose from time to time. It is stated that the Reserve Bank of India report revealed that the pro- ductivity measure in terms of the volume of business per employee was the lowest in this Bank and there- fore this Bank has shown utmost austerity and stringency in new recruitment. Accordingly the management has maintenance redistribution and real- location of duties and jobs among the existing man- power in order to achieve optimum level of output and productivity in the Bank. It is also stated that actually some new branches, to be prascd eight, were opened in this division during the period 1985-1986. But, due to ban on recruitment, only one peon cum-Farash in the subordinate cadre was provided by the Head Office for each of these branch- es from the approved panel maintained in tlie Head Office at Calcutta. However, in March, 1983 the Divi- sional O.Bce at Burdwan invited names of eligible candidates for preparation of a panel of Peon cum Farash in the subordinate cadre for recruitment in new branches in the district of Burdwan and Hooghly. For this purpose a written test was held in October, 1983 at Burdwan and the necessary papers were sent to the Head Office at Calcutta where the same were examined and the list of successful candidates on the basis of written Jest was sent to th^ Divisional Office and the there- after the Division! Office held interviews of the succes- ful candidates in August-September 1984. There- ni'.Li, on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the. interview, the Head Office prepared final panel for recruitment to the post of Pcon-cum-Farash in the s'jborJinato cadre tcorn the said panel and actTidinsly the candidates were made available t > the new branches on permanent post. It is stateJ that the names of Subhas Chandra Konar a : 1 53 others meaning thereby the concerned persons i i tlii-; reiXrcnces were not sponsored by the Em- plcyinc ;t Exchange for the purpose of recruitment to the p^st oi¹ Peon-cum-Farash for the new branches. O.i the other hand, the names of these persons were for .VK Jed i'or tamporary appointment and as their numcs were not sponsored for permanent appoint- ment they could not be appointed against permanent pDst. The persons whose names forwarded by the Employment Exchange and who were empan- cllcJ ai'ter written test interview were different form the said 54 persons and some of such persons empannelled have accordingly been appointed in the new branches and as no vacancy existed in the o'.h:r branches it was made for the other braachssj It is also farther stated that some vacancies of temponuy5627 fresh appointments have been made l'roni a paiui prepared seperaialy for the purposes of filling up permanent vacancies and the names of the concerned workman were never forwarded by the Employ- ment Exchange for preparation of the panel, not did they participate in the written test of interview taken for this purpose. , Therefore, it has been stated that the concerned 54 persons arc not entitled to any relief which-so-ever.

4. After the written statement of the manage- ment \\v> filed, J rejoinder has beea filtd by the union [\\ which ctriain remarks- have been made regarding certain paraerLphi.

absorption of the 54 workmen retrenched by i h; management of the bank. He staled that the name* of these workmen WJI'J sponsored by the Employment Exchange and these workmen also used lo perform thj duties of sub-staff. Tt has been stated that though the appointment letters of these workman shown thai their service?. were temporary, the union believes that their services were of permanent nature and they were appointed against permanent vacancies. It is stated that these persons we/e appointed as sub- staff to cone with the increased volume of work in the branches. However, in his ctoss-exaniination, he admitted that these workmen were appointed for temporary period and they worked only upto the expiry of ihe period as mentioned in their appointment letter. He also further ad- mitted that the Bank held an examination for recruitment of permanent sub-staff hi October, 1983 and since the concerned workmen were not eligible for appearing in the said test in terms of the circular issued by the Bank, they did not appear in the test. He also further stated that a penal has been prepared incorporating the nemes of successful candidates in the said test and the Bank has absorbing those successful candidates. However, he claimed that he could ascertain on enquiry only regarding increase in the volume of work in the Bank., but he stated that he is unable to say whether the Bank is running at loss to the tune of Rs. 1200 crores up to the financial year 1996. He also expressed his ignorance to the fact that the Reserve Bank of India dedared the UCO Bank as over-staffed.

5. Thereafter one petition was also filed on behalf of the management on 20-02-19?D, II has been stated in this petition (hat two of the aforesaid 54 persons, namely, Rijon Chovv- dhury and Ashis Kr. DLS weie actually not appointed c\

6, A large number of witnesses have been examined on behalf of the union, ft appears that most of the 54 persons whose claim has been sponsored by the union in this reference were examined to support their claims. The total number of witnesses examined for the union is 36. Two of them, namely, WW-25, Chitta Ranjan Mondal and WW-36, Debdas Mukhcrice happened 10 be the office bearer of the union and the rest 34 are from amongst the 54 concerned workman whose cause has been sponsored by-the union.

7. WW-25 happens to be the Joint Secretary of the union. He claims that he is conversent with the facts of the dispute under reference. Accordingly to him the matter concerns non-

8. WW-36, Debdas Mukherjee happens to be the President of the sponsoring union, i.e., the All India UCO Bank Staff Federation and he claimed that he was conversent with the facts of the ease. He stated that 54 workmen worked against permanent vacan- cies as subordinate staffs and they were being paid on monthly basis. He further stated that after the ter- mination of services of the concerned workmen by the Bank, these posts were filled up by fresh recruit- ment. So, according to him, these persons have been terminated wrongfully and their reinstatement has been claimed. He also stated that the large number of vacancies of sub-staff was still existing in the Bank. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did noi know whether the concerned workmen were appointed for a term of 75 or 90 days only and accordingly when it was suggested to him that they have been rightly terminated on the expiry of the term of their appointment, he denied the suggestion. He also denied the suggestion that th>; Bank has been running at loss and that no new recruitment is being made in the Bank in terms of the circular issued by the Government of India. However, he Zy4tf OI/2001—145628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVJNA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] admitted that the concerned workmen did not appear in the test held by the Bank in October, 1983 for fresh recruitment as there was no notification issued by the Bank in this regard.

service of the workmen were also extended for few days on the same terms and conditions of appoint- ment. So, the fact becomes admitted that at least 52 of the concerned workmen were appointed in the different branches of the UCO Bank during the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 for a fixed period on temporary basis and that they were terminated on the expiry of the period, including the extended period in the appropriate cases. Nothing of the facts have been denied on behalf of the management. However, the management has taken a stand that the UCO Bank was running at loss and the Reserve Bank of India had declared the Bank as over-staffed and in order to enforce the financial discipline the Govt. of India had issued a letter asking the Bank to restrict further appointments on Ihe vacant posts and had directed the Bank to re-allocate the work by adjusting the existing staff. However, in the meanwhile, some new branches were going to be opened for which there was some necessity of appointment of sub- staff and therefore the Divisional Office at Burdwan had asked for some names of eligible candi- dates from the Employment Exchange in the year 1982. Such names were forwarded and the process was going on and ultimately a written test of such candi- dates were taken in October, 1983 and thereafter evaluation of the answer papers were made and candidates weic called for interview and then a panel was prepared for appointment of sub-staff in those newly established branches. In the mean- while, because of the exigency created due to transfer of staff from one branch to another without substi- tute joining and due to proceeding of some staff on leave and as there was delay in appointmeni due to process going on, some of the branches invited some names from the local Employment Exchange and after interviewing the candidates appointed them with clear stipulation thai their appointment was on puiely temporary basis for a fixed period of 60 days or 75 days. Accordingly, the concerned persons were appointed and on expiry of their term of appointment they were relieved of their jobs. All these facts become clear from the papers filed and exhibited on behalf of the union itself.

10. It may be noted that Ext. W-] is the letter

sent to Dharam Das Dubey on 4-7-19S3 calling him

for interview on 15th July, 1983. Ext. W-2 is the

letter sent to the said Dharam Das Dub;y by the

Manager of the Bank at B-Zonc, Durgapur informing

him that he is considered for appointment for 75 diys

as sub-staff on a basic pay of salary of Rs. 245/- per

month and that the service shall be liable to be ter- 9. Out of the rest 34 witnesses examined on behalf of the Union WW-1 is Dharam Das Dubey, WW-2 is Tapan Kumar Ray, WW-3 Dinesh Kr. Ghosh, WW-4 Lahit Baran Singha, WW-5 Nitish Chandra Sarkar, WW-6 Chirajiban Das, WW-7 Jiban Kumar Mukhopadhyay, WW-8 Kali Shankar Biswas, WW-9 Monohar Mondal, WW-10 Bupnath Mondal, WW-11 Karuna Shankar Samanta, WW-12 Sahadeb Kundu, WW-13 Pradip Dutta, WW-14 Ram Pro9ad Haider, WW-15 Amal Kumar Das, WW-16 Sahadeb Kumar Mondal, WW-17 Barun Kumar Mondal, WW-18 Dhirendra Kumar Banerjee, WW-19 Chandra Nath Chakraborty, WW-20 DiJip Nag, WW-21 Durga Pada Dutta, WW-22 Sadhan Banerjee, WW-23 Ashoka Kr. Chakraborty, WW-24 Bhutnath Nandi, WW-26 Fatick Chandra Sadhu, WW-27 Sukumar Laha, WW-28 Shyamal Kumar Mishra, WW-29 Pradip Kumar Banerjee, WW-30 Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, WW-31 Khetra Nath Bhattacharjee, WW-32 Madhusudan Majhi, WW-33 Sailen Bancrjee, WW-34 Ram Jiban Mukherjee, WW-35 Sudhir Kumar Mondal. The statements of all these witnesses are stereotype and they have also produced the relevant papers concerning their services and these papers have been marked as exhibitcs. But all these papers appear to be redundent and useless for the purpose of deciding the reference. These workers have produced their qualification certificates, their registration card of Employment Exchange, the letters issued to them calling them for interview, letters issued to them after selection for appointment, the appointment letters and also the termination letters and some of them have also pro- duced the certificates granted by the respective Managers regarding the service rendered by them. So far as these facts arc concerned, there is no dis- pute on behalf of the management that these persons were employed by the Bank in the different branches during the years 1983 to 1985 at different point of time on purely temporary basis for a fixed period, It has not been questioned that they were not registered in the Employment Exchange or that they did not possess the requisite qualification or that they were not called for interview or that they were not given appointment letters or that they were not terminated. So, these papers arc only for the sake of record. It is admitted by the management excepting in case of two persons that they were temporarily appointed by the Bank for a fixed period of 75 days in most of the cases and they have worked between a period 75 to 90 days, because in some cases the period of

minated even prior to the stipulated period and tha5629 temporary service shall not confer any right on him for permanent employment and that he shall be subject to the rules of discipline and it was clearly stated in the letter that if he accepted the letter he is supposed to return three copies of the letter duly signed by him. It is obvious that it was an offer for acceptance of the candidate and on his accepting the offer he was appointed and thereafter through Ext. W-3 his seivice was terminated on completion of the period of service with effect from 31-12-83. In some cases certificates have also been granted by the Manager concerned. The example is W-10 which is the certificate granted by the Manager of Debipur Branch of the Bank to Dinesh Kumar Ghosh who had worked as Pcon-cum-Farash for 75 days in the Branch. Ext.W-11 is the letter by which Dinesh Kr. Ghosh was informed that his period of 75 days was expiring on 29-10-1984. Therefore, all these papers filed and, exhibited on behalf of the union do not have any special significance in proving the claim of the workman, other than the facts admitted by the management.

11. So far as the management is concerned, only two witnesses have been examined. They are MW-1, Haridas Biswas, Deputy Chief Officer at the Regional Office of the Bank at Cuttack, Orissa who happened to be an Officer of the Burdsvan Division from 1981 to 1986 in the Personnel Department and MW-2, Shania Jyoti Roy happens to be Deputy Chief Officer of the Bank at the Regional Office at Burdwan. MW-1 has stated that out of the 54 persons involved in the reference, two, namely, Asish Chowdhury and Bijon Chowdhury were ex- ceptions and the rest had worked in the Bank for a specified period in different branches. He also stated that they did not work against any permanent vacancy; rather, they worked against leave vacancies and for coping with the temporary increase in the volume of work. He also stated that there was no necessity of filling up of permanent vacancies by these workman as the process of filling up these vacancies in regular manner had already started. The witness further stated that permanent vacancies could not be declared in the Bank due to imposition of ban by the Govt. of Tndia. In this regard he also proved acircular of the Bank dated 31-5-85 explaining the ban on creation of new posts and filling up to the vacancies, which is marked Ext.M-6. The witness further stated that a panel of candidates for appoint- ment against permanent vacancies was subsequently prepared in 1988 and seven persons from that panel were appointed in terms of an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, The witness has also given the procedure for filling up the permanent vacancies. According to him the names of candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchange and then mitten examination and oral test is held and on

its basis a puncl is prepared and thereafter selected candidates are appointed against permanent posts. Further, according to him the Branch Managers are not entitled to entertain applications for appointment and they can appoint persons only for a temporary and specified period to meet the exigency of the situation after obtaining necessary sanction from the higher authorities of the Bank. He also further stated that the names of the concerned persons were forwar- ded by the Employment Exchange to the respective Branch Managers who had issued appointment letters in favour of these candidates for specified period after taking their interviews and after obtaining sanction from the higher authority. According to him the terms and conditions of service were also mentioned in the requisition to the Employment Exchange where from the names were called for. He has clearly stated that for all kinds of appointments instructions issued by the Government of India have to be fol- lowed. According lo him the concerned workmen had accepted their services knowing fully well that their employment were for temporary and specified period and in their case no requisition was made to the Employment Exchange for appointment against permanent posts. He said that none of the concerned workmen appeared in the written test for filling up permanent vacancies and presently there is no per- manent vacancy in the Bank. The witness has also stated that per-employec business in the UCO Bank was the lowest and reallocation of work is made to obtain the maximum level of business per employee. According to him even the vacancies created by retirement of persons are not filled up due to ban. The witness has also further stated that by the end of March, 1998 the Bank have incurred a loss of Rs. 1736 crores and therefore considering the poor finan- cial condition of the Bank there was no necessity of making appointment or creation of new post. Accor- ding to him the R.B.I, had declared the Bank as over-staffed. He has stated that out of the 54 work- men, two persons, namely, Asish Das and Bijon Chowdhury have worked on daily wage basis in two different branches and whereas Ashis Das worked for 56 days and Bijoy Chowdhur'y had worked for 224 days between 1980 to 1983. The other workmen were allowed to work for the number of days men- tioned in their appointment letters and the terms were not renewed. Tn this view of the matter, he has stated that their termination was not improper. In his cross-examination he has slated that the process for recruitment against permanent vacancy in Class-IV had started in 1982 by sending notifica- tion to the Employment Exchange by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank. In 1982 permanent vacancies were computed at 40 and at that time the concerned workmen were not even in the picture because they came into picture only during the years 1984, 1985. The witness has further stated that5630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART TI—SEC. 3(ii)] excepting for 7 persons, who were directed to be employed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, the rest of the vacancies from the 40 vacancies cal- culated earlier could not be filled up because of the ban imposed by the Govi, of India. This ban was received in the early months of 1984. He has also further stated that since the permanent vacancies could not be filled up due to ban, temporary time- bound employment had to be made by the Bank io cope with the volume of work and for this purpose the Divisional Manager had empowered the Branch Managers to make appointment for specified period. He further stated that as Divisional Manager was not present at the relevant time the order was issued by the Assistant General Manager. He denied that any person was appointed in place of the retrenched persons involved in this leferencc.

Managers to some of the workmen regarding their terms and conditions of appointment. In these letters it was made clear that the workmen concerned were being appointed for 60 days to 75 days on payment of basic salary of Rs. 245/- per month. It was also made clear that their services were liable to be terminated at the discretion of the Bank even before the end of the stipulated period without assigning any reason and it was also made cjear that the temporary appointment shall not entitle the workmen to claim further employment in the Bank. Therefore, both from the papers filed on behalf of the management as wejl as from the side of the union, it becomes clear that all these 54 persons, excluding two, were appointed on fixed term mostly for 75 days and it was clearly mentioned in the letters issued to them that their appointment shall be for that particular period and they shall have no right to claim their continuance in the Bank thereafter. It is therefore clear that the terms of appointment were known to these workmen before their appoint- ment and they had accepted the terms. In such a situation if their services were terminated on expiry of the term of appointment, there was no question of their termination being illegal.

12. MW-2 has stated that the different branches of the Bank had made requisition to the manage- ment for filling up some leave vacancies occuring in their branches and accordingly the management requisitioned the names from, the Employment Ex- change. Some persons were appointed on the basis of the names forwarded by the Employment Exchange. He has further stated that in the requisition slips of different branches the terms and conditions of emp- loyment were also specifically mentioned. He further stated that the concerned workmen had accepted the terms and conditions of their engagement and none of them had appeared in the written test held tor recruitment of Class-W staff. These persons were appointed only on the basis of interviews taken by the management. He further stated that the permanent vacancies caused due to retirement also cannot be filled up because of the ban on employ- ment by the Govt. of India and in proof of this fact he produced the circular marked Ext. M-7 and another circular marked Ext. M-8. He also stated that since the Bank was running at a loss, no new appointment could be made. According to him the concerned workmen were allowed to work for a period for which they were appointed and their services were never extended and the terms renewed, He denied that the services of these workmen were wrongly terminated. In his cross-examination he has very clearly stated that after 1984 no new appo- intment in Class-IV has been made in the Bank. He also denied that a panel of 240 persons was pre- pared for appointment by the management of the concerned division on the basis of an argreement with the union. He also denied that the panel has exhausted after appointment. He also denied that any other person was employed in the place of the concerned workmen after their termination.

14. Jn this connection, it has also been submitted on behalf of the management that according to clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) , which defines retrench- ment, termination of service of the workman as result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry of such contract under stipulation in that behalf contained therein is not to be included in the definition of the retrenchment and therefore it was not a case of retrenchment. However, it was submitted on behalf of the union that this clause (bb) was subsequently included in Section 2(oo) by the Act 49 of 1984 with effect from 18-08-1984 and since the clause has no retrospective effect, it cannot be applicable to the case of the workman concerned. The contention is justified to this effect, but it is to be noted that the services of many of the workman concerned, namely, Chandan Prakash Mukherjee, Pradip Banerjee, Debasis Gupta, Sahadeb Kr. Mondal, Tapan Kumar Laha, Dhiren Banerjee, Durgapada Dutta, Khetranath Bhattacharya, Anadi Dutta, Sailendra Nath Sarkar, Sahadeb Kundu, Ram Jiban Mukherjee, Sudliir Kumar Mondal, Rupnath Mondal, Karuna Shankar Samanta, Dinesh Kumar Ghosh, Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, Sailend Kr. Banerjee, Chandra Nath Chakraborty and Najibar Rahaman were terminated after August, 1984 which is the effective date of this amended clause and therefore their case is obviously not covered by the definition of retrenchment. So far as the other persons were concerned, because their termination had taken place before August, 1984, therefor , it 13. So far as the documents are concerned, Exts. M - l, M~2, M-3, M-4 and M.-5 arc the speci- men of the letters issued by the respective Branc ^ could be termed as retrenchment. But, so far as (.he legality of the retrenchment is concerned, in view of the fact that they were appointed temporarily for a, stipulated period and were terminated after expiry of the term, the termination or retrenchment cannot be said to be illegal or improper.

15. However, the present reference is not for consideration of the legality or otherwise of 1 etrencli- ment. Rather, it is for deciding whether nqri-cmp- loyment of these persons in the Bank after their termination under the provisions of Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified. In this connection, it must be npted that there is no material to show that the permanent vacancies existed after their termination or that any appointment was made by the Bank, because on this point excepting for some oral evidence of vague nature, there is no positive material to prove it and the witnesses on behalf of the management categorically denied that any vacancy of the kind existed in the permanent cadre of Class-lV in the Bank for consideration of re-employment of these persons.

16. In this regard it is also necessary to note that from Ext.M-7 it appears that the Govt. of Tndia in the Ministry of Finance had issue a circular restricting the appointment in the Bank by imposing a ban and Ext.M-6 is the letter issued by the General Manager (Personnel & Administration) of the UCO Bank to the Divisional Heads and Zonal Offices in which the ban was explained in detail. In clause 1 of the letter some exceptions were made in the matter of ban, but the cases of th,e concerned workmen is not -covered.by.it. In this letter, F.xt.M-6, it has been made clear that in view of the decision taken by the Bank for strict compliance of the b^n order^ of the Govt, of India, no vacancy what-so-eyer, whether operational or non-operationa}, arising at Uirge and extra large branches were to be filled up as all .such branches have excess staff. Tt has also, been further stated that no man-to-man replacement was to be done. Surplus staff at one branch was supposed to be utilised at other branches where there, was shortage Vacuum created on account of the restriction was to be met by reallocation of duties amongst existing staff of the concerned branches. It has also been further stated that no extra staff was to be kept as a standby for relieving duties—leave vacancy or for flny other type of cushioning. Further, it was also stated that vacancies created on account of transfer were also not to be filled up.

Ext.M-8 happens t,o be another letter issued on 29th April, 1985 by the Finance Department of the Government of India addressed to the Ch^ef Executive of all public sector banks regarding maintenance of economy in expenditure and ban on. creation of posts and filling up vacancies. Referring to the, o.rigifla.1

553] letter issued on IQth October, 19f}4 putting thp bs^i, it has been stated in this letter that in y\?y of MlP imposition of bar) ar(d haying regard to the continued necessity fqr utmost economy in expenditure, it has been decided that the above instructions should stand extended untill further order and it has also been stated tfyat there should^ be a strict corflpliarjcc of this or4er ana¹ any relaxation cpnsidcre.^ necpssary should be sought frorn, the GpY

17. It is, therefore, clear that the rn^qagement of the Bank was helpless in giving accommodation of re-employment to the workman concerned even if they so liked and there is a clear and categorical assertion on the part of the maqagprnent that no appointment against ajiy permanent vacancy, excep- ting for the seven posts filled up un^er the orders of the Hon'bie High Court was made in the Bank. In such a circumstance, there is no scope for considering the claim of the workman concerned in thjs refejen.ee to direct the Bank to consider their, ca.se for further engagement on re-employment. The prpyision, of Section 25H is meant for giving priority to sucjij per- sons in the matter of appointment when it is made. But, when neither the posts existed, nor the appo int- ment is being made, the question of considering the claim °f the. workman earlier retrenched or terminated on expiry of the term appointment docs not appear to be feasible and proper.

18. Accordingly, T hoJLd, that the claji^ of the union is not fit to be allowed and the reference is accordingly answered and the matter is disposal of.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th September, 200,1 S.O. 2669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Goverjcimem: ^nd^strial Tribunal/Labour Court, JabalpiiT as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employfirs in relation to the management of State Bank Of India a^nd their5632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASV1NA 14, 1923 [PART I I- S EC 3(ii)] workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 7-9-2001.

[No. L-12012/2/200O-1WB-1)] A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

(PRESIDED BY SHR1 K.M. RAI) CASE NO. CG1T LC/R/79/2000

Smt. Adhariya Bai, W/o Late Jogiram Kurmi, Chatidih, infront of Rajwa Colony, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) —Workman

Vs.

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) —Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 20th day of August, 2001) Tho Govt. of Indit\ Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by Order No. L-12012/2/2000-IR (B-I) dtd. 24-5-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India Main Branch, Bilaspur in termi- nating the services of Smt. Adhariya Bai is justi- fied? If not to what relief the said workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman did not appear before this Tribunal till 12.30 PM. Hence proceeded ox-parte against her.

3. The workman has not filed her statement of claim before this Court. It appears that she is not interested in pursuing her claim. In view of this fact, it is amply clear that no dispute exists between the parties in the present case.

4. In view of the above said facts no dispute award is passed. The workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this case.

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for publi- cation a.i pjr rule.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th September, 2001 S.O. 2670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmpnt hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Gramin Bank, and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 7-9-2001.

[No. L-J2012/181/98-lR(B-l)] AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated, 30th August, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C.R. No. 9/99

I Party

Shri A. Bhojaraj, C/o Amaraiah Swamy, Toraladinni (PO), Manvi-Taluk, Raichur Distt. (Advocate—Shri R. Nagendra Naik)

II Party

The Chairman, Tungabhadra Gramin Bank, Sanganakal Road, Gandhinagar, Bellary. (Advocate—Shri B. C. Prabhakar)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the, Industrial Disputes Act, 947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/181/98/IR (B-II) dated 22nd January, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tunga- bhadra Gramin Bank, Head Office, Bellary is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Sri A. Bhojara|. If not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed to ?"

2. The first party was working with the Second party. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was con- ducted. On the basis of the enquiry report first party was dismissed and therefore industrial dispute is raised.

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

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

5. The case of the first party is that he was working as Clerk in the Second Party Bank. He joined the services of the bank on 26-7-1979. Chargesheet alle- gations were not correct and the charge sheet dated 1-8-94 is false. He has given details of the incidence of 1-8-94, He has also said that he has not committed any misconduct.

6. Regarding enquiry it is said that on the assur- ance of the Enquiry Officer he admitted the charge. It was also said to him that management would take lenient view and impose any minor punishment to him so he admitted the charge.

7. Regarding enquiry it is said that the report is not proper and the punishment is illegal and arbitrary. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

9. The Second party is a banking institution having high degree of honesty, integrity, devotion to duty and promptness in discharging the duties and high sense of discipline are invariably required from its emp- loyees. The first party committed misconduct and there was three charges against him. Details of Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are given in the Counter.

10. It is the further case of the management that the explanation given by the first party was not cor- rect. Regarding enquiry it is categorically said that the enquiry is properly conducted and the Enquiry Officer is perfect.

11. It is the further case of the management that charges are proved against the first party and the punishment imposed is proper and legal. The manage- ment for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

12. It is seen from the records that the management in order to prove that the enquiry is fair and proper examined MW1. Against this workman got examined as WW1.

13. It is seen from the records that this Tribunnl by its order dated 20th July, 2001 has held that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper and thereafter the case was posted for arguments.

14. It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that in the instant case the enquiry is held as fair and proper and going through the enquiry proceedings. It is clear that the charges are proved against the first party and in view of the decisions of Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this is not a fit case to take any lenient view and to invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act.

15. I have carefully perused all the enquiry pro- ceedings and I am of the opinion that the enquiry report is perfect and there is no perversity in it. Charges are proved and the first party has failed to convince that this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act. Temporary misappro- priation is proved. The first party was working as a Clerk in the Nationalised Bank and it was expected from him to work honestly and sincerely. The evi- dence before the enquiry officer shows that the tem- porary misappropriation is proved and the report of the enquiry olTlccr is perfect and it is not a perverse one.

16. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly T proceed to pass the following order ;

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 30th August, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th September, 2001 S.O. 2671.—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 I Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-9-2001.

[No. L-41012ll35l99-TR(R-T)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer5634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 LPARL I I - S I , C. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : RUDRESH KUMAR

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 11199 Kef. No. L-4K>12|135|99|IR(B:I) Ddteti : 9-9-1999

BETWEEN

SIM Otri PfafcasK Yaefav, S'o:. Shri Daytt Ram Yadav, €[a. Shtfi P. K. Tiwari, 96[1

under the Railway Establishment Code, a casual labour with continuous working for tnore than 240 days, derives status of an temporary employee and his services cannot be dispense with orally without observing prescribed procedures under the relevant rules. Since the workman had worked con- tinuously for 133 days and so his disconti- nuance without notice and specifying rea- son was illegal, entitling him to relief of re- instatement with back wages. Next ground taken is that he, on basis of his having work- ed before 1980, was re-engaged from 12-2-83 to 11-5-83, 16-5-83 to 12-8-83, 18-8-83 to 13-11-83 and 30-4-84 to 28-7-84, and thus, continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. His ter- mination without giving benefit of settion 25 (F), (G) and (H) was illegal and on this count also, he is entitled to reinstatement wifti back wages.

AND

ThS DttisioftjH Railway Manager (P), North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Asfiok Marg, Lucknow-226001.

AWARD

By reference No. L-41O12|135!99JIR(B-I) d&tetf 9-9^999, trie Cemrat Govcfhmtent in We IVfifffsffy m Labfctff, fa exercise of powers oofotferred by eferase (d> of sub-section ( I) aWrf sub-sfteticm 2(A> of seetioto 10 of the In4"strial Disputes-Act, 1947 ( U of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Shri Om Prafcash Yaday S|o Shri Day a Ram Yadav. Lucknow arid trie DivisioWf Railway Manager fP), North Eastern Railway, Lueknow for adjudication.

under the rules" and so it, is, not in a posi- tion to admit or deny the tacts or to give correct sequence of event, necessary tor ad- judication.

5. It has already been observed that relief on the basis ot rifsi spell.of service till 11-7-78 is not covered by the scope of reference. In the second spell of service also, there ap- pears to be a clerical error mentioning 2U-7-84 as date of termination in place of 28-7-84. However, this mistake is insignilicant.

6. Since 1-1-1981. there was complete ban on engagement of casual labours in the railway. However, it was permissible to engage casual labours with pre or post personal approval of the General Manager. The second spell of alleged engagement was after 1-1-1981 and so a prc or post personal approval of the General Manager was necessary. The materials on record and also the evidence place before this Tribunal, do not indicate that approval by the General Manager was ever accorded cither before engaging if the workman or subsequent to the engagement. In either.case, the engagement of.the work- man was against the ban order.

7. It is not proved that the workman conti- nuously worked for 240 days in the second spell of cnaegmgnt. In letter dated 18-7-95 of the workman, addressed to the Railway Minister, Government of India, filed as a documentary evidence shows that he worked from 12-2-83 to 11.-5-83 for 90 days and after break of 5 days he was re-engaged from 16-5-83 to 12-8-83 for 88 days, again after a break of 6 days he was engaged from 18-8-83 to 13-11-83 for 87 days and lastly alter a gap of about 5 mont!-,'frorti 30-4-S4 to 28-7-84 for 90 days. There is not iota of evidence to explain the gaps, to justify conti- nuity of service as defined in section 25-B of Industrial Disputes, Act. The workman was engaged in Loco Shed. Admittedly, Loco Shed, Gonda was closed in the year 1984 after diselisation and those surplus staff were not riven work. This fact is pleaded by the workman in his affidavit. Tn para 13 of his affidavit he has admitted his removal on arvonnt of being surplus and his name not ncinrr in the live register on closure of Loco Shoe! Names of casual labour find reference in liv;* remoter only on bein? lesnily en

there was no termination. This admission is sufficient to defeat the claim of the workman that there was no termination, in facj or law.

8. No doubt, the workman got his claim statement amended stating that in all 13 wor- kers were surplus, out of which 12 workers were given work in different workshops viz. Carriage Workshop, Gonda, Medical, Gorakh- pur and some of them in Running Room, Gonda. This averment does not state that the workman was senior to all of them. Nothing is stated whether those persons were legally engaged or not and their name found reference in live register. Also, there is nothing to indicate whether they were selec- ted at different places or they were given preference on being surplus. This Tribunal cannot adjudicate about legality of re- engagement like other persons, as this would be beyond the scope of reference.

9. Thus, there was no termination as claim- ed and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

10. Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW

3-9-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th September, 2001 S.O. 2672.—In pursuance of section 17 of Ihe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 M4 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial TribunallLabour C o u rt Lucknow as rhown in the Annexufc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern RniV.iy and their workman, which was remvPd by the Central Government on 7-9-2001.

[No. L-4iot?Ji.6fiQ9-mrani AJAY KUMAR. Desk .Officer5636 THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : UCTUULR 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(li)l ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : RUDRESH KUMAR

ADJUDICATION I.D. No. 26|99 Ref. No. L-41012il61|99 IR(B-I) Dated 11-11-1999

BETWEEN

Shri D. P. Awasthi, Divisional President, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 39-11 J, Multi Storey, Railway Colony. Charbagh, Lucknow (in the matter of Ramdeen ).

AND

Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

By reference No. L-41012 161]99 IR(B-I) dated U-l 1-1999, in the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2 A) of section 10 I.D. Act- (14 of 1947) made over the dispute bet- ween the Divisional President, Uttar Railway K"rmchari Union, Lucknow espousing cause of Ramdeen and Divisional Railway Mana- JIA.1, iwthcrn Railway. Lucknow for adjudi- cation. The reference is produced as under :

'Whether the action of Northern Rail- way in non granting Pension Group Insurance and Leave encashment benefits to Ramdeen, Ganeman on his retirement on 31-12-1995 is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?' 2. As it would be evident from the refe- rence, the consideration has to be confined judging legality, in not granting pension, group insurance and leave encashment to work- man consequent on his retirement on 31-12-1995. The workman has filed a chart showing less payment of death-cum-retire- ment .enquiry for Rs. 4967, which is no* cover- ed by the reference. The chart filed by the workman does not deal with proup insurance, which might have been paid. However, leave encashment for Rs. 7453 may be considered. 3. The main grievance of the workmen against the establishment is about denial of pension, despite admitted fact of his having worked for more than 20 years continuously, in construction organization of the Northern Railway. According to the workman, Ramdeen, he was appointed on 5*4-1975, as Gangman and initially worked under the Ins- pector of Works Construction, Kanpur and Lucknow. He attained temporary status on completion of 180 days service i.e. w.e.f. 4-10-J975. He was screened vide panal No. 36|539 dated 18-124993 for the purposes of rcgularization, and was also allotted P.F. No. 1102760|5496. During the service, the management got him medically examined as early as on 17-9-84 and he was found fit in category B-l. Despite the fact that work- man was eligible for grant of pension but the management denied this benefit to him.

4. The management admitted employment of the workman w.e.f. 5-4-75, on work charge basis. He was over age at the time of his appointment which was later¹ waived. The management, however, has denied that the workman was employed in open line construction unit. It is stated that he was appointed in a "project' and as per extant rules he could not acquire temporary status on completion of six month; service. Rather, he was granted temporary status by the scheme framed under the direc- tion of the Apex Court, Accordingly, the workman was fiiven temporary status as per the scheme, w.e.f. 1-1-19S3. However, the workman was not eligible to pension for rea- sons; he did not complete 10 years of qualify- ing service and also his services were not re- gularised rill the date of his superannuation i.e. 31-12-1995.

5. The legal position k not disputed by the parties, that eligibility for pension requir- ed 10 years qualifying service and services must have been regularised before he laid down office. In the present case, the manage- ment contends that the workman did not put 10 years of qualifying service and further he was not regularised till superannuation thoush he continuously worked for more than 20 years.

6. Thus, it is necessary to determine whether Ramdeen was in "Project" or in constract organization of some non-nroject work and from which date his cmniifvine ser- vice should be counted, under the rules.

(ii) the word "construction" mentioned against the designation of officers | officials in their office seal, whether signify 'project';

(iii) No. of vacancies worked out in the year 1993 at the time of screening;

7. The initial date of appointment of the workman as casual labour is admitted to be 5.4.. 1,975, Admittedly, he continuously work- ed from 5-4-75 to 9-3-77 i.e. about 705 days. According to workman, he derived temporary status on completion- of 180 days service i.e. from 5-10-75, but the management has dis- puted this fact by stating that the workman was employed in "project" and he was granted temporary status w.ei. 14-1983, as per the scheme framed for project workers. Also, he Was not regularised.

(iv) Whether register with serial number of seniority was maintained in send- ing names for regularization as per list of screening. Upto what serial the screened workers were regu- larized, with lists of omissions, if any; and

(v) In particular reference to schedule caste candidate, what were actual number of vacancies, number of candidates belonging to schedule caste in the screened list and num- ber of such persons absorbed by Dec, 1995. Further-more, in aU such cases whether seniority list was maintained ?

Above clarifications were necessary in view of the fact, that in service record of the workman, word "prefect" was not found mentioned anywhere though the seal of the oftjeers mentioned (coostriictiofl). Like- wise, the management failed to show reasons for not regularizing the workman, titougli fee "w successfully screened, and his over age waived. The manageme"!t filed its report, aJong with letter No. 48 WA'Mao power planning 99iDivn. Gffieer|JU" dated 2-7-2-001 and report, of Jfoe Asstt. P-ersonai Officer (Const)-Il for Chief Administrative Officerl C dated 27.6-2001. The report of the Assit Personal Officer|Constt.-IT dated 27-6-2001 is very specific at page 2 stating;

"The applicant was engaged| worked on wcirk charge bas*s under the oonstt. Organization agawtst tp&t 'project'.

8. It the contention of the management is admitted, the workman total period as tem- porary status employee was 12 years. Only 1J2 of such service qualified for pensionary benefit?: and in this way, the period come to only six years. In this background it is necessary to determine whether the work- man was a project worker covered bv the scheme which granted him temporary status w.cf. 1-M983, or he was working in com- structien organization out side project and he attained temporary status w"eX 5-10-1975. Admitted case, is, that Ramdeen worked contuuKnisly from 5-4-75 to 9-3-77. In year 1978 & 79 he was not on work. However, from 6-10-80 he continuously worked till the time of his superannuation. It is not denied by the management that the non working period in the years 1978-79 were not treat- ed break in service and notional continuity was given in considering for all service benefits including retrial benefits. The onus to prove that the -organtsatioo in which the workman was working was under some "project" lies on the management. No evi- dence has been given So substantiate this fact. Ttee management has sunpfy relied on the service book of the workman in which tseail of the authorities mentioned word "construc- tion''. It is not denied that construction units were functioning both in project and non* project organization. Rules define functional areas of project and open line cowstrtiction units. Since the management did no* lead evidence to show exact working *wit

(i) to name the project with year "# sanction and rcievaMt parti cedars with extension if any;

Jn para 4 of ,th,c coawttod /report afco, ttee ^iaaago">e*ii has admitted that .tfae workman was not >ea*sa£ed ic fmo- jeet. In view of the admission in ;the report the workman £"•""<# be treated to be a project worker. Ac- cordingly, he acquired tcwiparary5638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 0, 2U01/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] status on completion of 180 days continuous service w.e.f. 5-10-1975 and not on 1-1-1983. as fixed by the management on the service book. His qualified service for pensionary benefits has to be counted from 5-10-75 and not from 1-1-83. Tak- ing above facts into consideration, the workman completed more than 10 years qualified services to make him eligible for pensionary benefits.

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001

S.O. 2673.—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]Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikanar & Jaipur and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 10-9-2001.

[No. L-12012|363|98-IR(BI)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 9. The workman was not regularized in service treating him to be project worker. The establishment did not consider his rcgulariza- tion taking his services in a non-project organisation. In view of finding above that the workman was not engaged in project and acquired temporary status w.e.f. 5-10-1975, it was obligatory on the management to re- consider his regularization treating him in construction organisation outside project,and his continued service with status of temporary employee since 5-10-1975. He passed screening test successfully and also found medically fit. His overage at the initial ap- pointment was also waived by the competent authority. In the above said circumstances, he should be treated regularized from the date his next junior was regularized in open line construction organisation. Tt has already been held that the workman completed quali- fying service to make him eligible for pension. Accordingly, it is held that the action of the management was not justified in denying pen- sion to the workman Ramdeen.

10. In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary to discuss non maintenance of seniority list etc. as was specified in quarries. The management has to compute his all retrial, benefits including leave encashment afresh.

J1. In conclusion, the workman is entitled to pension. His other retrial benefits in light of his service in open line construction organisation requires recomputation by the management in three months. After recom- putation and deduction of the amount paid earlier, the management must pay outstanding balance if any. in two months thereafter fail- ing which the workman would be entitled to interest <& 12% on the unpaid amount till the date of payment.

.12. Award as above.

RUDRESH KUMAR. Presiding Olliccr

LUCKNOW 3-9-20015639 5("40 Tfrfc UAZETTfi OF fNOTA : OCTOBER G, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 30i)J 5641 5642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 5643 New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001

S.O. 2674.—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 IndustrialTribunal| Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputes between the employers in relation to the management of Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank and their workmen, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 10-9-2001.

[No. L-12011|7|2000-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.

2948 GI/2001—165644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 20O1/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC- 3Cli>] ANNEXURE

CENTRAL 'GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT 33|2OOO

Reference No. H2011'7|2000-IR(3-I)

Dated 27-6-2000.

The Secretary, Gramin Batik, Employees Union Unit, J.N.A.G.B., 56 S. P. Marg, 'C Scheme, Jaipur.

.Applicant Union

Vis.

The Chairman, Jaipur Napaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank, 56, S. P. Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

- • Non-Applicant ATTENDENCE

For the applicant:—None.

For the non-applicant.—Shri Ashok MeWa.

Date of Award : 30-7-2001.

AWARD

The Central Government vide order mentioned above has referred the following dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1947) for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank, Ja'pur of deducting the one day salary for 10-6-98 for the day of Dharna as per No Wotk No Pay rule policy was justified though the concerned employees submitted their leave application for the said day ? If not, what relief the workmen [employees are entitled?"

The claim was filed by Gramin . Bank Employees Union (hereinafter referred as Union) stating that the union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and represents the majority of the employees working in the Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bmk (hereinafter referred as the Bank), It is the duty of the Union to seek redressal of grievances of its members. Some members and office bearers of the Union and the Gramin Bank officers organisation unit had submitted leave application for one day i.e. 10-6-98, which was granted. They also received salary for the month of June, 1998 without any deduction. The mannpemrnt of the Bank however, issued circular d.'i'cd 7-9-98 to restrict trade union activity on the basis of which the Bank manpeement deducted one dav's salary by stnting that on 10-6-98 emoiovees and officers stacred "Dhama" against the imnacpmen* for their respective demands, which was illegal and th'ere was no justification in submitting the leave annl-c^tion. It is alleced that the above action of *hf management is nr'lafide and illegal and is an unfair labour practice- The concept "No work No pay" is not applicable in the present case. It was prayed that the non-applicant may be directed not to deduct the one day's salary for l<0^6-98 for the day of "Dharna".

The non-appKcant in the reply stated that it, has not been disclosed as who are the members of the Union and, therefore, the claim is not maintainable on behalt of the Union. It was stated that leave applications were submitted on 10-6-98 before the Branch Manager by the employees working in the branch and the employees and the officers working in the head office forwarded their applications to the head office. No leave *vas sanctioned to any emp- loyee for 10-6-98. The employees who set on "Dharna" on 10-6-98 arc not entitled to the leave with pay on the basis of the principle "No work No pay". In the leave application the gound for seek- ing leave was wrongly stated as organisation-work and, therefore, was not bonsfide. The employees, who sought leave for their personal work and who did not set on Dharna were granted leave. Six employee's and officer's sakrj has been deduct- ed on the basis of the principle of "No work No pay". The allegation about unfair labour practice was denied.

The applicant also filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts alleged in the claim petition. It was further stated that it is not correct that the bene- fit of paid leave cannot be granted for taking part in trade union activities.

The parties have not produced any evidence.

The case was fixed for arguments today. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant Union. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the non- applicant.

It is not disputed that certain union employees had submitted leave application for 10-6-98. The case of the applicant is that Jeave was granted while the case of non-applicant is that leave was not granted. The applicant hes not produced any order regarding sanction of leave. Merely because salary was paid for the month of June, 1998 without any deduction for 10-6-98 it cannot be assi.,**^ Jiat leave was granted. As per Regulation (22) of the Staff Ser- vice Regulations of the Bank an officer|cmployee cannot absent from duty without permission, Regu- tion (4?) provides that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It further provides the leave will be refused when the exigencies of the service so re- quire. Thus, the non-applicant was not under an obligation to grant leave for staging "dharna" by the employees in respect of their demands and, there- fore, the action of the management of the Bank by deducting one day's salary for the day of dharna as per the policy of "No work No pay" cannot said to be unjustified. The employees, therefore, are not entitled to any relief.

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

sd.r-

Illegiblc

Presiding Officer5645 New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001 S.O. 2675.—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 Tribuaal/Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the¹ management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-9-2001.

[No. L-41012/14/2000-1RCB-D]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI8UNAI.-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 34|2OOO

Ref. No. L-41012/14/2000-IR(B-I) Dteed : 24-5-2000

BETWEEN

Shri Pooran Chandra Bose S/o Shri Gyan Chandra Bose Clo Sri Pervez Alam 283(63, Kha-Garhi Kanaora (Premvati Nagalr^ P.O.-Manak Nagar Lucknow.

AND

The Chief Works Manager Loco Workshop, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.

AWARD

Bv reference No..L-4in!2|14!2000-lR(B-n dn'ed 24-5-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (6~) of sub-section (11 and sub-section 2f A1 of secHnn 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 H4 of 1Q471 made over this d;srmfe between Shri Pnoran Chandra Bose S|o Shri Gayan Chandra Bose and the Chief Works Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference is produced as under :

"Whether the action of the Management in Terminating the services of Pooran Chandra Bose vide order dated 12-12-1999 by Chief Works Manager, Nordicm Railway, Lucknow was legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. The reference was later amended by corrigen- dum issued by the Ministry of Labour vide letter no. L-41012|14|2000-IR(B-I) dated 16-2-2001. The word 12-12-1999 was substituted by 12-12-1986.

3. According to the claim statement and the re- joinder, the workman ivas appointed as substitute labour and acquired temporary status w.e.f. 20-6-84. He continuously wor&cu till 12.12-8t> in the scale of ks. lyo-zjz, later revised Ks. 7:>U-y4U. As an employee wiUi temporary s.a.tus, his sctviccs were governed by Kanvvay mnpnoyccs ^uisoipiiiie and Appeal; Kines, wiucii required inter alia, issuance of nonce and tormal enquiry ueiorc his leiinniauon. Tne management terminated ins services orally without aiioioiiig any opportunity and thus, ihc action ol the management was illegal and unjustified. Also, the woiKinan n&d worked tor more tnan 240 days in each calendar years and so Ins services couid be dispense with only after due compliance of section 25-F of the industrial dispute Act, 1947. Rehel of reins;ate- ment with full back wages is sought by the workman.

4. The management in its written statement has denied valid engagement of F'ooran Chandra Bose, either as a casual labour or EJ substitute labour, it is pleaded that the management had invited applications lor engagement of casual labourers vide office notice No. 105/E/A dated 4-11-82. Tins invuation was open only to the sons of the staff who were retiring in the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. The applicants were required to posses minimum educational qualification class VIII passed. There were some other ladders besides, the age which should have been between 18 and 28 years on 20-12-82. According to the manage- ment, the workman filed forged certificate showing his educational qualification VIII passed. As soon as, this fact came to notice, his certificate was got verified and his services were dispensed with. The workman had knowledge of the said verification all along. Furthermore, the case was filed dafter 17 years without explaining reasons for the delay.

5. The parties have not disputed that father of the workman was working in tbo railways and taking advantage of the said office notice, the workman, had submitted his application on the prescribed form. There is no evidence that the workman was ever appo:nted as ai substitute labour. The applications were invifed for casual labourers, and so, anv relief, the workman if found entitled to, has to be judged on the basis of his being; on the panel of casual labourers and not a swbs+itute labour. •

6., The clapm statement and also the rejoinder do not disclose grounds for seeking relief at such a belated stage, say more than iS years. Desoi'e this dei^iy, it is proposed to considere the case on merit as well!

7. According to the management, the services of the woikmaii were Dispense wiih by letter no, 949 dated iz-y-iybo, 1ms termination leiter specincauv mentions lna|t Fooran Chandra Bose was engaged a casual labourer on daily rules on production ur euu- cauonai ceiuiicale oi class Vill pa^s and attained temporary t-iatus w.e.J!. t 20-7-84. The educational ceiuncaie ol class Viil passed submitted by turn was louna to be laisc. In normal course, the very engage- ment on the basis ot a forged certificate should' liave been treated as 'non-e^L engagement", out tne management discharged him from the service after paymg nun one monui wages amounting to Ks. 1013 in lieu ot notice period together witn retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 1519.50 along with his monthly wages tor the period of 1-12-86 to 13-12-b6 amounting to Rs. 43tt.iy0. It is, thus, evident that tne management had complied with the provisions of Section 25-F ot the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in dispensing with his services as casual labourer. The workmain htis not denied receipt of compensation etc. as per letter no. 949 dated 12-9-96.

8. The submission of the workman, is, that on acquiring temporary itatus, he Mas governed by ser- vice rules and so an enquiry was necessary under the said rules before his termination. To decide this issue, it is necessary to go into the merit whether the work- man wais eligible to be appointed/ And in this context whether the certihcate iled by him was forged? Ihe parties led evidence on this point whether the educa- tional certificate was genuine/forged ?

9. The reference order contains two specific areas for discussion : first; the legality of the action of the management and second; what relief this Tribunal may grant to the woikman? If the educational certi- ficate is found forged the very appointment on the said basis was fraudulent and so the appointment had to be treated 'non-tst appointment', in such situa- tion, this Tribunal cannot grant relief or reinstate- ment despite non-observance of procedural safeguards, as in substance, the relief of reinstatement would per- petuate illegality.

1986 bat the letter was found missing in the connected file ana so this second letter was se-nt for verification on 31-12-99. Management examined Senior Person- nel Officer, Siya Ram and also, llanarsi Praisad Verma clerk, of the Sohan Lai Inter College, Ragendra Nagar, Lucknow. MW-2 Banarsi Prasad¹ Verma stated that at serial no. 3326, name of Dinesh Kumar Pathak s|o Ram Ratan Pathak finds reference. He also stated that in the registers maintained by the school there is no serial no. 6626 (A). The name of Ram Naresh S|o Shiv Lai is at serial no 6626. This witness was cross-examined by the authorised repre- sentative of workman but nothing could be elicited which may prove that MW-2 is making false state- ment. MW-2 was confronted with the remark Ex-3 on Ex-2, relied by the workman. He explained that the remarks are in his handwriting, which were in reference to the management's letter no. 108 dated 10.86 which related to other person. He wanted original to be shown which was not produced by the workman. Authorised representative of the workman submitted that the original should be with the manage- ment, and this emplies this certificate bearing 6626(A) is forged. The workman did nol explain source of his certificate Ex-2, MW-2 explained that hti reniark. Ex-3, was in reference to some other matter which apparently was planted on the fake certificate and got Xeroxed. This statement appears to be correct because all correspondence in relation to workman were in letter No. 105 and not in 108 which finds reference in Ex. 3.

11. The genuineness or the certificate is doubtful for reason of unusual serial no. as 6F626 (A), which is normally not a serial number as stated by MW-2. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances, the only conclusion may be drawn is, that the workman, Pooran Chandra Bose got himself engaged on the basis of forged certificate, which was later detected. Since the certificate was forged the very engagement was illegal and temporary status could not have been derived on the basis of forged engagement. Relevant departmental rules are not applicable to such em- ployees. The rule applies to those legally appointed and gained temporary status as per relevant provi- sions of the Railway Establishment Code.

12. In the present case the management took extra precaution and complied with the provisions of sec- tion 25-F by paying -nonetory benefits as provided in the saiid section, of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The workman has mtf denied receipt of pay- ments and so has admitted this document.

13. In light of the discussions made above, the action of the management was proper and justified in dispensing with the services of the workman who gained entry in the service of railwajv on the basis of a forped certificate and also received compensa- tion etc. His termination was legal.

14. Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW 4-9-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer5647 New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001

S.O. 2676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awaird of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in ihe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workmam, which was received by the Central Government on 10-9-2001.

[No. L-12012/l52/96-IR(B-D] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer5648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PARI; II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3649 New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001

S.O. 2677.—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/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-9-2001.

[No. L-12012/107/97-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer5650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA": OCTOBER ft, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC - 3(ii)J ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT B-8/98

Reference No. L-12012/107/97-lR(B-I) Dt. 27-1-98

Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Ex-Driver, resident of village Surajpure, Via Beawar, District Ajmar through Shri Mahendra Shah, Labour Adviser,. A-19, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

, .Applicant.

V/s.

1. Bank of Rajasthan through its Managing Director.

2. General Manager,

Bank of Rajasthan Limited, C-3, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Non-applicant.

ATTENDANCE:

For the applicant: Shri Arvind Soni, Advocate.

For the non-applicant : Shri Alok Fatchpuria,

Advocate.

Date of Award : 18-7-2001

AWARD

The Central Government vide order mentioned above has referred the following dispute under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1947) for adjudication :

was denied that the applicant was the employee of the non-applicant bank. It was stated that there was no relationship in between applicant and non-applicant as employer and'employee. It was also stated that the dispute does not fall unuer Section 2(k) of the Act, 1947. It was stated that the applicant was the perso- nal driver of the then General Manager of the bank Shri K. M. Rohatgi. The applicant had worked under the control, supervision and direction of Shri K. M. Rohatgi and had never worked under the direction z.nd control of the Bank. It was stated that the salary of the applicant was paid by K. M. Rohatgi and whatever amount was paid to the appli- cant in respect of vehicle No. RJ 14 C 9883 had been paid to him on behalf of K. M. Rohatgi. It was fur- ther stated that the non-applicant bank is a public sector undertaldng and there is procedure prescribed for appointment on permanent basis. For giving ap- pointment advertisement is issued and after interview by selection committee appointment is given. The applicant was not given appointment by the bank as per the above procedure. It was denied that the appli- cant was given any assurance for regularisation. It was stated tha: if any cheque had been given by the bank in the n:ime of applicant the same is in respect of amenity provided by the bank to the General Manager Mr. Rohatgi. As per the direction of Mr. Rohatgi the amount was paid to the applicant on his behalf. The vehicle, which was belonging to the bank, was allotted to the General Manager for his conve- nience and the bills in respect of maintenance of the vehicle were to be paid by the bank. Whenever the vehicle was get repaired by the applicant as per the direction of Mr. Rohatgi, the bill was submitted by him. It was denied that the applicant's services were terminated by the non-applicant. It was stated that the bank allots ths vehicles to its officers but the driver is not made available. In case the officer wants he may engage a driver and the bank makes reimburse- ment in respect of the same to some extent at the fixed rate.

"Whether the action of the management of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Driver w.e.f. 13-2-95. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The applicant in the rejoinder stated that he was employee of the bank and he worked under the con- trol of its authorities. Had he been the employee of Mr. Rohafgi then there was no question to make pay- ment under different hepds to him through vouchers. The attendance register discharging his duties on dif- ferent vehicles primarily goes to show that he was not the personal employee of Mr. Rohatgi. It was denied that the salary was paid to him by Shri Rohatgi.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the

following points of disputes were framed :^- The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was appointed in the establishment of the non-applicant Bank (hereinafter referred as the Bank) on the post of driver on consolidated basis w.e.f. 3-12-93 in temporary capacity. The applicant was given appointment after inviting the application from him and judging the suitability by the General Mana- ger. He was ordered to paid Rs. 1300 p.m. initially and was directed to work under control of'Assistant General Manager. His monthly emoluments were in- creased to Rs. 1500 p.m. in the year 1994. He was assured for regularisation of his services. He made a request that his attendance may be recorded along with other staff of the bank which annoyed non-appli- cant No. 1 who terminated his services on 12-12-95. His services were terminated in violation of 25-F and 25-H of Act, 1947 and Rule 77 of the Industrial Dis- pute Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1957). The non-applicant had adopted unfair labour practice while terminating his services. He is out of employment since the date of termination. It was prayed that his retrenchment may be declared illegal and he may be reinstated with all consequential benefit. In the reply on. behalf of non-applicant it5651 The applicant in support of his claim filed his own affidavit. The learned counsel for the non-applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. The applicant also filed copies of documents marked Ex. W-l to Ex. W-147, which will be referred at the appropriate place. On behalf of the non-appli- cant affidavit of K. M. Rohatgi Ex-General Manager of the bank was filed. The learned counsel for the applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. In the fortri of documentary evidence copies of documents marked M-l to M-18 were filed.

Heard arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and per used the record. The points are decid- ed as follows :

Point Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 :—There is no appoint- ment letter in favour of the applicant on the post of driver. Though the applicant came with the case that he was given ap- pointment after inviting application from him, in his statement he has admitted that he did not submit application for appoint- ment nor any letter for interview was issued to him.

The applicant in his statement stated that he was given appointment in the establishment of non-appli- cant No. 1. Initially he was given Rs. 1300 p.m. as salary. Later on in 1994 the salary was increased to Rs. 1500 p.m. He has submitted copy of the docu- ments Ex. W-l to W-141, W-l46 and W-147 for having worked in the establishment of the non-appli- cant. He has stated that he had worked from 3-12-93 to 12-2-95 and worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding to the date termination i.e. 12th December, 1995. On the other hand K. M. Rohatgi, the then General Manager of the bank has stated that the applicant had worked as his personal driver in the bank. When he was as Deputy General Manager he was given some amount for engaging a personal driver. It was for him as to how and during which time the work was to be taken from him. He was to submit a letter on the basis of which the bank used to make payment. Such kinds of letters are M-l to M-l7, which bear his signatures. The applicant worked under his supervision, control and direction. No. other officer could take wortfrorn him. Tncr applicant ncvar-worked under control and. direction- of, the bank. Tlaft appli-, 2948 GI/2001—17

cant, was paid. hia. salary by M^ nonpayment KgaKt* ing maintenance of the. vehicle was made to him which was received by applicant on his behalf. The applicant was never appointed in service of the bank, nor his attendance was marked in the attendance register. There was no relationship between the applicant and bank as employee and employer. In cross-examina- tion he has. admitted signatures of the applicant on documents marked W-l to W-3. He has a,so admitted that the documents marked W-8 to W-32, 34 to 39. 41 to 48, 50 to 54, 56 to 63, 65 to 146, are related to vehicle No. R.J.14 C 9883 which were given by htm to the bank for reimbursement. He has also ad- mitted that the cheques Ex. W-40 and 64 were given to the applicant for meals. He has also admitted that documents marked W-49 and W-147 bear signatures of the applicant. He has stated that payment of salary for the period from December, 1993 to March, 1995 was paid by him to the applicant as shown in docu- ments M-l9 to 21 which was reimbursed by the bank to him.

The learned counsel for the applicant has contend- ed that various vouchers produced by the applicant show that the applicant was really in the service of the bank and did not work as personal driver of the General Manager of the Bank. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-applicant has contended that the applicant worked as personal driver of Mr. K. M. Rohatgi and worked under his control, direc- tion and supervision. He has thus contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee in bet- ween bank and the applicant. In support of his argu- ment he has relied upon (1978) 2 SCC 358 Punjab National Bank V/s. Ghulam Dastagir.

In the case cited above it was held by the apex court that in order to decide that who is the employer the crucial test in most cases is as to who exercises control and supervision over the workman. It was further observed "Lord Porter in the course of his speech in the judgement in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Goggins and Griffith Liverpool Ltd., expres- sed himself in words which were relied upon by Shri Justice Sinha in Shivanandan Sharma :

Many factors have a bearing on. the result. Who is paymaster, who can dismiss, how long the alterna- tive service lasts, what machinery is employed, have alJ to be kept in mind. The expressions used in any individual case must always be considered in regard to the subject-mitter under discussion but amongst the- may tests suggested, I think that the most satis- factory, by which to ascertain who is the employer at any particular time, is to ask who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he to do the work upon which he is engaged.

It is clear that the direction and control are the telling factors to decide as to whether the driver in the present case is the employee of the Bank. This test does not exclude other factors also, and indeed as Lord Macmillan, in the aforesaid case, rightly stres- sed the question in each case turns on its own cir- cumstances and decisions in other cases are rather illustrative than determinative."

Thus as per the law laid down by the .apex- court control and supervision- are the crucial tests to arrfvo'565-2- THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 fPARt IT—SEC. 3fli)] from the bank. The applicant has claimed the amount vide debit voucher W120 for being on.duty in the bank. The applicant has claimed the amount vide debit voucher W126 for performing duty in the bank as peon. The applicant has claimed amount vide debit voucher W127 for duty in the bank on holiday. The applicant has claimed amount vide debit voucher W129 for bringing parshad for 'Lord Ganeshji' in the bank. The applicant has claimed expenses for food vide debit voucher 135. Thus as per the above vou- chers which have not been disputed by the non-appli- cant the applicant has claimed the amount under the heads of food, conveyance, duty with the Director and Chairman of the bank. Had the applicant been the personal driver of the General Manager of the Bank Mr. K. M. Rohatgi he could not have claimed the amount under the above heads from the bank. Mr. K. M. Rohatgi in his statement has stated that no other officer could take work from the applicant. If it was so, then how the applicant gave duty with the director and chairman of the bank ? The learned coun- sel for the non-applicant has laid great emphasis on the fact that salary was paid by Mr. K. M. Rohatgi to the applicant which was reimbursed by the bank to him as per the documents marked Ml to M17 and W147 in which it has been mentioned that the appli- cant was the personal driver of Mr. K. M. Rohatgi. This appears to be the device adopted by the bank so that the provisions of the Act may not be applicable in case of the applicant. The whole of the salary was paid to the applicant not directly bv the bank but through the General Manager Mr. K. M. Rohatgi. Thus in reality the paymaster was the bank and not Mr. K- M. Rohatgi. The applicant was not given tho salary but other perks also from the bank such as conveyance charces and expenses for means. The applicant rendered services not only to the General Manager of the bank but also to its director and chairman. AH these facts go to show that the bank has resorted to colourable device by making the pay- ment of salary to the applicant through the General Manager and thereby cita'im'ng the applicant as per- sonal driver of the General Manager Mr. K. M. Rohatgi. The apnii'cant in fact has tendered service in the rstabl^hmfcnt of the non-applicant through its Genera] Marmecr. Director ?nd Chairman and wis therefore, employee of the bank. It is thus proved that the applicant had worked in the establishment of the bank from 3-12-93 to 11-12-95. The applicant was not the personal driver of Mr. K. M. Rohat^i. The non-aop1icant has adonted unfair labour practice while retrenching the anniicant from service bv claiming the applicant to be the per- sonal driver of Mr. K. M. Rohatgi and the disnute raided bv the annlicant regard'ne retrenchment of his service falls in the category of industrial dispute, at the conclusion as to -who is the employer. But they are not the only tests, other relevant circums- tances may also be looked into. The non-applicant in the reply has stated that the bank gives the facility of vehicle to its officers. If some officer wants to engage a driver, the bank may reimburse some amount at fixed rate. Tt is not necessary for the bank to reim- burse full amount paid by the officer to the driver. It was also stated whenever cheque was issued in the name of the applicant the same was part of the aminity provided to the General Manager, It may be stated that the non-applicant had not produced the Bank Rules or any order or any circular regarding the terms and conditions under which the officer or General Manager of the Bank arc permitted to engage the personal driver. So far as documents marked W-J to W2, W4 to 6, 7. 8, 11, W-15 to 22, 26, 29, 32, 37, W41 to 43, 46, 48, W52 to 55, 56, 56(A) 63, 67, 69/W71 to 75, 77, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95. 97, 98. 100, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 119, W121 to 124, 130 to 133, 136, W138 to 141 and 146 are concerned they relate to the main- tenance of the vehicle and on the basis of these docu- ments which bear the signatures of the applicant, it cannot be held that there was direct relationship be- tween him and the bank as an employer and employee as the maintenance might have been carried out at the, direction of the General Manager Mr. K. M. •Rohatgi but there are other documents which show the direct nexus between him and the bank. Debit voucher of the bank marked W7 is in respect of the duty of chairman on Sunday and regarding convey- ance for going late. Similar is the debit voucher mark- ed W9. Debut voucher W10 relates conveyance charges claimed bv the applicant for coming from Mal- viya Nagar to Sai'ojini Marg. Debit voucher W12 is in the respect of expenses incurred by the applicant. The applicant has claimed taxi fare vide debit voucher W13. Vide debit voucher W14 he has claimed ex- penses. Vide debit voucher W23 the applicant has claimed the taxi fare for having become late on ac- count of the work of the bank. Debit voucher W24 is in respect of expenses by the applicant. Vide debit voucher W25 the applicant has claimed expenses for giving duty in the bank on Sundav. Vide debit voucher W27," 28. 31, 34. 35. 38. 39, 44. 45. 47. 57, 61. 62. 66. 88. 93. 96, 102, 103. 106, 107. 112, 117. 118. 126. 134. 137. the applicant has claimed convey- ance charges from the bank. Vide debit vouchers W3fi the applicant has claimed expenses for having worked as peon. Vide debit voucher W56 the applicant has claimed expenses for food. The debit voucher W61 mentions that the applicant did duty with the director. In the debit voucher W62 it has been mentioned that the applicant went to the airport for leaving the direc- tor there. The- applicant has claimed expenses, for food for beine on dutv with the director vide voucher W66. Vide debit voucher W70 the applicant has chim- ed the amount for being on duty with the chairman for the bank. Vide debit voucher W76 the applicant has claimed expenses for food for having gone to choki-dhani for bank's work. Vide debit voucher W78 the applicant has claimed expenses from the bn^ in- curred bv him at Delhi. Vide debit vouoher W79 the applicant has claimed expenses.for goine te Sanpancr for bank's work. Vide debit voucher W84, 90, 111, 114 the applicant has claimed the amount for meals

. Point No. 2:—Tt is proved that the aoniicant has worked 3-12-93 to 11-12-95 in the establishment of the non-applicnnt and had worked also for more than 240 davs in the year preceding to the date of termination. It is not d;snuted that no notice or pav in lieu notice or retrenchment compen- sation was paid to the applicant while retrenches nrm as required under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 and5653 no seniority list was prepared and published as requir- ed under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1957 while retrenching him. The services of applicant, therefore, were termi- nated by violating ot Rule 77 of Rules, 1957 also.

Point No, 6 :—The applicant has admitted that he has done the work of driver after termination of his services. He has also admitted that he is working in agriculture thereafter. It cannot therefore be said that the applicant is unemployed since the termination of his service.

Point No. 7 :—On account of violation of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 and Rule 77 of Rules, 1957, the termination of the service of the applicant is held to be illegal and unjustified. He will be entitled to reinstatement in service. In view of the facts and cir- cumstances of the case and on the basis of no work no pay the benefit of back wages and continuity in service is not given to applicant. The non-applicant is directed to reinstate, the applicant on the post of driver within a period of three months from the date of the award.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government for publication undei Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947.

Sd./- Illegible, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2001

S.O. 2678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Tn- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Govremnet hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bil-aner & Jaipur and their workman, which Tvas received by the Central Government on 10-9-20OJ.

[No. L-12012/136/96-IRO3-I)]' AJAY KUMAR, Desk OfficerMM THE GAZETTE OF INBIA: OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—Sfic. 3(iiJ] 3655 5656 THE 0AZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5657 New Delhi, The 12th September, 2001

S.O. 2679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal Aluppuzha as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Governmerit on 11-9-2001.

[No. L-12012]98|99-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : ALAPPUZHA

(Dated this the 18th day of August, 2001)5658 THE GAZEfTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6, "2001/ASWA 14, 1923 [PART U-&M -3 PRESENT

Shri M. N. Radhakiishna Menon, Industrial

Tribunal.

I.D. No. 37|99(.C)

BETWEEN

The Chairman, Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Ad- ministrative Ofhce, Indian Express Build- ings, Kaloor. Kerala State. Kochi.

AND

Savings Bank 3'ccuunt maintained with-the* rmnagp- ment Bank. . There was, tniployer.-errnployftes. relation- ship between the Bank: and himself. He is a work- man under Section 2(s) cf the Industrial 'Disputes Act, 1947.- His termination is cibitrary and is effected in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, and various provisions of the awards of the National Tribunal and Bipartite settlement^ relating to the banking industry. Ihus his termination is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, it was prayed thai an award may be passed holding that there was employer-employee- re- lationship between the Bank and himself and setting as'de his termination and awaidmg reinstatement with full back wage?, continuity of service and other, con- sequential benefits.

The workman cf the above concern represented by Shri. Rajcsh Kumar, K. S., Lakshrni Bhavan, EUumanoOr,' P.O., Thavalakuzhy, Kott4yam-(->86,631.

4 The management submitted a written statement

setting out the following contentions :—

REPRESENTA7IONS :

Sri. Stiresh Ktiimr, Advocate, Ernakulam.—For

Management.

Mjs. H. B. She my and Ashok, B. Shenoy, Ad- vocates, 'Val.-al', Ernakulam, Cochni- 682-035.—For Wort mart

AWARD

1. The Central Government has, as per their order No. L-]2OL2|9SI99]R(B-1), dried 4-8-1999 refer- red this industrial dispute between the above parties in Lespect of the following issues for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether there exMcd any employee-employer relationship between the management of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd and Sri. Rajcsh Kumar, K. S. Data En'ry Operator]Compu- ter Operator of Kottayam Branch ? If so, whether th; vctum of the management in terminating his services with effect from 18-6-OR is justified? If not, to what re- lief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Sri. Rajesh Kumar, K, S., has submitted a claim statement setting out the. following contentions be- fore the Tribunal :—

3. He was employed as Data Entry Operator|Com- puter Operator in the Clerical Ccdre of the mana- gement Bank at their Kottajam branch from 1-6-1996 to 18-6-1998 continuously and uninterrup- tedly. On 18-6-1908, his services were terminated by the Bank. At the time of hh entering the ser- vice of the Bank, no appointment letter was issued to him even though he was employed to do regular and permanent works in the Bank. He was treated as a contract labour on the pretext of a sham con- tract with Mis. Aptcch Computer Education, Kotta- yam ,(hcte:nafter nTtrred to as Aptech for short). Though he was doing peicnniul and regular nature of works with the management under the direct supervision aad control of the Officers of the mana- gement Bank. This contract arrangement was cook- ed up so as to deny him the status and privileges of a permanent workman in the Bsnk. He was work- ing within the Banket, premises and all working mate- rials including btaiionery were furnished by the Bank. He was paid wage's "directly by" crediting it to his

5. The claim raised b\ Sri. Rajesh Kumar are unsustainable. In 1995, the management Bank-has decided to computarise operations in some of their branches including their Kottuyam branch. For this, it was necessary to enter the data's relating to Ihe transactions and entries, in the manual records main- tained in Ihe b ink. Since it was- not a regular work of the Bank and it was not feasible to employ per- manent workers for this purpose, the Bank has enter* ed into a job contract with an outside agency viz., 'Aptech¹ to carry out this woik. In compliance with this contract, an">ove agency sent several persons in- cluding Sri, Rrjesh Kunnr to the Kottayam branch to carry out the above works. They were working under the direct control and supervision of Mis. Aptech. Their work was not supervised by the Officers of the management as alleged by Sri. Rajesh Kumar. None of the persons sent by Aptech has worked 'continuously in the branch. Since Sti. Raich Kumar was not appointed in the services of the Bank, he was not issued with any appointment letter. He wa? not entrusted w'th any duty by the Bank and all rlong, he was doing works as per the directions of MJs. Aptcch. He was not doing any regular woiks in the Bank. There is no permanent Clerk in th; Bank occupying the post of Data Entry Oper;vtor[Comp iter Operator. Since he was not an employee of the Bank, he is not entitled to get any salary, privileges and bent-fits available to its regular employees. His allegations that the job contract w"s sham and he was doing regular works in thu Bank ai"d it was with i view to deprive him cf all. the, benefits of a permanent employee that he was treated as contract labour, are not correct. The contract with Aptech was- bonafide genumg and valid. The works entrusted with Aptech could be carried on beyond the premises of the Bank also. Since the records from which the data are to be entered were required for the day-to-day banking operations, the woiks were arranged to be carried out. in the pre- mises of the Brink itself. The averment of S.ri. R*ijcsh Kumnr that the works wrrc confined to the promises of the Bank is not correct. The remunera- tion for the w ck carrcd out were reimbursed to the Aptech ac-iinst their invoice presented by them. By January, 1998, the works were almost completed and service of only personnel was sufficient to comD- lete the works. So the Aptech deputed Sri. Rajesh Kumar and instructed the Brak to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month as stipend pending finalisation5659 of their account with the Bank. Thus the monthly payment vv;is credited to hts S, B. Account and dis- huised to him. On 18-6-1996, the works entrusted w'th Aptech were fully completed and therefore, Sri. Rajesh Kumar need not liavc come for work from the above date. There was no employer-employee relationship between the Bank and Sri Rajesh Kumar. He ']•• not a workman under Section 2(s) of the In- dus'iial Disputes Act. lie was not in the services of tlie B'ink and his services were not terminated by 1 lie Bank. Therefore, ihe management prayed for pai;>ine an award accepting their contentions and rejcc'in'j the claims ;r;ised by Sri. Rajesh Kumar.

6. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence or WW1 and MWs 1 to 3 and Ext. Ml to Ml2.

7. From the divergent stands adopted by the parties, the issues that arises for my consideration are whether there wa; employer-employee relation- ship between Sri. Rajesh Kumar and the Bank and whether his disengagement was vitiated by law. If so, what are the reliefs that he is entitled to ?

H. The Point.—It is the claim of Sri. Rajesh Kumar that he was working with the management Bank from 1-64996 to lti-6-1998 as a data entry Operatorjcomputer operator in the Kottayam branch of the management Bank and his services were ter- minated on 18-6-1998. It is the contention of the management ihat there is no post of data entry ope- ratrrlcomputer operator in The Bank, the Bank has entered into a job contract with M|s. Aptech and Sri. Rajesh Kumar was a person sent by Aptech and there was no employer-employee relationship bet- ween them and therefore there dos not arise the que'tion of terminating his services by the Bank from lK-6-1998 onwaids. Thus the issue that emerges for my consideration is whether there was employer-employee relationship between the Bank ond Sri.-Rajesh Kumar or not.

9. Any pcr:on, to get the protection of Industrial Dispute Act, should be a workman as defined in ihe said Act. Section 2(s) of (he Industrial Disputes Act deals with the definition of "workman". The definition as far as it is relevant to the context is extracted below:—

"Section 2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervi- sory work for hire or reward whether the terms of employment be express or implied and

" 10. Tn order to become a workman as per the above definition, he shall be a person employed in any in- dustry. His employment shall be for doing works such as manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, opera- tional, clerical or supervisory work. Further, the em- ployment shall be for hire or reward, and there shall be terms of employment which may be express or implied.

11. Tt is common case of parties that the banking operations constitute an industry. The person involved in this dispute was attending works such as clerical, skilled, technical etc. which are stipulated in the above definition and it .was forhirc or reward or re- 2948 01-20(11—18

numeration. The real dispute is whether he was emp- loyed in ihe Bank or whether it evolved a contract of employment between the Bank and Sri Rajesh Kumar. The principles of contract of employment are akin to the principles of law of contract. It has to be ascertained from the materials on record as to whe- ther a contract of employment is developed between the Bank and Sri. Rajesh Kumar.

12. It is common case that the management has got carried out certain works in connection with com- puterisation of their Kottayam Branch by entering into a job contract arrangement with M/s. Aptech. It has been clearly admitted by Sri Rajesh Kumar in his evidence as WW1, that he has gone to the Kotta- yam Branch and attended data entry works as direct- ed by Aptech. It is further admitted by him that he has not applied for any post in the Bank and he has not obtained any appointment letter from the Hank. He has not submitted any written request seek- ing employment in the Bank. He is not aware of whe- ther he is qualified to get a job in the Clerical Cadre in the Bank. He has not appeared for any written test or interview in the Bank. He has not signed any at- tendance register in the Bank. He has never requested the Bank to extend pay and parks applicable to Bank staff. In view of the abo\e, it cannot be believed for a moment that there developed a contract of employ- ment or an employer-employee relationship between the Bank and Sri Rajesh Kumar as claimed by him.

13. Sri Rajesh Kumar has a case that he was work- ing within the Bank's premises and his works were supervised by the Bank Manager. This is disputed by the management. The management submits that since the records were required for day-to-day use, the works were got done in the premises of the branch itself, but there was no supervision of his works by any management personnel attached to the Bank. This aspect of the management's case was clearly made out from the testimony of Sri. Raveendran then Manager of the Kottayam Branch as MW2. His evidence on this aspect is not at all controverted. Smt. Laly Joseph, centre head of Aptech has clearly testified before me as MW3 that Sri Rajesh Kumar was deputed by them and the equipments were hired from outside agencies and the works of their people were controlled and supervised by them and their remuneration an terms were fixed and paid by them. Her evidence on the above aspects are not controverted by Sri. Rajesh Kumar in any manner. In view of the above and in the light of the peculiar nature of job works entrusted with an outside agency and the business nature of banking industry, by permitting the persons sent by the agency to work within the premises of ihe Bank, it will not make the arrangement otherwise than con- tractual and it will not confer any employment status to the persons sent by the agency.

14. Ext. M9 is the certified statement of accounts in respect of SB account No. 171 S3 maintained by the Kottayam branch of the rhanagement Bank in the name of Sri. Rajesh Kumar from 1-6-1996 to 10-6-1998. Tt evidence tint payment at the rate of Rs, 1,000 is credited by the Bank in the above account on 11-2-1998 bv transfer, Rs. 1000 on 3-3-1998 as transfer bv sal?|rv, Rs. 1,000 on 4-4-1998 ns transfer by miscellaneous expenses, R?. 1,000 on 11-5-19985660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBhK 0, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] as it stands, the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of third person" as transfer by salary anj Rs. 1000 on 2-6-1998 as transfer by salary. Based on this, it was claimed by Sri. Kajcsh Kumar thait he was paid remuneration directly by the Bank and there evolved employer -employee relationship bet- ween the Bank and himself. This is disputed by the management. Their contention is that by January 1998, the contract work wai almost completed and it required the services of only one. person to complete the process. For this purpose M|s. Aptech deputed Sri. Rajesh Kumar and the Bank was instructed to pay him directly as a matter of convenience, and that is how the payments were credited¹ in his SB Account. The entries as salary are made therein, by mistake. 1 have considered the merit of the contentions of parties in the light of the materials on record. Smt. Laly Joseph the Centre head of Aptech has clearly deposed before me as MW3 that at the final stage of execution of their contract, services of only one person were required and therefore she deputed Sri. Rajesh Kumar and as per Ext. M3 letter instructed the Bunk to make payment of stipend directly to him. Her evidence on the above aspect is not controverted in any manner. Therefore the cajse of the management that in view of the above instructions, they have paid remuneration to Rajesh Kumar direcHy by crediting it in his SB Account, inspires confidence. But the case of Rajesh Kumar to the contrary does not inspire confidence.

15. In view of the above, the conclusion is inescap- able that Sri Rajesh Kumar was a person employed by the contractor vis., kAptech' and there was no em- ployer-employee relationship developed between the Bank and himself. Thus he is not a person employed in the Bank and here i;; no contract of employment evolved between the Bank and himself ;is contempla- ted in Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. This conclusion is fortified by the following observations of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Food Corpora- tion of India Vs. Food Corporation of India 1985 TI LLJ (4> also.

Exhibits marked on the side of the Management:

Ml : Letter dated 29-6-95 sent from Aptech Computer Education, Kottayam to the management.

M2 : Letter dated 14-7-95 sent by the Manage- ment to Aptech Computer Education, Kottayam.

M3 : Letter dated 5-1 -'98 sent from Aptech Com- puter educational Kottayam to the manage- ment.

W4 : Letter dated 10-J-98 sent fiom Aptech Computer Education, Kottam to the management.

M5 : Receipt dated 5-1-98 for Rs. 79,000 issued from Aptech Computer Education, Kottayara to" the management.

M6 : Receipt dated 5-1-93 for Rs. 66,000 issued from Aptech Computer Educat.on, Kottayam to the management.

M7 : Receipt dated 10-7-98 for Rs. 3,000 issued from Aptech Computer Education, Kottayam to the management.

M8 : Receipt dated 10-7-93 for Rs. 29,000 issued from Aptech Computer Education, Kottayam to the management.

M9 : Statement dated 16-6-2000 maintained by the management for the period from 1-6-96 to 30-6-98 in respect of the account number SB. 17183.

M1Q : Letter dated 1-8-95 sent from the Aptech Computer Education, Kottayam to the management.

M il : Letter dated 21-11-95 sent from the Aptech Computer Education, Kottayam to the management.

M12 : Letter dated 11-12-97 sent from the Kottayam branch to the Administrative office Ernakulam of the management Bank.

Exhibits marked on the side of the workman:

NIL

(Dated this the 18th day of August, 2001).

M. N. RADHAKRISHNA MENON. Industrial

Tribunal Alappuzha New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S.O. 2680.—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 (Labour Court, Bhubanes- war as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 11-9-2001.

[No. L-12012|145|96-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 127|2001

Date of conclusion of hearing 08-08-2001 Date of Passing Award 6th September, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India Evening Branch, Mougal Bhawan, Daily Market, Main Road, Rourkela. 1st Party- Management.

AND

Their Workman, Shri Pitabas Jena, O.S.R.T.C. Garragc Colony, Scctor-2, Rourkela-6- Dist. Sundargarh. -. 2nd Party-Workman APPEARANCES :

Shri U. S. Mishra, Deputy Manager, (Law), Shri N. B. Madtiab, Asst. Manager, (Law). . . For the 1st Party- Management.

Shri B. S. Pali- General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union. .. 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, f947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-120J2|145|96-lR(B-l), dated 28-8-1997 :—

"Whether the termination of Shri Pitabash Jena, Ex-Employee by the Manage- ment of State Bank of India, Even- ing Branch, Rourkela, with effect from 27-09-1995 is legal and justi- fied. If not, what relief the work- man is entitled to ?"

2. The Workman has filed his Claim Statement. His case is that on 01-01-1991 he joined as a Messenger in the Kalunga Branch of 1st Party-Management on tem- porary basis. He was paid. Rs. 750 per month. He worked there as such till 28-10-1993. Thereafter he was transferred to the Even- ing Branch of Daily market area of Rourkela, which is under the 1st Party-Management. He joined in the Evening Branch on 1-10-1993. There he worked as a Messenger till 28-9-1995. It is stated that he was being paid monthly wages of Rs. 900. On 28-9-1995 the Branch Manager refused him employment verbally. He made representation but no res- ponse came from the 1st Party-Management. Hence, he raised a dispute on the ground that he was retrenched without any notice of termination and no compensation was paid to him. After the failure of reconcilia- tion the above reference has been made.

3. The 1st Party-Management has filed their Written Statement. They have denied all the averments made by the 2nd Party- Workman. The case of the 1 st party-Manage- ment is that the 2nd Party-Workman was never engaged as a Messenger at Kalunga Branch, of the 1st Party-Management nor he worked from 1-10-1993 to 28-9-1995. He was engaged by the Kalunga Branch of the 1st Party-Management on purely contract basis as and when reauired between March 19Q2 to 28-10-1992 at ;i contractual rate for that work. From 13-4-1992 to 30-6-1992 his services was engaged for filling of water in the Air Cooler in the Bank at the contrac- tual rate of Rs, 2 por bhnr ,ind he was pai;l of Rs. 1240. Thereafter he nlso supplied water from 7-4-1993 to 30-6-1993. During the year 1993 he was paid Rs. 1400. The 1st Party-Management has taken the stand that the 2nd Party-Workman is not entitled for regularization as he has not completed 240 days continuous service. On the above pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled :—

ISSUES

I. Whether the termination of Shri Pitabash Jena, Ex-Employee, by the Management, State Bank of India, Evening Branch, Rourkkela, with Effect from 27-9-1995 is legal and justified ?

II. If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. The Workman has examined himself as the sole witness. On behalf of the Manage- ment three witnesses have been examined. Both the parties have exhibited some docu- ments in support of their respective case.

FINDINGS

6. In the oral evidence of the 2nd Party- Workman he has stated that he was engaged 1-1-91 on in Kalunga Branch of the 1st Party-Management and worked there till 28-10-1993 and was being paid as sum of Rs, 750 per month. Thereafter he was transferred to the Evening Branch at Rourkela. After join- ing on 1-11-1993 he worked as a Messenger till 28-9-1995. In the cross examination he was suggested that he was not working as a Messen- ger but was supplying water and was not getting Rs. 750 per month but was being paid wages. He has also suggested that dur- ing re-conciliation proceeding he admitted to have worked from 1-10-1993. He has denied those suggestions. Admittedly no appointment letter or transfer letter have been produced on behalf of the Workman. He has admitted that, no appointment letter v/as issued to him and no transfer order was given to him. His submission is that he was being paid Rs. 750 per month at Kalunga Branch and Rs. 900 at the Evening Branch, Rourkela has not been supported by any docu- ments. He has hot taken any step to pray the Tribunal to direct thr 1st Pnrty-Mannee- mrnt for cruise nrodncfion of nny docu- ment which could hnve simnorted his case5663 of the Workman was engaged when there was need of work. When there was no work he was refused employment.

8. As per my above discussions, my answer to the reference is, the termination of Shri Pilabash Jena, Ex-Employee of the Manage- ment of State Bank of India, Evening Branch, Rourkela, with effect from 27-9-1995 is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

9. The reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

New Dcllii, the 12th September, 2001 that he was being paid Rs. 750 per month at Kalunga Branch and Rs. 900 per month at the Evening Branch Rourkcla. Not a single piece of documents have been riled on behalf of the Workman to support his case. On the other hand the evidence of the Witness examined on behalf of the Management. Witness No. I, 2 and 3 and the documenss exhibited by the Management support their stand. Ext.-A series are the copies of the vouchers under which payment have been made to the Workman. Ext.-B reflects the days of engagement of the Workman and pur- pose for which he was engaged. Ex.-C is the statement showing the period of engagement of the 2nd Party-Workman. Ext.-A series discloses that, for doing different types of work he has received different amounts. It will be sufficient to refer to one. In Ext.-A under voucher No. 140 he has received Rs. 10 for going to Post Office. Under Voucher No. 141, he has received for load- ing oi a box. Ext.-B discloses from 31-3-1992 to 30-1-1993 his services was engaged for cleaning, sweeping, filling of water into the Air-Coolers, arrangement of stationeries and for cleaning of out side Office premises. Ext.-C discloses the number of days worked from 1-11-1993 to 30-9-1995. Both the oral and documentary evidence of the Manage- ment stands un-challengcd. In the cross exa- mination nothing has been brought out from the month of the witness examined on behalf of the Management to disbelieve their evidence and the documents exhibited on their behalf.

S.O. 2681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court, Udaipur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mewar Gramin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 11-9-2001.

[No. L-12012ll7l99-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 7. The main grievance of the Workman is that the termination of his service is in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. So the question for consi- deration is whether the Workman can be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act. The evidence adduced on behalf of the Management which stands unrebuttcd as estab- lished that the engagement of the workman was on the basis of need of the work. The Workman has failed to establish that there was sanctioned post in existence and he was worked against that post continuously for 240 days. In my opinion, even if it is accept- ed for the argument sake that the Workman has completed 240 days work it does not import the right for regularization. It merely imposes certain obligation on the em- ployer at the time of termination of the ser- vices. Tn this case, as I have stated the service5664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(n)l New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 2682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centr.il Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakha- patnam, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ministry of Defence and their work- men, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2001.

[No. L-14l)25|l<3|2001-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, V1SAKHAPATNAM PRESENT :

Sri K. Veerapu Naidu, B Sc, B.L., Chairman and Presiding Officer.

Dated : 1st day of June, 2001 1.1.[.D. (C) 61199

BETWEFN :

Karri Shivaram, Slo Appala Kunda Wjo S. Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate, D. No. 9-1-75/1, New Recapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam-13.

300J

AWARD

1I) This is an application filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for re- instatement with back wages.

(2) The ca">e of the petitioner is that he wan ap- pointed as "jitiaiwala in the Samudfika Naval Audi- torium, Naval Base, Visakhapatnalii oil I-10-92 arid he worked ,n suUli till 3f)-4-99. and he was paid Rs. 683 per month. He was working for 8 hrs. for a day for 26 days in a month. He Was not paid minimum wages ttnd hertce workers union filed M,W. 104/95 before the Authority I.e. Asstt, Com- missioner of Labotlr Circle-tl, Visdkhdpdtrtairi arid It was allowed. The lc'pondcnls filed a writ petition No. 15863197 questioning the paid order andI it is pending before the HorVble Hi"h Cnurt. While so, they made an attempt to terminate the seivices of Union General Secretary by name Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ and obtained interim orders rtot to terminate his services so he is continuing in service whereas the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-99 without assigning any reasons on the ground that the respondents have slopped screening of movies in the Samurjrika Naval Auditorium and also the non- public fund,

(3) It is the further case of the wrrkman the Samudrika Auditorium is not closed and that the management i.s vindictive becauso the union filed a case under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the work- man is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

,. Workman

AND

< 1) The Flag Officer.

Commanding in Chief for CSOC (P&A) Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Port, Visakhapatnam.

(2) The Captain,

TNS Virababu. Sa^nudrika, Naval Auditorium Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

. . Management.

This dispute cominp on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. G. Reddy. advocate for workman and the Government pleader for Manage- men.. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the emirs material on record, the court passed the following :

(4) The respondents 1 and ? opposed this appli- cation on the ground that Samudrika Naval Auditor- ium is a lecture -cum-assernbly hall placed under the Administration of the second respondent and it is used for the purpose of screening of training films for the officers and the sailor*, giving lectures by senior defence officer, dignitaries, VIPs for conduct- ing sympoasia and cultural programmes by Naval personnel etc, and the hall was also used for screen- ing of movies once of a while, foi entertainment of officers, sailors and Iheir families who are working in a very stress atmosphere. To meet certain urgent requirements, casual workers like the petitioner and come others were engaged locally and they were paid honorarium as approved by the authorities of the second respondent organisation. The wages to casual labourers were made from the Non-public fund of the second respondent unit but not from the Government fund, the services of these casual workers are only on need basis and it will not come under the purview of Minimum Wages Act. It is true that the Union filed M.W. 104j'>5 and it was allowed in favour of the workman and against which the res- pondent have filed W.P. No. 15864/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the Honourable Court has granted stay Orders against the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed to deposit Rs. 36.129 and the main writ is p:nding. As per the directions of the Higli Court, the respon- dent have to deposit an amount of Rs 36,129 on 18-5-99.

(5) It is further submitted that Naval Auditorium is exclusively meant for officers and sailors for lecture5666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3;ii)] Uun! assembly deniouslnition by senior defence offi- cers, seminars, presentations and cultural programmes by Naval Personnel dc. Due to the advent of coble TV the Sumudrika Naval Auditorium has been in- curring losses due to reaming the losses and the unavailability of the Samudrika Non-Public Fund, the screening of moving for the entertainment of troops hats been stopped and tlv non-public, fund is closed. Hence the petitioner's services were stopped by giving one month's notice and one month's hono- rarium in lieu of the notice. The termination or disengagement of tlie casual employees was only due to unavailability of the work. Therefore, the provisions of I. D. Act has no application. The screening of I lie movies in Samudrika has been comp- letely stopped and there is no intention of restarting the screening of movies in the auditorium. The work- man was engaged on casual basis for a specific pur- pose and on completion of job, his services are to be discontinued¹ and there was no need for the ser- vices. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(6) The workman is examined as WW1 and the General Secretary of the union is examined as WW2 and go marked Exs. Wl to \V5. On behalf of the management, the legal officer for commanding offi- cer, Naval Command, who was maintaining the audi- torium from March, 1999 is examined as MW1 and through him Exs, Ml to M10 ;>.r? marked, (7) Heard both sides.

(8) The point that arises for consideration in this application is : Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages ?

(9) The counsel appearing for the workman con- tends that the petitioner was appointed as Safaiwala on 1-10-1992 and he was paid 683 per month and that he worked continuously till his services are termi- nated w.c.f. 30th April, 1999, He was serving as Safaiwala in the Samudrika Auditorium maintained by Respondents I and 2 and his services were termi- nated because the workers union filed a case against the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the management vindictively terminated the ser- vices of the petitioner. These facts are stated by both the workman as well as the General Secretary of the workers union as WWsf and 2. It is also contended by the workman that the workers have raised a dis- pute before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Cen- tral) whole efforts were failed and he advised the union to approach this Tribunal, It is also the admit- ted case of the workman that there is no appointment order in writing the General Secretary Srinivasan lias got an appointment order which is also marked as Ex, M l. However, the petitioner was served with a termination order which is also marked as Ex. 9 and the termination notice is marked as Ex. M7. (10") The counsel appearing for the management contends that Samudrika Auditorium is mainly meant for the lectures, saminars, meetings to be organised by the defence personnel screening of films for the entertainment of the officers, sailors and children and their family members and the services of the peti- tioner was engaged evily for the screening cf the films on honorarium basis by paying some honorarium to the workers from the non public funds, Exs. M3 to 5 are the balance sheets and the audit reports for the year ending 31st July, 1998, 31st June, 2000 and 30th April, 1997. The wages are being paid to the petitioner from the non-public fund and it has no con- nection with the Navy nor wilh the Government and the auditorium screening is now given to Sai Agencies on contract, basis from 1st October, 1997 as per Ex. M6, The services of the workman are terminated on the basis of. the letter received from the Flag Officer C'ommand-in-Chief which is marked as Ex. MS under which it is requested that all the employees working on the honorarium basis except WW2 are to be termi- nated. As per that Jetter, the administrative officer of the Auditorium in charge terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing the termination orders to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the management also admitted about the filing of the case under Mini- mum Wages Act by the workers union and their suc- cess and against which, the management filed a writ petition No. 15863/97 wherein an interim direction was given to deposit Rs. 34,729 and the same was deposited by the Bank Draft and Ex. M10 is the letter stating the said fact. So far as the dispute under Minimum Wages Act is admitted by both the parties. Now the short question for the determination is as to whether the petitioner's services are taken on casual basis and if so whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal ?

(11) The evidence adduced by both the parties discloses that the wages are being paid to the work- man from non-public fund which is being raised by the members of the Naval Officers. Sailors etc. and the services of the petitioner was taken only in the Auditorium for screening of the films on honorarium basis. No doubt, the petitioner has put in a continuous service of about 7 years and the termination of his services resulted due to the closure of the Auditorium for the purpose of screening of the movies. The main object of the Auditorium is to have the lectures and training programmes, seminars etc. by the defence personnel and the screening of films is a part of acti- vity in the auditorium for the entertainment of the commanding officers, sailors and their families. Be- cause of the incurring of losses in the non-public fund and the advent of cable T.Vs. the management was constrained to close the screening of the films in the auditorium. However, the workman complained that it is a vindictive attitude of the management because they approached the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act, The case of the management is that pau- city of funds from the non-public fund for the main- tenance of the auditorium and secondly due to the advent of the cable TV, the screening of films in the Samudrika Auditorium " discontinued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is no longer required. Thus, under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he shaft be continued in the same post in which he was employed is to be considered,

(12) Under the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to take the aid of the decision rendered bv his Lordship in G. Sudhakar and 98 others Vs, LIC of Tndia reported in 1998 ALT 147-1998(6) ALD 527 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that two conditions are co-existant to grant the relief of reguiari'-ation or continuation of services : ( I) Entry of an employee on temporary or adhoc basis5667 should be against an existing vacancy, (2) The ap- pointment was made after going through the" selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules. The above said decision was rendered by his Lordship by placing reliance on 4 Supreme Court decisions which are as follows :

(1) 1996 til) SCC 341 between Union of India Vs. Bisamber Diitt.

(2) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1997(2) SCC 1.

(3) P. Ravindra Vs, Union Territory of Pandi- cheri 1997(1) SCC 350.

(4) P. Ramakrishna Vs, State of Kerala 1996 (II) SCC 565.

(13) Herein this case the appointment 01 the peti- tioner is not in any existing vacancy nor his appoint- ment is after going through the selection procedure laid down by any recruitment rules. In the present case, the appointments of the petitioner was only on adhoc b.asis, temporarily without following Liny statu- tory recruitment rules. On that ground itself the peti- tioner is not entitled to got any relief.

(14) Thus, here this is a case, where the termina- tion of the services of disengagement of the petitioner is only on account of the closure of the screening of films in.the auditorium. No doubt, WW1 has stated that after the termination of his services some arc employed. But this fact was' not pleaded and even otherwise there is no material on record to establish the said fact. Therefore, the evidence spoken to by him' without any pleading has no basis,

(15) That ttpart, the management issued one month's notice and also paid one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, to the workman, Therefore, the ter- mination or disengagement of the services of the peti- 'ftbnef is in accordance \viih Section 25F of the I.D. 'Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, I sec no merits in ftiis application.

O 6) in the result, the petition is dismissed and Nil Award Is passed. However, each party is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictated to stcno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of ihe court this the 1st day of June, 2001.

K, VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for Workman :

WW1 K. Siva Ram.

WW2 S. Srinivasa Rao.

Witnesses Examined for Management :

MWl S. P. Mallick.

Documents marked for Workman :

Ex. Wl 30-4-1999 Telegram addressed to.Man- agement by Sii S, Gangadhara Reddy. Advocate on bchillf-Of #ie Union, 2948 GII200L—19,

Ex, W2 05-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam by the Union.

Ex. W3 22-6-1999 Letter addressed to the^Union by the ACL

Ex. W4 20-4-1997 Order in MW Case No. 104/ 95 before the authority U/Sec. 20 of Mini- mum Wages Act, 1948, Visakhapatnam.

Ex W5 Telegram addressed¹ to management by the High Court in WPMP No. 158/98 in WP No. 140/98.

Documents marked for Management :

Ex, Ml 28-6-1986 Letter of appointment of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao (WW2),

Ex. M2 3-12-1992 Visakha General Order No. 33/93 Command Lecture-cum- Assembly Hall-Samudrika.

Ex, M3 Balance Sheet and audit report tor the quarter ending 31st July, 1998.

Ex. M4 Balance Sheet and audit certificate for quarter ending 31st January, 2000.

Ex. M5 5-5-1997 Balance Sheet and audit report for the quarter ending 30th April', 1997.

Ex, M6 10-3-1999 Memorandum of Agreement for security cover.

Ex. M7 30-4-1999 Termination Order.

Ex. M8 29-4-1999 Letter addressed to R2 by R l. Ex, M9 30-4-1999 Termination Order of the petitioner.

Ex, M10 17-5-1999 Letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the Manage- ment,

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 - S.O. 2683.—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 Tribunaf-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as'sht>wrt in the Anhexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ruffber Research Institute of5668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PAPT I I —S EC 3(ii)] India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-9-2001.

[No. L-42OI2/89/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

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

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 290/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 3rd August, 2001 Date of Passing Award 3rd September, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of the Officer-in-Charge, Rubber Board of India, (RRII), Kadlipal. . . 1st Party-Management.

AND

Their Workman, represented through the President, Annapurnapur Rubber Board Workers' Union, Kadlipal, P.O. Aluagharan, Distt. Dhenkanal-759026 (Orissa) ..2nd Party- Union.

APPEARANCES:

Representative of the Management : For the 1st Party-Management.

Shri Bipin Bihari Sahoo : For himself, 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 dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42012/089/99/IR(DU), dated 11-08-1999.

"Whether the action of the Management of the Rubber Research Institute of India, Dhen- kanal, in terminating the services of Shri Bipin Bihari Sahoo is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. After receipt of the copy of the reference both the parties have appeared. Instead of filing Claim Statement a petition has been filed on behalf of the Workman that, actually the dispute was for non-pay- ment of one day wage to Shri Bipin Bihari Sahoo for which reconciliation was made. As the reconciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Government for reference. But the reference has been mad regard- Jug terminating the services of Shri Bipin Bihari Sghoo. In the said petition it was stated that th" services of Shri Bipin Bihari Sahoo has not been terminated. So he has prayed to pass no disputed award.

3. The Union has filed the copy of the report of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar before whom re-conciliation stated to have been made. It discloses that, the dispute was for non-payment of one day wage. But the reference has been made "whe- ther the action of the Management in terminating the services of Shri Bipin Bihari Sahoo is legal and jus- tified 7" When the Union has come forward to say that the services of Shri Bipin Bihari Sahoo has not been terminated, there is no scope for the Tribunal to answer whether the said termination is legal and justified.

4. Hence, the reference is answered accordingly.

Dictaittd and corrected by me.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S.O. 2684.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Postal Printing Press and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 12-9-2001.

|No. L-40012/163/99-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

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

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 293'2001 Date of concluding of the hearing 20th Aug. 2001 Date of Passing Award 6th Sept. 20015069 BEfWEEN

The Management of The Manager, Postal Printing Press, Gadaftopinathpur, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. 1st Farty- Management.

AND

Their Workman, Shri Subash Das, At.|Po. Balasampur, Talagarh, Via,, Jenapur, Distt. Jajpur, Orissa, . . 2nd Party- Workmaq APPEARANCES :

Shri Bishnu Ctaaran Sainal, Office Assistant (Legal Cases) . .For the 1st Party-

Management.

None.

. .For the 2nd Party

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-sectiqn (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 Of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 c>f 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-4OO12[163|99|IR(DU), dated 13-9-1999:—

"Whether the action of die Management, Postal Printing Press, Bhubaneswar, in not reinsta- ting the disputant, Shri Subash Das in ser- vice is legal ajnd justified ? If not, what ldief he is entitled to?"

2. The dispute has been laised at the instance of the 2nd Party-Workman. So the onus lies on him to establish his case by producing either oral or docu- mentary evidence. After he produces materials the 1st Party-Management could challenge the same either by producing oral or documentary evidence. But in this case the Workman has not filed his Claim State- ment in support of his case. He has not come to the witness box to give his oral evidence or to exhibit documents in support of his stand that the action taken by the 1st PaTty-Management is illegal and unjustified.

3. In the circumstances abovs, when no materials have been produced on behalf of the 2nd Party-work- man, it can be concluded that the Workman has got no grievance against the action taken by the Manage- ment and he has got no cause ot action. In other words the action taken by the 1 Party-Management is justified and the 2nd Party-Workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th September, 2001 S.O. 2685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tht Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the ht- dustrial TribunaUcum-Labour Court, Guwahati, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to -the management of Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C/o 99 APO Had their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-9-2001.

[No. L-J40l2/24/99-IR(DU), No. L-140l2/25/99-JR(DU),

No. L-14O12/2

No. L-14()l2/28/99-lR(DU), No. L-14012/29/99-IRtDU)] KULDIP RAI VERM A, Dd Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Reference No. l(C)/2000, 23(C)/99, 24(C)/99, 25(C)/99, 26(0/99 & 28(C)/99 PRESENT :

Shri K. Sarma, LL.B., Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

The Management of

The Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C/o 99 APO.

Vs.

Their workmen,

Shri Amarjit Prasad,

Shri Dharam Rai,5to70 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVTNA 14, 1923 [PART tl—Sfcc. 3(i")] Shri R^njit Kumar H.ai, Shri Ram Narcsh R~i, Shi.j Suresh Ram, and Shri Jasbir Rai.

Date of Award : 7-H-2001.

AWARD

By this common award, 1 pioposc to dispose diesc 6 nos. of Industrial Dispute referred to by the Gov- ernment of India, Ministry of Labour under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act vide order No. L-14012/25/99-IR(DU) dated 25-8-09, L - H 0 I 2/ 2S/99-IR(DU) dated 3-8-99, L-14012/29/99-IR (DU), dated 3-8-99, L-14O12/26/991R(l)U) dated 3-8-99, L-l4012/27/99-IR(Db), dated 3-K-99 and L-14012/24/99-IR(DU) dated 3-8-99 to adjudicate the dispute arising between common management in all the references namely, the Commandant 413 PET, PL, ASC, C/o 99 APO and their workmen Amavjit Prasad in reference case No. 1(0/2000, Shri Dharjm Rai in reference case No. 23(C)/99, Shri Ranjit Kumar Rai in reference Ca.e No. 24(C)/99, Shii -Ram Naresh Rai in reference Case No. 25(C)/99, 'Shri Suresh Ram in reference Case No. 26(C)/99 "tod Shri Jasbir Rai in reference Case No. 28(C)/99 out of termination of their services by the manage- jnent with effect from 1-7-98. The referring authority has framed the separate, but common issues in e.ich of the references enabling this tribunal lo deckle the matter, of controversy:

Tssues :

tn reference case No. 1 ( 0 / 2 0 0 0:

"Whether the action of the Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C /o 99 APO in termintaing the services of Sh. Amarjit Prasad is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

In reference Case No. 23(C)/O9 :

"Whether the action of the Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C /o 99 APO in termintaing the services of Sh. Dharam Raj is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

In reference Case No. 24(C)/99 :

''Whether the action of the Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C /o 99 APO in termintaing the services of Sh. Ranjit Kumar Rai is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Tn reference Case No. 25(C)/99 :

"Whether the action of the Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C/o 99 APO in terminating the service of Sh. Ram Naresh R'li is legal qnd justified ? Tf not. to what relief the workman is entitled '.'"

Tru reference, Cdse No. 26(C)/99 :

"Whether the action of the Commandant. 413, WETV PL, ASC C/o 99 APO in terminating the services of Sh. Suresh Ram is legal & justified ? If not, to wiiat relief the work- mar} is entitled ?"

In reference Case No. 2 8 i O / 99 :

"Whether the action of the maina^ement ot the Commandant, 413, PET, PL, ASC C/o 99 APO in terminating the services of Sh, Jasbir Rai, Pathar Quarry is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

On receipt of references this tribunal has registered separate cases in the name ot each of the workman against the same management and issued notices to both, of them calling upon them to appear before the tribunal and *° Sit written statement, uddl. written statement and documents ii any, in response to which both the parties have appeared and nled theii writ- ten statement, addl. written statements and, documents. The workmen of reference Case No. 1 ( 0 / 2 0 00 ad- duced his own evidence in support of his own case and also for the workman of reference Case No. 26(C)/99 and 28(C)/99 as the entnc tacts of these causes are similar m, nature. The workmen oi reference case N,o. 2 4 , ( 0 / 9 9, 23(C)/99 and 26fO/99 have adduced their own, evidence individually in support of their pvvii case separately. Management, has ne'ther adduced ai^y evidence from their side nor has fross- examined the workmen.

After completion of evidence, arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the both the paities are heard. The learned advocate for the workmen on the other hand, apart from oral argument, has submitted a lengthy written arguments.

After hearing the argument, I have gone through the entire materials on record including pleading of the parties and oral evidence adduced theieon. The workmen's case is that all the 6 workmen involved in 6 different referenced as mentioned above have been engaged by the management as Mazdoor at 413 Petroleum Platoon in the month of October, 1996. Before their engagement the management has issued requisition to the local employment exchange calling names of the candidates lor engaging Maz- door in their 413 Petroleum Platoon, in response to which the local employment exchange had sponsored the names of these workmen nlongwith. other who have been duly selected by the management after folding interview by a Board constituted by the man- agement. All the workmen were engaged as casual workers on daily wage basis. The Workmen have stated in their written statements that function of the platoon is to supply petroleum product like Kerosene, diesel, greese, lubricant items and hygenic Chemicals like bleaching powder etc to all military units in North Eastern resign through out the vea'i. These items are collected from refinery and other sources and stored in a godown* maintained bv the platoon. For the purpose of loading and unloading of goods, the workmen were engaged by the managen-nent and their function¹: in that way continue through out the vcar. Although the management is a defence unit, but the function carried out bv the petroleum platoon where workmen are working is o cep,un<"e unit under the contra], of the mnnagcmen,f and is carriruz rait such activity through out the year. The workmen5611 after engagement as Mazdnor after due selection pro- cess have continued to work for a period of 2 years completing 240 days in a year, but they were sud- denly terminated from service by the management on and from 1-7-98 without serving termirutvn ld'er nor issuing any notice to show CHUM;, It is IVill -r mentioned that during the period of 2 year,; (he work- men have been requesting the mniiagcm

In. the written statement, the first and for

But it is to be noted that the management has not adduced their evidence nor cross-examined the work- men witness to establish their contention raired in the pleading and to discredit the contention raised in the written statement by the workmen or in thdr de- position and hence contention raised by the workmen stands unrebartable.

The first and foremost contention raitud by the management is that the management being a defence unit is not a industry. It is true that the management is represented by Commandant 413 PET, PL ASC, C/o 99 APO which is a defence unit, but the func- tion of this unit is to supply Petroleum Products etc. to all Military Unit of the North Eastern Region. Petroleum Products etc. in 'he contml and supervi- sion of the management is a separate function from the defence function performed by the defence per- sonnel and the function of the work-men in the petro- leum products is to supply petroleum products throughout the year by a systematic activity with the organised help of the workmen ior the distribution of goods and as such it is su^ttiintiuJIy .scverable from the other unit of the Army and as such it is a com- plete separate unit. These being so the petroleum pla- toon is covered by the definition of industry defined under section 2(J).of the I.D. Act as laid down by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewer- age Board Vs. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213, More- over, applying the ratio of the ab.ive decision the Hon'ble High Court Madhya Pradesh in LI995 l .U Vol. I. . 994 (M.P.) held that ordinance depot of army is an Industry within the fold of 2(J) of the T.D. Act. The establishment being an industry under 2(J) of the I.D. Act and the workmen being covpred by definition 2(s) of the Act, this reference is a valid reference and the present dispute being an Industrial Dispute has been correctly referred by the appro- priate Government to this tribunal for adjudication and reference is quite maintainable in the law and this tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the refer- ences.

The next point to be decided in, this reference is whether the termination of the workmen are justified or not. It is a settled position of law laid down by Appex Court that if the workmen complete 24,0 days of work in a 12 calendar months equal on only to service for a' year but it is to be deemed to conti- nuous service even if interrupted. This position of law has been laid down by the Apex Court in Dig- wadih Colliery Vs. Workmen, AIR 1966 SC P. 75. It is further to be noted that to satisfy this test under section 25(B) of the I.D. Act, the workmen need not show that he has to work during all the period he has been in service of the employer for 240 days of work in a year Ram Krishna Ram Nath Vs. P.O. Labour Court, 1970 SCC Vol. TIT P. 67. This aspect of law shows that if a workmen works for 240 dayi in a year he shall be in continuous service under the employer for the purpose of getting benefit of Section 25(F) of I.D. Act in Mohan Lai Vs. Bharat Electricals, 1981 SCC Vol. Ill P. 225, the Appex. Court has held (hat the retrenchment without complying Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act would be void abinitlo. Such action entitled to workmen to a declaration for continuous of service with back wages. In Cammon's India Ltd Vs. Niranjan Das, AIR 1984 SC P. 500 the Apex Court has rrld that retrenchment without complying of provision of Section 25(F) of the LD. Act is illegal and the workmen is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

Keeping in view the catena cf above decisions I find that in each of the references the workmen has compteted 240 days of work in a year till the date of their termination in the monUi of Ju-ly, 1998. Moreover, they have been engaged by the 'manage- ment after due selection process. The na,tu"e of work performed. b.v the. management as rovcal"4 from their evidence, I find that these.are continuing for all the year round and hence pertnnial in nature. Wo reason5672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] has been showji by the management as to their termi- nation nor provision of law laid down in Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act which requires that before termina¹- tion of the workmen who has completed 240 days of work in a year one montn notice alongwith one month wages has to be served upon them, has been complied with. Termination of workmen is not co\^r- ed by the excluded categories mentioning Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act would amount to retrenchment and they are liable to reinstatement. As the workmen were not paid retrenchment benefit under section 25(F) of the I.D. Act, they are entitled to reinstate- ment.

The management has not rebutted the case of the workmen by adducing their evidence nor cross-exumin- injr the Workmen witness as already mentioned above. On the other hand, the case of the workmen has been protected by Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act and the principle of law laid down in different case law as mentioned above has also supported their cases and hence I have no hesitation to answer the references in favour of the workmen.

In view of above discussions all the 6 references arc answered in favour of the workmen holding that the termination of the workman from their service is not justified and they are entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly, all the 6 workmen involved in 6 refer-, ences are directed to be reinstated in their work with- in a month from the date of this award in the capa- city from where they are terminated. Prepare an award accordingly.

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the n th September, 2001

S.O, 2686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court Jaipur a(s shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-9-2001.

[No. L-22012]363|97-IR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer5673 New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001 S.O. 2687.—In 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 Tribunal]Labour Court Bhubancswar as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Govcrment on 12th September, 2001.

[No. L-22012j386|96-IR(C-TI)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT .

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

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 134|2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 2-8-2001 Date of Passing Award 31st August 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of The Project Officer, Talcher Colliery of MCL, P.O. Dera Colliery, Dist. Angul, Orissa. ..1st Party Management.

AND

Their Workman, Shri Dhob;} Mahapatra, S/o Bita Mohapatra, Vill. Kandhal, Dist. Angul, Orissa. . .2nd Party-WorVman. APPEARANCES :

Shri A. K. Parija, Personal Maager, Tocher Area, M.C.L. ...For the 1st Party- Management.

None. For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause fd) of sub-section ft) and sub-section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047 (14 of 1947). have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Older No. L-220)2|386|96-IR(C.H), dated 30-9-1997;—

"Whether the action of the Management of Tajcher Colliery of M.C.L. in dismissing iShri Dhoba Mahaptra. Wagon Loader, from service is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the workmau is entitled and from which date?"

2. The case of the Workman as narrated in his Claim Statement is as follows :—

He joined at Talcher Colliery on dated 21-2-1975 as a Wagon Loader. He was dismissed in service from 27-8-90. It is alleged that the Management has imposed the punishment of dismissal for his habitual absence. According to the Workman he became ill from 198'6 frequently due to hard loading work and so he was compelled to remain absent. He intimated this fact to the Management and obtained sick leave. For his habitual absence in duty an enquiry was stated against him. Th'c prayer of the workman to defend his case by one of his co-worker was refused. It has been further alleged that the enquiry was not con- ducted with proper procedure which violates the prin- ciples of natural justice. So according to the workman the dismissal prder passed against him is unjustified, malafide and¹ illegal,

3. The Management has filed their Written State- ment. They have pleaded that the delinquent-Work- man was in habit of remaining absent un-authorisedly in duty without submitting any leave application. He was warned several times and was asked to amend his conduct. But he did not improve bis conduct. He remained absept for 54 days in the year 1986. 58 days in the year 1987, 37 days in the year 1988, 30 days in the year 1939, The Management has issued warning letter to him on 18-1-89 and 28-2-89. Inspite of such warning he remained absent from" duty. Order was passed to start a disciplinary proceeding against him. Accordingly Enquiry Officer was appointed who issued notice to attend the enquiry. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the De- partment but the delinquent workman did not adduce any evidence though he 'vais given full opportunity to produce his witnesses. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry has submitted a report and the disciplinary authority after going through the en- quiry report and the relevant documents passed an order of dismissal. According to the Management the order of dismissal, dtd. 25-7-90 is legpil and justified,

4. On the pleading of the above parties the following issues have been settled,

I. Whether the action of the Management of Talcher Colliery of M.C.L. in Dismissing Shri Dhoba Mahapatni, Waeon Loader, from service is Legal and justified?

II. If not, to what relief is the workmen en- titled and from which date?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. I & II

5, It appears that after filing of the Claim State- ment the workman has remained absent and has not taken part in the proceeding. The dispute has been raised at his instance. He has alleged that, the en- quiry stated against him was not conducted properly and fairly. His further allegation was that he was not given opportunity in the domestic enquiry. This averment has been denied by the Management. So in that case the onus lies on the workman to support hit case by adducing oral ov documentary evidence. But he has withdrawn himself frota the witness box and has not exhibited any piece of documents in support of his case. So in absence of any evidence on behalf of the workman it cannot be said that, en- quiry made against him was not jus-tifietT and illegal. On thecrther hand it can be concluded that the action of the Management by pausing an order of dismissal against the dcjinq-tientworkman is leaal and justified. In that caso the workman is not entitled for any relief. Both the issues are answered in favour of the Managemnt.

6, Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001 S.O. 26#8.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dwsflnteH"i"pmcs Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Central Govemjftent Hereby publishes the award of the Central Governnowit Industrial Tribunal] Labour Court, Bhubaneswar au shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-9-2001.

|No. 1 -220121531 |99-TR(C-IT)1

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNHXURH

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRTAL TRtBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT pffUBANT-SWAK

PRESENT :

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

Industrial Dispute Case No. 13 [2000 Date of Conclusion of Healing 5th Sept. 2001 Date of Passing A \ w d - - 5 lh Sept., 2001

BETWEEN

The Project Olticer, Ananta OC/P, Ananta OCP of MCL, P.O. Dera Colliery, Dist. Angul-759103, Orissa, . . .. 1st Party-Managemont .. . AND ,.

Their Workmen, r e p r i n t ed through The General Secretary, Ananta Colliery Labour Union, At [P.O. Balanda, Dist. Angul, Orisfti, 2nd Party-Union APFEARANCES :

Shri S. S. Das, . . . For the 1st Party- MCL, Jagarrtiath Arc;ij. Management Shri Sarat Chandra Pati For the 2nd "General Secretary, Party-Union

AWARD

The Government of fnclia in the Ministry of I abour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-$*ctkm (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) htwe referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. I.-22012LM1:99-TR(CM~lI), dated 06-07-2000 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of by not placing and paving wages to 9 Dumper Operators ftirA enclosed) in Grade-TI is iustified 7 If not. what relief the Dumper Operators are entitled ?"

2. Before flearine is taken up tfoth the nnrtres hrwe filed the Memorandum of Settlement and have¹ sub- mitted to pass Award as per the terms of the settle- ment. Both the parties; were asked whether Ihrv rtdmit the terms of the settlement ? The representatives of both the mrties admitted to have sinned the Memo- randum of Settlement and they admit Ihe contents to be fme.

3. Hence, the Award is passed as per the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement. The Memorandum of Settlement would form ttt;? part of the Aw.ird. 4. Reference \s amuered nccoi-dineiv.

S. K, DHAL, Presjtfne Officer5675 FORM-H

(See Rule 58)

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT Representing Management :

Sri Narendra Kumar Sinha, Dy. Chief Person- nel Manager, Jagannath Area.

Representing Workmen :

(1) Sri Ananta Charon Patra, General Secre- tary, O.C.M.L.F.fHMS).

(2) Sri Sarot Chandra Pati, General Secretary, Ananta Colliery lybour Union.

(3) Sri Shyam Sunder Satpathy, Ananta Colliery Labour Union.

Short Recital of the case.

The Ananta Colliery Labour Union has raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commis- sioner (Central), Bhubaneswar stating inter-alia that the Ananta Colliery Management has net followed the provisions of the Cadre Scheme as provided in NCWA while regulating the career avenuc]designating Sri Mukand Maharam & S others in appropriate grades [category commensurate with the work per- formed by them during the relevant period. The matter was subsequently referred by the Central Government to the CGIT, Bhubaneswar for adjudi- cation on following terms :—

"Whether the action of the management by not placing and paying wages to 9 Dumper Operators in Gr. fl is justified ? If not, to what relief in Dun:per Operators are entitled ?"

Besides some minor issues the Urn on has empha- sized the point that the Dumper Operators placed in Gr. Ill (i.e. Excavation Gr. D) were regularly deployed to operate the Dumpers of 35 Tonnes and above capacity and by virtue of their doing so they arc entitled to be posted in the Gr. II (i.e. Excava- tion Gr. C ).

The matter was further discussed with the Union and finally it was resolved to settle the dispute out of Court|Tribum>l in the following terms :—

Terms of Settlement

(1) That the Dumper Operators namely S|Sri Mukunda M;jhnr;ma, Biswanaih Behera Durga Prasad Sahoo, Lalit Naik, Bal- krishna 'Garnaik, Puma. Chandra Pradhan, Anian Satpathy, Tripura Kumar Behera and Akshya Kumar Samal will be paid the difference of wages of Grade-II (Excava- tion GrouD-C) from the date of their place- ment in Grade-Ill (i.e. Excavation Group- D) till the dale of their promotion to Grade-II (Excavation Group-C),

(2) That the above difference of wages ns men- tioned¹ in Para-1 will be admissible and paid for the actual days of their operating the dumpers of 35 Tonnes and above.

2948 Cl/2Q0U-iO

(3) Thst-this will be a full and final settlement of the matter and no dispute in this con- nection will be raised by the Union and workmen involved in any other forum.

(4) That both the parlies agreed to file a peti- tion before the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-I.abour Court, Bhuba- neswar staling that the dispute pending under adjudication has been amicably settl- ed between the parties and there is no dis- pute whatsoever in this connection and the Tribunal|Court may be please to pass a No Dispute Award to this effect.

Management Representative : Signature : (Sdj-)

Nime : Sri Narendra Kumar Sinha Designation : Dy. Chief Personnel. Manager, Jagannath Area.

Witness : (Sd|-)

(Y. Hara Kumar) Personnel Manager. Witness : (Sdj-)

Union Representative :

(1) Signature : (Sd|~)

Name : Sri Ananta Charan Patra Designation ; General Secretary, OCMLF.

(2) S;gnature : (Sdl-J

Name : Sri Sarat Chandra Pati, Designation : General Secretary, ACLU.

(3) Signature : (Sdj-)

Name : Sri Shyam Sunde/ Satpathy. Ananta Colliery Labour Union.

Witness : (Sd|-) Witness ; Ahjan Satpathy.

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001 S.O. 2689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes * Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Depute between the employers in relation to the-management of FCI and their workman, which5676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [R\RT II—SEC. 3(ii)] was rctvvcd by the Central Government on 12-9-2001.

[L-22012|570j99-IR( C-H)]

N. P. KfJSAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNt-XURE

BEFORE THF OHNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 1 UCKNOW

Presiding Officer.-—Rudicsh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 55i2000

Rcf. No. r-220l2;570|Q9;iR(CM-II) Dt. 27-7-2000 BETWEEN :

The State Secretary Brnrtiya Klr.idya. Nigam. Karmchari Sangh 5-6, iLbibullali Estate Hazratganj Lud.now-22600!.

(In the matt'-.i- of Vishesh C'h&nd)

AND

The Sr. Regional ivlairigcr Food Corporut;on of India 5-6, Uiiliibuli^h Estate K^ralgnnj Liicknow-226001.

AWARD

By reference No. L-22012/570/99/IR(CM-H) &,A-\\ 2 7-7-2000, the Central Government in the M;.ni;Ly of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clans.; (d) of subsec'ion (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over this industrial dis- r-j'-c be.wcea th: Sf-lfe S:.LTin;ry. Bharliya Khadya Nigam Karrnachari Srinyh, I.ucknow espousing cause cf Vish-sh 'Ch".iid a.id the Sr. Regional Manager, f⁷ ;vd Corporation of .India, Lucknow for adjudica- tion.

The i-ef^Toncj r; produced as under :

"Whether the action of the management in not giving full v/urvs to Sh. Vishesh Chand over and --above the suspension Allowance during the period of suspension from 5-4-95 to 21-8-96 is legal and justing ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" Th- wo'-km:m, Vishvsh Chanel, Asstt. Grade-II (Depo') was suspended vide order No. Vig. 4 ( 8 7 0 )/ RO. LKO/BLY/95/53 dated 5-4-1995 pending cn- qu;;y against him. However, the said ordcr was revoked later, bv letter No. Vip. 4(870)|RO, LKO| BLY!95|836 diR'd 21-8-96. The disciplinary cn- (jii'vy ,'^iinu the workman was completed p.iid the , cnmt:,nr-p.t ;>uMinri{y, thereafter bv Order No Vi".

'1(87(1) R O L KO 951!047 d::lcd 30-9-97 imposed" . . pjiv. liv ••'* under :

"Nuv/, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 56 of

FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, imposes the penalty of reversion in rank from Asstt. Grade-IKD) to Asstt. Grade III (Depot) upon Shri Vishesh Chand for a period of 5 (Five) years with immediate effect. On reversion, he will draw the scale which he was drawing prior to his promotion as A^stt. Gr;ule II (Depot). He will not draw any increment during penalty period. After expiry of the prior of reversion he will be reinstated as Asstt. Grade II (Depot) at ihe sta^c from where he was reverted".

The Disciplinary Authority did not pass any order about wages of the fuspension period at that time, and later by letter No. Vig. 4(870) |RO, LKO|95| 1712 d'lted 7-6-99, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 66 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 regularised period of suspension as period not spent on duty and ordered further no entitlement to pay and allowances over and above paid as subsistence allowance durinc the period of suspension i.e. from 5-4-95 to 21-3-96.

In the present icferencc, the above said order dated 7-6-99 has been impugned by the workman, without disputing penalty order dated 30-9-97, which for all purposes is taken os final.

The learned authorised representative of the work- man has taken two roa'n prounds firstly, that the management was not competent to pass a second order dated 7-6-99 denying pay and allowances over and above the subsistence allowance as this order related to penalty passed on 30-9-97 and by passing this fresh order, fhe Sr, Rr.piunal Manager imposed double penalty for the same misconduct Rtnd secondly, the order dated 7-6-99 should have been passed along with the t>~n;illv ord^r dated 30-9-97, since the Dis- cirl'rprv Authority become functus officio, after pass- ing the first order.

With view to appreciate above submissions of the workman, it is necessary to eo through the provisions contained in the Regulation 66 of "the FCI (Staff) Regulation:, 1971.

66, Suspension

' ( 8 ). When the Mr pension of an employee is held to b: unjustified or not wholly justi- fied or when an employee has been dis- missed or suspended is reinstated, the dis- ciplinary, nppfllnle or reviewing authority, as the case may be, whose decision shall be final, may grant to him for the period of his absence from duty ;

(a) if he is honorably rcquitted, the full pay and allowances other than conveyance allowance to which he would have been entitled if lie h?d not been dismissed or suspended, less the subsistence grant;

(b) if otherwise, ruch proportion of pay and allowances other thut conveyance allow- ance as the disciplinary, appellate or re- viewing authority may prescribe in a5677 case falling under clause ( a ), the period of absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duly. In a case falling under clause (b) it will not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the dis- ciplinary, appellate 01 reviewing autho- rity, as the case may be, whose decision shall be final, so directs.

No order passed under this regulation shall have the effoct of compelling any employee to refund any fxu't or' the subsistence grant paid to him.

Note.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the above Regulation, where an employee under suspension dies be£oie the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allow- ances for that period to which he would have been entitled, had be not been sus- pended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid.

In present case, the workman was not honorably acquitted and his case is covered by Regulation 66 (B) (b) FCI (Stall) Regulations, 1971. It is pro- vided that in case of non-honorable acquittal, the sus- pension period will not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the Disciplinary Authority, appellate or reviewing authority, as the case may be, so directs. In the present case, exercising his authority under Regulation 66 (S) (b) FCI (Staff) Regula- tions, 1971, the disciplinary Authority treated sus- pension period as a period not spent on duty and denied wages over and above subsistence allowance. The Disciplinary Authority had no option but to treat suspension period was a period not spent on duty. Once suspension period was not treated as period not spent on duty, the workman became disentitled to ths wages of the said period Regulation 66 (8) (b) FCI (Stair) Regulations, 1971 does not require a notice to the workman to explain as vhy the wag-us ov?r and above subsistence allowance be not denied because; the deniul c{ wages in such cases, are, normally insequal to and as a consequence of the punishment. In the present case, the workman was penalised by order dated 30-9-97. This penalty order was in opemlion at the time of passing the order dated 7-6-99. The Disciplinary Authority, thus, was du'y bound to treat the suspension perind as a period n.it spent on duty and also to deny, wages of the said period. There is no material on re- cord to give inference that the Disciplinary Authority acted against the authority vested in him under Re- gulation 66 (8) (b) FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

Accord:ngly, the contention of the workman that the ord-;r chied 7-6-99 was unjustified or being con- trary to rervice regulations cannot be accepted. The uian.igement could not have given full wages to the workman over and above the subsistence allowance for the suspension period from 5-4-95 to 21-8-96. Ttu workman is not entitled to any relief.

Award as above,

LUCKNOW, Dt. 3-9-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR.. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 13th September, 2001 S.O. 2690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Arbitartor—Shri M. G. Wanare, Ex-DY.C.L.C.(C) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-9-2001.

• [No. L-22025/2/90-lR-(C-II)] N. P. KJ5SAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI M. G. WANARE, EX-DY. C.L.C. (C), ARBITRATOR

(Arbitration under Section 10-A of l.D. Act, 1947) 62, Friends Colony, Katol Road P.O. Nagpur-440013

Notification No. L-22025(2) 90 IR (C-II) dated 6th July, 1990 issued by the Government of India. Ministry of Labour— In the matter of:

Industrial Dispute between the Management of Western Coalfields Limited in their Pench and Kanhan Areas and their workmen re- presented by the General Secretary, Rash- triya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), Chandametta, P.O. Parasia, Dis- trict Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh, over payment of wages for 23rd to 26th Septem- ber, 1988.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in the relevant Notification ordered the following refer- ence for my decision :

"Whether the demand of R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC) for payment of wages to the workmen of Pench and Kanhan Area for the period of5678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 6, 20M/ASVINA 14, 1^3 [PARX H-^SEC. 3(ii>J strike from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988 is legal and justified ? U so, to what relief they are entitled?"

Parties to the Industrial Dispute are :

First Party : Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, WCL Management, in their Bench and Kanhad Areas.

AND

Second Party : Their workmen represented by R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC), P.O. Chandametta, Parasia, District Chhindwara (M.P.).

1. On 8-12-1989 both the parties to the industrial dispute agreed to refer the mutter in dispute for my arbitration under Section 10-A of I.D. Act, 1947 and accordingly approached the Governmenf of India in the Ministry ot Labour with the pioposai ol solving industrial dispute by resorting to the method of arhi- tration. The Government of India in the Ministry ol Labour accordingly accepted the said agreement and ordered reference by its Notification dated 6th Julv 1990.

2. Reprejentation of parties to the dispute The first party i.e. the Management of Western Coalfields Limited, in their Pench and Kanhan Areas located in Madhya Pradesh were represented as per law through their respective Area Personnel Managers or their deputies namely :—

Pench Area :

S/Shri S. K. Pashine, R. K. Singh (since dead). C. Jaiswal, C. Chandan, R. B. Mishra, S. K. Bancrjee, and S. Kerketta.

Kanhan Areas ;

S/Shri Deepak Mewar, V. R. Chowhan and their deputies viz. M. L. Chourasia, and Selh (both of them since dead) Chandok,

The Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. in both the areas being the First Party to the dispute r'lall be referred to hereinafter as "WCL" for bericf des- cription and convenience.

3. The workmen of Pench and Kanhan Areas ol WCL were represented by the Office Bearers of R.K.K.M.S. (INfUCJ in accordance with law namely :—•

S/Shri Radheshyam Singh, Chirantan Bhattacharjee, and Jabbar Khan,

The R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC) representing workmer of Pench and Kanhan Area being Second Party to this industrial dispute shall be referred to hereinaftei as "INTUC" for brevity and convenience.

4t I wish to maike it known that I was having Head- quarter at Nagpur which is 200 Kilometres away involving road journeys frorn Headquarter to the Areas of WCL and i N f u c 's Headquarter at Parasia and where hearnigs, sittings were held almost all the times. It was not only tor the convenience ol paities and workmen involved in the dispute but aiso ior the efficient woiKing and deriving better results, cutting down delays, frequency ol sit tings, hearing was atica- ed unlavourabjy causing unavoidable delay at different levels. Ihe trcquent changes like transters in the Area Personnel Managers representing WCL contributed to delay very largely. It is not out of place to mention that VvcL employed work force ot 26/y3 workmen out of which atieast 75 per ceni thereol workmen were dncctiy affected by this dispute. This maae essen- tial to hold hearings necessarily in the held areas involving slow travei by Road as the places are not connected by rail route.

5. On receipt of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi's notification No. L-22025 (2) 90 fR(C-Ii) dated 6th July, 1990, X held first hearing in the matter on 23rd July, 1990. Both the parties i.e. the Management of WCL in their Pench and Kanhan Areas of Chhindwara (M.P.) and the Work- men represented by the IN 1UC to the industrial dis- pute appeared before me. A mutually agreed detailed procedure to be followed for the purpose of handling and resolving the industrial dispute and enabling me to give an award in this regard was drawn up and iinaiiscd duly recorded on the file with signatories duly authenticated as per law.

5.1 Later on both the parties sought adjournments of hearing and meeting from time to time with mutual consent. In the process Award could not be pronoun- ced wjthin the time limit laid down in the said noti- fication dated 6-7-1990. Both the parties, however, mutually agreed in writing to extend time limit for subr^:ssion of Award from time to time on various dates and finally upto 31st August, 2001 to enable me to submit the Award in this regard. All the rele- vant mutual agreements are placed on file for record.

6. Doth the parties filed on 24th August, 1990 and 12th September, 1990 their statement of claims and handed over copy of such statement to each of oppo- site party as per Rate 10D of I.D. (C) Rules, 1957. INTIJC also filed rejoinder as per Rule 10-B (4) of I.D, Rules, 1957. Copies are enclosed as Encl : INTUC 1-2, and WCL-J.

7. Around 400 hearings were held and holding of final hearing took place at Nagpur on 9-4-2001. This entire period involved in resolving the industrial dis- pute before me.

8. It may be mentioned that both the parties filed voluminous documents/records and list of witnesses supplied in support of respective contentions. The documents etc. were exchanged among both the parties, who examined, inspected and verified the rele- vant documents.

8.1 The INTUC filed a list of 214 witnesses on 15-10-90 and 641-1990.

8.2 The WCL filed a list of witnesses numbering 153. (127 from Kanhan Aiea and 26 ft cm Pench Area).

9. Intervention by AITUC.

2. After having held the detailed discussions the following issues are framed by the Arbi- trator :

(i) Whether there was strike during the period from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988 ? No.

(ii) Whether the management in Pencil and Kanhan Areas deducted wages of the employed persons for the period of 23rd to 26th September, 1988? Yes. Wages deducted.

(iii) Whether the employed persons refused and or denied to work and or carry out the instructions/orders of their superiors ? No.

9.1 At this time when proceedings were progressing at a fast speed i.e. aJI the huge number of witnesses of Workmen produced by iNTUC were completed and they (witnesses) stood examined and cross exa- mined by WCL and INTUC and closed th^ evidence i.e. examining tneir individual witness and that at the stage arrived for commencement of witness of WCL Management, a Registered Trade Union viz. Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, AITUC, Mohan Colliery, District Chhindwara (ivI.P.) intervened and present- ed an applieation on 26th December, 1993 praying for permission for intervention and allowing them to be made party to the industrial dispute before arbi- tration. It v/as stated by the SKMS-applicant that they have interest in industrial dispute and large workmen involving in industrial dispute before the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings arc its members.

(iv) Whether the employed persons were not paid or denied wages for the period in question ? Not paid and denied wages.

(v) Whether there was production in the Col- liery ? If not what were the reasons ? No. production, Reasons explained in the report.

9.2 Both the parties to the industrial dispute before me objected whimently for allowing the application of the SKMS dated 26-12-1993 and prayed before mo objected vehimently for allowing the application jSKMS should be rejected and the applica- tion dated 26th December, 1993 of SKMS being aimed at delaying the proceedings and the SKMS has no subsiantial stake in the industrial dispute, the claim should be rejected.

(vi) Whether the workmen are entitled to wages for the period merely because they had marked their attendance, but did not work ? Replied as in the relevant paras.

3. Both the parties arc directed to file list of documents and¹ or list witnesses which are to be relied upon and or taken into account."

10. The matter relating to examination oE witnesses of Western Coalfields Limited was taken up from 8-4-1998 and 41 witnesses were completed on 14th February, 1999 with huge obstacles causing enormous unavoidable delays caused by WCL on large occasions.

11. After having completed examination of wit- nesses produced by INTUC on different dates and finally on 25th December, 1993, the WCL produced witnesses firstly on 8th April, 1995 and iinally on J4th February, 1999.

9.3 I heard at length the pleas submitted by INTUC. WCL and the SKMS-Applicant and also conducted discrete enquiries and found and formed an opinion that the SKMS-applicant had an abundant opportunity to approach me right from 6-7-1990 to 26-12-1993 i.e. almost 3-1/2 years' time. The SKMS were not vigiient, deligent and keen to intervene in the indus- trial dispute before me and the negligence attributed to them caunot be rejected. On 3rd January, 1994 SKMS was asked upon to furnish vital list on its membership and also asked them proper authentica- tion and also list of witnesses of workmen proposed to be exaniirvJ. SKMS failed without any response. I gave opportunity to hear them on 29-1-1994 and also on 19-2-1994. SKMS failed to avail the same. I rejected the ap;?'ication of SKMS. However, I re- jected the application of SKMS, who was informed accordingly. The SKMS-Applicant had signed the proceedings recorder! on note sheet.

9.4 SKMS-Appjkant was also given liberty to file their list of wilne-.se:> and/or statement of claim, if any, if they so desired. There was no response from the SKMS-Applicant.

12. Both the parties were therefore called upon to make submission. Both the parties requested for time upto December, 1999 to enable them to prepare the arguments ate. Time was reluctantly permitted by me. This matter came up for arguments etc. on 6th December, 1999. On this day Shri R. B. Mishra, Area Personnel Manager, WCL, Pcnch Area argued and again requested time for filing written arguments.

9.5 The matter on the score of objection of INTUC is dealt with as under by me, along with the framing of issues :

13. I would like to place on record that Shri N. K. Seth from WCL in Kanhan Area also argued their case on 6-12-1999 and requested for time for filing written arguments. On 6-12-1999 the INTUC was absent. The matter was listed on 14-12-1999 on which date Parties presented application for extension of time limit to enable the Arbitrator to give award by extended date. Prayer was granted. Notice dated 8th December, 1999 was served for adjourned proceed- ings on 11-1-2000, on which day S/Shri R. B. Mishra, Area Personnel Manager, Pench Afea~ and INTUC appeared and sought adjournment on account of death " I. I heard both the parties on the union's ob- jection that the first party should not bs allowed to file any rejoinder to tlie second party's rejoinder dated 12-9-1990. Having heard bolh the parties at length and having examined the objection of the Union in the light of I.D. (Central) Rule.), I permit the first party ts file their reply if they wish to do so. This wov.'J • itl. 'y the fulfilment of natural justice to the parties.

of Shri N. K. Seth, Deputy Personnel Manager, re- presentative of Kanhan Area. The matter thereafter stood posted for 19-1-2000 and thereafter on various dates and finaly on 9-4-2001 on which date the matter was heard and closed for final orders for submitting award to the Government of India as per law.

14. Having examined the documents filed by both the parties and having heard their arguments (he foll- owing issues 1 repeat arose and framed on 15th .October, 1990 for decision etc. :

(1) Whether there was a strike during the period from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988?

(2) Whether the employed persons refused and denied to work and/or carry out the ins- tructions/orders of their superiors ?

(3) Whether the management deducted wages of the employed persons for the said period ?

(4) Whether the employed persons were not paid/denied wages for the said period ?

(5) Whether there was production of coal in the , Colliery during the said period ? If not,, what were the reasons ?

(h6) Whether the workmen are entitled to wages' for the period merely because they had mark- ed attendance but did not work ?

14.1 The management of WCL pressed for deci- sion on the issue at Sr. No. 6 above.

14.2 During the course of the proceedings en 4-1-1991 the WCL insisted to record and draw my! attention on the relevant provisions of the certified standing orders (extract of clauses S and 9 only) but they did not produce any certified standing order for my perusal or &ny time copy of certified standing orders for examination etc. The extract, of clauses 8 and 9 are as under :—

"8. Attendance.—All workmen shall be at work at the mine at the time fixed and notified to them."

"9. Absence from work place it work.—Any wbrkmen who after going underground or after coming to his work in the department in which he is employed is found ar-ent from his proper place of work during working hours without permission from the appropriate authority or without any suffi- cient reason shall be liable to be trea'cd as absent for the period of his absence." 14.3 The WCL did not establish that workers were not present at the appointed time. Hence clauses 8 and 9 are- no attracted. As alrmdy observed by me that the WCL however did not produce, though asked by me, any authenticated copy of Certified standing Orders from which the above said extract of clauses 8 and 9 were produced before me. I do not therefore consider it necessary to record legal comments on this ooint. I therefore do not take note thereof for decision. In fact a plain reading of text of clauses show that it has no application on the issues before me as workmen were present at the mine on the tlmo of commencement of work JVS per clause 8. No evi- dence has, however, been brought before me to prove otherwise. None of .the workman- was found to have been absent from the work plr.ee nor any workman refused to obey orders of superiors, thus leaving honouring clause 9 above said and therefore nothing shows that Clause 9 was breached. WCL did not bring out any evidence to show that clause 9 was violated.

15. Documents/Records.—Tlie records/documents filed before me have been examined. The observations made are extracted below:

"All the workmen without an exception report- ed for duty as usual and got cap lamp from Lamp Room issued and went down the mines after marking attendance in the Re- gister maintained under the statute i.e. Mines Act."

15.1 There has been, as I find, nowhere mentioned by way of any remark by Mine Managers that work- men did not go underground the mins. They were rather marked "in" on beginning of shift and "out" after the close of their respective shift of work. This was perhaps an attempt by workers leaders to record that there was absolute normalcy in working in the mines. As a matter of fact the senior supervisory (officers at least should have recorded by way of re- marks in the attendance registers that "the workmen concerned wtent underground but did not work as per normal fashion or manner."

15.2 There have been tiled reports in documents filed by INTUC by way of remarks in their respective ,work diary kept by mining ti'-dars, Overman and/or junior level men as per statute that the workmen per- formed alternative work underground. This is not re- puted by way of not agreeing with above Overman's remarks by the senior supervisory officers concerned like Under Manager/Colliery Manager/Superintendent of Mines, This action on supervisor's part would ade- quately have proved that workmen went down, thei mine but did not work.

15.3 A report on strike was submitted in the pres- cribed manner in Form 'N' under Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules to the Statutory Authority i.2. Assi:,- 'isnt Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara and this Form 'N' duly prescribed under the Indus- trial Disputes (Central) Rules goes to show that there are 23 Collieries/Units in the Pench Area of WCL and that the onlv two collieries i.e. Newton and Ganpati (D.I.) collieries alone went nn strike. Tt is interesting to note that the Form "N" shows that all the units'collieries of Pench Area worked as usual on 23rd September, 1988 and the same is a,lsn further revealed from the communicaiions sent to District Magistrate/Collector/Police Officials. It is shown in the report that some of workmen of these units/mines went on strike on 24th September, 19R8 and continu- ed upto 26th September, 1988 mid-night.

15.4 The WCL filed one repnrt before me as an exhibit marked as 'T' titled as "Pench Area—infor- mation on strike by RKKMS (INTUC) in the col- lieries/Units of Pench Area from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988. This shows that there are 23 CoIV'ericV Units, out of which workers of only 12 Collieries/ Units were on strike during the period from 23rd5681 to 26th September, 1988. Rest of the Colliery/Unit workers were not shown to be on strike. Further I find that the strength of workers in Pench Area was 14506, out of which only 176 were reported to be- dircctly involved or on the strike and thut there was no coal production loss in the following collieries/ units.

1. Vishnupuri Colliery.

2. Shivpuri O.C, I.

3. Shivpuri O.C. II.

4. Sethia.

5. CGM Office.

6. Regional Workshop.

7. Barkuhi Hospital.

8. C M. Stores.

9. Ekhiehra Sub Area.

10. Rawanwara Sub Area.

11. Chinda Sub Area.

12. B.G. Siding.

13. D.T.C.

15.5 It has. however, been revealed further that there was reported loss of production as follows :—

S. No. Name of Colliery

S. Name of Colliery No.

(Period of strike from 23rd September 1988 at 8 AM to 26th September, 1988 Evening)

No. of Strength workmen of work- directly men of involved mine, in strike

2024

2

1. Mohan

1518 2. Ghoravvari

2154 3. Damua

1947 4. Nandan No. 1

899 5. Nandan No. 2

1545 6. Ambara

6

639 7. Sukri

416 8. Datla

885 9- Rakhikol

ProcUic.jon loss in

Tonnes 1. Ekhlehra

2500 2. Bhomori

1240 3. N. Chandametta

680 4. Chandametta

1560 5. E.D.C.

6. M.C.C.

784 138⁷ 7. Rawanwara

2224 8. Rawanv/ara Khes

3200 9. Chinda

10005682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA i -OCTOBER 6, 2001/ASVINA 14, L923 [PART U—SEC 3(H)] under Clause V thereof estimated number of work- men affected are likely to be 75 per cent aiound and that this position was agreed by the WCL before re- ferring the subject matter for arbitration and ihat the management now cannot seek any clarification and that the dispute is in respect of deduction cf four days wages and affected workmen belong to all the categories and their wages are to be calculated by the management on the basis of their monthly salary and daily wages and that WCL may be directed to pre- pare wages sheet and produce before arbitration.

any notice- as per - law and without any -justification whatsoever and that this matter was seized in conci- liation and negotiations tool place at WCL's HOrs. level and the strike was called off by INTUC and normal working was resumed from 9 P.M. on 26lh September, 1988 and because of the strike the- work- ing after first shift on 23rd September, 1988 to 9 P.M. on 26th September, 19S8 was came to a stand-still in entire mines of Pench and Kmhan Areas and that the workers in all the mines of both ih

19.1 WCL further stated that the employees are entitled to wages only for the day he works and if an employee refused to wiork or refused to attend office, he is not entitled for any wages and that from 23rd to 26th September, 1988 the workers marked their attendance but they did not perform their normal duties and there was no production due to illegal agi- tation started by the INTUC and that the WCL re- peated that in the instant case the workmen having not worked are not entitled to wages for the peripd in question.

19.2 On 12-9-1990 the WCL desired to file a fur- ther statement fWCL-II) in support of their earlier say for which INTUC vchcmentally opposed mainly on the ground that WCL was given one chance to file their claim and that WCL should not be given any further chance to file any further s?a*ement and thnt the INTUC relied on Rule 1O.B(4) of l.D. (Central) Rules, 1957.

19.3 I observe, these nit-n are procedural r^niv'-ns- ment for the proceedings before the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal. SMclIv speaking ttvs said ruile will not have its Explication to the cw before me. Assuming the WCL is not allowed to file tlvir "ay as they r.'.Tw asked for, it rnvv cmrcn UD before me at the stage of argument twd \hh w'1l hav-^ fo be dealt wUh elaborated in the fulfilment of tinfu- vnl Justice, Pn'ection of say of WCL mnv nnt help. H^v^ver. I did not agre^ w'th TNTUC on this score. Bv this wav this, d'.^s not denv nnv iusticp t o. the INTUC I 1hen;fore, allowed the WCL to til; their :: nnl pay. The WCL contended that they (V/CLJ r\;.l not make any deduction of wages for the period

19.4 The INTUC filed rejoinder on 12-9-1990

wH"h is on record and marked it as INTUC-L

20.1 The INTUC further submitted denial that the employees (resetted to strike from 23-9-1988 to 26-9-1988 and that there was no such a strike and therefore question of giving strike notice did not arise and the INTUC emphosed that the WCL ad- mitfed that there was an agitation started bv INTUC and TNTUC further submitted that the Union never instigated any worker cither to resort to strike or to stop work and infact there was no strike as such during the period in question and the INTUC further submitted that on reveal of documents and stafemcnts of claim filed by the Union jt will be clear that in all the mines the workers workfid on the said dates and attendance were marked in Form 'C and Form' 'E' and the workers were employed on production work and that they discharged their duties and that the INTUC stated that the conciliation was seized and negotiation and discussion were hold at WCL HQrs. Nagpur. The INTUC, however, specifically denied tha: the WCL's statement that after projinged discus- sion strike was called off and INTUC added that in- fect there was no strike and thus question of calling it off did not arise or was not arisen and the INTUC, however, admitted that there was peaceful agitation M^nt on the said dates and thai no worker was pre- vented/stopped from going on work and that INTUC denied that there was any instigation by them to go on strike. The INTUC further made submission by pointing out that on perusal of D.W. 7 it would reveal that the production was as usual as on ihc said days and it was as usual in the norma' working days and hence the contentions of WCL that there was no production on the said days and that it caused heavy loss was specincally/bassic-illy fake and it is being denied end the INTUC further claimed that workmen marked attendance in the Register in Form 'C and 'E' and that workmen did not refuse to work and that the relevant Forms 'C and 'E' wnulrl prove and re- veal this position and that the INTUC submitted Ihat law provides that once the worker attmdrd his duty and his labour, efficiency is not undertaken by the management, he is entitled for wages and in these particular cases the workmen attended their duties, discharged their duties and therefore under the pro- visions of the Payment of Wpges Act the workers a^e entitled for the wages and if penalty is given it will be a penalty under Section 15(3) of the Psvment of Wages Act and that the WCL being a Public Sector should not have deducted wages without giving any notice to concerned workmen before effecting any deduction from their wages.

70.2 The TNTUC further submitted tint ihe w r j ., having admitted that there was no strike and that there "were onlv agitation, hence WCL is liable to pay back the deducted wages for the said four days 20. The INTUC in their rejoinder (INTUC-1) sub- mitted objection on demand of WCL frr specific iiL'ines and number of wcrkmen involved in the in- dustrial dispute as also the spec-lie amount of wages Tor v.lmch relief is sought and the INTUC submitted unt'er terms of arbitration agreement under dau?c IV of the same the Central Grav 'rnment fpec'ficn^y K<- t:d thot the workmen employed in the Undertaking affect- ed & Piiflch Area 13917 and Kanhan Area 12876 and and the. WCL have no right to deduct wages in vio- lation of the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 21. The WCL submitted time and again that there was no deduction of wages but that only tho.se wor- kers who did not work were not pjid :wages on the principle of "no work no pay". • .

22. The WCL in their submission said in an elabo- rate manner that the presumed reasons for ajii'a'ion and/or stoppage of work tmd voiced that TN1UC alone was responsible for apitation/sloppagc of w nk on the days in question. This issue has been dealt with by me under separate paras.

23. The INTUC with an eqlial force submiitci that there was no stonnasi? of work >""> ttip

Evidence : Summation

5683' The said words in Government Notification Of refe- rence reads a^ JIKIOJ" :

" . .. .for the period of. strike from -23-9-88 to 26-9-88 is legal and justified ?" 25.2 The WCL representative wag not available to explain me aoovL- SLCiii.ii.ion as> tncy uia not ava,i me opportunity for submission of oral arguments though ouered more than once.

25.3 I have no material before me to presume lhat the interpolation of the above word is deliberate or otherwise. Perhaps the WCL argued on the pre- mises that the workers went OL participating strike during the period from 23rd to 26th September, 198S.

25.4 I deal with the subject on the facts involved¹ in this matter.

26. The WCL Management submitted argument as given below :

" 1. The admitted position in the present case is thsit Coal Industry is a Government of India Public .Sector Undertaking and Coal is an item termed as 'PUBLIC UTILITY SERVECES' iindar the Industrial Disputes Act and the said industry being a public utility services, strikes should be resorted to very sparingly a-; going on strike detri- ments the production of coal and the eco- nnmv of the well being of the society as a whole Justifiability of a strike * should be viewed in *he context of socio-economic in- terest of the N.inon and resultant lawless- ness, anarchy and chao,

4. Before submitting the legal submissions justi- fying the action of the Management, for the non-payment of wages to the workers for the period 23-9-83 t<_> 26-9 88, the Manage- ment begs to bring bclorc this Hon'ble Arbitrator the fads which forced the Management to stop the w;iges of the workers with respect td the period during which the workers had not worked.

5. That the Management of WCL in consultation with the various trade unions operating in the said area, i.e. Fench and Kanhan, had decided to increase the size of the loading tub used by the loaders in the mines for loading purposes. Size of the tub used in different mines was as per the thickness of the seam of coal. In some of the mines 45 eft tubs were already being used whereas in other mines the siz* of the tubs was different depending upon the thickness of the same.

6. The INTUC union had some dispute over the 45 eft. tub size on health grounds. They had expressed some health hazard for the loaders if 45 eft tubs were allowed to operate. The Nandan Mine was already having 45 eft tubs and since the problem raised by the Union appeared to be on humanitarian grounds, the Managing Director entered into an agreement with AITUC. However, en- raged by this agreement [settlement the rival unions including RKKMS started agitations for introducing 45 eft tubs in all the mines under Pench and Kanhan Area of WCL. The Management was left with no choice but somehow settle the dispute and, there- fore, entered into a settlement dated 17-1-88.

7. Subsequent to the settlement dt. 17-1-88 the Management of WCL entered into another agreement with SKKMS (AITUC) on 19-9-88 and jis per the said settlement the workers employed in mines of Nandan 1 and Nandan 2 shall be provided with tubs of 40.5 eft in place of 45 eft.

8. That the second party Union had strong objection to the said settlement and de- manded that the 45 eft tubs should also be introduced in the mines of Nandan I and Nandan 2 and that the employees of Nandan 1 and ? mines should not be given a preferential treatment and further agitated that the agreement entered with SKKMS by WCL was bad in law as the same had been entered into without the consultation of the Steerine Committee and other Unions ope- rating in the said area.

.9. Being agitated by the said action of the Management of WCL in introducine smaller size of tubs Jn Nandan 1 and 2 mines and the remaining mines in the said area were operating with biuper tubs, the RKKMS Union went into a strike w.e.f. 23-9-88 and strike/agitation continued uptil 26-9-88, For all the four days during the strike the workers working in the mines of Pench and Kanhan Area did not do any work and production for all these 4 days was Nil.

10. It is ajso pertinent to mention here that the workers involved in the strike came for work and marked" their attendance. However, after marking their attendance all the workers were sitting idle and performed no work whatsoever.

11. That as the work!production of the Manage- ment of WCL in Pench and KanhaW Area was badly affected and also that the workers did not perform their duties v hich they were supposed to do and which was assigned to them, the Management of WCL took the decision of deducting the wages of these striking employees for the period they did not perform their respective duties.

12. That the short-fall in the production and comparative chart showing the detailed pro- duction by WCL has been produced before this Hon'ble Authority and the same has bern marked as Annexure K which will evidently prove that there was no work during the 4 days from 23-9-88 to 2tf-9-88 and the production ha

13. That the payment of Wages Act, 1936 em- powers the employer for deducting the wages of the employees on account of remaining absent from the place or places where, by terms of his employment he is required to work and such absence can be for the whole or any part of the period during which he is so required to work. Sec- tion 9 of the Payment of Wages Act em- powers the employer for deducting wages in respect of employees remaining absent from the place where they are required to work and the said section was- further amended in the year 1937 and an explanation Was in- corporated by vhich it says that "for the purpose of Section 9 an employed person shall be deemed to be absent from the place where he is required to work if, although present in such place, he refuses in pur- suance of a stay in strike or for any other cause which Js not reasonable in the circum- stances, to carry out his work."

14. That the fact that the workers were on strike from 23-9-88 to 26-9-88 is evidently clear and stands proved from the record of the Note Sheet in respect of the discussion held between the Management of WCL and the Union represented by RKKMS held on 26-9-88, and the Note Sheets have been signed by the Non-applicants as well as the applicants! nnd vide the Document Annexure 'A' the Union has admitted that there has been a stopoaee of work in the mines of Pench and Kanhan Area¹ w.c.f. 23-9-88 ontf that the Union further aereed to call off the stoppage and restore normiicy immediatelv. The very fact that the Union has admitted5685 19. The Supreme Court of India in the case oV that there has been stoppage of work stands admitted with regard to the fact that here had been stoppage of work by the workers on the instigation by the Non-applicant Union.

bank ot India Vs. i. S. Keiawala and others reported in iy90 (Vol. 11) LLJ Page 3y has very categorically held that the em- ployer is entitled to deduct the wages for ihc period ot the absence lrom the place oi work. In the said Judgment the Supreme Court has held that :—

15. The fact that the workers have not worked from 23-9-88 to 26-9-88 further stands proved from the Memorandum of Settlement dated 5-11-88 wherein the representatives of the Non-applicant Union have accepted that there was a strike from 23-9-88 to 26-9-88 and the question of payment of wages for these 4 days of strike shall be referred to be adjudicated upon by a mutu- ally acceptable arbitrator. The Union having accepted that there was a strike, strengthens the case of the Manage- ment to show that the workers did not per- form their duties from 23-9-88 to 26-9-88 and for the said reason the Management is fully empowered to deducL the wages of the employees who pairticipated in the strike.

16. In support of the submissions made by the Management of Pench and Kanhan Area of WCL the management further led evi- dence of about 45 witnesses all of whom had very specifically stated before the Arbitra- tor that no wort ha(d taken place during the strike period i.e. 23-9-88 to 26-9-88. Even otherwise, the Union has in almost all the documents accepted the fact that there was an agitationjstrike in the mines and also that there was stoppage of work as a result of the said strike that the Union vide its agreement and settlement entered into between the Mangcment of WCL had called off their strike w.e.f. 26-9-88 goes td prove that the workers were not performing their duties during the period when they were on strike, though these workers were marked present on these days.

17. The mere fact that a¹ wroker is marked pre- sent would not give ths right to claim wages if he docs not perform the duties which an employee is supposed to as per his employ- ment. If an employee though present but refuses to work or perform his duties cither individually or collectively, the Manage- ment is empowered under Section 9, sub- section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to deduct the wages of such employees for the period of thier absence.

"Whether a worker indulge in a misconduct such as a deliberate refusal to work, the employer can take a disciplinary action against him and impose on him the penalty prescribed tor it which may in- clude some deduction from his wages. However, when misconduct, is not dis- puted but it is, on the other hand admit- ted and it is resorted to on a. mass scale, legal or illegal, there is no need to hold an enquiry. To insist on an enquiry even hi such cases is to pervert the very object of the enquiry. In a mass action such as J strike it is noi possible to hold an enquiry against every employee nor is it necessary to do so unless, of course, an employee contends that although he did not want to go on strike and wanted to resume his duty he was prevented from doing by the other employees or that the employer did not give him pro- per assistance to resume his duty though he had asked for it. Normally when the Workmen go on strike for a portion of the day, the employer at the most couldi deduct only prorata wages. But when the employees go on strike during the crucial working hours vhich gene- rate work for the rest of the day to accept such argument is in effect to negate the purpose and efficacy of the remedy and to permit its circumvention effectively. When the employees come back for work after their strike during such crucial hours, it may be that they are not prevented from entering the work place but such attendance after ihe crucial working hours would be useless as there would not be work to do during the rest of the hours. Such later resumption of work by the employees was not in fulfilment of the contract ot service or any obligation under it. The employer therefore is not liable to pay either full day salary or even the pro- rajta salary for the hours of work that the employees remained in the work place without doing any work. It is not a mere presence of the workmen at the place of work but the work that they do according to the terms of the contract which constitutes the fulfilment of the contract of employment and for which they are entitled to be paid," 18. That the Management have- also led evi- dences of some of the Senior Executives working in these area? to prove the fact that the workers w;re in fact on strike and were not performing their duties though these workers were coming for work during this period and have marked themselves as present. The contention of the Manage- ment further stands proved from the produc- tion chart produced before this Arbitrator and the said chart prove the fact that the workers in these mines have not worked.

"The fact that the strike was legal or justified or that ilie employer has held discipli- nary proceeding is immaterial for such5686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER t, 2001/ASVINA 14, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii): deduction. The deliberate jefusal to WOiK may be ".Jic result oi vauous ac- tions on tne part ot tne employees such as su-in-iatKe or 'stay-in-.-, uike £(t ine woiK place or a strike wnctner legal or lUegai or go-siow tact.es. Uie uenbe- raic leiusai to work may be legal or illegal as wuen the employees go on 'legal' or 'illegal'. strAe. The legal.ty ot strike does not always exempt the employees from the deduction of the salaries ior the period of sinkc. It only saves them lrom disciplinary action .since a legal strike i>; recognised as a leg.ti- male weapon in the hands of the work- men and the liability of deduction of wages incurred on account of it, whether the strike is legal or illegal."

It is submitted that it is npt enough that the employees imenu tne place ot work wiicie- as Luty musi put in me work: allotted to tnem. n is ior me worK ana' not ior tneir mere lutunuanee tnai wages are pa.d to an employee, il tne employees lor the same reason put in their auoutti woik, out Oo not ior any reason comply with the ior- mai.ties of signing int auejiuance, JJI tius, case the Management cannot aeauct the wages on tne giound that me woikers have not marked uieir aueiiuaiiue, ^uiuiaiiy, it Lne wuiA.eis inane mcixuwvea pi^eul but refuse to perform their legulai woik, the management is lully empowered for deduction or wages and the mere fact that thej have r.iarlted presence would not entitle the employees tor wages on a parti- cular day.

The Supreme Court have also held that even in a case ol go-slow wnemer tne woiKm^n re- sorting to go-slow resulting in negligent pro- Qucmjii, YvuiKwen not aueiiuut^ LU uUiy and found loitering in the premises with a view to p r e s s u re the company to concede their demands, the workmen cannot claim wages for such psnod as they do not do any work during the day of some period m the day and the Management is entitled for deduc- tion of wages.

In a similar mutter the Supremo Court in the ca^e ot iyy4 pj £>CL iJage S72, Syndi- cate Bank ana anotner -vs- K. Unush rsayak and otners have further upheld ihat the employer can deduct wages lor the strike period even thougn Uie employees, may go oH. strike for some hours ol a day. I ne supreme Court further held that to enuue a woiKmau ioi wa^es ior tne stride period tne strnte has b dh to be legal and justified. If the strike is only legal but not justified or il the stnke is illegal though just/iied even then the workers are not entitled for v, ages for the stnke period and accordingly in all the cases of illegal strike the employer is en- title to deduct wages for \hs period of strike. The Supreme Court lurther ob- served that to be entitled to the wages for the strike period. Hie stride has to b*.- both legal and juntitied. Whether the strike is legal or jusified are qucsions of fact to be decided on the evidence on record and these ques- tions have to be decided by the Industrial Adjudicator.

In view of the above submissions and everments and also in view of the settled principles of law enumerated above, it is submitted that as the admitted position stands that there wais a strike and stoppige of work in the mines of the applicants w.e.f. 23-9-88 to 26-9-88 and that as a result of the s;iid stoppage of work by the worker? there was no production during this period of 4 days^ the management had a right of deducting the wages for tlis [period of the workers refused to work and accordingly the action of the Management in deducting the wages of these employees is fully justified.

It is therefore submitted that this Hon'We Autho- rity may be pleased to hold that the deduc- tion of wages of the workers of Pench and Kanhan Area w.e.f. 23-9-88 to 26-9-88 is leual and justified and therefore, no inter- ference is called for arainsi the said act'on and accordingly the reference is liable to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the Management."

27. The arguments of INTUC arc extracted as

under ?

"(1) When agitation was cajletl, there was no" dispute pending recard:ng (he deduction of wages or any other dispute pertaining with the settlement made with SKMS Uiron was pending with Asstt. Labour Cornmis-r sioner (C) or Regional Labour Commis^ sioner (C) or any other forum under.

In the light of the alxwe made observations by the Supreme Court th;s Hon'bie Authority would not be in a position to decide whether tne s:rike by tne JNon-appncant Union is legal or justified as the same can only be done in this case by the Industrial Tribunal. In the present case this autho- rity has to only look whether the Appli- cant-Management is empowered to deduct wages for the strike period and the fact that there was a strike w.e.f. 23-9-88 to 26-9-88, the various agreements, settle- ments and Note Sheets or the discussions held during the period of strike would show and the fact would be proved that the Non-applicant Union has in all these docu- ments accepted the fact that there has been a strike and stopor^c of work from 23-9-88 to 26-9-R8. On-e if the fact is proved that there Tins been a stoppage of work for a part-'cular period, then the Management is fullv emonwered for deduc- ting the wages for the period of strike.

(2) S;nce there was no oendinf dispute on the day of agitation. Therefore, it was not •^687 a strike, Since it was not a strike there- fore me deduction of the 4 days wages v as not only illegal but was bad.

(12) Since the workers arc irom weaker section iieucc me oiiiUugeineiu caunot Dc pcui^ncd to uo wnaisoevcr mey li&e mat IO against tne rules ana regulation.

(3) That, under ihe Payment of Wages Act the

(13) That, social justice means justice to the ' wenKCi anu pour section oi urj society and ceiung lirnit is KK. IOUU means mosc woik- man wno are getting saimiy of Rs. ibUO or bciow iney aie guvejji^u oy l a m e nt of Wages Act.

in me- iigiu ui provisions comuineu in con- stuuuon ox inuLd, tne aujioiuy may pieased¹ hoiu maL since mere v\ as no Giu^r oi in.e couit or Xegionai La'jour Commissioner aecidinng cut; stnKe ineg

(14) That, the Supreme Court in case of B.R. (4) In the present dispute refer in Arbitration anci che workers myojved in the dispute were aheaay drawing wages more than Ks. 3000 theretore the Payment ot Wages Act is not applicable to the workers ana. thaeiorc, the deduction made under Section 9 of the Payment oi Wages Act is illegal.