This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

(h) He will be posted at kiiHindc Area in under- ground mines only.

'i) He will abide bj the Coal Mines Pension Scheme 1998 and contribution thereof as applicable.

(j) A copy of this settlement shall be sent to R L C ( O | A L C ( C ), Dhimbarl and other con- cerned authorities for information and necessary action.

Signatures :

Sd|-

1. (M. Jha)

General Manager.

Sd|-

2. (A, Prabbakar)

Dy. Chief Personnel Manager.

Signatures :

Sd|-

1. (J. N, Singh Dharampuri)

Working President, J.M.S.

Sd|-

2. (D. N. Singh)

Area Secretary, J.M.S, TO Area.

Sd[-

3. (Raj Kr. Pandey)

The workman concerned.

Witness :

l.Surendra Kr. Singh.

2, Devendra Singh.

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001 S.O 2752.—Tu 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 Tr.ibunal-2, Dhan- bad as shown in (he Annexurc in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in I elation to the mana- gement of BCCL and I heir wort man, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 14-9-2001.

LNo. L-20012|156[92-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Slid B. Biswas.—Presiding Officer.

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

Reference No. 8fi of 1993

PARTTES :

Employers in relaiion to the management of P.B. Project of M s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On Khali' of the Workman. —None,

On behalf of the Employer;..—Shri B. Joshi, Advocate, STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th August, 2001.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d) i:f the I. I). Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. I -20012 f 156)!92-I.R.(Coal-I), dated, the 7th July, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Putki Balihari Project in withholding the oayment of underground allowance to Shri N. C, Choudhury, Minintr Sii'dar is justified If not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed ?"

2. In Ihi^ reference both the parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed their respective W.S. documents etc. Subsequently at the sluge of oral evidence the workman side abstained Irom taking any debts in this case. Thereafter registered notices were sent to the workman but inspite of issuance of notices, the work- man side ''id not consider neetssary to appear before this Tribunal for takiiig necessary s^eps. Tt reveals from the record that the reference is pending since 1993 and for which there is no reason tcr keep the same alive year after year of the result will of the workman. Under such circumstances, a 'No dispute' Award ii rendered :nd the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award presuming non- existence of any industrial dispute between the work- man and the management presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001 S.O. 2753.—In pursusanee of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of thch Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-9-2001.

INo. L-20OI2I170J92 IR(C-T)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the l.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 109 OF 19935369 PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project of M / s. RCCL.

AND

Their Workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf oi the workmen.—None.

On behalf of the employers.—Shi i H. Nath. Advocate. STATE : Jharkhund. INDUSTRY : Coal Dated. Dhanbad, the 28th August, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. oE India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers convened¹ on them under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vidt their Order No. L-20012(170)192-1 R. (Coal-I), dated, the 16th July, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Moonidih Coal Washery under Moonidih Area of M|s BCCL, F.O. Moonidih. D^. Dhanbad in denying the regularisation of S/Shri Chhetelal Dom and Baldev Dom, Sweeping and cleaning Mazdoor w.e.f, 1986 with all benefits is justified 7 If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?" 2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W.S, Subsequently the work- man side abstained from appearing before this Tri- bunal taking any steps. Thereafter registered notices weie sent to the workman side but inspite of issuance of the notices the workmanside did not consider necessary to appear before this Tribunal for (taking any steps. The management side however, represented through their learned Advocate all along. It reveals from the record that the instant re- ference is pending since 1993 there is no reason to keep rhe same alive .wry nioic for taking steps by the workman side, Under such circumstance?, a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of the 'No dispute' Award presuming noncxistencc of any industrial dispute bet- ween the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 3058 01/2001—21

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001 S.O. 2754.—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 No, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of BCCL and iheir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-9-2001. *

[No. L-20012[268|92-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT '

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer In flic matter of on Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 160 of 1993

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of BnstacoMa Area of Mis. RCCL.

AND

Their Workman

Appearances :

On behalf of the workman —Shri T. P. Jha, Advocate.

On behalf of the employers.—Shri B Joshi. Advocate.

STATE : Jhnrkhjnd. INDUSTRY : Coal. Difcd. Dhanbad, the 29th August, 2001

AWARD

The dove of Tndia, Minisr of Labour, in t>nrvo\r<-W No T .0001 ^068)10'"' TR fCml-T), d-rtPd. tVi^ ">>,! September, 1993.

SCHEDULE

necessary award to the effect that he should be taken into employment with all monetary benefits and full back wages from 1-7-90 till the date of his superannuation according to the date of birth recorded in the official re- cord.

"Whether the action of the management of Golakdih Open Cast Project under Bastacolla Area of BCCL, P.O. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad in not accepting the date of birth of Shri Shashanko Mishra as 1-7-34 as per service excerpts and refusal to re- fer the workman to the Apex Medi- cal Board for assessment of his age in case of different dates of birth in Form 'B' is justified ? If not. to what relief the workman is en- titled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman as

per his W.S. in brief is as follows :—

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been submitted by the management that the date of birth of the concerned workman as per Form B Register which is maintained by them was 1-7-30.. The management submitted further that the date of birth of the concerned work- man in the C.M.P.F. record was also record- ed as {-7-30. Accordingly it has been sub- mitted by the management that a declaration of the concerned workman relating to his date of birth in the Form B Register and C.M.P.F. record becomes binding upon him and as such the management rightly super- annuated him with effect from 1-7-90. The management further submitted that the con- cerned workman by manipulating the office record obtained service excerpt in the year 1987 recording his date of birth as 1-7-34. Accordingly the management submitted that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief which the concerned workman has prayed for.

4. The points for decision in this reference

are :—

"Whether the action of the management of Golakdih Open Cast Project under Bastacolla Area of BCCL, P.O. Jharia. Dist. Dhanbad in not accepting the date of birth of Shri Shashanko Mishra as 1-7-34 as per service excerpts and refusal to refer the workman to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age in case of different date of birth in From 'B' is justified ? Tf not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS The concerned workman has raised the present industrial dispute due to his illegal superannuation with effect from 1-7-1990 by the management of Golukdih Open Cast Project under Bastacolla area of M|s. BCCL. The concerned workman submitted that as per l.D. Card bearing No. 81128 which was issued in his favour on 24-7-73 his date of birth was acorded as J -7-34. The said l.D. Card was issued under the signature of the Personnel Offifficer, Golukdih Colliery. Apart from that the management also issued ser- vice excerpts on 20-6-87 duly signed by the Personnel Officer of the management and in the said service excerpt his date of birth was also recorded as 1-7-34. Accordingly the concerned workman submitted that his date of superannuation comes with effect from 1-7-94 and not from 1-7-90 but the manage- ment illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him with effect from 1-7-90. The concerned workman further submitted that as per JBCCI Instruction. No. 76 when a dispute relating to the date of birth comes into existence con- trary to the date of birth recorded in the official record the management in such cir- cumstances shall refer the concerned work- man to the Apex Medical Board for verifica- tion of his age But inspitc of that instruc- tion the management did not rnminYr neces- sary to refer him to the Anex Medical Board for verification of his age. It is the specific allegation that the mnnngcmmt whimsically denvine their own record :ind violatine the dear instruction of th^ st->ndinp- orH^r il1e- srnilv nrid .arbitrarily an^ nlso violating the 'v-irioir*1pQ of mtitrnl in^ic*" sirnernrwuntcd him with effect from 1-7-90, As such the concerned workman has prnyed for passing

5. The management in order to rebut the claim of the concerned workman examined one witness while the concerned workman examined two witnesses including himself in order to substantiate his claim. MW-1 dur- ing his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman was an employee under management as S.B. Attendance. This witness disclosed5871 cal Board after conducting necessary medical examination of those employees submitted their report. No satisfactory explanation on the part of the management is forthcoming why the case of the concerned workman was not considered at all to ascertain what was the actual date of birth of the concerned workman. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the management that as Form B Register is considered as authentic document they did not consider neces- sary to send the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for verification of his age. The Form B Register during evidence was marked as Ext. M-l. This register is a zerox one wherein names of several em- ployees have been recorded. In course of hearing learned Advocate for the management has failed to give any satisfactory explanation why they have failed to produce the original Form B Register. I have considered SI. No. 647 of Form B register wherein the name of the concerned workman appears. As per this column the date of birth of the concern- ed workman was recorded as 1-7-30. The figure "O" appearing in the col. appears to be interpolated and as such it has aasted serious doubt relating to the genuinity of the date of birth recorded in this Form B Register. It is not the case of the manage- ment that the original of Form B Register was lost or destroyed. Therefore, to wipe out this anomaly the management had the scope to produce the original Form B Register. But with utter surprise it is seen that they did not consider necessary to do so. The manage- ment during evidence could not deny the identity card issued to the concerned work- man. It is seen that the said identity card was issued on 21-8-73 i.e. long, long before rais- ing the instant dispute by the concerned workman. From this I.D. Card it transpires clearly that the date of birth of the concern- ed workman was recorded as 1-1-34. The management though admitted that service excerpt was issued in favour of the concern- ed workman in the year 1987. Submitted categorically that the date of birth in the said service excerpt was manipulated by the con- cerned workman. The service excerpt dur- ing evidence of the management was marked as Ext. W-l. Tt was duly sicned by the P.M. after it was checked by the Clerk concerned. The P.M. is administrative official of the management. Therefore, if the claim of th° management is taken into consideration then there is reason to believe that the P.M. was that in the Form B Register the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 19-7-30. The Form B Register during evi- dence was marked as Ext. M-l. This wit- ness during his evidence admitted that in the year 1987 service excerpt was issued in favour of the concerned workman under the signature of the management. The service excerpt during evidence was marked as Ext. W-I. He also admitted that I.D. Card was also issued in favour of the concerned work- man in the year 1973. The medical examina- tion report issued by the Apex Medical Board during evidence of this witness was also marked as Ext. W-2. Relying on the Form B Register the management submitted that the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 1-7-30 and for which they rightly superannuated the concerned work- man with effect from 1-7-90. The manage- ment also relied on the C.M.P.F. record in the matter of recording of date of birth of the concerned workman recorded therein. But in course of hearing the management has failed to produce any such register to substan- tiate the claim in question. On the contrary it is the specific contention of the concerned workman that his date of birth was 1-7-34 and it was the management who issued the I.D. Card under the signature of the officials of the management in the year 1973. Apart from the existence of I.D. Card the concern- ed workman relied on the service excerpt issued by the management in the year 1987. Relying on the T.D. Card and the service excerpt issued by the maangement the con- cerned workman submitted that his date of birth was 1-7-34 and not 1-7-30. The con- cerned workman further submitted that ins- pite ol gross-discrepancy appeared in the officials record of the management they did not consider necessary to send him to the Apex Medical Board to as certain his age. The concerned workman submitted that inspite of, his giving representation the management kept silent. On the contrary the management considering the case of some other employee sent them to the Apex Medical Board for verification of Age. Tn support of the claim the concerned workman relied on the docu- ment marked Ext. W-2. I have considered the relevant document (Ext. W-2) and T find veracitv of the claim of the concerned workman. It is seen that as the dispute relat- ing to the age of some workmen cropped up they were sent to the Apex Medicnl Board for (heir examination and the Apex Medi-587; THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PAHT I I ^ S EC 3(ii)] crepancy which came into existence, the management did not act wisely to stick to their point for not sending the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age. The manage- ment has failed to establish the allegation of manipulation in the service excerpt regarding the date of birth recorded therein. The management also could not deny the genui- nity of the L.D, Card issued to the concerned workman by them. These are the documents of the management. Therefore, until and unless the management proves that those documents arc manufactured and manipulat- ed just on the basis of their mere submis- sion. 1 do not find any scope to reject or dis- card the document in question. I also do not find any scope to say in view of the facts and circumstances that the date of birth re- corded in the Form B Register was genuine arid proper. Accordingly after careful consi- deration of all the facts and circumstances I find sufficient reason to hold that the manage- ment acted arbitrarily and illegally to supe- rannuate the concerned workman ignoring his appeal and also ignoring their own docu- ments which they issued to the concerned workman. I, therefore, hold that the decision of the concerned workman was not only ille- gal and unfair but also it violated the princi- ples of natural justice. The concerned work- man under the facts and circumstances is entitled to get wages and all other benefits with effect from 1-7-90 to 30-6-94. Tii the result, the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of Golakdih Open Cast Project under Bastacola Area of BCCL, P.O. Jharia, Dist. Dhahbad in not accept- ing the date of birth of Shri Shashanko Mishra as 1-7-34 as per service excerpt and refusal to re- fer the workman to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age in ease of different dates of birth in From 'B' was not justified. Conse- quently, the concerned workman is entitled to crt wages and all other benefits with effect from 1-7-90 to 30-6-94."

The management is dirce'ed to 'im^^mmt the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of Tndia.

also involved in manipulating official record with a vkw to give benefit to the concerned workman. In course of evidence the manage- ment has failed, to establish that in connivance with the P.M. who was an Administrative Officer oi' the management the said service excerpt was issued showing wrong date of birth. On the contrary considering che Zcrox copy of the Form 'B' register there is reason to believe that the figure "O" against the date of birth of the concerned workman as 1-7-30 was grossly overwritten. It is not the case of the management that the l.D. Card issued in favour of the concerned workman in the year 1973 wherein his date of birth was recorded was manufactured or manipulated. The management also did not deny the genui- nity of the l.D. Card in question. Therefore, from the record of the management itself I find gross discrepancy relating to the age of the con- cerned workman. No doubt particulars re- corded in the Form B Register carries immense value but before taking into consideration of the same the management must establish the fact that the particulars including the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register were made properly. I have already discuss- ed above that interpolation of the figure "O" against date of birth of the concerned •workman easted serious doubt relating to its proper recording. When such ugly dis- pute came into existence as per JBCCT Cir- cular No. 76 the management had the scope to send the concerned workman before the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age but here I find that the management also took discriminatry role. When the manage- ment sent some other employees before the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age they did not consider necessary to consi- der the prayer of the concerned workman to send him before the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age in order to avoid all discrepancies cropped up in the official record. There is reason to believe that the management in this pirticular case acted arbitrarily and illegally. Tt is the categorical submission of the management that they did not commit nny mistake in supenmnuaiing the concerned workman with effect from 1-7-90 as the d;ite of birth of the concerned workman as per From B Register was rrcord- ed as 1-7-30. I have already discussed above in details the discrepancy appearing in the date of birth recorded in the Form B Regis- ter. Naturally on the basis when that dis-

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 58^3

already grafted is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled'.'"

2. The case of the concerned workman as per his

W.S. in brief is as follows : —

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001

S.O. 2755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Aci, 194"⁷ (14 t.f 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Ce'ntral Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annsxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of C.C.L, aind their workman, Mhich was re- ceived by the Central Government on 14-9-2001.

[No. L-20012/330/92-IR(C-T)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secj.

ANNEXURE

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT :

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

Reference No. 193 of 1993

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Religara Colliery of M|s. CCL atnd their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi,

Advocate.

It has been submitted by the concerned workman that ihey were employed as piece rated wcrket at Keligara Colliery a|s Coal Loader. They submitted that they started working there along with 12 others and in course of time their services were regularised as Clerk Grade-Ill in trie scale of pay Rs. 460-16- 636. The concerned workmen alleged that out of these persons five workmen have got the benefit of difference of Wag'-s with effect from 1-()-;•>() i.e. from the aqtual date of regularisalioji depriving the others. It has been disclosed by the concerned workmen that such disa^minatibn was don^ by the management arbitrarily and illegally "n respect of pay benefit. As a result, through the union they submitted their repre- sentation with a view to get pay protection but the management did not pay any heed to their represen- tation. In the meantime the concerned workmen and others got their promotion from Clerical Grade-Ill to Clerical Gr. II but at that time too the management did not give any importance regarding their pay pro- tection. Accordingly the matter was referred to the ALC (C) Hazaribagh far conciliation. But the management in course of hearing did not cooperate with the ALC(C) Hazaribagh as a result of which the said conciliation failed. The concerned workman submitted that it is an accepted principle of naturail law that the wages prescribed for workman has to be protected. Section 9A of the I.D. Act, 1947 provides no change in the wage of a workman as service condi- tion without proper notice nnd acceptance of such change proposed by the employer. They submitted that the concerned workmen were getting more wages as piece rated workers than the wages which they got during change of service in Clerical Grade-TH. The difference of wages accordingly could have been paid by the management as personal pay but the manage- ment did not consider necessary to pass any order to that effect. Accordingly the concerned workmen raised an industrial dispute which resulted reference to this Tribunal. The concerned workman accor- dingly has prayed for passing award to the effect that the management should b-: directed to pay difference of wages to these workmen and other benefits with effect from t!ie da'e of the office order.

On behalf of the workmen Nona.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th August, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dislpute "to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No, L-200! 2(330) J92-I.R. (Coal-O, dated, the 5th|9th November, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the matiacement of Religara Colliery of M|s, C.C. Ltd.. in depriving Shri G. Anamirai nnd Shri Jallalu- din' Clerk Gr. TI of their Wage protection

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workmen asserted in their W.S. It has been submitted by the management that the concerned wurkmen were previously working as piece rated worker. The piece rated worker be- long to different group and the highest .uroup VA meant for Miners|loaders deployed in mines directly on the coal face in connection with the winnintr coal. The management submitted tint they offered different Piece rated worker holding minimum qualification of matri- culation, clerical jobs nfter proper selection on the basis of their merit. In that process various piece rated workers under different groups were recruited in Clerical Grade. TIT. The names of the concerned workmen appealr in SI. No, 14 and SI. No. \ of the said recruitment list, Tt vvns observed that the average earning of some of the piece rated workers appearing5$74 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2U01/ASVINA 21, 1923 [pAftr II—Sec 3(iij] 5875 not entitled to get any relief. In the result the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of Rcligara Colliery of M/s. C.C.Ltd, in depriving Sliri G. Anandraj and Shri Jallaludtfin Clerk Gr. II of their wage protection already granted is justified. Consequently, the con- cerned workmen arc not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001 S.O. 2756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the .Ward nf the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2. Dhanbaid as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-9-2001.

[No. L-20012/375/92-TR(C-I)l

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute iinHo,- Section 10nXd) of the I D. Act. 1947 Reference No. 8 of 1994

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. Bharat Cokino Coal Ltd.

ANP

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workmen—Shri D. K. Vrrina, Advocate.

On MiaW of the employers—Shri B. Joshi Advocate.

STATE : Jharkliand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30lh August, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Minis!ry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred un them under Sec- tion 10(l)(d> of the l.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(375)/92-T.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 2nd December, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Loyabad Coke Plant of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in denying employment to Shri Ayodha Dusadh and 256 others is justified ? If not, to what relief the workers are'entitled fur?" 2. The case of the union on behalf of the concerned workmen as per W.S. in brief is as follows :—

It has been stated that 438 dclisted casual work- men worked for long in Loyabad Coke Plant and thereafter without any reason the management sud- denly stopped them from work. It has been further stated that out of 438 workmen, 325 workmen were the members of the union who have filed the instant case namely lanta Mazdoor Sangh and 113 members were of R.C.M.S. Union. When all these 438 workmen were stopped from work by order of the management the said two unions namely Janta Mazdoor Sangh and R.C.M.S. took up the matter with the manage- ment for settlement. It is alleged that the manage- ment without considering the case of the present union i.e. Janta Mazdoor Sangh considered Ihe case of the R.C.M.S. Union and came to a settlement by virtue of Which 113 workmen were taken back in employment. However, in the midst of such pursuation of Janta Mazdoor Sangh Union by G. M. Sijua Area Mo. 5 wrote ilctter dated 4-8-86 t0 the D.P. (Person- nel) BCCL, Koyala Bhawan. Dhanbad to consider their case referring the conciliation and entered into a settlement between the management and the R.C M.S. Union. Thereafter it has been submitted by the concerned workman that the management made a discussion over this dispute and assured to consider their case. But inspire of giving specific assurance for employment to the concerned workman the manage- ment did. nothing. Accordingly a dispute was ra;sed before the ALC(C) for conciliation and insnite of specific instruction given to the management by the ALCfO Dhanbad for giving employment to 257 work- men they did not nav anv heed to the same. As a result present industrial dispute wmj roferrerl to this Tribunal. Accordingly the union has nraved for pass- ing an Award in their favour directing the mrin.Ti?ement for giving employment to the concerned wcrkmen with retrospective effect.

3. The management on the contrary after filing! W.C.-cum-reioinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the union assorted in their W.S. Tt has been submitted bv the management tint the sponsoring union nnmely Janta Ma^vioor Snngh made f¹ cornnjaim tn (he Al C(C). Dhfinbad allefinir that the concerned nersons worked at T.ovnbfid Cok*> Plant in the oanacitv of d.-iisted/ unlisted casual wbrkmen during the period from5876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13; 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PARI I T- S E C. 3(ii)] th£ present reference was made by the union after a Japse of 20 years from the date of discontinuance of the practice of engagement of ddtsted/unlisted casual worker for such long delay all the workers by this time might have crossed the age of 40 years and accordingly they would not be considered suitable to be recruited as casual wagon loader at Loyabad Coke Plant. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award to the eflect that the claim of the concerned workman is not justified.

5. The points for decision m this reference are :—

"Whether the action of the management of Loya- bad Coke Plant of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in denying employment to Shri Ayodha Dusadh and 256 others is justified ? If not, to what relief the workers art; entitled for ?"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS 1973—75 and they were not provided employment as casual wagon loader. The union accordingly made its claim for their enrolment as casual wagon loader alleging that they were discriminated because of their affiliation to the sponsoring union. It has been sub- mitted by the management that during the period from 1973 to 1975 due to erratic supply ot Railway wagon at different sidings of different collieries they were not in a position to provide service of permanent gang of wagon loader capable of loading of average number of wagon according to the capacity of the railway siding of a particular establishment. In order to meet excess requirement of wagon loader for load- ing coal and coke on some days casual wagon loaders were employed and they were kept on the list of casual w*agon loaders. It so happened that on some days the number of wagon which used to be placed were more than sufficient for getting the coal loaded- by permanent and casual wagon loaders. Tn such a situation some excess wa-gons used to be loaded by any person who could be made available on such days. Such excess/extra workers were not on the roll of the colliery either permanent or casual workers and as such they were termed as delisted/unlistcd casual workers. The management further submitted that the system of engagement of workers on the job of wagon loading in the capacity of delisted/unlisted casual \dagon loaders were discontinued from 1976 as there was improvement of regular supply of wagon 'for loading coal and coke. Further pav loaders were introduced to load the coal and coke in the wagons and for which the services of delisted 'unlisted casual wagon loaders were not required.

6. The concerned workmen in order to substantiate their claim examined the union leader Mr. S.S. Prasad while the management to rebut the claim of the union examined one witness. It is the claim of the concerned union that 438 delisted casual workmen, worked at Loyabad Coke Plant for a long period but th; management whimsically without assigning any reason stopped them from work. It is the submission of the concerned union that thereafter their union and RCMS took up this issue with the management. The RCMS union represented the case of 113 delisted casual wagon loaders while this union i.e. Janta Maz- door Sangh represented the case of 325 workmen. It is the specific allegation of the concerned union that the management though considering the representation of the RCMS enrolled the name of 113 delisted workmen, their case was totally ignored. The sub- mission of the management on the contrary is quite different. Tt is the contention of the management that due to erratic supply of wagon for loading coal and coke from different depots under different collieries. They used to require extra number of workmen for/ loading of coal in the wagon apart from permanent wagon loaders. The management submitted that those workmen were not only delisted but their services which they used to render to the management were absolutely on temporary basis and for temporary period. As the situation improved requirement of these ca'sual workman became eliminated. Moreover intro- duction of pay loaders to load wagon also minimised the scope to provide work to delisted casual workers for loading coal in the wagons. The management fur- ther submitted that as there was no vacancy for casual wagon loader there was also no scope to consider enrolment of delisted casual wagon loaders for em- ployment. In this connection the management relied on the circular marked as Ext. M-l. The manage- ment submitted that though according to circular No. D(P)/PS/86/2649-949(4> dated 8/9-5-1986 there was scope to enroll the names of the delisted casual (Ext. M-2). The said circular was lifted by subse- quent circular marked as Ext. M-l. Accordingly the concerned workman cannot claim enrolment of de- listed casual worker as per the circular marked Ext. M-2. The management also relied on a memorandum of settlement marked Fxt. M-3 nn the bnsis of which the ca^e of 113 delisted casurrl wagon loaders was considered. I have considered aill the documents mark- ed as Ext. M-l, M-2 and M-3 and I ?vnd material on 4. In the year 1985 the union namely thi RCMS and Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union approached the management for providing some relief to the delisfed/ unlisted casual wagon loader by enrolling them a? casual wagon loaders to the extent as far as practice-¹ able. The management submitted that after long dis- cussion with the union they agreed to enroll 113 per- sons a's casual wagon loaders, being satisfied with the service given by them during the period 1973 to 1975. It 'has been alleged by the management that after tak- ing the said decision of enrolling the 113 persons as ca-sual wagon loaders several persons most of wihom were strangers came forward and demanded employ- ment ai casual wagon loaders in the same way as of 113 persons who are provided employment. The spon- soring union taking the opportunity of the situation also started creating pressure unlawfully to enroll the names of the delisted/unlisted casual wagon loaders. The management submitted that as ihcy had already closed the issue of enrolling the workman as casual wagon loaders at Loyabad Coke plant and in absence of vacancies further consideration of enrolment of more persons as wagon loaders ci-nld not be consider- ed. The management also submitted that there was no scope for employment of such a l^ree number of wagon loaders at Loyabad Coke Dlant and in the absence of sufficient work to orov:de (••"we livelihood to such a large number of persons it is difficult to enrol them as casual wineon loaders. Thr- mnnace- rnent submitted that as thev were armed with surplus man nower it wns not possible on their n.irf ^o provide employment to such a larec number of persons c.ven in thf name of casual wapon loaders. Apart from all there facts the management further submitted that5877 be over burdened with surplus staff only to meet the grievance of the Union. Recruitment of any workman depends on supply and demand aud the production made by the company. No evidence is forthcoming before the Tribunal that inspite of having capacity the management intentionally ignored Ihe case of ihese persons in the matter of enrolling their names as casual workers. It is not expected that to meet the grievances of the union the management should be over burdened financially.

7. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that as a matter of right the present union cannot claim enrolment of these persons as casual workers under the manage- ment. The management has clearly stated not only in their W.S. but also in their evidence why they could not consider the case i>f theye persons, T hojld that explanation given by 'he management stands on cogent footing. A delisted casual worker as of right cannot claim employment under the management. There is no evidence to the effect that inspite of com- petency of these persons and also existing vacancy the management ignored their case and employed some other workmen. As such, when no such allega- tion has been established to this effect against the management I consider that the management did not commit any illegality in not providing the concerned persons into employment. Tn the result, the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of Loya:bad Coke Plant of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in denying employment to Shri Ayodhya Dusadh and 256 others is justified. Con- sequently, the concerned workmen arc not entitled to get any relief,"

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 14th September, .2001

S.O. 2757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the!

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tra] Government hereby publishes the av/ard of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of BCCL and their workman, which wa's re- ceived by the Central Government on 14-9-2001".

the basis of which the services of 113 delisted casual porkers were considered. It is the speciiic allegation of the management that as icon as the services of those 113 persons were considered us per Munuran,- duiii of Settlement several persons came forward and started agitating to regularise their services as labial workers and the concerned union then came forward and also started agitating to consider the ca-'e of ihe concerned workmen. The management submitted that these persons never worked under the management¹ dvien as delisted casual workers and for which they cjannot claim the benefit which were given to 113 casual workmen as per Memorandum of settlement. Considering the submissions of the concerned work- men and the management it has to be looked into what was the status of these persons at the relevant time i.e. during the period from 1973—75. It is the specific claim of the union that they were de-listed casual workers and worked for a long period under the management. On the contrary the management categorically denied this fact. V/W-1 in course of his evidence has failed to produce a' single scrap of paper relating to the identification of these workmen issued by the management. This witness also during hh evi- dence has failed to produce single scrap of paper re- lating to wfage slip and bonus card. The concerned union in course of hearing has failed to justify if there was any provision to giw formal appointment letter to delisted casual worker particularly when the union admitted that these persons worked under tho man- hpement PS delated casual workers. No evidence is also forthcoming before the Tribunal that for a long period these persons worked at Loyubad Coke Plant under the management. Even they have failed to pro- duce any paper to show, that during the period of their service under the manapt?ment they enjoyed i'ick leave or any other leave or so. The concerned union has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show flint in any manner these workmen were involved with the job r,f the management. It is the specific claim of the union that thev were delated casual workers under the management. Delisted casual workers, are mt the employees of the management. Naiurallv question of termination of their services by the management can- not arise at all. At best they cOtild be stopped from doing their job entrusted to them by the management. If so, whether delisted casual worker as ;l matter of T'ght can press the demand in enrolling their name as. casnnl worker. The status of casual worker nnd the status of delisted worker cimnnt be equated at nil. The casual worker are the reeuiar emp'ovces of! the management asd for which ihcv are entitled td get all benefits namely medical benefits, sick l^avc, bonus etc. The enrolment of delisted casual workers to casual workers only may be taken in+o ennsid-nfion if sufficient number of vacancies exists. Tt cannot be taken as of right a plea that the management U, liable to consider the case of these workmen w l vi as per memorandum of •settlertient the case of 113 nersons was considered. The management cxnlrvine"! the rer- son under which circumstances the ra*;": of 11 3 delist- cd casual workers was considered Rerraitmeni of anv rirson bv the nifinapernent depends on various fac- t'"-; irHnriim t'lp i_-xi^i:ncr nf v-'icancv. The manage- ment r;"';e"rorira11v pnhmitterl that there was no scr.pc for recruitment of anv further person ^ T oyabad (VI-p Pbnt or 'ii anv rvthrr nrea ns ther^ \v\ic snmms stpfT Tt i= not expected that the management should

[No, L-2OO!2/5Or}/Q4-TRrC-l)l S. S. GUPTA, Under Secv.

ANNF.XURli

BEFORE THF. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section lOCD(d) of the T.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 152 of 19°S

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman—None. On behalf of the employers--Shri H. Nath,

Advocate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th August, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10O)Cd) of the T.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Trihunal for adjudica- tion vide their Order No. L-20012/500/94-I.R..

Coal-T), dated, the 15th January, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the unions demand for review rf thc date of birth of Shri Mukul Bind. Mining Sirdar, by the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. The facts of the instant reference as per W.S.

of the union in brief is as follows:—

I.7.35 and the said entries in the Form B Register was duly signed by him. The concerned workman got his appointment under the management in Octo- ber, 1960. The Identity Card register maintained under the Mines Rule, 1955 contains the cntrv showing the date of birth as 1-7-35. In the year 1987 service ex- cerpt was also issued to the concerned workman wherein the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 1-7-35. The management submitted that the concerned workman obtained Mining Sirdar- ship certificate dated 8-2-85 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 15-9-45 on 13-12-84 i.e. the dat" of examination. If this date of birth h taken into consideration the concerned workman in that case got his employment at the age of 15 years. Since his date of appointment is I960 it is not only against the provision of Mines Act but it is also an impossibility. The management admitted that the concerned work- man raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C) Dhanbad through the union and a settlement was reached over the dispute on 22-7-91 in between the parties and according to that settlement it was agreed that the age given in Sirdarship certificate will be accepted and if at any time the Mining Sirdarship certificate is not found genuine the management shall be free to take any legal action against the concerned workman. The management admitted that inspite of that settlement it was not implemented because of the fact that the provision of Section 40 and 45 of Mines, 1952 was over looked and it was found that the settlement was against the said provision of the Act and the concerned workman committed an offence under Section 64 of the Mines Act. 1952 by making false declaration relating to his date of birth for obtaining Mining Sirdarship certificate. The management submitted that it is apparent that in view of the entries of the date of birth as 1-7-35 in Form B Register, I.D, Card register dulv signed bv the con- cerned workman the date of birth claimed bv the concerned workman on the b^sis of Sirdarshio certi- ficate is false and has been del'beratolv made in pur- suance of the declaration m.ide bv the concerned workman. Accordinclv the management submitted prayer to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

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

"Whether the unions demand for review of the date of birth of Shri Mukul Bind, Mining Sirdar, by the management of Souih Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified 7 If so, to what relief is the workman entitled."

DECISIONS WITH REASONS The instant industrial dispute was raised bv the union on behailf of the concerned workman when a dispute cropped up over the date of birth of the concerned workman. It has been submitted bv the union that the date of birth of the concerned workman according to the Mining Sirdar certificate issued by the D.G.M.S. was 15-9-45. Inspite of the date of birth appearing in the said certificate the management .superannuated the concerned workman with effect from 1-7-95. Tt has been disclosed by the concerned union that it was a gross illegality and as n result of which the concerned workman sustained irreparable financial loss. Accordingly the concerned union sub- mitted their prayer to pass an Award for reinstate- ment of the concerned workman along with fu'l wages, with effect from 1-7-1995.

4. Considering the W.S. and the W.S.-cum-rejoinder submitted by the concerned workman and the manage- ment T find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was a Mining Sirdar attached to South Tisra Project. Herein the instant dispute cropped up relat- ing to the date of birth of Ihe concerned workman. The concerned workman relvins on Mining Sirdar- ship certificate disclosed that his date of birth was 15-9-45, On the contrary the management relying on Form B Register which is a statutory roister under the Mines Act. 1952 and also Tdenti'v Card reoister* maintained under the Mines Rules, 1975 submitted that the date of birth of the concerned wort man was 3. The management on Ihe contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all Hie claims and allegation which the concerned u^ion asserted in their W.S. It has been disclosed bv the mancecment that the concerned workman was a Mining Sirdar at South Tisra Project. As per Form B Reeisfpr. whirh U a statutory register under the Mines Act, {952 the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as5879 two documents at all cannot be denied. No satisfac- tory explanation on the part of the concerned work- man/union is forthcoming before the Court why the concerned workman kept himself mum when he re- ceived the service excerpt in the year 1987 wherein his date of birth was also recorded as 1-7-35. There- fore, there is reason to believe that the concerned workman suppressed the material fact till the date of his superannuation and he raised the dispute over his date of birth only when he was on the verge of his superannuation. As the concerned workman has failed to justify his claim by appearing himself per- sonally or by adducing any cogent evidence, at this stage I do not find any reason to disbelieve the Form B Register and I.D. Card Register which are to be considered as statutory documents as per Mines Act, 1952 wherein his date of birth was duly record- ed under his signature. As such I hold that the con- cerned workman is not entitled to get any relief which he has prayed for. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—

"The Union's demand for review of the date of birth of Shri Mukul Bind, Mining Sirdar, by the management of South Tisra Collierv of M/s. BCCL is not justified. Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled 1o get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2001

S.O. 2758.—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, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexurc in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relatiion to the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 15-9-2001.

INo. L-12012/261/8WR(B-l)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURR

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH recorded us 1-7-35. The management further submit- ted that in the year 1987 service excerpts were given to the concerned workman wherein also the date of birth was recorded as 1-7-35. The management fur- ther submitted that the concerned workman appeared in the Mining Sirdarship examinalion on 13-12-84. Accordingly the management further submitted that after receipt of the service excerpt the concerned workman had the scope to raise dispute relating to his date of birth but he remairie.1 silent althrough. He only raised the dispute at the time of his superannua- tion with effect from 1-7-95. It has been admitted by the management that over the dispute in relation to fhe age the concerned workman raised industrial dis- pute before the ALC(C) Dhunbad and thereafter a settlement in between the parties was arrived at and as per settlement it was decided that the management will accept the date of birth appearing in the Mining Sirdarship certificate but if ai tiny time the Mining Sirdarship certificate is not found genuine the man- agement shall be free to take any legal action against the concerned workman. Admitting this fact the man- agement submitted that they could not implement the settlement in question because it was against the the provision of Section 40 and 45 of the Mines Act. According to section 40 of the Mines Act no person below the age of 18 years is entitled [o work. Referr- ing to Section 40 the management further submitted that the concerned workmen entered into the services of the management in the year 1960. Therefore, if the date of birth which is appearing in the Mining Sirdarship certificate is taken into consideration in that case it has to be considered that the concerned workman entered into his services at the age of only 15 years which is strictly prohibited according to Section 40 of the Mines Act. 1 havi considered the relevant section and I find support in relation to the claim of the management. The concerned workman/ union strictly relied on the date of birth of the con- cerned workman appearing in the Mining Sirdarship certificate. According to the Mining Sirdarship corti- cate the date of birth of the concerned workman wfas 15-9-45 whereas according to Form B Register and I.D. Card register the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded a*s 1-7-35. ft is the contention of the management that the Form B Register and the I.D. Card Register were duly signed by the concerned workman. No evidence is forthcoming before the Tri- bunal under wriich circumstances the concern- ed workman signed those two registers. Tt is not the case of the union/workman that the concerned work- man was illiterate and his signature was obtained by the management illegally and arbitrarily without the knowledge of the concerned workman. Apart from this fact the concerned workman cannot avoid¹ his responsibility to disclose the document relying on which he claimed his date of birth as 15-9-45. It is seen that after filing W.S., inspite of giving several chances the concerned workman did not consider necessary to appear before the Tribunal in order to substantiate his claim. There was scops on the part of the concerned workman or the union to submit relevant papers in support of the date of birth recorded in the Mining Sirdarship certificate but inspite of getting opportunity neither the union nor the concern- ed workman was able to utilise the same. Form P Register and I.D. Card Register are to be considered as statutory document and for which value of these

Case No. ID 5 of 19905880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)] General Secretary, State Bank ot PatiaJa Stuff Union, 719, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. . . Petitioner.

Vs.

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

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman : Shri Ajit Singh.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 16ih of July, 2001)

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12U12/261/89-1.R. (B-3) dated 9-1-1990 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the State Bank of Patiala in dismissing Shri Tikka Ram, Watchman- cum-Peon at T.I.E.T., Patiala branch w.e.i. 31-8-88 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitl- ed to and from what date ?"

2. The case of the workman in brief is that he was appointed as watchman-cum-pcon at Samana branch ot State Bank of Patiala. He was charge-sheeted by the Regional Manager, Patiala on 2-9-1987. He gave reply to the charge sheet but Ihe disciplinary authority, without considering his reply, initiated departmental enquiry against him. During the course of enquiry the copies of the ducumenLs relied upon by the management were not given to him. Opportunity to cross-examine Ihe departmental witnesses was not, given by the enquiry officer. The enquiry ollicer arriv- ed at his findings against the workman and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The finding uf the enquiry ollieer was based on surmises and con- juctures. His report was perverse. The disciplinary authority without considering the facts and circums-f tances of the case issued notice of the proposed punish- ment of dismissal to the workman. The workman sub mitted his reply but his reply was not considered bv disciplinary authority and dismissed the workman from service on 31-8-88. The dismissal order passed by punishing authority was illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. The enquiry was notj conducted by enquiry oflicer fairly and properly. Tho, appeal was filed by the. workman against dismissal order.which was dismissed by appellate authority. They workman has requested that the dismissal order be quashed and the management be directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages. alongwith other incidental benefits.

J . T he management has submitted its written statet rnent alleging that the claim of the workman is not maintainable because of non-joinder and mi-;-joinder of the parties. The workman was guilty of serious mis- ; conduct. On the basis of that misconduct he wa: chargeshected. The charges were mentioned in the charge sheet dated 2-9-1987. He was guilty of mis-/ appropriation of public money. He had lowered Ihe image of the management in the eyes of (he public, so0 the departmental enquiry was initiated against him. During the course of enquiry the opportunity to cross- examine the departmental witnesses was afforded to the representative of the workman. Due opportunity was also accorded to hira to examine, peisued and take notes of the relevant record and documents. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry ollieer in fair and proper manner. The enquiry report was submitted by him to the disciplinary authority on 26-6-1988. The charges levelled against the workman were fully proved. Consequently the notice of the proposed punishment of dismissal was given to the workman. The reply filed by the workman was considered by the disciplinary authority who found the reply unsatis- factory, therefore, the workman was dismissed from service on 31-8-1988 by disciplinary authority. The workman aggrived by the order of the disciplinary authority filed an appeal before appellate authority. The personal hearing by appellate authority, was given to the workman. After considering the whole record of the enquiry and the explanation given by the work- man, the appellate authority rejected the appeal. The action taken by the management in dismissing the workman was legal, just and proper and in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to the emp- loyees of the bank Therefore the claim of the work- man deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.

4. The workman has filed replication which has not been signed by the workman or by the General Secre- tary of Stall' Union. In this replication the facts plead- ed in the claim statement have been reasserted. No new facts has been pleaded in replication.

5. In this case the date of appointment of the work- man and the fact of d!>.missal and rejection of appeal are admitted facts.

6. The workman has filed his altidavit (Ex. W l) and the management has submitted the affidavit of Deputy Manager Shri Om Parkash, MW1 and retired Chief Manager K. D. Trivedi (Ex. MW2). Enquiry file has been submitted by the management which has been exhibited as Ex. M2. Tt. contains 88 pages. The workman has deposed in his affidavit that he was not allowed to cross-examine the departmental wit- nesses Avinash Kumar and the opportunity to cross- examine the other witnesses was not given by the enquiry ollieer during the cuurse of enquiry proceed- ings. The witness:-., of the management have deposed that the opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses was given to the workman. The first witness Pritani Singh PW1 was examined on 30-J 1-1987. On that day, the workman attended the enquiry proceed- ings but his representative was absent. The workman requested to give him time in order to bring his re- presentative. The time was granted by the enquiry oJficcr but the workman and his representative did not turn up and the statement of Pritani Singh was record- ed on that day. fhereafler the statement of Avinash Kumar was recorded in the absence of the workman be cause he did not turn up. The witnesses Raj Kumar Goel PW3 and Aimer Singh PW4 were also examin- ed. The workman turned up on that day at 3.15 PM. His representative Shri Gnrb:ikr,h Singh was not pre- sent and the workman intimated the enquiry oflicer 5m

were recorded in the presence of the workman, and his representative Shri B. L. Sharma did not make request to the enquiry officer for recalling departmen- tal witnesses for cross-examination. Thus this case law is not applicable in this case.

that his representative could not come to participate in the proceedings as he had some urgent piece of Work. The case was not adjourned by the enquiry officer and Shri Ruldu Khanna PVV5 was examined in the presence of the workman. Workman was directed to cross-examine Shri Ruldu Khanna but he showed his inability to cross-examine the witness in absence of his representative.

9. The workman has deposed in his cross-exami- nation that the opportunity for his examination in his defence was not given by the enquiry officer. As per provisions of Bank's Service Rules, (page No. 679) the right has given to the delinquent workman for his examination. On persual of the enquiry pro- ceedings of 8-1-1988, it is evident that the enquiry officer asked the workman whether yuii wanted to record his statement, the workman submitted that he did not want to record his statement today. He wanted to submit his written briefs in his defence. The re- quest of the workman was acceded by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the non-examination of the work- man does not affect the conduction of the enquiry.

7. The next date of hearing was lixed 1-12-1987 und 2-12-1987, On these dates the witnesses of the management were examined but the representative of the workman was absent. Reasons of his absence was shown by the workman that the representative was busy in some urgent work. The conduct of the Workman and his representative is not reasonable. Their conduct shows that they were not participating deliberately in the enquiry proceedings, so, it can not be inferred that the proper opportunity to cross-exa- mine the witnesses was not given to the workman. If his representative was busy in some urgent work, he should have attended the proceedings and should have requested to the enquiry oJlicer for adjournment ex- plaining the unavoidable circumstances. The state- ment of witnesses were recorded on 30-11-1987, 1-12-1987, 2-12-1987. On 14-12-19S7, the workman informed to the enquiry olliccr that his representative Gurbaksh Singh had refused to assist him in the en quiry. The proceedings were adjourned by the enquiry officer and the time was granted for. the appointment of other representative whose name was Shri Brij Lai Sharma. On 17-12-1987 Shri li. L. Sharma appeared in the enquiry as defence representative in order to assist the workman. On that day, Shri 13. L. Sharma did not request the enquiry officer for the cross-exa- mination of departmental witnesses which were exa- mined earlier. He sought adjournment nnd the next date of hearing was fixed 8-1-1988 for defence wit- nesses On 8-1-1988 defence witness Shri Ram Sarup Sharma was examined. After the cross-examination of the defence witnesses the rep. of the workman closed his defence. If he had intention to cross-examine the departmental witnesses, he should have made request to the enquiry officer to give opportunity to cross- examine them. Under these circumstances, it can not be held that the proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not given by the enquiry olliccr.

10. It has been argued on behalf of the workman that the copies of the documents relied upon by the management were not supplied to the workman. In support of this argument the case of Kashi Nath Dikshla Vs. Union of India and others [1986 (2) S.L.R. page 620 S.C.] has been referred. In this case Jaw the copies of the statements of the witnesses re- corded during the course of preliminary enquiry and the list of documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not supplied to the deliquent workman and he was allowed to inspect documents and take notes, but the request for engaging a steno turned down. The number of witnesses was 38 and 112 documents run- ning into hundred of pages were produced. Under these circumstances, their Lordship of the Supreme Court have held that the provisions of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India has been violated by the management. Rule 33 of Bank's Service Rules has also been referred by the representative of the work- man. On going through the enquiry proceedings dated 11-11-1987, it is evident that the copies of the list of the witnesses and documents (Exs. P2 and P3) were given to the workman for his reference and record. The deposition of the witnesses were explained to the workman in local language. This fact has been noted in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, this case law is not applicable in this case, The rep. of the workman was also allowed by the enquiry officer to take the notes of the documents. The notes were taken by the representative of the workman, and he did not make any complaint lo the enquiry officer about his inability to take iioles of any documents. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the work- man in his defence.

11. The copy of the enquiry report and the copies of Ihc order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have been submitted by the management It has been argued, and has been pleaded in the claim statement, that the personal hearing were not given lo the workman by these auihorities to the workman. On going through (he proceedings of the enquiry file. it rcyeals that the opportunity of personal hearing was given by all these authorities to Ihe workman. Tho orders passed by these authorities are clobrate and speaking ones. So it can not be held that the propft opportunity to defend the workman was not given 8 During the course of arguments, the rep. of the workman has referred rule No. 56(9) of Bank Serv.ce Rules and argued that two opportumlies should be given bv the enquiry officer for cross-examination. Hut under these rules there is no provision for giving op- portunity to the workman without his request. I lie representative of the workman has also referred the case of K. Raja Rao Vs. Syndicate Bank ( 1999) (1) S.C.T. page 608 (Karnataka). Tn para 17 of this case law, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that proper opportunity for the cross-examination of the departmental witnesses to be given to the work- man. If opportunity is not given, it will violate the principle of natural justice. But the facts of th;s case- law are different from those of the ease under consi- deration. In that case, the prepared statement of the witnesses were read out tn the workman nnd he was directed to cross-examine the witnesses. In ihc case under consideration, the statements of the witnesses5882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASV1NA 21, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)] to him. Every page of the proceedings has been signed by the workman and his representative and this fact has been recorded on the last page of the proceedings

workman the incident of restoration of the envelope containing Rs. 1400 has no significance. At a parti- cular spell of time one person may be honest and after some time he may become dishonest subsequently. The workman was running in indebtmes, and he con- sequently misappropriated money of the customer of the bank. This misconduct of the workman has lower- ed down the image of the bank in ihe eyes of the public. Keeping in view the charges levelled against the workman the punishment of dismissal can not be held to be harsh and disproportionate.

14. This Tribunal can not act as an appellate autho- rity of the management to interfere with the findings and the quantum of the punishment without any rea- sonable ground. In this case the proper and fan.- op- portunity to defend the workman himself has been given during the course of enquiry, and the principle of natural justice has not been violated by the mana- ncnt. Consequently the dismissal of the workman from service can not be held illegal and unjustified. Under these circumstances, the workman is not entitl- ed to get any relief from the management.

12. It has been pleaded in the claim statement and has been argued by the representative of the workman that the findings of the enquiry officer is not based on any convincing evidence. The findings of enquiry offi cei is perverse. On going through the enquiry report, it is found that the enquiry officer had discussed thr" evidence properly and his findings are based upon the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry It has also been argued that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. In sup- port of the case of the workman, the case of M/s. Kardaha and Co. Ltd. Vs. The workman (AIR 1964 S.C. 719) has been referred on behalf of the work- man. In this case Their Lordship has held that "an Industrial Tribunal will not interfere with the action of the management in dismissing its employees after holding an enquiry into the alleged misconduct unless it is shown that the management has not acted in good faith, or that the dismissal amounts to victimi- sation or unfair labour practice or the management has been the guilty of basic error, for violation of the principle of natural justice, or when on the mate- rial the findings is completely baseless or perverse". Keeping in view the law laid down by Their Lordships, the material placed in the case under consideration has been persued and considered.

15. On the basis of discussions made in preceding paragraphs, the reference is answered that the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in dis- missing Shri Tikka Ram, Watchman-cum-Peon at T.I.E.T. Patiala branch w.e.f. 31-8-1988 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief from the management. Both parties shall bear their own cost of proceedings. Appropriate Government be informed.

Chandigarh,

16-7-2001.

B. L. IATAV, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2001

S.0.2759. In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman,-which was received by the Central Government on 13-09-2001.

13. In para 9 of the claim statement, it has been pleaded that the work and conduct of the workman was found praiseworthy when he was posted at Samana Branch. During his posting at Samana Branch, he found an envelope containing Rs, 1400 which restored to the owner of the envelope. This fact has not been considered by the punishing authority while passing punishment order. The charge sheet has been exhibited as Ex. M2. First charge relates to the pur- chases made by the workman on credit from M/s, Puri General Store who was the customer of the bank. The workman borrowed Rs. 300 in cash from the customer. The second charge relates to M / s. Bajw;< Gun House from where certain articles worth Rs. 163 were purchased by the bank. The cheque was issued in the name of the parties. But the workman did noi handover that cheque to the parties and reported to the bank authorities that officials of M/s. Bajwa Gun House required cash payment instead of cheque. The bank authorities gave to the workman an amount ot Rs. 163 for making payment to M/s. Bajwa Gun House but that amounl was not paid to Gun House and was misappropriated by the workman. Third charge relates to the non-deposit of two instalments amounting to Rs. 400. First instalment of Rs. 200 was paid to the workman by gurantor of the borrower to be deposited in Agricultural Term Loan Account. That amount was not deposited by the workman and mis appropriated by him. The second instalment of Rs. 200 was given to the workman for deposit in term loan account but that amount was also not deposited by the workman, and he utilised that amount himself. Fourth charge relates to his misbehaviour with the bank officer. These charges have been proved by co- gent evidence adduced in the enquiiv- Keeping in view the gravity of the charges levelled against the

[No. L-12012/52/99-IR(B-H] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNF.XURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, CHLNNAl

Tuesday, the 14th August, 2001

Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the documentary 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 considerate n, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

AWARD

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 130/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.106/99)

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Cetnral Govt. for adjudica- tion by this Tribunal is as follows :—

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the workman Sri N. Mohan and the Management of Dena Bank, Mumbai.)

"Whether the action of the Management of Dena Bank Chennai in withdrawing the Special Allowance by Men o da'cd 22-04-1997 to Shri N. Mohan is justified? If rot, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to?" BETWEEN

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the 1 Party/Claimant Union are briefly as follows :

The General Secretry, : I Party/Claimant Dena Bank Employees Union, Chennai,

AND

The Chairman & Managing : IT Party/Management Director, Dena Bank, H.O. Mumbai. Appearance :

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

Advocates

For the Management : S/Sri M. Rujamanickam & R. Rajesh. Vivckar.an- than, 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 Dis- pute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the con ' cerncd Industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-120l2/52/99/IR(B-II) dated 10/12-06-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 106/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order tranfser of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 130/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Triblnal on 01-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

This industrial dispute has been raised by the I Party/Dena Bank Employees Union (hereinafter re- ferred to as Petitioner) espousing the cause of the workman Sri N. Mohan. The concerned workman joined the services of the II Party/Management Dena Bank (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) as a sub- staff and have rendered 25 years of service. On 11-6-96, the Respondent Bank issued the show cause notice cum suspension order alleging that the con- cerned employee indulged in physical fight and used provocative language against one on Mr. Balaji, arme guard, on 31-5-96. The concerned employee gave an explanation denying the charges. Inspite of his explanation, bank issued a ehargesheet dated 18-7-96. On 10-8-96, the employee gave a detailed ex- planation denying the charges and stated that he was assaulted by Balaji and produced a Doctor certificate dated 2-6-96 to prove the nature of injury. Not satisfied with the employee's explanation, the Res- pondent conducted an enquiry. In the domestic enquiry, the Respondent examined four witnesses including the armed guard on the side of the Manage- ment. On the side of the concerned workman two witnesses were examined apart from the statement of the concerned employee. The armed guard, Balaji gave evidence as MW4 and marked Exhibit ME3 in support of his complaint. The Enquiry Officer, after analysing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charges were not provided. Un- fortunately, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found that the employee was guilty of the charges. The reason given by the Disciplinaiy Authority was that the Enquiry Officer's decision of discrediting the evidence of armed guard was erroneous and that stric'. law of evidence is not applicable in the domestic enquiry. The entire report of the Disciplinary Authority narrows around the departmental witness, This matter came up before me for final hearing on 03-07-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement,5884 THE GAZETTE OF INUTA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASV1NA 21, 1923 ["ART J I - ^ S E C. 3fii)] deration of his past record of service. The concerned employee w;is expected to maintain discipline smong other subordinate siafi" we*king with him. The concerned employee was I'uund oner to be f;::.'ed in his duties wh eh wus cn'iusicd to him :-o the rllow- ancci thereon was stopped, Further, the concerned workman had reached the maximum in the lime scale of pay and therefore, there was no scope for stoppage of four annual increments as has been done in the case of Sii S. Balaji who was suspended along with him in the said incident. The findings of the Disci- plinary Authority was not contrary to the evidence on record and hence it is not opposed to the princi- ples of natural justice, Hence, the Petitioner's claim may be dismissed.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry docu- ments were marked by consent of counsel on either side as Ex. Wl to WIG and Ml. No oral evidence was let in on either side. The learned counsel on cither side have advanced their respective arguments.

5. The Point for my consideration is :

"Whether the action of the Management of Dena Bank Chcnnai in withdrawing tl:c Special Allowance by Memo dated 22-04-1997 to Shri N. Mohan is justified If not, what relief is the workman concerned onliilcd to?"

Point:

He has not discussed the evidence deposed in support of the delinquent, which is erroneous. Lvcu the management witnesses have stated that Balaji assault- ed Mohan, the Disciplinary Authority ha^ overlooked all these aspects with ulterior motive gave a finding that the concerned employee is guilty of the charges mentioned in Ihe chargesheet dated 18-7-96 and imposed a punishment of withdrawal of special allow- ance with immediate effect. Neither the Discipli- nary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has given a detailed reason considering the submissions made before them. The orders arc crypljc. They have not considered past record of the employee before imposing the punishment, which is a manda- tory requirement as per the piovisions of Bipartite Settlement. Bn'nji was chargesheeted for this j'nei- dent and he was imposed with stoppage of four incre- ments with cumulative effect They very fact that Balaji was imposed with the higher punishment shows that he only assaulted Mohan by abusing and not otherwise, Neither the Disciplinary Authority nor th; Aipj'kUe Authority considered the medical certificate produced by the concerned employee Mohan. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are contrary to :he evi- dence on record and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The employee was penalised for no fault of his. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hoJd that the punishment imposed by the Bank in withdrawing the special allowance by a memo dated 22-4-97 to Sri N. Mohan is not justified and consequently direct the bank to restore the same with arrears, grant full wages for the period of sus- pension and other consequential benefils.

3, The averments in the Counter Statement of the II Party/Management are briefly as follows :

In the domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner for the charges levelled against him for his disorderly/indecent behaviour, which is an act pre- judical to the interest of the bank the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges against the Petitioner were not proved. But tbe Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and concluded that all the charges levelled against the concerned employee Sri N. Mohan have been proved and for that he has given reasons in his letter dated 11-3-97, I he Disciplinary Authority has not overlooked any evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer only after considerfng the views of ihe con- cerned employee the punishment was awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority, Though the concerned employee was charged to have committed gross misconduct which inc'udes dismissal from service of the bank as a punishment, the Respondent viewed it leniently and has riven a punishmem of less gravity fo the concerned employee, after taking into consi-

The concerned workman Sri N. Mohan was working as a sub-staff in the Respondent/Bank of Aminjikarai Branch. He was issued with show cause notice cum suspension order dated 11-6-96 alleging that he indulged in physical fight and used provocative language against the armed guard of the Respondent/Bank one Sri S. Balaji on 31-5-96. Ex.Wl is the xerox copy of the show cause notice cum suspension order dated 11-6-96. [t is stated in that show cause notice that when the concerned workman Sri N, Mohan was working as Head Peon at Aminjikarai Branch of the Respondent/Bank on 31-5-96 about 3.50 pm. he indulged in physical fight/attack, pushed Mr. S. Balaji, armed guard ferociously with an intention to cause him hurt/ injury and/or riotous and/or disorderly behaviour insidcMhc premises of Aminjikarai Branch, which is a gross misconduct. Furher during that incident of riotous and disorderly behaviour, the concerned employee had used provocative language against the armed guard Sri S. Balaji, In that show cause notice itself, the concerned employee was advised by Ihe Disciplinary Authoiity to submit his written explanation to Lhe said allegation within seven days of the receipt of the order. It is contended in the Claim Statement that the employee gave an explana- tion denying the charges-. Rut copy of any such reply has not been filed by the Petitioner in this case. Then the concerned employee was issued with charge5885 proved. Ex.W3 il the zerox copy of the letter ofthe concerned employee submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, wherein he has stated that the allegations in the charge sheet are toially false and fabricated and he strongly denied them and that the charge sheet was issued with a view to harrass him and it is a violation of GovL guidelines and hence, he requested to withdraw the charge sheet and revoke the suspen- sion with retrospective effect. Ex,W4 is the zerox copy of the enquiry proceedings. From this, it is seen that ihe enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural justice and that the delinquent employee was given sufficient opportunity to effectively defend his case with an assistance of defence representative and all the witnesses for the Management have been duly cross examined by the defence representative in detail, besides examining two witnesses as defence witnesses, Ex.W5(2) is the zerox copy of the letter of the Accountant Mr, Rajaram dated 31-5-96 to the Regional Manager of the Respondent/Bank wherein he has stated about this incident, From the porusal of the letter, it is seen that within the bank premises the concerned employee Mr. Mohan had a physical quarrel with the other employee armed guard; Sri Balaji. Ex. W5(3) is the zerox eopy of the complaint given by Mr. Balaji to the Branch Manager in respect of the incident took pjace on 31-5-96. AH these available materials clearly show that there was a physical quarrel between the concerned employee Mr. Mohan and the armed guard Mr. Balaji within the bank premises as described in the charge sheet Ex.W2 as a riotous/disordcrly/indecent behaviour in the premises of the bank and doing an act picjudicial to the interest of the bank which can be considered as gross misconduct in terms of clause 19.5(c) and 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966. Ex. W7 is the zerox copy of the letter dated 11-3-97 addressed to the concerned employee by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein the Discipli- nary Authority had stated that the enquiry authority has not evaluated the complaint and the evidence of MW4 properly and the Enquiry Officer discredited that witnesses evidence in the domeslice enquiry, quoting a judgement of Calcutta High Court (which is not applicable to the departmental enquiries) as incorrect. Further, he has analysed the entire evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer and has given a conclusion that all the charges levelled against the concerned employee Mr. Mohan are proved under clauses 19.5(c) and 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement He has also advised the concerned employee to make his written submissions within ten days. Ex.W8 is the memo given by the Disciplinary Authority to the concerned employee ordering punishment of withdrawal of special allowance with immediate effect. Ex.M9 js the zerox copy of the appeal datod 8-5-97 sheet dated 18-7-96. The zerox copy of the same is Ex.W2. An enquiry was conducted for the charges levelled against the concerned workman under Ex.W2. The Enquiry Officer Mr. A.R. Natarajan, who was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the concerned employee after condu- ting the enquiry, has submitted his report dated 18-7-96 itself. The zerox copy of the same is Ex. W6. In his report, he has stated thut the alleged mis- conduct under c'ause )9.5(c) riotous/disorderly/ indecent behaviour in ihe premises of the hank is partially proved to the extent of disorderly/indecent behaviour only and the othor charge under clause 19.5(j) has not been proved. Duting the domestic enquiry, four witnesses woie examined as MW1 to MW4 and three documents were marked as MEX1 to MEX3. On behalf of the charge sheeted employee two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 wore examined. Ex.W5 series were filed during the domestic enquiry as exhibit MEX1, MEX3 respectively., MEX 1 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 31-5-96 written by the Manager of the Respondent/Bank-of Amjajikarai Branch to the Regional Authority of the Respondent/ Bank. The Branch Manager Smt. V. Lalitha, who wrote Ex.W5 (1) letter gave evidence in the domestic enquiry as MW1. Tn that letter MW1 has slated the incident had taken place inside the counter area of the bank in full view of the other staff. From this jotter, it is seen that both the Armed Guard Mr, Balaji, and the concerned employee Mr. Mohan had an altercation within the bank prtmiscs and thereby indulged in physical fight with each other. In the report itself, the Enquiry Officer has stated that it establishes that there was a quarrel between Sri M, Mohan and Mr. Balaji which culminated into a physical fight between them. He has also stated that during cross examination, MW1 has maintained that there was a wordy fight/quarrel between them, in the report itself, the Enquiry Officer has stated that MW2 Mr. Rajaram, Accountant also corroborated that there was shouting/fighting between Sri M. Mohan and Sri Balaji. The armed guard of the Respondent/Bank Sri S. Balaji examined as MW4 in 1he enquiry had spoken about the incident. But, the Enquiry Officer has stated in his report that it is a deposition of co-worker and it is not a substantive evidence. So, he has not given any credence to the deposition of that witness. While analyzing the two defence witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has stated that no impoitance'can be attached to the deposition of DW1, since he was present in the"* bank only upto 3. J5 pm on 31-5-96, whereas the incident had happened only at 3.50 p.m. He has disregarded the evidence of DW2, as there was no substance worth- while consideration in his deposition. After men- tioning all these things, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that riotous/disorderly/indecent be- naviour on the premises of the bank is partiall y 058 Gl/2001—2358*6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCfFQBBR, 13, 2001/£$VHNA 21, 1923 [PART I I —S EC 3(ii)l prnferrad by the aoncepncd-jcmployce to the Appellate Authority. Ex.WlO is the zerox copy of the order doted 12-11-97 ,passcd by the Appellate Authority aoafinning rthc punishment imposed by the Discip- linary Authority under Ex.W8.

6 The learned counsel lor the 'Petitioner Union had pat forth an argument that the Enquiry Officer alter analysing the evidence on record czme to the oondusion that the chargos were not proved but unfortunately the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enqui/y Officer and had found that the concerned employee was guilty of the charges and tooth the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have given fhair findings contrary to the evidence on record and that the other employee Mr. Bataji was also charge sheeted for thisinciden' and in the enquiry held against him he has imposed with stoppage of four increments with cumulative affect and the every fact that'Bdlaji was imposed with higher punishment shows that he only assaulted the coirocr/iod wofkman Mr. Mohan and that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered the medical certificate produced by •the con- cerned employee Mr. Mohan in proof of injuries susteis by him. Wtmce, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority

medical oartincate dated 2^6-96 has -been relied upo by the Petitioner which has been submitted as an cnolosurc to Ex. V/3 letter of the concerned employee to the ^Disciplinary Authority. The occurrence admittedly has taken place on 31-5-96 at 3.50 p.m. to the medical certificate issued by the Doctor Svtbramaniam dated 2-6-96, nothing has been stated as the reason for the injury he found on the person Mr. Mohan as one edema on the left side frontal area. Further the said Doctor who issued that medical cettificute to Mr. Mohan was not examined by him as a defence witness in the domestfc enquiry. In addition to that one such injury foimd by the Doctor on 3-6^96 on the person of the concerned workman Mr. M. Mohan cannot conclusively said to be a rcsiiltwnt icflect of the alleged assault of the armed guard 'Balaji on the concerned person, in .the absence of any evidence in support of the same. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority has given a different finding contrary to the findings of the Enquiry'Officer with- out any evidence or basis. It is seen from the rocor'ds that the punishment df stoppage of special allowance was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority -agiainst the coneernod workman because the concerned work- man has reached the maximum in the time scale of pay and therefore, there was no scope for stoppage of four annual increments as has'been done in the case of the other employee armed guard Mr. S. Balaji, who was also suspended along -with the concerned employee for that incident and against him also a separate enquiry was conducted. So, lunder such circumstances, it is seen that theaotion df the Manage- ment of Dena Bartk, Chennai in withdrawing the special allowance by memo d"t"d 22-4^97 to Sri N, Mohan is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Dena Bank, Chennai in withdrawing the special aTlowajice by memo dated .22-4-97 to Sri N. 'Mohan is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No cost.

(^Dictated to the Stenographer, txapscribed and typed by him, "oirjectod and pronounced by me in the open court-on this day the 44th August, 2001).

K KAR,TH1KJEYAN, Presiding Officer

Date

Description

11-06-96

Witnesses Examined : On either side : None. DOCUME14TS MARKED : For I.Party/Claimant : Ex. No. W.I

7. The learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the Disciplinary Authority while -dis- agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry .Officer has givjen reasons in his letter Ex. W7 and he has j;ivcn his conclusion that the charges levelled against the concerned employee were proved on the basis of tha proper evaluation of evidence let in, in the domestic enquiry A perusal.of Ex. W7 clearly shows that the said argument of the learned xounsel for the Respon- dent/Mnoagement is correct arid acceptable. From the available materials in this case, it is seen that on 31-5-96 an occurrence which has been mentioned in the charjc sheet-has been taken place in the premises of the 'Respondent/Bank Aminjikarai Branch and that incidence .the concerned employee Mi. Mohan had a physical .quarrel with armed ^uard Mr. Balaji, whiCh was rightly found to be a riotous/disorderly/ indecent behaviour on the bank promises, a gross misconduct'in terms of clause 19.5(c) and it is an act done jjiejudieia] ;to 'the mterast of 'bank ito 'be consi- dcredus a jgross misconduct in terms of clause 19.5{j) of ,thc .Bipartite Settlement 4at;d 19-10-66. Q a;

•Zcrox copy of the show cause jiolice-cum-Suspension order.

Xerox copy of* the Charge Sheet! 18-07-96-

W2

10-08-96

W3

Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the M&nagemont.

Xerox copy of the proceedings 12-09-96

W4

into charge sheet.

Xerox copy of the- Management Series (3)

W5i

exhibits.

18-07-96

W6

Xerox copy of the Enquiry Officer's report on the charge sheet.

Xerox copy of the letter from the 11-03-97

W7

Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner.

22-04*97

W8

Xeioxx copy of tha order of punit- shmcntt

08-05-97

W9

Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Appellate Autho- rity.

12-1^97

W10

Xerox copy of the final order of punishment.

Date

Description

For the U Party/Management : Ex. No.

18-07-96

Ml

Xerox copy of the Enquiry Officers' report on the charge sheet.

Presiding Officer Now Delhi, the 18th September, 2001 S.O. 2760. -Irt pursuance of Section 17 ot the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Couit, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in Ielation to the management of L1C of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 17-9-2001.

[ No. L-17012/60/97-IR (B -II) ] C. GANGADHARAN,. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LAB0UR;

COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 12th September, 2001

PRESENT

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

CGIT-Gum-Labour Court, Bangalore

C. R. NO; 62/98¹

II Party

1 Party Shri Siddaramappa, The Divisional Manager, S/o. Fakkirappa LIC of India, Chalawadi, Divisional Office, Mcsti Peshe. Raiahur^5"4i 105. Mudugal, (Advocate : Lingasgur, Chandrashekaran). Raichur5-84 101 (Advocate :

G-. H'. GaneshBhat).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Sestion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vider Order No. L-l 7012/60/ 97-I-R' (B-If)'dkted 29th June, 1988- for adjudication on'the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management, Life Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the service^ of Shri Siddaramappa without fol- lowing the provision of Section 25 of T.D. Act, 1947 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

2. First party was working with the. management. He was removed from service and therefore, industrial dispute is raised.

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

4. The ca;tf of the first party in brief is a& follow* :

5. It is the- case of the first party that he was appointed as tomporary /Vssirtant-at Sindanur Branch on monthly wages of Rs. 2728.10/-. He reported duty on 26-3*1996. He worked for more than 240 days continuously without any complainta.

6. It is the further cage of the first party that ho

was terminated from sorvice w.o.f. 1-3-1997. INO notice was given before termination and no compen- sation was paid. The termination is illegal. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

7. The case of the management in brief is as

follows :

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2001 8. It is the case of the management that the first party has no right to raise this dispute because he was only a temporary employee. Tt was an appoint- ment of contractual nature The first party was purely a temporary employee. The first party accep- ted all the terms and conditions of the appointment and now he has no right to raise this dispute. It is a fact that he worked for 240 days but that does not give him right for absorption. Termination is correct and the reference be rejected.

S.O, 2761.—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 industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangaloro as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 17-9-2001.

[No. L-l 7012/43/9 MR (B-1I)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

9. It is seen from the records that on behalf of tho management MWl is examined and documents are marked. On behalf of the workruan first party got examined himself. I have heaid the arguments of both sides. I have carefully perused all the docu- ments.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT

BANGALORE

Dated the 4th September, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNI, B. COM.LLB,

PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-LABOUTR COURT,

BANGALORE

C. R. No. 23/92

I PARTY N PARTY 10. At the very outset I am of the opinion that the first party was only a temporary employee and according to the conditions of Ex. Ml the first party has no right because he has agreed all the conditions mentioned in Ex. Ml and he gave consent as per Ex. M2. All this has been deposed by MWl in detail. MWl further says that a regular employee was posted at Sindhanur Branch. He is cross-exa- mined but nothing is mado out from his cross-exami- nation to ihis disbelieve his evidence. Ex. Ml is the appointment order and on going through the same it is clear that the first party was only a temporary employee and he may be removed without any reasons. First Party admits in his cross-examination that one Mr. M. Ranappa was posted to Sindhanur Branch and after he joined at Sindhanur the first party was terminated.

Shri B. M. Thippaswamy, The Divisional Manager, 11. Considering the entire evidence ad docuo- ments marked by the management, 1 am of the opinion that this reforonce has no merit. Accord- ingly I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 12th Septembei, 2001).

(Since deceased represented Life Insurance Corpo- by his wife) ration of India, Budhihal Village, Divisional Office, Mittur Post, Udupi-576101 Harihar Taluk, (Advocate M, L. Chitradurga, Visweswariah) Karnataka (Advocate P. "N. Nanja Reddy)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

AWARD

1, The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by, clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the section 10 of the Industrial Disputes5889 Act, 1947 has iefcrrcd this dispute vide order L-170I2/43/91-IR. (B. If) dated 12th February, 1992 for adjudication on the following schedule :

that the first party was involved in those transactions including tampering and falsification of records. On the basis of investigation charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management o¹ Life Insurance Corporation of Jndin in di - missing the services of Shri B. M, Thippaswnny is justified ? If not, to what relief is/ure the Workman entitled 1

12. Regarding enquiry it is stated that in detail that the same was conducted by giving full oppor- tunity. All the facilities were provided to the first party to defend himself in the enquiry and the alle- gations made by the late first party-workman are not correct in this regard. Enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The punishment is proper. The management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference. I have heard both sides in detail, I have perused all the material carefully. I have read the decisions cited by the parties.

2. First party was working with the second party. Charge Sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. On the basis of enquiry report workman, Shri B. M. Thippaswamy was dis- missed from service 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 :

13. Tt is seen from the records that late workman was examined on 13-6-1996 in part and further cvi-j dence was deferred at request. Management examin- ed MW1 and his evidence is that he conducted the enquiry and he has given detailed evidence regarding enquiry. He is cross examined by the first party.

5. The late first party workman joined the services of the second party on 5-10-1980 as Sepoy at Branch Office, DaVanagere Unit-IT. He was discharging his duties sincerely and honestly.

14. Tt is seen from the records that this Tribunal by its order dated 15th December, 1998 has passed orders holding that the DE is fair and proper. There- after the case was- posted for arguments.

6. It is his further case that charge sheet dated 20-8-88 was given to him for certain fervelous misconduct and he gave explanation to the said charge sheet. But the enquiry was conducted.

15. It is a fact that the late workman is dead. It is also a fact that this Tribunal has held that the DE is fair and proper. I have considered the entire en- quiry proceedings and the material placed before tht Enquiry Officer. In my opinion there is nothing on record to show that the report is perverse.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the first

party relied the following decisions :

(1) 2000(3) SCC 450

(2) ATR 1989 SC 149

(3) 1997(8) SCC 461

7. Regarding enquiry it is said that he was not given full opportunity to take the services of the advocate and to defend in the enquiry. It is also said that first party was placed ex-partc and enquiry was conducted. Enquiry is not fair and proper. Some of the details arc also stated in the Claim Statement showing that full oppor- tunity wfes not given to the first party workman to defend him during the enquiry. The punishment is excessive and harsh. Late First parly woikman has prayed to pass award in his favom.

17. I have read the above decisions very carefully. The facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the above decisions.

18. Second party has also relied decision of Civil Appeal No. 2651 of 1992 of the Hon'bie Supreme Court of India. I have read the above decision care- fully.

8. It is seen from the record that during the pendency of the proceedings an application was filed on 9th August, 2001 stating that the workman died and his wife and children arc filed application to bring them on record as Legal Representatives of the late workman. That application was allowed- Accordingly the LRs of late workman arc brought on record.

9. The case of the Second party in biief is as

follows :

10. It is contended that the provisions of Indus- trial Dispute Act cannot be invoked in this dispute and this tribunal has no jurisdiction.

19. In order to say that the enquiry report is per- verse and the enquiry was not properly conducted it has to be established by the LRs of the first party- workman that the finding js perverse. In order to in- voke the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, it has to be established by the LRs of the first party-workman that the finding is perverse and there is no evidence to prove the misconduct. But that is not done by late workman or his LRs.. Therefore I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act.

11. It is the further case of the second party that during 1987 certain fraudulent transaction relating to LTC policies serviced by Davangere Branch II came to light and promptly an investigation was con- ducted and there was prima facie evidence to show

20. I have considered the entire material before me and I am of the opinion that the misconduct is proved and there are no circumstances to invoke5890 THE GAZETTE OF" INDIA: OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PART H—SEC. Spu)] the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Dis- pute Act. There is no merit in this reference and accordingly 1 proceed to pass the following Ordbr :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th September, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th September, 2001 S.O.. 278?!—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, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers im relation to the management of Canara Bank and their work- man; which was received by the Central Government on 17-9-01.

[No. L-12012/H"/9fcTR(BiTI)] C. GANGADWARAN, UndfcrSecy,

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT

"SHRAM SADAN"

HI MAIN, HI CROSS, IT PHASE, TUMKUR: ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE.

Dated : 13th September, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARN1, B. Com. LLBj PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE.

C.R.No. 59/98

I PARTY 11 PARTY

Shri-T-L. Hanumantharajui The DivisionalManager, S/o Lingaiah, Staff Section (Workmen-); 3rd Division Colony, Canara Bank, Circle Tyamagondlu, Office, Nelamangala Taluk, No. 86, Spencer's Tower. Bangalore, M.G. Road, (Advocate-Anand Ram) P'i,-2:i1r>rc 560 001,

(Advocate-T.R.K. Prasad)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/ 100/98/lR(B-lI) dated 11th August, 199ft for adjudi- cation on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF SHRI T. L. HANUMANTHARAJU BY THE MANAGE- MENT OF CANARA BANK IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE SAID WORKMAN IS ENTITLED'?

2. The first party was working with the Second party. He was terminated 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- un- der :—

5. The first party is a member belonging to the SC community. He joined the second party in 1986 as sub staff.and worked upto December, 1992 uninter- ruptedly maintaining a clean and unblemished record of service. He has worked for more, than 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, his termination amounts to retrenchment and non compliance of Section 23 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order of termintion and the action of the management is illegal.

6. Tt is the further case of the first party that he was working beyond the working hours from the date of his appointment till the date of his termina- tion. He has given, some other details and the first party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

8. The. main contention of the Second Party is that the first party was engaged as a coolie on casual basis off and on, intermittently and on daily wages.

9. Tt is the further case of the management that it is a nationalised bank and is required to follow the prescrihed procedure for recruitment, and: there are service conditions of workmen employees. De-r tails of that is given. It is also said that the candi- dates are selected according to the rules. The first party has not worked for 240 days in any year during the year 1986 to 1992 in the Counter. It is- said during 1986 he worked 17 days, 1987 he worked 43 days, 1988 he worked 86- days, 1989 he worked 6"* days, 1990 he worked 161 days, 1991 he worked 191 days and 1992 he worked 124 days.

10. The dispute is not maintainable. There is no. termination and there is no question^ of non<~ complhince ofi the provisions o£ Section 25F of the5891 Industrial Dispute Act as alleged by the first party. The management for ihese reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. It is seen from the records that management examined one witness and workman got examined htmtelf as WW1.

12. I have heard the arguments of both sides. First party has filed written arguments with certain citations. Second party counsel has also given two decisions,

13. I have read the evidence-tarefully and perused the -Written Arguments and considered the decisions relied by the parties. The management lias produced registers showing the number of.days for which the first party workman was engaged as coolie. MW1 has stated that during the period 1986 to 1992 first party was engaged by the bank casually whenever there was need of work and the workman has not worked for .more.than 240 days in any given year during the said period.

14. He has further said that the payment of daily wages was made through registers and the registers are maintained to show the number of work- ing days of the first party. He is cross examined but nothing is made out from his cross examination.

,15. I have considered the registers carefully. The .management has categorically stated in the counter giving actual-working.days of the-first party yearwise. The management has substantiated this contention from the registers produced by the management.

16, It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that at the instant of first party the registers are produced and from these registers it is clear that the first party has not worked for more than 240 days in any year during the period referred earlier. There is merit in this arguments.

17. The workman has stated in his cross exami- nation that he accepts the correctness of working days shown by the management in the counter except the year 1991 and he says that in the year 1991 he worked for more than 240 days. This shows that according to the first party he worked only in 1991 for more than 240 days. T have verified from the registers and T am of the opinion that the fir.st party has not proved that he worked for more than 240 days in the year 1991.

18. 1 have considered the writfen arguments of the first party. First party has relied following decisions :

(1) AIR 1986 SC 132 (2) Decision of .Colkata High Court, (3) AIR 1981 SC 1253.

19. I have read the above decision carefully. The facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the above decisions.

20. Second Party Counsel has relied the following 2 decisions :

(1) 1994 (2) LLJ page 977 SC

(2) 1997 LLR page 54 Punjab and Haryana High Court.

21. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decisions and the fact that (he first party has not worked for more.than 240 days and he was not a regular employee, 1 am of the opinion that there is not merit in this dispute and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 13th September, 2001)

V. N. KULKARN1, Presiding Officer Now Delhi, the 18th September, 2001 S.O. 2763.—'In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown j,n the anne;uro 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 17-9-01.

[ No. H2012/240/94-JR (B-II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRLBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 4th September, 2001

PRESENT :

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

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore

C,R. No. 2/975892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 200J/ASV1NA 21, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] I Party 11 Party Shri B. Gunasekhar Rai, The Dy. General Manager, 784-A, Indira Nagar, Syndicate Bank, II Stage, Zonal Office, Bangalore 560 038. Gandhinagar, (Advocate : Bangalore 560 009. N. S. Narasimha Swamy) (Advocate :

Pradeep S. Sawkar)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. 12012/240/ 94-TR (B.II) dated 2nd December, 1994 for adjudi- cation on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore in dismissing Shri B. GunaSekhar Rai, Clerk from service w.c.f. 30-7-92 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to ?"

2. The first party was working with the Second Party, Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted and on the basis of enquiry report first party was dismissed from service.

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

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

5. The first party joined the service of the second party bank as a Clerk in the year 1975 and he was working honestly and diligently. He has worked in several branches of the management. The first patty had made some oral complaint agaist the then Assistant Manager while working at Bimanapura and the said Assistant Maanager Sri B. S. Venkatcsh Murthy developed ill will toward? the; first party for his legitimate union activities and for having made some oral complaint regarding the way in which the said manager was functioning in'the aforesaid branch. Taking advantage of this ill will Venkatesh Murthy has made a false complaint to the management stating that the first party has threatened and also abused him. The allegations made by tho manage- ment in the charge sheet are not correct. The first party has given details of his union activities in Claim Statement.

6. Regarding enquiry it is stated that the same is not correct and no opportunity was given to him to defend himself. The report of the Enquiry Officer is not correct.

7. First party has stated details of the enquiry in tho Claim Statement, The action of the rnan/ge- ment is not correct. The first party workman for these reason and for some other reasons has pra ycd to pass award in his favour,

8. The case of the management in brief is follows :

9. It is said that the bank is fully justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and the punishment has been imposed for serious acts of misconduct, which has been proved. It is stated that on 11-10-90 first party while working a Clerk disobeyed and challenged him to report the matter to the Manager and used unparliamentary language against the said officer. Accordingly when the said officer was proceeding to the Mana.gea's cabin, the first party suddenly pounced upon him and assaulted him which resulted in physical bleeding injuries- The management for these reasons has said that the action of the management is correct.

10. Regarding enquiry the management said that the same is correct and full opportunity was given to the first party to defend himself. Details of the enquiry are given in the counter. Parawise replies are also given by the management The manage- ment has prayed to reject the reference.

11. Tt is seen from the record that this Tribunal by its order dated 26th June, 2001 has held that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper. Tn this case the management examined MW1 to prove the enquiry.

12. It is seen from the records that ihe first party has not given any evidence in this case. Now it is clear that the enquiry is held as fair and proper, tho first party for the reasons best known to him remained absent for many years.

13. T have heard tho learned counsel for the management. 1 havo considered decisions cited by the management in 1998 (1) LU 1016. Now that the enquiry is hold as fair and proper it is for the workman to establish that the finding of the enpuiry officer is preverse and the report is incorrect. The first party has not convinced ;is to how the enquiry is incorrect.

14. T httve carefully perused all the papers and T have hold that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. In view of this T am of the opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

15. Tn the decision relied by tho management, it is held that charge of abusing, threatening etc. is a serious misconduct and dismissal is not dispropor- tionate to the misconduct. The facts of the case on hand are similar.

16.. Considering all this' I a*n of the opinion tha there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

Tho reference i& rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signedby roc on 4th September, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th September, 2001' S.O. 2764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in tho Annexure in the Indistrjal Dirpute between tho employers in relation to the management of Canara Sank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Govcrnmon! oil 17-9-2001.

[No. L-KQ12/91/88-IR (B-II)] C, GANGADHARAN, Under Socy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT¹ INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT

"SHRAM SADAN"

III Main, III Cross, II Phase, Tumkur Road, Yashwanthpur, Bangalore.

Dated : 4th September, 2001

PRESENT:

HON'BLE SHRI V N, KULKARNI, B.Com.LLB. Presiding Officer

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE CR, NO. 269/97

I PARTY II PARTY The General Secretary, The Chairman Canara .Bank Workers Managing Director, Union, Anooradha Bldg.,. Canara Bank,; 3058 GI/2001—?4

5893. Subehar Cbatrarn Road, Head Office, Bang8ldre-9 J.C Road, Bangalore-2 (Represented by General (Advocate Shri Pradcep Secretary) S. Sawkar)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/ 91/88 IR (B4I> dated 26th September, 1997 for adju- dication on the following- schedule:

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Canara Bank Worker Union for 10% bonus for the accounting year 1985 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled"?

2. The General Secretary, Canara Bank Worker's Union being aggreived of the fact that the manage- ment has not givon 20 per cent bonus for the account- ing year 1985 has raised this dispute.

3. Parties appeared and field Claim Statement and Counter respectively; Rejoinders are also filed by the first party.

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

5. It is the case of the 1st partly union that the award of the National Industrial Tribunal was pub- lished'by the Central GoVernrheht in its order N6_ S.O. 2384 datdd 22nd September 1960 and Ihe award is- known as Desai Award' on Bonus. Iri the Claim Statement terms of award aro stated.

6. It is the further cas(e of the first party union that as per the above referrad direction in the Desai Award while the banks are free to transfer any am- ount from the declared profits to the reserve fund, for allowing as a prior charge only 20 per cent is to be taken into account.

7. Regarding depreciation what is stated in the Desai Award is also given in detail

8. It is (he further case of the utiibn that the bank disbursed theminimumof 8.33 per cent bonus for the year 1985. On going through the published balance sheet of Ihe bank, the first party found that as per the provisions of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the employees of the bank are entitled for 20% bonus. The first party union wrote to the bank demanding 20% bonus for the year 1985 but nothing was done. Writ petition was filed in the High Court of Kernataka and on'the direction of High Court of Karnataka, the Govt. of India referred the dispute which was earlier refuse'd by the Government 9. The Balance Sheet and the Profit and Loss Account of the second party for the year ending5394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 300] 31-12-1985 is given in detail." The first party Union for these reasons has prayed to pass award in its favour.

13". It is the further case of the management that in ihe year 1965, the payment of Bonus Act was enacted to provide for payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments on the basis of profits or on the basis of production or productivity for matters connected therewith. The said Act came into force on 25-9-1965, Provisions of Section 34 of the Act are stated.

10. Second party fi!ed very lengthy Counter contenting that tnc dispute is not maintainable and the claim of the first party union for payment of bon TS at 20% for the accounting year 1985 is misconceived and is not justified Canarn Bank is a Nationalised Bank constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies Act. 1970. The service conditions of the award staff am us contained in the various Bipartite Settlements which have been entered into at the industry level by the Federation of Union of Emp- loyees representing the -workman employees of Public Sector Banks and Indian Banks. There are about 6 unions operating in the second party re- presenting the Award Staff. The relative strength of these Unions is also given.

14, It is also ssid that Section 31A is a specicj provisions in respect of payment of bonus Jinked to production or productivity and hence it is not appli- cable to a Banking Industry, The Seocnd party is required to calculate and pay bonus in accordance with provisions. Award is defined in Section 2(7) as an interim or final determination of any Industrial dispute or any question relating to thereto by a L abour . Court Industrial Tribunal or a National Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Thus P. reading of Section 34 discloses that the provisions of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any Award including an Award of the National Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The Dessi Award is an Award within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Payment of Bonus Act as it is an Award of National Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Aci 1947. In view r-f Sect'on 34. ^he provisions contained in the Desai Award relating to the payment of Bonus to Award Staff in the Banks is unenforceable as the previsions of the payment of Bonus Ac( over ride those provisions contained in the Award. Thus the claim of the first party union is not maintainable.

15. It is seen from the award that cteim of 20% based on the recommendations of the De?ai Award/ report of tho Bonus Commission is misconceived and his illegal. Infact the parties are governed only by the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act. The Second party property calculated the amount of bonus payable under the payment of Bonus Act and has Tight paid the bonus,

that Second party had no allocabie surplus excee- ding the amount of minimum bonus of 8.33% payabl under Section 10. Balance Sheet details are given⁰ in the counter. Figures given by the first party are not correct. Management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

18. It is seen from the records that since a long time the first party is not represented by the Joint Secretary, Nobody appeared for the first party. Therefore the management filed documents and they \^erc marked, Management has also filed affidavit evidence. The first party has not cross examined them. I have heard arguments.

19. By way of rejoinder the first party union again contented that the bonus claimed is correct and all the allegations made by the management are denied. I have read the relevant rules and perused all the documents marked on behalf of the manage- ment, Ex.M2 is the important document showing allocable surplus under section 2(4) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. '. I have carefully considered the provisions of Sections 10. and 24 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

20. It was argued by the learned counsel for the second party management that the first party is not entitled for 20% Bonus and the management is rightly paying bonus of 8.33% as per Act. It was also argued that the figures given by the first party union arc not corrcci It is an admitted fact that the balance sheet of the bank cannot bo challenged. There is not an iota of material filed on behalf of tpe first parly union to show that the employees are entitled for 20% bonus for the year 1985. The management has also filed Income tax returns and it is clear that there is no surplus amount as contented by the first party union. Fiist party union for the reasons b?st known to it not proved this case and there is no merit in this reference. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order:

ORDER

Tho reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th September 2001)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18ih ScpUrr.bir. 2C01 S.O. ."765.—Tn purtuf-ncc of Sec-lien 17 of the Industrial Dirpuic-s Act. 1947(14 c fl 947), ihc Ci tii.l Govcji.mojit hen'by pi.blifhcs the iwiid of ihe Cent 11=1 Government lr,dust;i;.'1 T'-ibwrl/Lt boijr Court, Chcnnai as shewn in Ihc frrr-xu'T- in the Industrial Dispute betwu-n the cnip'cyus in ivlaiion to the management of Ii dian Ovvrrcas Bu,k aid their workman, which was received by ihc Central Government on 17-9-: CO I.

[No. L-12012/54/96-IR (B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 20th August, 2001

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 429/2001 (Tp.mil Nadu State Industrial Tiibunal I.D. No. 33/97) [In the matter of Ihc dirputr for adjudication urdcr clause (d) of sub-scctioii (1) &vd sub-ivction 2(A) of Section 10 of the Irdustrki Diiputos Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri M. V.yrtp.-iumal and the Management of Trdiun Qvorfcas Bank, Chcnnai].

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, T Party'Claimnnt Indian Overseas Bank Emp- loyees Trade Union, Chennai.

AND

The General Manager, II Party/Management Indian Overseas Bank,

Chennai.

Appearance :

For the Claimant: M/s. K. V. Aiiantha-

ktushran ard A. Ai'okiyadoss,

Advocates.

For the Management : Sii N. G. R. Prusad,

Advocate.

The Govt, of India, Ministry of L; bour in excrcifc of powers coiierred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial5W6 THE GAZETTE O F W m A : " r m B E R, J3, Wt/ASVTNA 21, 1923 [PAUT II—5Et. 5tfl)] ©isputeB Act, 1947 (-14 6f I$#T), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012/54/96/IR (B-II) dated 09-5-1997.

This reference has b;cn made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on flic as I.D. No. 33/97. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 429/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of thjs case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal pn 26-02-200]. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

This matter camo up before me for final hearing on 03-07-2001, upon peruing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the dpcumentary evidence lot in on cither side and upon hearing tho arguments of learned counsel oil oithcr side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :

AWARD

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

"Whether tho action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in dismissing Sri M. V Vesraporumal, Record Keeper, Indian Overseas Bank, Zonal Office, Madurai on 24-9-94 is legal and justified. If not to what relief, the said workman, is entitled 7"

2. The averments in the Claim Statcmont of the

I Party/Claimant Union are briefly as follows :

Miirimuffeu at tlie instance of Rajagurrj, Xalcfcur Branch. It is further alleged that the said M. Veera-' pcrumal at the time of introducing the said Mari- muthu was aware that the draft given by Majlmuthu was false and was obtained by fraudulent means by him and that M. Vcoraperurnal was responsible for the lose of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the bank. The delin- quent employee disputed the charges levelled against him and denied his liability and stated that, he did not commit any misconduct as alleged. Jn the domestic enquiry conducted to enquire into the charges mentioned in the charge memo issued to the concernod employee on 1he side of the Management two witnesses were examined and 12 documents were exhibitod. The delinquent employoe has exa- mined and had marked three documents as his defence exhibits. Though the evidence let in, in the domestic enquiry on the side of the Management has not proved the charges against the charge sheeted emp- loyee, the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the change sheoted employee M. Veeraperumal was guilty Of tho charges of misconduct as allegod in the charge sheet and found him guilty of all the charges. On the basis of the findings, the Disciplinary Autho- rity by his order dated 24-9-94 dismissed the delin- quent employee Mr. Voeraperumal from service. So, the concerned employee preferred an appeal dated 9-12-94 to the Appellate Authority. Without app- raising tho evidence on record and the previous service record of the concerned employee, the Appe- llate Authority agreed with the findings Of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order dated 25-1-95, dismissing the appeal. Therefore, thtr Petitioner Union has raised this dispute for the non-employ- ment of tho concerned employee challenging the order of the dismissal of the concerned employee passed by the Respondent/Managemont. The delinquent employee Mr. M. Veeraperumal did not commit any misconduc* as per the charges levelled against him. He did not connive with Mr. K. Rajaguiu attached to Kakkur Branch and K. M. Marimuthu to commit the charges levelled against him. From the charge sheet dated 21-9-93 issued to Rajaguru, it was admitted that tho said Rajaguru made the delin- quent employee M. Veeraperumal to sign the intro- duction letter in the account oponing form for opening the account of Sri K. A. Mari- mulhu, who was not a person known to Mr. M. Veeraperumal. It is further admitted that the said Marimuthu acted in connivance with Rajaguru to cheat the bank to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The charge sheet dated 29-9-93 issued to Rajaguru will prove that the charges levelled against. M. Veera- perumal is unsustainable and no. prjma-facie case has been made out. M. Veeraperumal except intro- ducing the account holder to the bank at the instance The General Secretary, Indian Overseas Bank Employees Trade Union has raised this industrial dispute espousing the cause of tho employee Sri M. Veeraperumal. The I Party/Claimant (herein- after referred to as Petitioner) has stated in the Claim Statement that the concerned employee Mr. M . Veeraperumal has joined the II Party/M&nagomont Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) on 20-2-67. When he was working as Record Keeper at rhe Zonal Office of Indian Over- seas Bank at Madurai, he was charge sheeted on 23-8-93 for an alleged misconduct of introducing one Sri K. M. Marimuthu for oponing SB account No. 16018 with North Vadmbokki Street Branch, Madurai with the soje purpose of fraudulently encashing the draft for Rs, 1,00,000/, issued, in favour of K. M.

3"y/

of Rajaguru, the then Manager of Kakkur Branch did not act or commit the charges levelled against him a;> alleged by the Management. In his reply, the delinquent employee has stated that Rajaguru came to his residence along with K.A. Marimuthu and requested him to introduce Marimuthu for opening a S.B. account as he was leaving for Madras. Since Sri K. Rajaguru was superior officer, M. Veeraperumal obliged and signed the account opening form. M. Veeraperumal was not aware of the address of the said Marimuthu. It is not proved that the delinquent employee is responsible in Marimuthu withdrawing the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ from the said account and he was the beneficiary- Further, connivance between the delinquent employee, Rajaguru and K.A. Marimuthu has not been proved. The delinquent employee is not responsible for the loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- caused by Rajaguru and K.A. Marimuthu. The evidence before the Enquiry Officer both oral an documentary without any iota of doubt established that the delinquent employee M. Veera- perumal except signing the account opening form in the place as introducer had nothing to do with frau- dulent act committecd by the said Marimuthu in connivance with Rajaguru. There is no evidence to show that M, Veeraperumal only with an intention to cheat the bank signed as introducer in the account opening form. Th e transaction regarding withdrawal of amount from another branch and a bank issuing a draft for Rs. 1,00,000/- for want of funds are genuine transaction. The said Marimuthu in connivance with Rajaguru encashed the bank cheques obtained by Rajaguru on false representation from the party. The materials on records clearly established that M. Veeraperumal had no connection whatsoever for the withdrawal of the amount from some other account and/or regarding issue of draft. The Enquiry Officer's finding that the delinquent employee is guilty of charges is erroneous. The Appellate Autho- rity failed to consider many aspects available as evidence in this case and without any discussions merely confirmed the order of dismissal. Hence, the Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award by setting aside the dismissal order dated 24-9-94 against M. Veeraperomal and direct the Respondent/Manage- ment to reinstate him in service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of

the II Party/Management are briefly as follows :

Rs. I,00',6b6/-isslteainfavpur fafSri k.^ Marirriiithu at the instance of Sri Rajiguru of fcakkur Branch. Sri M. Veeraperumal was aware at the time of intro- ducing the said account that the draft given by Mr. Marimuthu was obtained by fraudulent means. Hence, he was responsible for the loss of Rs. 1,00,0^/- to the bank on the said transaction. The concerned employee Sri M. Veeraperumal submitted a reply to the charge sheet and as the same was not satis- factory, the Discipinary Authority ordered for an enquiry into tfie charges framed against him. It is incorrect to state that evidence placed in the enquiry did not prove the charges. The oral as well as the documentary evidence clearly proved the charges against Sri M. Veeraperumal and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was based on clear evidence. Consequent upon the acts of the concerned employee Mr. M. Veeraperumal, the Bank sustained a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- being the amount of draft fraudulently encashed through the said S.B. Account. The acts committed by the Member amounted to gross mis- conduct in terms of clause 17.5(d) and 17.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14-12-1966. As the acts committed by Sri M. Veerapcrumal were serious in nature he was charge sheeted and suspended by the Disciplinary Authority on 23-8-93. In the enquiry, the charges framed against the concerned employee Sr. M. Veeraperumal were proved beyond doubt. As the miscoiiduct committed by the concerned employee showed moral turpitude on his part, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him a punishment of dismissal from service and before awardng the said punishment, the concerned employee Sr. M. Veera- pcrumal was given a personal Hearing by the Discip- linary Authority, The concerned cmplQyee preferred an appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority also gave a personal hearing to the con- cerned employee on 9-12-94. After going through the entire records of the case and also the submissions made by the concerned employee Sri. M Veeraperumal in the personal hearing,, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the concerned employee. It is denied that the order of Appellate Authority was passed withput appraising the evi- dence on record and the past record of the concerned employee. The Appellate Authority analysed the entire evidence and also took into account the past record of tfie concerned employee before passing the order. The concerned employee has committed serious misconduct as per the chargesheet framed against him. The evidence placed in the enquiry clearly established that the concerned employee Mr. M. Veeraperumal connived with Sri. M. Rajaguru and also Sri K.A. Marimuthu. The chargesheet dated 4-9-93 issued to Sri Rajaguru itself will prove the collusion between Rajaguru, M. Veeraperumal and K.A. Marimuthu in cheating the bank. Sri Rajaguru was found guilty of the charges of cheating The concerned employee Sri M. Veeraperumal was working as Record Keeper in the Zonal office of the Respondent Bank at Madurai and he was charge sheeted on 23-8-93 for having committed a serious misconduct of. introducing one Sri K. Marimuthu for opening SB Account No. 16018 with Nor^h Vadambokki Street Branch, Mijdwai with pole purpose of fraudulently encashing the draft for5898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER, 13^ 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(0)) to be questioned. There tire no grounds to reinstate him in service, since Sri M. Vecraperu- mal was found guilty of the charges involving moral tuipitude on his part. Hence, the Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Claimant.

4. When the matter was came for enquiry, when it was pcrdirg before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal documents filed on either side were marked by consent ard Ex. W 1 to W 4 and M 1 to M 33. Subsequently, on orders of transfer by the Central Govt., the case was received by this Tribunal and was taken on file as I. D. No. 429/2001 and here it was taken up for further enquiry. No '"further evidence either oml or documentary on cither side was let in. The learned counsel on cither side have advanced their argument?.

5. The point for my consideration is —

Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in dismissing Sri M. Veer&pcrumal Record Keeper, Indian Overseas Bank, Zonal Office, Madurai, 24-9-94 is legal and justified. If not to what relief, the said workman is entitled ?"

Point :—

The I Party/Claimant Indian Overseas Bank Employees Trade Union represented by the General Secretary has raised this industrial dispute espousing the cause of the employee Sri M. VcerapeiurnP.I. The cor.cemed employee was working as a Record Keeper in, the Zoral Office of the II Party/Management Reaper dent, Irdian Overseas Bank at Madurai. On 23-8-93 he was charge sheeted for some alleged misconduct. Ex. W 3 is the xerox copy of that chargcshcct. Prior to that he was placed under suspension by an order dated 23-8-93. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W 1. In that order Ex. W 1 the concerned employee was directed to submit his exploration for the alleged misconduct mentioned in that oidcr. The concerned employee has submitted his written explanation dated 23-9-93. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W ?.. After the issuance of charge sheet under Ex. W 3, the concerned employee has submitted his written reply dated 21-10-93 stating that only at the request of Sri K. Rajaguru, an officer in the Respondent Bank he stood as introducer for opening a SB account in the bank by Sri K. A. Marimuthu, excepting to thst he was nothing to do with the incidvrts reported and he had been in no way responsible for the alleged loss cf Rs. 1,00,OCO/- said to have sus- tained by the bank. Then a domestic enquiry was and misappropriation of the accountholders money and awarded the penalty of dismissal by the Discip- linary Authoirty on 30-8-97. It is denied that Sri M. Vecraperumal did not do any thing except intro- ducing the account of Sr. K.A. Marimuthu at the instance of Sri Rajaguru. The enquiry proceedings will clearly reveal that the concerned employee M, Veeraperumal introduced the account, knowing fully well that Sri Marimuthu was not entitled to proceeds of the draft and he was also aware that Sri K.A. Marimuthu was not living in the address given in the account opening form. Inspitc of knowing this, he gave an introduction to Sri K.A. Marimuthu and facilitated him to open a SB Account in the North Vadambokki Street Branch Madurai and withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the S.B. Account by encashing the draft fraudulently obtained by him in collusion with Sri Rajaguru. The concerned employee should be fully aware of the implication in introducing an account he ought not to have introduced that of when the person seeking to open the account is not residing in the address in the account opening form. Inspite of knowing that Sri K. Marimuthu was not entitled to the amount of draft he facilitated fraud being perpetrated with the bank. The act committed by the concerned employee is not a mere irregularity. The said SB Account was not opened for any genuine purpose but only for enscashment of the draft fraudu- lently obtained. After opening of the account, the only transaction in the account was collection and withdrawal of the proceeds of the draft. From this it is evident, that it is a fraudulent act committed by the concerned employee. It was proved in the enquiry that Sri M. Veeraperumal was responsible in K.A. Marimuthu withdrawing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the said account. The connivance between Sri M. Vceraperumal, Rajaguru and Marimuthu was also proved. Therefore, the loss sustained by the bank is solely attributable to the misconduct committed by Sri M. Veeraperumal. The findings of the Enquiry Officer holding Sri M. Veeraperumal guilty of the charges are correct. The Disciplinary Authority took into consideration the serious nature of the misconduct committed by M. Veeraperumal and also his past record, which was not good. Hence, it is incorrect to state that Shri M. Veeraporumal was found guilty only on the basis, of the past record. The enquiry proceedings conducted in a fair manner following all principles of natural justice. The Appellate' Authority care- fully analysed the entire records of the case and then only came to the conclusion that Shri M. Veeraperumal was guilty of the charges and awar- ded him the punishment of dismissal from bank service. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is justified and the name is not liable5899 representative datod 3-9-94 to the show cause notice to porsonal hearing given to concerned employee Sri M. Veeraperumal. Ex. W 12 is the xerox copy of tho proceedings of tho personal hearing held on 3-9-94 by tho Disciplinary Authority. After the the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 24-9-94 awarding the punishment of dismissal from bank service with immediate effect. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W 13. Against that order of dismissal the concerned employeo preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority end the Appellate Authority was pleased to pass an order datod 25-1-95 con- firming tho order of the Disciplinary And Ority. The xerox copy of that o d er of Appel'p.te Authority is Ex. W 14. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has adv?,nced an argument statingthat the delinquent employee Sri M. Voera- perumal colluded with tho previous Management Sri K. Rajaguru choa+od the bank by committing fraud and thereby caused l.o^s of Rs. 1.00,000/- for the Respondent/Bank. For the alleged mis- conduct mentioned in the charge shoe! domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and propor manner fo¹low

initiated by the Respondent/Bank and the Disci- plinary Authority had appointed one officer to enquiry into the charges levelled against the concerned Petitioner. The xerox ropy of the onW priced by the Disciplinary Authority dated 27-11-93 is Ex. W 5 . The Enquiry Officer con- ducted the enquiry and has submitted his findings. The xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings is Ex. W 6. The xerox cony of the written sub- mission m.ide by the Presenting Officer and' the defence before the Enquiry Officer in ihr domestic enquiry 'on 30-7-94 are Ex. W 7 and W 8 resp-c- tively. The XTOX ccpy of the findings piven by the Enquiry Officer dated 19-8-94 is Ex. W 9. In the enquiry, on the F?OV of the Management two witresres as MW1 srd MW 2 were rxpminrd and 12 documents were marked as Ex. ME 1 to ME 12. On the side of the deliquent employee he himself has examined as witness and three documents w^-re marked as Ex. DE 1 to DE 3. After pnalyeinp the evidence let in on either side before lvm during 'he domestic encwiry. and aflcr considering the arguments put forth on cither s:d-i, the Fnquiry Officer had given ? finding under Ex. W 9 stating that the documentary evidence and deposition of witnesses reveal that, the charge shee+ed employoe in collusion with Sri Rajaguru and Sri K. A. Marimuthu cheated the Respondent/Bank to the extent, of Rs. 1,00,000/- and hence he hold that all the changes are establi- shed and the concerned employoe has committed the misconduct in terms of para 17.5 (d) and 17.5 (J) of tho Bipartite Settlement dated 14-12-1966 by doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. It is contended on tho side of the I Party/Claimant that the evidence let in beofro the Enquiry Officer did not prove the charges 1ev>:". d agaJnsf the deliquent employee Sri M. Veeraperumal and it is further alleged that the Enquiry Officer without proper application of his mind on the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, he has given a wrong finding that the charges has been provod. Further it is contended by the learnod counsel for the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are one ?nd tho same and on that ground itself, the entire enquiry is vit;ated and that, it is a gross violation of principles of natural justice, that the entire findings of him were biased, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Ex. W 10 is the xerox copy of the reply given by the con-omed employee Sri M. Veeraperuniai. to tho Disciplinary Authority. That wai given by him with reference to second show oauso notice dated I9-8-1994 proposing the punishment of dismissal from Bank's service without further notico- Ex. W II is the xerox copy °f the submission made by the defence

6. A perusal of the entire enquiry procecd;n7s marked as Ex. W 6 clearly shows that the deli- quent employoe along with defence representative taken part in the entire enquiry and the manage- ment witnesses were duly cross exanvned by tho defence representative. Further, the delinquent employee himsolf has examined as a defence witness. From this, it is seen tbat fair and proper opportunity was given to the concerned employees in the domestic enquiry and i' is sc~;n from the records that no one has raised during the domestic enquiry that the Disciplinary Authority himself functioning as an Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Futrher, as it has bven decided by the Supemc Court in the above cited case, it cannot be said that tho enquiry5900 THE GAZETTE OF INJHAt: £K3T0BEft; Mt 2ft©17A#KINA 21, 1923 [PA"TI Ife^&cc Sffii] conducted by the Disciplinary Authority as .-are- En- quiry Officer is vitiated and it is against the principles of natural justice. Further a perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings show that sufficient oral and documentary evidence has been let in before the Enquiry Officer for him to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent emp- loyee have been, proved, as he has mentioned in his findings Ex. W9. Under such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel foT the Petitioner that the findings of the Enquiry. Officer were biased, perverse p.nd contrary to ihe evidence on record is incorrect and unacceptable. Further no such plea has been takon in-ihe Qaim Statement field by the Claimant Union.

withdrawn by Sri Mftriimtthw subsequently and this came to the light of the Bank whtn the three- S. B. Account holders found that their accounts were not transferred to Chokkikulem fiem ftakkur branch when thoir accounts in Kakkur brarch were closed and the proceeds were misfppropriakd. The said set of introduction mrdc by the concerned employee Mr. M. VeerEpciumal is net mere a irregularity. The cerCfjrtd employee has served in tho Respon- dcnt/Benk for a quite number of years has fraudu- lently Eiccd as an introducer for opening a S. B> account for the stranger knowing full- well that he is not residing in the address given in the form for opening- that account. From the fact that after opening that account the enly transaction in that account was collection and withdrawal of proceeds of the draff" go to show that the S.B. account was not opened for any genuine purpose but only for encashment of the draft fraudulently obtained. So from the available* evidence, it is proved that with the connivance of the concerned employee, Sri Raja- guru and Sri Marimuthu the draft for Rs. 1,00,000 hwl produced for collection in the account of the stranger Sri K. A. Marimuthu, introduced by the concerned employee, and the proceeds were subse- quently withdrawn. From this, it is seen that'the concerned employee was directly responsible for encashment of draft for Rs. 1,00*000 and he only facilitated Sri K. A. Marimuthu to withdraw the amount by introducing that person to the branch. Therefore, the concerned employee is the root cause for the bank sustaining a loss of Rs. 1,00,000. The said misconduct committed by the concerned emp- loyee amounts to cheating the bank with fraudulent nature of the transaction. That was why the En* quiry Officer after analysing the evidence available before him had given a finding that Sri M. Veerapeni'- mal is guilty of the charges levelled against him and tho charges have been proved by unimpsachable evidence. The past record of the concerned empr loyee was alleged to be not good in tho Counter Statement itself., It is also stated in the Counter of the Respondent that the Disciplinary Authority, be- sides the findings arrived at the enquiry had also took into consideration the past record of the concerned employee. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment as per the stipulations in the Bipartite Settlement dated 14-12-1966. It, is also seen from records that the Appellate Authority after consider- ing the entire records of the case came to the con- clusion that the concerned employee was guilty of the charges and has confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the delinquent employee of dismissal from bank service. From the available,- materials it is seen that the proved mis- conduct of the concerned employee is an act defl- iiiVety beyond his authority,. FwXher, in the account 7. It is admitted that the concerned employee Sri M. Vceraperumal introduced one Sri K. M. Mari- muthu for opening of SB- Account No, 16018 in North Vadambokki Street Brar.ch, Madurai of the Respondent/Bank and a draft for Rs. 1,00,000 issued in favour of Sri K. Marimuthu has been encashed. It is alleged against tho said employee at the time of introducing the said Marimuthu the concerned employee was aware that the draft given by Mari- muthu was false and was obtained by fraudulent moans by him and because of the encashment of the draft for Rs. 1,00,000 the bank sustained a loss. The introduction of ihi> person by the concerned employee and the loss or R*. 1,00,000 to the Respondent/Bank has not b?ep disputed. On the other hand, it is cor.tenc'rd or, the side of the Petitioner that introduc- tion of ft person by the concerned employee is only an invrjiilarity but not a misconduct end tho concerned employee is no way connected with the alleged fault of ercrsiTient of the draft for Rs. 1,00,000 issued ii, fr.v, .'.-• of Sii K. M. Marimuthu. It is seen from th'.' evidence ;iviMlable in this case that a draft for R.. 1.(10 0C0 had obtained in the name of Sri KF A. Mr.'im.ihu in collision with Sri Rajaguru, the Mana- jor crE.ry-ium:'J introduced that Sri K.M. M; rnr-.'hu to c pc-n a S.B. Account in the North YsrVn.b kki Strict Branch, Madurai, when he was work'rg cs a Record Keeper in the Zonal Office of ihu R-ponder t/Bank Madurai, and it was the sole pv.'peFc of fraudulently encashing the draft No. 11/90 issued b/ Kakkur Branch in favour of Sri K.A. Ma-imv.fhu for Rs. 1,00,000. While introducing i hi rric! S. B. Account the concerned employee was fully awaiv of the fact that the said Marimuthu was net T-csidcr't at the address given in the bank account op.i ing form and that on Sri Mani Iyer, Astrologer was adding in that address. Even then, the con- cerned employee stood as an introducer for Mari- muthit to open a S. B. Account, thereby the draft fraudulently obtained w?.s credited into the said S. B. Account and the proceeds were fraudulently5901 1 2 3 W4 21-10-93 opening form for the S. B. Account of K. A, Mari- muthu, the concerned employee as introducer has given a declaration that lie knows him personally for a considerable period and confirmed the correct- ness of the occupation and address declared by tin: depositor in that application, 11 is evident from the other evidence available in this case that the address given in that account opening form as that of the depositor is not his address but it is an address of one Astrologer Mr. Muni Iyer. So one such declaration given by the employee of the bank in service is only with an intention to cheat the bank and ultimately, later that facility was availed by the depositor to commit fraud making use of that ac- count and for which the concerned employee was a root cause but for him the said fraudulent ad would not have been committed and the Respondent/Bank also would not hove sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000. So under such circumstances, it is seen that the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in dismissing Sri M. Veerrperumal, Record Keeper, Indian Overseas Bark Zorrl Office, Madurai w.c.f. 24-9-1994 is It-pal and justified. Hence, the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, in dismissing Sri M. Veerapcrumal, Record Keeper, Indian Overseas Bank 7,on&) Office, Madurai w.e.f. 24-9-1994 is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned employees is not entitled to nny lelief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the op^n cour on this day the 20th August, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : On either *ide : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED : For I Party'/Claimant :

Date

Description

Ex. No.

1

2

3

23-08-93

Wl

Xerox copy of the charge sheet- cum-suspension order.

W2 23-09-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner i0 the Disciplinary Authority,

Xerox copy of the charge sheet.

W3 29-09-93 3')"S Gr/2001—25

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority.

27-11-93

W5

Xerox copy of the letter from the Disciplinary Authority to Peti- tioner.

08-02-94

W6

W7 Nil

Xerox copy of the enquiry pro- ceedings. Xerox copy of the Presenting Officer's written Submissions. 30-07-94

W8

W9 Nil

02-09-94

W10

03-09-94

Wll

Xerox copy of the written sub- missions from Defence side. Xerox copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to the Disciplinary Au- thority. Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner Union to the Disci- plinary Authority.

W12 03-09-94 Xerox copy of the personal hear- ing proceedings.

24-09-94

W13

Xerox copy of the order of dis- missal.

25-01-95

W14

Xerox copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to the Peti- tioner.

For the TT Partv/Management :

Description

Date

Ex. No.

2

3

1

08-02-94

Ml

Xerox copy of the enquiry pro- ceedings

09-02-94 18-05-94 03-09-94

M2

Xerox copy of proceedings of personal hearing.

06-05-93

M3

Xerox copy of the suspension order issued to Sri Rajaguru. 29-09-93

M4

Xerox copy of charge sheet issued, to Rajaguru.

30-12-93

M5

Xerox copy of the reply of Sri Rajaguru to the Charge sheet. 05-04-97

M6

Xerox copy of the Enquiry Offi- cer's letter to the Disciplinary Authority enclosing report. 30-08-97

M7

Xerox copy of the order of punish- ment issued to Rpjaguru. 31-08-98

M8

Xerox copy of the order of Ap- pellate Authority Relating to the charge sheet issued to Rajaguru.

"TT-05-93 Xerox copy of investigation re- port A. Gannappa.

16-12-92

MIO

Xerox copy of investigation re- port A. Gnanappa.

M il 18-04-92 Xerox copy or the DD No. 11/19 of Kakkur Branch for Rs. 1 lac drawn on CCO Madurai favouring Marimuthu.

M12 Nil

Xerox copy of the SB a/c opening from relating to Account No. 18018 in the name of Marimuthu.

Ml 3 24-04-92 Xerox copy of the credit cash voucher for Rs. 5000 favouring Sri K,A. Murimulhu.

M14 24-04-92 Xerox copy of the credit transfer voucher for Rs. 1,00,000 favouring Sri K.A. Marimuthu.

Nil

M15

Xerox copy of the folio No. 134 of SB ledger No. 84 containing SB a/c No. 18018 of Marimuthu. 12-11-92

M16

Xerox copy of the letter from V. Sambasivan to General Manager, Central Office, Madras.

MI7 08-05-93 Xerox copy of letter from Sri V. Vaikuntaraman Manager of Kakkur Branch to Investigation Officer.

MJ8 II-01-92 Xerox'copy of the sale agreement signed by Sri Sambasivan and Smt. Parvathi.

MI9 23-08-93 Xerox copy of the charge sheet- curn-Suspension order issued to Petitioner.

M20 23-09-93

29-09-93

M21

Xerox copy of !he letter of Veeraperumal ;o the Disciplinary Authority. Xerox copy of the reply of Disci- plinary Authority !o the M. Veeraperumal.

M22 11-10-93 Xerox copy of the letlcr from Disciplinary Authority to M. Veeraperumal.

M23 21-10-93 Xerox copy of the reply to the the charge sheet.

M24 27-11-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to M. Veeraperumal.

Nil

M25

Xerox copy of the written brief of Presenting Officer.

M26 30-07-94 Xerox copy of the written brief of Defence side.

Xerox copy of the show cause notice and notice of personal hearing issued by Disciplinary Authority to M. Veeraperumal.

Nil

M28

Xerox copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

02-09-94

M29

Xerox copy of the reply to the findings.

24-09-94

M30

Xerox copy of the original order of punishment passed by Disci- plinary Authority,

M31 15-10-94 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by Sri M. Vceraperuma! to Ap- pellate Authority.

09-12-94

M32

Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by Sri M. Veeraperumal to Ap- pellate Authority.

25-01-95

M33

Xerox copy of the order of Ap- pellate Authority

New Dolhi, the 17th September, 2001 S.O.2766.—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-Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the empoyers in relation to the management of Salal Hydroelectric Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-9-2001

[No. L-420l2/108/92-fR(DU)] KULDEEP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Before Shri B. L. Jatav, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh.

Case No. ID 80/93 The General Secretary,

Salal Project Employees Union, Shed No. 8, Jyotipuram Via Rcasi(J & K) 182312.

. .Workman.

Vs. The General Manager, Salal Hydroelectric Project, Jyotipuram Via Rcasi (J & K).

. .Management.

APPEARANCES For the workman : Shri M.R. Salalia For the management : Shri V.K. Gupta

AWARD

(Passed on 21-8-2001)

The Central Govt. vide notification No. L-42012/ 108/92-lR(DU) dated 21st of July 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :

"Whether rcdesignation of Mcllcr (gauge) Gr. T to 'Gauge reader grade. Ill' under the manage- ment policy of redesignation of pay scales, desig- nation and line of promotion is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to? " 2. The case of the Union in brief is that the workmen Rattan Lai, Thakur Dass and Sham Lai are working in the Salal Project for the last many years. Their pay scales and designation were rationalisation in N.M.P.C. Salal Project from 1-8-1983 vide office order No. Part-T/5 of 1986 dated 30-5-1986. As per the rationalisation scheme the Executive Engineer of Quality Control Division Township Complex Jyotipuram rationalised the designation of asforcsaid workmen including others vide his office order dated 30-5-1986 and office order dated 6-8-1986 in the same pay scales. The copies of the office orders were endorsed by the Executive Engineer to the Senior Manager (P & A) Salal Project with the request to maintain their seniority in the category of gauge reader. The senior manager failed to maintain their seniority in the category of gauge reader. The autho- rities of Salal Project issued transfer orders of some helpers including helper (gauge) but the names, of above three workmen were not included in the se- niority list of guage readers. The workmen ap- proached to the authorities through Union for the rectification of orders to correct the designation of the effected workmen as per rcationalisation scheme and as per eorregendum dated 18-2-1989. All the three workmen became eligible for promotion w.e.f. 1-1-1988 and 1-1-1989 as gauge reader grade TT but they were not promoted according to the line of promotion under the rationalisation scheme. There- fore, the workmen claimed the relief of their promo- tion to the post of gauge reader grade-II.

3 The management has filed the written statement alleging that the orders issued by the Executive En- gineer is ener.cous, The orders passed by then En- gineer was without jurisdiction as no officer could otherwise deviate from the provisions of the rationa- lisation settlement of 1986 retrospectively which was made effective from 1-8-1983. As per the settle- ment the helper trade in all departments was rationa- lised as one single trade of helper without attach- ment with any specific trede. Accordingly the work- men concerned were required to be designated as helpers like all other helpers in the project in one grade. There was no post of gauge nader in the classification of workman as agreed upon in the settlement for any helper. The term of the reference is inconsistent with the claim of the workman. It has been alleged by the management specifically that the Executive Engineer has acted crreneously and ignoring the provisions of settlement. It has been denied that the workmen are gauge readers. There is no post of gauge reader in the rationalisation of designation of helper trade.

There was no such post for helper trade in the rationalisation scheme. The office orders dated 31-7-1986 and 6-8-1986 were without jurisdiction and could not be a matter of implementation in violation of the terms of rationalisation agreement. There- fore, the question does not arise to maintain the seniority list of helpers (gauge).

4. The management has alleged that the eorre- gendum dated 18-2-1989 from Deputy Manager (P) was managed in contravention of settled policy for rationalisation. That correngendum is not legally maintainable or binding upon the management because the Deputy Manager (P) is not competent to create a post of gauge reader. It is incorrect that the workmen became eligible for promotion from 1-1-88 and 1-1-1989 as gauge reader II. The workmen concerned were promoted as helpers to the next grade in line of promotion. They are getting their wages as per pay scales laid down in the settlement. The claim] of the union is not maintainable. Therefore, the workmen are not entitled to get any relief from the management.

5. The Union has filed rhc affidavit of Rattan Lai, (Ex. Wl), Thakur Dass (Ex. W5) and Sham Lai (Ex. W6). The union has also filed the copy of the docu- ments which have been exhibited as Ex. W2 to W4. The management has filed the copy of the settement dated 31-5-1986 which is Ex. M l. The affidavit of Asstt. Admn. Officer Shri Angrej Singh has been filed which is Ex. M2. All the three workmen have deposed in their affidavits that they were working as helper (gauge) prior to settlement dated 31-5-1986. After implementation of rationalisation settlement the Executive Engineer, quality control rationalised the designation of these workmen and they were placed in the category of gauge readers w.e.f. 1-8-1983 and 1-10-1983. The wokmen were entitled to promotion in the next higher pay scale5904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PARI H — S E C. 3(ii)] but the management failed to promote them in that scale. The witness of the management has deposed that the settlement lor rationalisation was arrived at between the woikmen and the management. The pay scales, designations and line of promotion were ra- tionalised tuid the settlement was implemented w.e.f. 1-8-1983. As per raLJonahsatiion scheme the desig- nation of the helpers Was not changed as guage readers. The post of the gauge reader is selection post which could be filled out of the candidates who had applied for the said post on notification of vacan- cies. The candidates are to lie selected by the selec- tion committee. The executive engineer, quality con- trol, had issued the order errcncously. He was not competent to place the workman in the category of gauge reader. They were simply helpers. Therefore, their names had been included in the seniority list of helper.

6. The orders issued by the Executive Engineer. Quality Control is Ex. W2 and W3. By these orders all the three workmen were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290 as guage readers w.c.f. 1-8-1983 and 1-10-1983. The existing designation of the workmen has been shown in column No. 3 as helper grade-I (gauge). Theiir rationalised designation had been shown in column No. 4 as gauge reader grade-Ill. In these orders the existing pay scales of helper graded (gauge) has not been mentioned. The mana- gement has also not disclosed the existing pay scale of the workmen. Therefore, the rationalisation scheme is to be perused. If their existing pay scales had been vhown the controversy would have been adjudicated upon easily.

7. Aunexure-I of P.x. M1 is rationalisataion scheme. In uiinexwe-1, rationalised designation and existing designation have been shown. The helper gradc-lIF has been placed in the pay scale of Rs. J 96-232. This scale has also been shown in Annexure-Ill at serial No. 2. This is the induction pay scale. On page 2 of Annexure-Ill the pay scale of gauge reader grade-Ill has been shown which is Rs. 210-290. This pay scale is also end induction pay scale as per Ex. M l. The pay scale of helper grade-II is Rs. 210-290. The grade of the helper (gauae) has been shown as helper grade-I in the oiders Ex." W2 and W3. The pay scale of helper graded is Rs. 225-308 under the rationalised pay scales shown in Annexure-111. But these workman have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290 in- stead of pay scale of Rs. 225-308.

8. The witness of the management was cross-exa- mined by the representative of the workmen. He has deposed that the Executive Engineer. Quality Control had issued the orders Ex. W2 to W4 without compe- tency but no action had been taken against the Exe- cutive Engineer for passing the wiung orders. He has also admitted that no action was taken for the correction of wrong orders. The plea of the manage- ment is that the orders issued by the Executive Engi- neer is cncneously. Jf it is so, the management might have modified the orders issued by the Executive En- gineer. Besides this disciplinary action might have been taken by the management against him but, no action has been taken by the management. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the orders -passed by Executive Engineer is unreliable.

These orders are in existence. In absence of any cogncnt reasons these orders cannot be set aside by tins Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the names of the workmen should have been included in the seniority list of gauge readers grade-Ill. The orders passed by the Executive Engineer are justified in absence ol any disciplinary action by the management.

9. The terms of the reference relates to the redesig- nation of helper (gauge) grade-I to gauge reader gradc-III under the rationalisation scheme, relating to pay leak designation and line of promotion. Indirect- ly the terms of reference relates to the orders Ex. W2 to W4 issued by ihe Executive Engineer Quality Con- trol. The management has failed to prove that the action taken by the Executive Engineer was erren- eous. Therefore, the refcience deserves to be ans- wered in favour of the workmen.

10. The Union has challangcd the promotion of the workmen, The facts alleged in the claim state- ment are inconsistent wi'h :he term of the reference so far as it relates to the promotion on the post of gauge reader grade-II but it cannot be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal.

11. As per discussions made in the preceding para- graph of this Award, the reference is answered by holding that the redesignation of helper (gauge) grade-I to "gauge reader grade-Ill" under the mana- gement policy of redesignatiun (rationalisation) of pay scales, designation and line of promotion by the Executive Engineer, Quality Control is justified. Con- sequently, the workmen are entitled to get their names included in the seniority list of gauge readcr-III. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Appropriate Gov- ernment be informed.

Chandigarh.

Date : 21-8-2001.

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 17: h September,, 2001 SO 2767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of J 947), the Centra] Government hereby published the award of the Labour Court Nashik as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man agement of Telecom District Manager and their5903 workman which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 17-9-2001.

[No L-40012/14/93-IRCDU)] KULDTP RAIVERMA, Disk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI UR DESHMUKH. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT. NASHIK Rof. (IDA) No. 21/1994 Between ; The Telecom District Manager, Telecom Dept, Nashik, Employer/first party and Shri Suresh G. Kadam, C/o Asstt. Circle Secretary, A)) India Telecom Employer Union, C/o Telephone Exchange Jalgaon

Workman/second party Present : Shri D.H. Deshmukb, Judge. Appearances : Mrs. Pati! A.G,P. for first party/ employer. Mr. Joshi Adv. for

second parly/workman

AWARD (29-5-2001)

This is a reference made by tfoe Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi under clause (d) of sub-sec. 1 and sub-sec. 2(A) of sec, 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act., 1947. The matter in dispute is thus :

"Whether the action of the management,of Telecom District Manager Nashik in paying wages to Sbri S.G. Kadam, pai\ time sweeper, Nandgaon Tele- phone Exchange {a Rs. 90 per month is justi- fied and consistent with letter No, 30-13/87 rates dl. 23-2-88 of Directorates of Telecom? If no¹, what relief he i* entitled to 7"

2. The concerned workman has filed the State- ment of claim at Ex. U 2 contending that he has been employed with S.D.O- Telephones Manmud. Dist: Nashik at Telephone Exchange at Nandgaon as a part- time sweeper. The workman claim to have worked for 2 hours every day since October, 1983. Hewa initially paid Rs. 60 p.m. which were enhanced to Rs. 90.. The workman has contended that according to the directions in the order passed by the Hon Supreme Court of rndian on 27-10-87 in CWP 39-/86 the Directorate of Tckccni New Delhi, issued instruc- tions vide letter No. DOT 10-13/87 raks dt, 23-2-88, for payment to all casual labourers on the basis of mini- mum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres including D,A. and A.D.A. and the part-time casual laboures were required to be paid pro-rata basis. Accordingly, the workman claims to have demanded due wages from the department, but the same have not been paid. The workman has worked out the difference of wages due to him in Annexuro I to the <>ine of Rs. 20,279.50 which have been claimed with interest (MI 12% p,a, In Anno- xure I, the wages actually paid and payable as per tbe instructions of the departmental head have been mentioned.

3. The employer department appeared and res- sisted the claim vide written statement Ex. C-3 con- tending that the Telecom Dept is not an industry within the meaning given in the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the reference was made without application of mind and is therofore untenable. Theis court is stated to have got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. It is further contended that the concerned workman was not appointed by the Competent Authoity nor was he sponsored by jhe Employment Exchange, It is submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. It is further contended that the concerned workn:anisjdoing the work of sweeper on contract basis and no appointment order was issued nor has necessary sanction of the competent authority been obtained. The concerned workman is stated to be a casual labourer engaged on contract basis. The department has also contended that there is no sanctioned posi Doiiyijig thus the claim made, the Dept. has claimed rejection of the reference.

4. My Id. predece ssor had framed the preliminary issuerelaing to jurisdiction of this court and main- tainability of the reference. The said issue was decided after hearing both the sides on 20-1-98, dec- claring that ;his court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference. In view of the said part I Award* it would not now be necessary to go into the juris- dictiona! objection raised in the written statement, The employer department had contended that the dis- pute of the present nature is outside the jurisdiction of this court which contention is baseless. The appropriate Govt. is empowered torefer to this court dispute renting to wflges a,s contemplated in the Third Schedule, if it is not likely to afket more than 100 workmen. The workman in the-present case is only one. I find that the reference is maintainable.

5. The surviving issues and my findings thereon are as under :—

1. Whether the second party/workman Shri S.G. Kadam is entitled to get the difference as mentioned in the Statement of Claim and Annexurc?.... Yes.

2. What order and relief 1 As per final award.

REASONS

6. Roth the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence and I have heard their Id. Counsels.

The workman Suresh has specifically contended and then stated on oath about the part-time work done by him since 1983 which evidence has not been rebutted because the Sub-Divisional Engineer examined by he Dep . has nowhere denied ihe cniployniLni and ihe woik dune by the work- man during all these years. The officer has only stated that the workman Suresh was engaged on contract basis and the powers to make regular appoint- ments arc vested in the Divisional Engineer. No rules have been shown as legaids the lccruitment oi the power of appointment. One blank sample voucher has been produced with Ex. C-8 by the em- ployer department to show as to how the prssunt workman was paid his wages. From the evidence on lccord, one can on'y conclude that the workman was employed on part time-basis to work for 2 hours daily and was paid Rs. 90 p.m. which has now been enhanced to Rs. 250. The sub-divisional engineer has admitted in cross-exam, that in the reply filed there is no specific mention that the workman was en- gaged on contract basis and further that the contract has not been produced on record. The witness admits that the payment made to the workman was enhanced whenever salaries of the regular employees were also raised from lime to time. The workman was therefore a part-time worker, who has been employed conti- nuously to do the sweeping work.

7. Now, the basis of the claim is the notification issued by the Department of Telecom on 23-2-88 which is Annexure B to Ex U-3 produced by the con- cerned workman and the same Has been admitted by the witness of the employer department. The said witness has admitted ihat all other workers have been paid difference in accordances with the said notification. The notification reads, thus:

"In compliance to Mon'ble Supreme Court of In- dia decision dated October 27, 1987, in Wrii Petition No. 373 of 1986 regarding payment of wages to casual labourers at the minimum of pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadre, but without any increments with effect from the 5th February, 1986, the Directorate of Telecommuni- cations has decided that:

(i) all the casual labourers engaged on casual basis aic to be paid wages worked out on the basis of minimum pay in the pay scale of regulaily employed workers in the coircs- ponding cadre but without any increment with efleet fiom the 5th Feb 1986. The casual labour will also be entii'ed to DA and ADA if any, on the minimum of the pay scale. No oilier allowances arc to be paid.

(ii) the woid 'casual labtnn' would cover full time casual labour, part-time casual labour and workers engaged on comigency basis. Part-time workers will be paid on pro-rata basis. For the purpose of payment, no distin- ction should be made whether the casual lab- ourers are being paid wages agsinst Muster Rolls charged to Works or Establishment Bills or from Office Coniingencies.

(iiij The arrears at the enhanced rate arc to be paid before 25-2-88 positively.

2. The expenditure involved in the payment of arrears is classifiable in the accounts as charged. Budget section of this Directorate may be contacted for allotment of funds."

8. It is clear from the notification that part-time workers are required to be paid wages equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regular emplo- yees in the corresponding cadre but on pro-rata ba- sis. No distinction can b; made whether the part time workers are paid against muster rolls, charge to work or establishment bills, or from office contingen- cies. The workman in this evidence at Ex. U-12, has stated about the part-time work done by him and the wages paid from time to Lime. Though he has stated 4 hours duty performed everyday, in the statement of claim, the working hours mentioned are two per day. From the other evidence also, like the joint verfication report dt. 11-8-92 at Annexure D with Ex. U-3, the working hours of the concerned workman appeared to be two everyday. The concened work- man has deposed as to the calculations given in Anne- xure A to the statement of claim, which according to him are correct. In cross-exam, his evidence has remained unshaken.

Coming to the evidence of the ..ub-divisional engi- neer (Ex.C-7) of the employer department, there are material admissions which supporL the claim of the workman. The said witness has admitted that as on today Class IV regular employees draw Rs. 3000. p.m. He admits that the sweepers work is of perma- nent nature. The witness does not deny that the concerned workman has been working for 1 hours everyday, li would bs int;;o>ting to take note of an admission given by the sub-divisional engineer of the department in his cross-exam, wlien he sLated thus:

"Personally I f.el that injustice has been done to the workman Suresh by paying ind-idequate wages, but as an officer \ would not say so."

The witness has fu'Lher admitted that the workman has not been paid difference since 1983,

9. The facts and figu-cs given by the workman in the statement of claim as well as the Annexure T, are regarding hours of work, wages payable to regu- arly employed sweeper from time to time, and the5907 amount due to a part time sweeper on pro-rata basis during the relevant period i.e. 1986 to 1994. The Anncxurc I appears to be a well worked out chart, in which the total difference or wages from 5-2-1986 to 30-6-1994 has been calculated to the tune of Rs, 20,279.50. The employer department has not come for- ward to specifically deny the particulars of the wages mentioned in the Anncxure. The employer's witness has also not even doubted much less disputed the correctness of the Anncxure T, Therefore, having held that the workman was entitled to be paid on pro- rata basis, pursuant to the notification dt. 23-2-88, one should have no reason do discard the claim worked out in Annexurc T. In my view, the concerned workman was entitled to be paid salary equivalent to two hours duty on the basis of pay of a regular sweeper, which the department has failed to do and that too without any justification whatsoever. The conten- tions that the appointment was not by the competent authority or through employment exchange and that there is no sanctioned post etc. are as baseless as there could be any. If the appointment was illegal, the department was free to discontinue the concerned workman. The same was, however, not done. Ha- ving made him to work for all these years, the depart- ment cannot disown the liability to pay wages of a re- gular employee on pro-rata basis.

Thus, the wages of Rs.90/- per month paid to the workman was neither justified nor consistent with letter No. 10-13/87-rates dated 23-2 88 of Directorate of Telecom.

10. Mr. Jofhi, ihe Ld. Counsel hid prersrd fcr grant of interest contending that the legitimale dues of a poor sweeper are withheld for years. Mrs. Patil, the Ld. A.G.P. had submitted that the workman was only engaged on contract basis and therefore he was riot a part time employee. The submission is not sup- ported by any material. The material including the evidence of the cmpolyer department is contrary of the submissions of the Ld. A.G.P. Mrs. Patil has further submitted lhal ihe notification does rot apply to the concerned workman as he was not regularly or pro- perly appointed and Ihis submission is also made only to be rejected.

11. T am thus inclined to grant full amount of claim in Annexure T. The said amount is for the period upto 30-6-1994. The concerned workman was required to raise dispute and fight all th^se years for what was lc-rally due to him. The amount due during the relevant period is being paid to him bela- tedly after years. The workman is therefore perfec- tly justified in claiming interest. Hence, the follo- wing award.

AWARD

I. The action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Nashik in paying wages to Shri S.G.Kadam, part time sweeper, Nandgaon Telephone exchange, ("Rs. 90 p.m. is neither justified nor con- sistent with the letter No.lO-13/87-ratus dt. 23-2-1988 of Directorate of Telecom.

1. Shri S.G.Kadam is entitled to bi paid diffe- rence of wages amounting to Rs. 20.279.50, alongwith interest thereon (w 10% p.a. with effect from tlv^ date of the reference ordLT i.e. 13-7-1994.

The award be submitted to the Govt. of Tndia.

Nashik Date : 29-5-2001.

D. H. DESHMUfCH, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th September, 2001 S.O. 2768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexurc in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices and their workman, which was received bv the Central Government on 17-9-2001.

|No. L-40012/31/97-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-ClJM-T, ABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Mondav. the 20th August, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 496/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal LD. No. 67/98)

[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. 19475908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13,. 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the 1

Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—- (14 of 1947), between the workman Sri A. Nagaiah and the Management ol Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul.]

BETWEEN

Sri A. Nagaiah.

r Party/Workman.

AND

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Dindigul Division, Dindigul.

II Party/Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : M / s. S. Jothivani and V.

Kasturi, Advocates.

For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan, Addl.

CGSC.

The Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour in exer cise 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 Dispute for adjudication virte Order No. L-400l2/31/97-IR(DU) dated 10-3-98.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 67/98, When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tri- bunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 496/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 05-03-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prose- cuted this case further.

This matter came up b°fare mc for final hearing on 14-06-2001. upon perusing the Claim Statement. Counter Statement, the. Qther material papers on re- cord, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearine 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 bv the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—

The I Party/Workman Sri A. Nagaiah (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as Group D employee on 15-10-1966 and was promoted as Postal Assistant in the year 1971. He was issued a charge memo dated 30-1 1-88 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 alleging that when the Petitioner was working as a Sub Postmaster, Dindigul SO during October, 1988, has prepared withdrawal forms dated 22-10-88 for Rs. 3,000 and -10-88 for Rs. 1,000 and put the signature of the depositor Smt. Vysuntha of Randigudi SO, SB Account No. 207306 and kept them in the office for supporting the fictitious lia- bilities maintained by him. Thereby he failed to main- tain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rules 3(1 )(i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Further, when he worked as Sub Post- master at Thandigui SO from October, 1980 to January, 1984, he had retained the cash in excess of the authorized limit and that on various dates showing fictitious liabilities contravening the provisions of Rule 677B of P & T Manual Vol. Vi read with explanation under the Rule ibid and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(l)(i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Petitioner denied the charges and explained the circumstances by his representation dated 8-1-88. An enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 30-1-85 held that the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority without consider- ing the reply of the Petitioner and without going through the circumstances explained by the Petitioner simply relied on the ignorance pleaded by the Peti- tioner had imposed the punishment of reduction in pay to the minimum of time scale of Rs. 260—480 from Rs. 384 for two years with cumulative effect by an order dated 30-11-86. Aggrieved by that order the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner was issued with show cause for enhancement of punishment for which the Peti- tioner has submitted his explanation to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 30-5-86 imposed the punishment of compulsory re- tirement from service. The Petitioner preferred a re- view petition and the reviewing authority by his order dated 5-6-89 rejected the petition by confirming the orders of the Appellate Authority. The impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and they are illegal and arbitrary. The authorities have not applied their mind while passing those orders. They have not considered the explana- tion given by the Petitioner and only taken into con- sidertion the ignorance pleaded by the Petitioner. Even without admitting but assuming that the Peti- tioner is guilty of the charges, the authorities cujiht to have imposed a lesser punishment than imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service considering the charges alleged against the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner raised MI industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner at Chennai. As ljc was not able to conciliate the matter between the parties, on his submission of failure of conciliation report, the Government was pleased to refer I he matter or adjudication by this Tribunal, Hence, this Tri- "Whether the action of the Management of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindi- gul in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service which was subsequently reduc- ed compulsory retirement by the Appellate Authority on Shri A. Nagaiah is lepal find justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"5909 counsel on cither side have advanced their respective arguments,

5. The Point for my consideration is—

bunal may be pleased to hold that the action of the Respondent/Management in compulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service is unjustified and direct Ihe Respondent/Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement o£ the

II Party/Respondent are biiefiy as follows : —

"Whether the action of the Management of The Sfiiior Superintendent of Post Oflices. Din- digul in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service which was subsequently reduc- ed to compulsory retirement by the Appel- late. Authority on Shri A. Nagaiah is legal and justified ? If not. to what relief the worVman is entitled ?"

Point :—

The Petitioner was a Central Government civil ser- vant governed by Central Civil Services Rules, 1964 and not a workman. Hence, he is not entitled to get any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. When the Petitioner wns working as Sub Po<'rrurstcr in Thandigudi Sub Post Cilice from October, 1983 to January 1984 has committed mincomJuct by prepar- ing two withdrawal forms for Rs. ! 500 dated JO'h October, 1983 and for Rs. 1,500 d^.ted 22-10-93 in S.B. Account No. 207396 of Smt. Vasantln and kept them in the oflice for supporting the fictitious liabilities maintained by him. He kept olFic-;: cash thort to the tune of Rs. 4,601.45 on 31-10-84. When a a enquiry was conducted irjr the charges levdiod against the Petitioner, he bus admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer on 28-9-85. Hence, the E'v,juiry Offi- cer concluded the enquiry and reported on 11-11-85 that the charges were proved beyond doubt. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry CHfiur, the Tl Party/Management, the Sr, Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division (hereinafter reVrred to as the Respondent) has awarded the punishment of re- ducing the pay of Petitioner to the minimum of time scale of pay i.e. Rs. 384 to Rs. 260 for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The Petil inner Imd appealed against that order to the Director of Postal Services, Southern Region, Madurai. He issued a show cause notice on 18-2-86 and thereafter modified the punishment as compulsory retirement by his memo dated 30-5-86. The Petitioner preferred a Preview Petition before the Member (PersonnelJ, Postal Ser- vices Board, New Delhi and the same was also reject- ed on 5-6-89. Then he. submitted a petition before the Regional Labour Commissioner for conciliation, which ended in a failure. On submission of his failure of conciliation report, the Government was pleased to refer this dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal. As the Petitioner had defrauded the public money of Rs. 4601.45, the matter was reported to the Police and a case was registered under crime No. 209/84 under Section 409 IPC and the case is still pending there at SDJM Court, Kodaikanal a> c.c. No, 297/89. From the facts and circumstances slatod it is clear that the Petitioner has not come forward with dean hands. The Respondent department has given the Peti- tioner reasonable opportunity in tW. departmental proceedings and there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment awarded by the Respondent and the Appellate Authority is correct and according to the department rules. Hence, the Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the petition.

The Petitioner had worked as a Sub Postmaster in Thandigudi Post Office from October, 1983 to Janu- ary, 1984. For his alleged misconduct as charges level- led against him he was issued a charge memo dated 30-11-84. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M l. Ex. Wl is the typed copy of the said charge memo filed by the Petitioner. In pursuance of the issuance of charge memo to the Petitioner, a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Respondent/Management to enquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner under Ex. M l. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul North Sub Division, was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to enquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner under Ex. M l. After conducting the enquiry, he submitted his report dated 11-11-85. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M4. During the enquiry, the Petitioner was examined and he has given evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The xerox copy of the deposition given by rh.; Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer on 28-9-85 is Ex. M3. The xerox copy of the proceedings of the Senior Super- tendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division dated 30th November, 1985 is Ex. M2. On the submission of the report of the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved the respondent has passed an order dated 30-11-86, imposing a punish- ment for the Petitioner by reducing his pay to the minimum of time scale of pay of Rs. 260-8-300-EB- 340-10-360-12-420-EB-480 from Rs. 384 with im- mediate effect for two years. The type written copy of the same filed by the Petitioner is Ex. \V3. The Petitioner submitted an aopeal dated 30-12-85 to the Appellate Authority the Director of Pos'al Service, Madurai Region, Madurai. The type wriiten copy of the same is Ex. W4. In that appeal also, he has stated that during the enquiry, he has admitted the charges unconditionally. In that appeal, the Aopeilnte Autho- rity has passed an order dated 30-5-86. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M5. The Appellate Autho- rity has mentioned in that order stating thrit charges arc prave in nature involved in moral turpitude and the official thus deserves a severe punishment as pro- posed in the office memo dated 14-2-P6 and has stated that he inclined to take a lenient view and .T^nrdingly ordered that the penalty be modified to tbi<* of com pulsory retirement. Earlier, a memo was issued to him by the Director of Postal Services, Madurai Re- gion dated 14-2-86 stating that the Disciplinary Autho- rity in his final proceedings had taken a wrv lenient view and as per the provisions of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 he is revising the punishment, which he feels adequate and has proposed to enhance 4. When the matter was pending before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal itself, the documents on either side were marked by the consent of counsel on either side as Ex. WJ to W9 and Ml to M7 and when the matter was taken up for enquiry here before this Tribunal, no further evidence, either oral or docu- mentary was let in by both the sides. The learned

3058 GI/2001—265910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER. 13, 2Q0i/_ASVINA 21, 1923 [PART II—STE?C. 3(iij] retirement from service instead of dismissing him from service. The same was confirmed by the Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board, New Delhi in his order passed on 5-6-89 under Ex. M6. As it is stated by the authorities in the orders, the proved rniscon- duct of the Petitoner is \i;ry grave in nature involving moral turpitude and the said act shows lack of inte- grity as an employee serving in the Government De- partment. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the authorities for the proved misconduct of the Petitioner employee can be considered as legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner/Workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management, the Director of Postal Services, Madurai Region, in compulsorily retiring Sri $hri A. Nagaiah from services is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No cost.

the punishment to dismissal from service and (lit Petitioner was advised to submit his written rcprescn tation wiihin 30 days from the r e c ap of f!i:.l mcniLi The type written copy of the memo is Ex. W5. Px. W6 is the type written copy of the ''only sulvnitted by the Petitioner lor the memo issued to him under Ex W5. In that reply also he has stated that he ,vas sonv for the mistake and he realised the seriousness of his folly every day and he has done that nusU'ice out ol sheer and ignorance. He has also stated therein that he feels that h.', deserve deterrent punishment but dis- missal is n very severe axe to fall on hi.; neck. Con- sidering this request the Appellate Authority has modified the proposed punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement as men- tioned in Ex. M5. Then the Petitioner took up the matter on revision before the Postal Services Board. New Delhi The Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board by his order dated 5-6-89 has reject"'.! the Revision Petition holding that the charges against the Petitioner involved lack of integrity arn! deseivc deter- rent punishment and that the Appellate Authority tins already taken a lenient view in awai cling the penalty of compulsory retirement.

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

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

Documents Marked :

For I Partv/Claimant :

Date Description 30-11-84—Xerox copy of the Memo of

Ex. No. Wl

charges.

08-01-85—Xerox copy of the representation

W2

of the Petitioner to the Management.

30-11-85—Xerox copy of the order issued by

W3

the Respondent.

30-12-85—Xerox copy of the appeal submit-

W4

ted by the Petitioner.

14-02-86—Xerox copy of the Appellate

W5

Order.

15-03-86—Xerox copy of the appeal prefer-

W6

red by the Petitioner.

30-05-86—Xerox copy of the Appellate

W7

Order.

Nil—Xerox copy of the representation of the

W8

Petitioner to the President, GOI,

W9 05-06-89—Xerox copy of the order of the Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board.

For the II Party/Management :

Date Description

30-11-84—Xerox copy of the charge sheet.

Ex. No. Ml

30-11-85—Xerox copy of the enquiry pro-

M2

ceedings.

M3

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would argue that the Petitioner as delinquent employee has denied the charges, and on the first hearing of (he domestic enquiry he has admitted the chargei on persuasion of the higher authorities. The admission by the delinquent employee facing the charges kveiied against him must be unequivocal. Only under undue influence and coercion of his h'gher authorities, he gave a confession statement before the Enquiry Offi- cer. So, it cannot be taken as a voluntary admission of his gu'H and hence it cannot be said that the charges levelled against him has been proved by his ,wn ad- mission. The perusal of the entire records from tlie beginning to the end, it is seen thai the Petitioner, who is the chargeshceted employee, has not stated anywhere that he was compelled to give one such staiomenc against h''s will and it is iot a voluntary one and he obliged to give one such confession statement cue ti.i undue influence and coercion by the higher ofiic'als. On the other hand, in the various documents, he has categorically pleaded that he has committed the misconduct and though he deserves deterrent pi: •hshment he may be viewed lenienily. So from tins, it _s evident that the argument advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner here b?tV'-c this Tribunal is not based on the facts available in this case by way of maics'ial evidence but it is only an afterthought to mention it as a defence of the Petitioner. Apart from admitting ihe guilt of misconduct in writing as a statc- iveiit before Ihe Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner as e'u gcjheeted employee has reiterated his admissions brfore the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority uni also in his mercy petition to the Rcvisjonal Autho- rity. The Appe''aie Aulhority while dealing with the appeal has considered that the punishment imposed, by the Disciplinary Authority for the proved miscon- duct of the Petitioner is inuJequa+e on the basis of the findings and as the AppellVc Authority he has revised the punishment and has proposed it by way pf a memo to the Petitioner as dismissal from service. Later, he took a. lenient view while disposing of the case and has imposed, a punishment of compulsory

28-09-85—Xerox copy of the letter of admis- sion of charge by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer,5911 11-11-85—Xerox copy of the Investigation Officer's report.

30-05-86—Xerox copy of the order of com- M5

pulsory Retirement by DPS, Madurai.

M6 05-06-89—Xerox copy of the order of the Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board.

Nil—Xerox copy of the 2A Petition.

M7

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2001 S.O. 2769.—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- Lnbour Court Lncknow as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute beiwecn the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd! and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-9-2001.

[No. L-14012|69|99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Presiding Officer.—Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 7)2000

Rcf No L-140I2;69!99iIR(DU) Dt. 28-12-99

BETWEEN

Shri Sah^m Agha C]o 549i 172 Kha. B.ira Barlia Alambagh L.ucknow, U.P.

AND

1. The Administrative Manager

(IVrsonnel Department) Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division Burabanki Road. Lucknow.

2. The General Manager

H.A.L., Lucknow Division Burabanki Road, I ucknow.

AWARD

By Order No. L-140I2:69;991IR(DU) dated 28-12-1999, in the Central Government in the Minis- try of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clau-e (U) of tub-section ( i) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), referred this dispute between Shri Suleem Agha and the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference is produced us under :

"Whether the action of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow in terminating the ser- vices of Suleem Agha w.e.f. 9-4-82 is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief he is entitled 7"

2. The workman, Saleem Agha, admittedly, was appointed as a machinist 'B' cm 4-5-1978 with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow. He was confirmed in service and was treated permanent emp- loyee w.e.f. 4-11-1978. He worked continuously till 8-4-1982 to the satisfaction of the management. He fell ill and cauld not attend duty w.e.f. 9-4-1982, and sent an application for leave from 9-4-1982 to 23-4-1982. Smce he was no) fully cured so sub- mitted another application seeking extension of leave w.e.f. 24-4-i982 to 23-5-198? on medical ground. A medical certificate was ;dso appended. These appli- cations were submitted under postal certificate. After expiry of the leave he :ipprouched the management rn 24-5-1982 seeking duly but, was declined and asked tc contact after a week as his matter required discus-rion with the General Manager and other superior authorities. He continuously approached authorities but was not permit fed to join duties and was illegally terminated. In the mean time his fa'hor fell ill and died on 2 [-4-1985. To his mis- for;une, his mother also died on 9-6-1986. He ap- proDchcd the authorities mid sent a number of repre- sentation;, seeking permission to join duties, but the management did not respond tc his application representation rind did not permit him to join duties. The management did not send any communication before 11-12-1993 fcr the frst time by letter dated 11-12-1993, the Account branch of the management desired to settle P.P. clnims MK\ he came to know about his termination. Thereafter, he raised indus- trial dispute before the U.P. Labour Court on 20-1-1994, since at that lime, U P. Labour Court en- joyed jurid'ction in Mich matters on reference of the state government.

3. The management did not issuo show cause notice to him IT inliniated ever f.bcul the action taken, des- pite letters and remindeis find passed illegal order of termination. His dispute on reference of the state government was registered at CP 20|94. An appli- cilion racking condonation of delay was also filed. The management objected and sought dismissal of claim on the ground of larches and delay of 12 years. However, the dchy was condoned by order dated 12-8-1994 by the labour court. The management preferred writ petition against the said order but was not given stay order.

4. During Uic pendency of the case before the labour court under tile U.i'. Industrial Disputes Act, iii£ JrJoubli Supreme Court interpreted "appropriate government" in respect of Central Public Sector Undertakings under the cuntrol of Central Govern- ment to be the 'Central Government'. In light ot the said decision oi the Apex Court a nourication was issued on 3rd July, 1998 under section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, delegating con- current powers to the state government. However, in view of the decision i;l the Supreme Court, the U.P. labour court dismissed ihe case, deciding state labour courts not competent to decide industrial dis- pute lelutiug to Central Public Sector Undertakings. The said decision was not on the merit. Thus, the workman raised pr^eiH industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) without loss of time and the central government referred the matter tor adjudication lo this Tribunal.

5. In short, the workman, has challenged legality of termination styling that he was not given any notice or wai inl'oimed about fate of his applications for leave. The management simply tenninuiud his services and struck ut his name irom roil despite the fact that he was a permanent employee.

6. The mniagjment has denied to have acted ille- gally in terminting the services of the workman. It is alleged that the workman, un;;iithomedly absented from duty w.e.f. 9-4-1982. He did not file any application seeking leave, and so after 10 days of unauthorised absence, his services were terminated by order dated 6-5-1982 trebling the termination w.t f. 9-4-1982, under the standing orders applicable to (he employees. The management pleaded that the woikman wan cutside India and was gainfully emp- loyed. His applications under postal certificate were prepared falsely to give ^couence to this case. The management pleaded that this industrial dispute was raised after efflux of 17 years without explaining delay. Abnorm.nl lalehes of long 17 ytars caused prejudice to it as the concerned record were weeded out in the year 1989 depriving it to defend the case effec- tively. Action of terrnination was also justified under the provision of ordei 2\ oi. the certified stand- ing orders applicable in HAL.

7. Both the parties relied cm documentary as well oral evidence on affidavits. The witnesses were also cross-examined by each otljer. Before the evidence is scrutinized on merit, it seems appropriate to take up the issue of delay in raising this industrial dis- pute. It is submitted, the workman raised the dis- pute in U.P, labour court which was competent to take cognigence at that time and used to decide such disputes. The labour court had condoned the delay after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. This order war. challenged by the mana- gement in a writ petition befoie High Court. The order of the labour court condoning delay was not set aside and thus, this ifsi;e cannot be reopened. After rejection of his case on technical ground by the U.P. labour court, dispute was raised immediate- ly bjfore the Central Government agencies and the workman with all bonafides pursued its case as per ths legal advice and so, there is no delay.

&. The management, on Hie other hand, has acces- cd that in industrial matter law of limitation does not apply, but, it does not mean that the disputes should be raisjd so bd

9. iiae'ual ba^c is not aispuJtd by the contesting pLiriiL^, ilij.t the workman laised indusrial dispute in U.1J. b b j ur courting year 1994. This is also not disputed tijai the U.P. labour cuurt condoned, delay and the matter is subjudice befoie the High Court. Form recitals of claim and written statement it can be saieiy inferred (hat the workman was pursuing his case since 1494. There appears no delay from 29-1-94 onward, as the dispute could not be decided for reasons beyond ihc control oi: the workman. As regards delay befoie 29-1-94 i.e. the date of raising industrial dispute, the state labour court by order dated 12-3-94 condoned the delay and this order is subjudice before the High Couit. It is not neces- saiy and appropriate for this Tribunal to redecide s:.ij isjue or to open plea cf delay, as the High Court L ?e!i'cd wiili the malice. In the said circum- sr^ne.s a close glance over the merit of the case is culled for.

(.0. h is nol denied that the workman was appoint- ed and made permanent employee as machinist 'B'. He worked for more than 4 years. There was no reason for him to abandon his service, without filing any application seeking leave etc. The management Ins pleaded 'hat workman went abroad for gainful employment. There is no material on record to prove this fact. Management did not verify this fact, as its witness did not say u word about this fact. Succ:suvc letters of the workmazi to the management on under; certificate of posting, no doubt, cannot draw presumption in favour of the workman but still the action of the management in sending letter to r.cUlc ehim of P.P. after eleven years remain unex- plained.

11. According to the management, termination order was passed on 6-5-82 and, the woikman was infourh'J. A copy of this letter in normal cause would h.:wz be^n sent to the Acccunt|Finance section i>r cleuranee cf dues. What caused delay of 11 years i.i making response by the Account|Finance branch in asking the workman to clear dues. If it be assumed thai per.onal file of the workman was weeded out in 1989, a copy of order dt. 6-5-82 must bi wiih finarics branch, as the claim was not settled till 1993. The nian^erncnt could have procured this letter to file before this Tribunal,

12. It is pleaded that the services of the workman v/;is leimimited under Order 2J (b) of the certified Standing Orders. It is now a sealed law that certifi- ed s'and'ng order has statutory force and must con- form to Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution, (1993) 3 secf\\\ 259 D,K. Yadav Vs. JMA Industries. Before dispensing with the services for unauthorised ab- sence, trr; management was called upon to issue a a show cause notice cither to join by a specific date or to :eyly otherwise. Address of the workman was5913 the same till 1993, as the letter of the Account branch was sent on Hie said addicss. Jt appears that the management did not issue show cause notice. Also, no evidence was given on this point. Service of termination order ayted 6-5-S2 was also not effect- ed. These circumstances go in favour of the work- man and render the termination order dt. 6-5-82 void-ab-initio. Accordingly, the workman is entitled to reinstatement or any other appropriate relief.

13. The workman was terminated about 19 years back. During all these yeais, he remained out of employment. HAL is a specialised agency requir- ing upgradation of technology. Reinstatement of the workman after such a leng time would not serve useful purpose, lie may be compensated by a lump sum compensation. At the lime of termination he was noi drawing Rs. 70t> per month. For 12 years he did not raiss industrial dispule for personal reasons as given in the claim staUrjcnt i c. his family circumr stance*., death of parents and his being mentally up- set, and so is not entitled to back wages for this period. Taking into consideration remaining period of thi-, service, a lump sum compensation for Rs. 3,00,000 (Ihiee lakhs) only will be just and proper toward., full and final settlement of his claim.

14. Thus, instead of ri'inMatement, the workman, is awarded lump sum compensation for Rs. 3,00,000 (Three Lakh.) only. He will be entitled to 12 per cent inteieat, in case above amount is not paid in three months after publication of the award.

15. Award accordingly.

Lucknow.

Dt. 12-9-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th September, 2001 S.O. 2770.—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-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in tho In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom DepU. and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-9-2001.

rNo. I-/00r|121|96-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAX VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the 21st August, 2001,

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 436|2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 45|97)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) oi Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, I'M? (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri K. Dharmajingam and the Management of Chennai Telephones, Channai).

BETWEEN

Sri K. Dharmahngam : 1 PartyiWorkman

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party| Management.

Chennai Telephones, Chennai.

2. The Divisional Engineer,

Chennai Telephones, Chennai.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Sri S. KumarasWamy

Authorised Representative For the Management : Sri. S. Srinivasan Addl.

CGSC 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 ol Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012|121|96-IR(DU) dated 9-7-97.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. J-5[97. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Iribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 43ft| 2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, *vifh a direction to fitppear before this Tribunal on 27-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted¹ this case further.

This matter came up before me for final hearing on 13-6-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other materiad papers on record, the oral and documentary evidence let in on5914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVIMA 21, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 Tribnual has paiised the following r—

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the Management of Madras Telcpuones, Madrns-10, in termina- ting Shri K. Dharmalingam, Mazdoor, Anna Road Telephone Exchang; Departmental Canteen, Madras from 23-2-95 is justified or not? If no!, to what relief Shri K. Dharmalingain is entitled for ?"

sale proceeds of the canteen which was run on no prom no loss basis. Ine i'euiioner was given tempo- xaiy sia^us v,.e.l. 1-9-yz by mismke. ihe engagement or Lne Petitioner by the Management Committee of me Committee wa[i purely on local arrangement end for temporary worK m me canteen. Hence, th*s Petitioner is not entitled to any claim on the basis of the conlerment of the temporary status by mistake, 'temporary status can be conlerrcd only on workers who were engaged as casual labouiers apd they per- foimecl works relating to operation and maintenance ot telecom networK. The Petitioner was Uiscnarged from service as per the order dated 30-3-85 which bans the engagement of casual labourers after 30-3-85. The Petitioner is not entitled to claim chheir reinstate- ment in service or other consequential benefits. Hence, the Petition may be dismissed.

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I

Patty/Workmen are briefly as follows :—

4. When the ma:ter wus pending before the Tamil Nadu Siate Industrial Tribunal ana came up ior en- quiry there thc Petitioner had examined himself as VVWl and his documents were marked! as Ex. Wl to W10. From the side of Ihe Respondent six docu- ments were marked as Ex. Ml to M6. On transfer of this case to the lile uf this Court, when it was taken up for enquiry, one witness was examined as MW1 and the counsel on record on either side, have advanced then- respective arguments,

5. The Point for my consideration is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Madras Telephones, Madras-10, in terminating Shri K. D'hairmalingam, Mazdoor, Anna Road! Telephone Exchange Departmental Canteen, Madras from 23-2-95 is justified or not? If not, to what relief Shri K. Dharmalingam is entitled for?"5915 documentary supportive evidence. He has admitted in his evidence that Le had not done any work con- cerning telephone exchange maintenance. So from th's it is seen that the Petitioner was employed as a casual labourer to work in ihe departmental Canteen main- tained by the Canteen Management Committee. It is the contention of the Respondent!Management that the Petitioner was conferred temporary status as per the scheme by mistake and be is not entitled to any claim on the basis of it. It is the definite case of the Petitioner that he was engaged by the depart- mental Canteen as a oa.iuol labourer from 5-5-1983. Ex. Ml is the xerox copy of the circular dated 7-11-1989 of the Department of Telecommunication. (Catsual labourers' grant of temporary status and rcgularization scheme has been sent along with that circular as annexure). In that circular under para 3.3 it is stated that no casual labourer who has been recruited after 30-3-85 should be granted temporary status without specific approval from his office. Further in the scheme mentioned as annexure td the letter, it is stated thai the scheme is applicable to only casual labourers of any type of work in Telecom Circles-Districts engaged in projects aind electrifica- tion circuits only for specific works and on comple- tion of the work such casual labourers were tequircd to be retrenched. So, from this, it is seen that the said conferment of temporary status to the casual labourers is applicable only to workmen employed as casual labourers for the work such as operation and maintenance of telecom network. So under such circumstances, the conferment of temporary status to the Petitioner PA a casual labourer who is engaged for the work in the departmental canteen is a mistaken action of the department, as it n mentioned in the Counter. So, as rightly contended by the Respon- dent, the Petitioner cannot take advantage of that mistake committed by the departmental and claim any benefit of it.

"-J

dingly, the Petitioner has filed this Claim Petition hers. In the Claim Petition itself, the Petitioner has siated that his termination is contrary to Section 25F of die Industrial Disputes Acl, 194/. In the order passed by the Respondent under Ex. W4, it is stated that the Petitioner has to be discharged under Indus- trial Disputes Act. As per section 25F of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, pre-conditions, for retrenchment are one month's notice has to be given in writing indicating the reasons tor retrenchment and the work- man be paid compensation at the time of retrenchment and a notice also to be served on him in the prescrib- ed manner. Though under Ex, \V4 one month's notice has been given and an instruction has been given to the Accounts Officer to settle the accounts of the Peti- tioner, nothing has been stated in the Counter of the Respondent or in the evidence of MW1 that compen- sation as per Section 25F has been given to the Peti- tioner at the time of retrenchment from service. Furth- er, no evidence either oral or documentary is available on the side of the Respondent that the amounts due to the Petitioner at ihe time of retrenchment has duly p?i'd by the Accounts Officer, Madras, as per the requisition in Ex. W4. From this it is seen that the condition, precedent to retrenchment for workman mentioned under section 25F of the Industrial Dis- putes Act has not been complied with by ihe Respon- dent, The non-payment of retrenchment compensa- tion with the notice of termination amounts to an invalid one. Though it is stated in that petition, that the Petitioner started working from 5-5-813 nothing has been sta]ted in the Claim Statement as well as the evidence of Petitioner as WWl as to how he was appointed in the canteen a* a casual labourer. It is no- the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed .T; n casual labourer by the Respondent as per the Recruitment Rules. From the admitted evidence in this case, th-^. Petitioner was employed as a ca^unl labourer in the Canteen rela'ed iob and his wapes were paid by the Canteen MmtP^ement Committee and not bv the Denartmcnt of Teleohones. From th" mntT'iils avnilable in this raw,. if is teen 1 hnt it is purelv a local arrangement for temporary work in the C?nteen. It is stated in the Counter Statement 'hat the wages for the Petitioner was paid out of the sale proceeds of the Canteen and it is not disputed by the Petitioner by way of any reply statement or when he gives evidence as WWl. Further it is seen from the records that as per the instructions of the Department of Telecommunication he was discharged from service. No evidence is available on record, on the side of the Petitioner, that subsequent to his retrenchment any further recruitment has Veen made bv the department. So, under such circumstances' it is held that the action of the Management in retrenching the Petitioner from service which is not in accordance with the Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is not a insified one. Thus, the point is answered accor- dingly.

6. The xerox copy of that mistaken order dated 28-8-93 priced by the departmental is Ex. W2. Ex. W3 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 18-1-95 sent, bv Divisional "Engineer. Madras Telephones to one Mr. T. E. Knshnasan/ with reeard to deeasuali- safion of temrvararv sta'us mazdiinr Sri K Dharnv¹'- linram, the Petitioner herein. Accordinalv, an order has been passed discharging the Petitioner from works. It is dated 23-1-95. A xerox copv of the same is Ex. W4. As p;3r that order, the Petitioner was non- emploved on 23-2-95. That is being questioned by the Petitioner in this dispute. Reason has been given in that letter staging that due to non-availability of work, he was discharged, fn that letter itself, the copy has been marked to the Accounts Officer, P&A (c) Madras, with a requisition to settle the accounts of the concerned casual labourer at an early date. In Ex. W4 order, it is stated that the con- cerned workman has to be discharged as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by giving one month's notice with effect from the date of issue of that letter. Earlier, the Petitioner had filed an .A. No. 201195 before the Central Administ- rative Tribunal, Madras, and the same was dismissed on 16-2-95. While dismissing the application, the Cen'ral Administrative Tribunal, Madras, directed the Petitioner to file an application before the Tribnual seeking remedy against the impugned order. Accor-

7. In the result, an award is nassed hnkTinrr that the action of the Management nf Ma rims Telenhones, Madras in terminating Sri K Dbarmaiinnarn, M.^^door Anna Road Tcleohon^ Exchange Department C^n*een, Madrns fr^m 23-7.-95 is nnt ius'ifi'vl. since it is not in accordance with the Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the IT Pa,Tty (Manage- ment is directed to give [he Petitioner Sri It Dharma-5SH6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; OCTOBER, 3 3, 2001/ASVTNA 21, 1923 [PART I I - - S E C. 3(5j)] lingam retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) within three months from this date, failing which the said amount shall be paid with 12% (Twelve per cent) interest per annum from this date till the date of payment. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 21st August, 2001.) K. KARTHfKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

For I Party |Workman : WW1—Sri K. Dharmalingam.

For IT Party'Manfi^ement:

MW1—Shri K. Scthuganesan.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

Date Description

For I FartylWorkman : Ex. No

Wl 7-5-84—Xerox copy of the minutes of Mpjnaging Committee Meeting.

W2 28-8-92—Xerox copy of the letter from Mann cement To Assistant Engineer (Inter- nal) I.

W3 18-1-95—Xerox copy of the let'er from Management To Sri T. E. KrishnasWamy.

W4 23-1-95—Xerox copv of letter from Manneemcnt 'Ta the Petitioner,

W5 30-1-95—Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner t0 The Management.

W6 14-2-95—Xerox copy of the letter from Management To the Traffic Superintendent. 23-3-95—Xerox copy of the 2A Petition.

W7

W8 1-5-96—Xerox copy of the letter from the Management to the Sub Divisional En- gineer.

W9 23-2-95—Xerox copy of the minutes of joint d^ci's-iou

V/IC

> 22-6-96—Xerox copy of the letter from the Management to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

F*:" 'he ir Farty;Matv.vj;ement:

E-i. No. Da*e Description

MJ 7-11-89—Xs'-ox cow of the letter trom A s l a nt Director General (STN) to Chief General Manager.

M2 Nil—Xerox cony of the Anue.xure I regard- ing Casual Labourers Scheme.

M3 30-3-85—Xerox cooy of the letter irom Sri S. Krishna, Director to all Heads of Tcfacom Circle and AH Heads of other Administrative Offices regarding casual labour engagement.

M4 16-2-95—Xerox copy of the order of Cen- trejl Administrative Tribnual in O.A. No.. 201/95.

M5 23-1-95—Xerox copy of the letter from the Management To the Petitioner.

M6 22-1-94—Xerox copy of the particulars showing number of Days the Petitioner vorked-mouthwise.

Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2001 S.O. 2771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1.947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhuboieswar, as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplo- yers in relation to the management of Archaeological Survey of Tndia and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 19-9-2001.

[No. L-42012/200/9 8-TR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. BHUBANF.SWAR

PRESENT :

Sbri S. K. Dhal. OSJS, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cnm-Labour Court, Bhu- baneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Cnse No. 199/2001 Date of Conclusion of the Hearing—9-8-2001 Date of Passing Award—7th September. 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of Archaeological Survey of Tndia, Horticulture Division No. 4, Lewis Road, Near Ravi Talkies, Bhubaneswar. Dist. Klinrda.

. . .1st PaTty—Management.

AND

Their Workman, Shri Hnisikesh Bhoi, At Palaspur, P.O. Itipur, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Klutrda.

2nd Party—Workman.

APPEARANCES :

Mr. Sunakar Pradhan, foreman, Horticulture Division No. IV, Bhubaiieswar—For the 1st Party—Management.

Shri Hrusikesh Bhoi For himself-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power.-; conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1917 (14 nf 1947), have referred the following disputes for ad- judication vide their Order No.' L-42012/200/98/ IR(DU), dated 24/28-12-1998 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Archaeological Survey of Tndia ii icfusing to engage Shri Hrusikesh Bhoi is legal and justified ? Tf not, what relief the Workman is entitled to ?"

2. Shri Hrusikesh Bhoi, (hereinafter called as the 2nd Patty) in his Claim Statement has stated his casi> which runs thus :—

He was working as a NMR Gardner under the 1st'Party—Management with effect from 1-3-1984. He has worked till 20-2-1996. He was petting a sum of Rs. 1,455 per month. He performed his duties to the best satisfaction of the 1st Party—Management. But due to his bad luck after rendering nearly two yeats of continuous employment he was refused em- ployment. He along wil.n other 29 Co-workmen have filed a case before the Central Administrative Tribu- nal, Cuttack, for their reguiarisalion. His Grievance is that he was refused employment with effect from 21-2-1996 along with others without compliance of "Section 25(F)(A>(B), 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to him the last come first g^ principle was not followed. He has further stated Ihai 20 juniors were given employment and his case has been over-looked. According to him lh.- gradation list prepared bv the Management was defective and) was made without .ipnh'cation nf mind. The Work- man has challenged his removal from service arc! ha¹* claimed re-instalcment with back wanes and oth?r service benefits with effect from 21-2-1996.

3. The Management in their Written Statement h;iw challenged the averments made in the Claim State- ments. Tt i= pleaded that the Workman was a seasonal casual worker. His engagement was beine recmired on the availability of the works in different gardens. It has been further nleaded bv tb- Mf>na2i--ment ihac, the workman has not completed 240 riavs continuum work in a year. The further case of the Management is that as per the direction of the Centni'l Administra- tive Tribunal a gradation list was prepared in rLsp^-t of the Workman and the name of the Workman was placed in the bottom of the said list. The employment 3058 GI/200I-—27

has been given to the senior persons in the list. Ac- cording to the Management, there is no violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as pleaded by the Workman. The Management has also denied that he has completed 240 days of continuous work.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties the follow- ing issues have been settled:- —

I. Whether the action of the Management of Archaeological Survey of India in refusing to engage Shri Hrusikesh Bhoi is legal and justified ?

II. If not what relief the woikman is entitled to?

5. The Workman had raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. As the case was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Asst. Labour Commissioner, refused for taking any action so the workman moved the Hon'blc High Court nf Orissa in O.J.C, 3703/98 wherein the direction was given to re-consider the matter and in compliance of the said direction re-conciliation was resumed and on failure or the same the present reference has been made.

FINDINGS

Issue No. I :

6. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman. The Witness No. 1 is the Workman himself and the Witness No. 2 is his friend. The Workman has stated on oath that he was engaged under the 1st Party—Management from 1-3-19R4 to 2C-2-1996 and was getting *a sum of Rs. 1,555 per monlh and on 21-2-1996 his services was terminated without notice- or without any compensation, Witness No. 2 has stated he knows the Workmen and he was working under the 1st Party—Management from 1-3-1984 to 20-2-1996. No oral evidence appear-, to have been adduced on behalf of the Management, but a document has been exhibited in this case as Ext. A on behalf of the Management showing thvj days worked by the Workman.

7. A number of references have been made to this Tribunal for different workmen. Out of those refer- ences some has been disposed of and som; are pend- ing. During course of argument same type of sub- mission was made. This Court has disposed of Tr. I.D. Case No. 196/2001 m ' 2 nd August. 2001 of similar matter. Tt would be appeared thaf Miis Work- man and some others moved the Central Adminis- trative Tribunal for their rcfiuiarisation. Direction has been given to prepare a seniority list and for engage- ment of seniors. This Workman like other Workmen have challenged the seniority list prepared by the Management but failed to produce any evidence for its correction. Tf the Workman was aggrieved that the gradation list was not orepared arccordint! to the direction of the Hon'bic Central Administrative Tri- bunal, he could have challenged 'he same but with- out doing so he remained absent. Kxt. A. which was exhibited by the 1st Parry--Management also dis- closes that no where he was completed 240 days. The stand taken bv the Management is that the m- fragemeni of the workman is casual in nature depend- ing upon the availability of the work appears to be5918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVJNA 21, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)J Labour Court, Lueknow, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kumaon Regiment Centre and their wort man, which was received by the Central Government oil 19-9-2001.

[No. L-14012/120/98-TR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNLXURE

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

Presiding Officer.—Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION reasonable in absence of any rebultal evidence in this regard. So, I am of the opinion that the engage- ment of the workman being casual in nature depend- ing upon the availability of the work he has got no right for notice or compensation before termination as required under section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act. While submitting the argument the case of Air Tndia Limited, Versus Dhannendcr Kumar, reported in 20OO(87)FLR 654, the case of M/s. Scooter India Ltd. Versus M. Mohammad Yaqub reported in 2001 LAB.I.C. 71 and the case of Samishta Dubc Versus City Board & Another reported in 1999 T..LR 460, were brought to the notice ot this Tribunal in support of their case. In my opinion, the facts of the cases stat- ed arjovc are quite different from the facts of the present case. In Samishta Dube's case it was held that principle of first come last go should be adhered to in the matter of retrenchment.

I D. No 125[2000(103!9<> Kanpur) R:f. No. L-14012 l2()!c)8iIR(DU) dt. 26-4-99

BETWEEN

Shri Rajinder Kumar, S/o Shri Mithan Lai,, Kiishpur (Laikurti) Bazar, (District Alrnora), Ranikhet-263601.

8. In this case, the workman has failed to prove that he was senior but his case was over-looked and hi" juniors were considered. The workman has failed to produce any materials that, there was sanctioned post against whom he was engaged. So daily wage employees who were appointed .on the basis of reed of work cannot claim for reguiarisation and their termination is not' retrenchment.

AND

Account Officer, Kumaon Regiment Kendra, The Kumaon Regimental Centre, R?n;khet-2f>3645.

9. After consideration of ihe materials nvailaSie in the record I am of the opinion that refusal of em- ployment to the 2nd Partv—Workman by the. 1st Party—Management is neither illegal nor unjustified. Hence this Issue is answered in favour of the Man- agement.

AWARD

10. In view of my above nndinas in respect of Issue No. 1. T hold no relief is admissible to th™ 2nd Party—Workman. Shri Hrusikesh Bhoi.

IT. Reference is rnswered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

Sd/-

Presiding Officer. CGI.T.-cum-L.C. Bhubaneswar.

By Order No. 14012! I 2 0 I 9 S - I R ( D U) dated 26-4-99, in ihe Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (l> and sub-section 2(A> of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Rajindet Kumar S|o Shri Mithan Lai arad the Account Officer, Kumaon Regiment Centre, Wool and Shawl Factory, Ranikhct for, adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Trbbanal-cum^Labour Court, Kauptw and la*er transferred to this Tribunal.

The reference is produced rs under :

S. K. DHAL. Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Kumaon Regiment Centre, Wool & Shawl Factory, Ranikhet in terminating, the ser- vices of Sh. Rajindcr Kumar, ex-temporary Mali, is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief he is entitled?" New Delhi, The '9th September, 2001

3. Rajinder Kumar, the workman, claims to liad been appointed on the post of gardncr (Mali) in July, 1988, wkh K-umaon Regimental Centre, Rani- khct. He was not given full wages like regular emp- loyees though was required to work full day. He was paid less emoluments, even below the prescribed minimum under the Minimum Wages Act, However, his emoluments were increased from time to time and on the date of termination i.e. 4-8-97 he was drawing Rs. 800 per month. Tht workman further claims that there were eight posts of permanent gBrdners in the management's establishment, out of which two posts were in SCjST quota. Despite vacancies on the regular sanctioned posts* he was S-.G. 2772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 nf 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-5919 denied regular appointment and was engaged as a temporary employee. He worked from July, 88 to July, 97 with all satisfaction to the management but, the management, abruptly terminated his ser- vices on the plea of his work being unsatisfactory. He worked with all sincerity and honesty during his tenure and during his so vice tenure, no adverse comments weie communicated to •him. The cryptic order of termination did not give any reason except alleging that his services were found unsatisfactory. He was not given opportunity tc substantiate his ver- sions and to cross examine, the management's wit- ness. Reinstatement with full back wages, is, thus sought as relief in this dispute raised by the work- man.

Factory, though cslablished for welfare object to provide benefits to E.v servicemen and their families but it is involved in commercial activities by selling shawls and other woolen materials to public at large. To hold an establishment, an 'industry' as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, it is not necessary to take into consideration motive of profit. The Kumaon Regimental Centre Woolen and Shawl Factory is thus, an industry under section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Likewise, there is no material on record except the averments in the written statement and affidavit that the workman was engaged LS part time worker. AH the documents relied by the management, refers Rajinder Kumar as a Mali. Reference may be had of th*; document no. I viz. Absent report dated 1-7-1997 which clearly mentions that Mali Rajinder Kumar of Ranikhet Tweed & Shawl Factory is ab- sent (rot duty w.e.f. 11-6-15*97 to date i.e. 1-7-97. Even the Absent report submitted by manager G.V. Joshi, honorary Capt,|Manager KRC Woolen Factory mentioned Rajinder Kumar, us Mali. The sJhow cause notice dated 2-7-1997 does not mention the workman to be a part time Mali but refers him as a Mali for short duration. The order of Lt. Col., I.V. Thomas No. 200602] 18;PR1 Rantkhet dated 4-8-1997 mentions that the services, of workman as Mali is being dispensed with on the ground of being unsatisfactory (Bx, M-3). It is approtriatc to take notice that the word part time Mali appears to have been introduced only in post termination period, es- pecially, after raising the dispute before Assistant Labour Commisioner (Central). The management failed to show that there existed any post of part time Mali (gardener). Though, the number of post of regular gardeners are deputed but the .manage- ment failed to specify as who were the regular gar- deners filled the vacancies from 1988 onward. Tt gives inference that the workman was engaged against the regular vacancies. The question of pay- ment of less salary is not covered by the scope of reference and no adjudication is uquired on the said point.

4. Elaborating iurther, the workman has alleged thut a show cause notice was given to him on 2-7-97, stating that he was nbsent from duty froni 11-6-97 to 17-6-97 i.e. for 7 days and also from 22-6-97 to 1-7-97 ior 10 days in Woolen factory. It is also stated that he was absent from 11-6-97 to 1-7-97 i.e. for 21 days in the Shawl factory. He replied the said show cause notice on 4-7-^7, ex- plaining that he was on duty from 11-6-97 to 17-6-97 at the banglow of the Commander called "Kumaon House" as per instruction^ of the Deputy Com- mandent and Head Mali. He also explained that, he was sick from 22-6-97 to 1-7-97 and was on medical leave, A medical leave certificate was also enclosed. The management without considering this reply/explanation terminated his services by order dated 4-S-97. The workman has further explained that the Deputy Commanding Officer, V. K. Mahara and Head Mali, Umesh Singh .were fully aware about his duties at "Kumaon House" where the new Com- manding Officer, Shri U. K. Dubey was to join short- ly. The case of the workman in short, is, that from July, S8 to 4-8-97 he worked against vacant permanent post and should have been regularised long back. His termination without an enquiry was neither justified nor legal. Some juniors to him vie. Kushal Singh is still working. He has also de- manded minimum wages for the period he worked with the opposite party employer.

5. The opposite party viz. the management of the Kumuon Regimental Centre, RanUchct has filed written statement in rough the Account Officer of the Kumaon Regiment Kenclra. In short, the case of tlie management, is that the workman was a part- tinie employee and so, he is not a workman under section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also pleaded that Kumaon Regimental Centre, is not an industry. Kumaon Regimental Centre Woolens and Raniket Tweed & Shawl Factory are welfare protects for benefits of Ex-servicemen, War- Widows and their dependents. Such weavers are paid weaving charges based on the output of work. The object of the opposite party employer is to under- take welfare measures and, so. it is not an industry as dfined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the facts, also, the management justi- fied its action by stating that the workman unauthw risedly absented and so his services were terminated a'ftor show cause notice and on consideration of his re-ply. There is no illegality in his termination.

7. The impugned punitive termination made on the basis of a summary enquiry which started on the basis of absence reports submitted by the mana- ger of Ranikhet Tweed and Shawl Factory and honorary Cpt.(Manager, KRC Woolen Factory. -On the basis of such reports, a show cause notice (Ex. M-2) was given to the workman on 2-7-97 by the Lt. Col. I.V. Thomas, Account Officer on behalf of the Commandant. The-re is no material on record to suggest that the Commandant had directed issu- ance of the show cause notice or had perused absence reports. The power of initialing action rested with the Commandant ,uul not to the Account Officer. The reply if ahuw cause notice was given by the workman on J-7-5'7. In his reply he explained about his dutie, from I 1-6-97 to 17-6-97 at Kumaon House, the official residence of tht: Commandant. He also explained his absence on plea of his illness and appended a mertienl certificate tissued by Dr. U. C. Pandcy which is dated 22-6-97. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the manager or the Lt. Col. I.V. Thomas enquired from the Head Mali or the Deputy Commandant fib'.iul the duty assigned to th; workman from 1 1-6-97 to 17-6-97 a'nd further verified the fact of illness. There is no categorical finding on any of these issues. The management did 6. tt is evident from the materials on record that the Kumaon Regimental Centre Woolen and Shawl59-0 THE GAZETTE OF INClA : OCTOBER, 13, 2001/ASVINA 21, 1923 £PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] not produce records to substantiate that any formal informal enquiry was made and records were main- tained therctor. The order uf the Lt. Col. I.V. Thomas Account Oilicer, had been Tiled by the management which recommended that the services of the workman be terminated w.e.f. 1-7-97 and this recommendation wa" approved by the Commandant. This letter mentions that his reply dated 4-7-97 was not found satisfactory but, his services were termi- nated by letter dated 4-8-97, which mentions that his work was unsatisfactory. There is much dice- rence in the two words i e. the explanation being unsatisfactory and the work being unsatisfactory. The approval order dated 2-8-97 mentions that the services be terminated retrotpectively from 1-7-97; but no such inlerenc^ can be drawn from letter dated 4-8-97, implying termination w.e.f, 4-8-97 with pros- pective effect. The termination of the workman on the face of it was pnitivc. He had worked for about 10¹ yeari and was terminated without recording any specific finding as what weighed in the mind of en- quiry officer or Disciplinary Authority to say that he was not on duty at Kumaon House without en- quiring from the Deputy Commandant and Head Mali. Likewise, there is no material to draw infe- rence that he was not sick or the medical certificate was false.

8. In totality of the facts and circumstances, the action of the management in terminating the services of Ranjinder Kumar was not legal and justified. He is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. 9, Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW,

Dt. 10-9-2001.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 24th February, 200(1 S.O. 2773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Anncxure, in the industrial dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management '.if CMPD1 and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on the 24th January, 2000.

[No. L-22012/280/95 1R f C-ID] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri H. Mohapatra, O.S.J.S, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubancswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO 69 OF 1997 (CENTRAL)

Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 13th January, 2000

BETWEEN

The Regional Sales Manager, Regional Sales Office (C1L), 2/36, I.R.C. Village, Bhubaneswar.

.. . First Party- management.

AND

The Branch Secretary, National Coal Organisation- Employees Association, C/o CMPDI, RI-VII, Gruha Nirman Bhawan, Bhubancsvvfar.

. . . Second party- workman.

APPEARANCES :

NONE—For both the parties.

AWARD

The Government of Jndia in tlu Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers U/s. 10(1 )(d) and Section IO(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation vide their order No. L-220L2/28O/95-IR(C-II) dated 18-9-1997.

"Whether the action of the management of Re- gional Sales Office (CIL), Bhubaneswar in not regularising the services of Sh. Ganesh Chandra Nayak, Casual Sweeper, is legal, and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ?" 2. In this case neither thu second party nor the first party have filed their respective claim statement and written statement. Both the parties have also not taken any steps in the matter. From the conduct of the parties it can reasonably be inferred that they are no more interested to contest the proceeding per- haps for the reason that the dispute has been settled between them amicably out of the Court. In the cii- cumstance, a no dispute Award is passed in so far as the present reference is concerned.

Dictated and corrected by me.

H. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer5921 New Delhi, the 24th September, 2001 S.O. 2774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman, which |was received by the Central Government on 21st September, 2001.

[No. L-22012/490/96-IR(C-II)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURU

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL IRl- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

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

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 130/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 8th August, '2001 Date of Passing Award—7th September, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of the Chief General Manager, Talcher Area of M.C.L., P.O. Dera Colliery, Dist. Angul.

. . . 1 st Party—Management.

AND

Their Workman, Shri Amin Garnaik, Represented through the General Secretary, Talcher Coal Mines Employees Union. PO/PS Talcher, District Angul.

. . . 2 nd Party—Union.

APPEARANCES :

Shri A. K. Parija, Personnel Manager, Talcher Area of M.C.L.—For the 1st Party—Man- agement.

None—For the 2nd Party—Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Lahour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause I'd) of Mib- section (1) and sulvsedion 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have re- ferred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-22012/490/96-IR(C-II), dated 12-9-1997:—

"Whether the action of the Management of Talcher Colliery of M.C.L., Talcher, in dis- missing Shri Amim Gamaik, Loader, from service is legal and justified ? If nut, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date T"

2. The case of the 2nd Party-Union is that he was appointed as a land looser on 15-7-1987 under the 1st Party-Management. As he was physically Weak from the beginning in his employment he re- quested the Management for allotment of Cat-I/ Daily rated work. But his request was not considered. On 24-7-1990 he got electric shock while he was working in the mine. So he frequently remained absent from duty. In the year 1992 also he was under treatment as he was not recovered. He- again remain- ed under treatment till 2-2-1993 t0 12-3-1994. For his absence he was charge-sheeted for habitual absence fiom duty without sufficient cause. A Domestic En- quiry was made but the Enquirv Officer did not take cognizance of the medical certilicate produced by him. According to him the enquiry was conducted mechani- cally with mala fide intention to victimize him. His prayer is that the order passed by the Management in dismissing him is illegal, and he should be paid his? back wages fiom 20-10-1994. He raised a dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) and as the reconciliation failed the above reference has been made.

3. The 1st Party—Management has filed his Writ- ten Statement wherein they have stated that the Workman was appointed as a Loader on 15-7-1987 at Talcher Colliery, presently under Talcher area of M.C.L. During his service period he was in habit of absenting from duty, of and on without permission from the competent authority. He was warned in writing several times to refrain from the habit of un- authorised absence. He remained absent for two years without permission for which he was charge- sheeted. Departmental Enquiry was made as per the provisions of the certified Standing order. The Wmk- man attended the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report: As the charges levelled against the Workman were proved the order of dismissal was passed by the competent authority.

4. On above pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled.

I. Whether the action of the Management of Talcher Colliery of Talcher Area of M.C.L. in dismissing Shri Amim Garnayak, Loader, from service is legal and justified ?

II. Tf not, to what relief the Workman is entitled and from which date ?

FINDINGS

Issue No. T :

5. After settlement of Issue i.e. from 30-11-1999 the 2nd Party—Union is not taking any step. The case was adjourned from time 1o time for the- evidence of the Workman. But the Union foiled to nduce any oral evidence.

6. The dispute has been raised at the instance of the Union. In the Claim Statement the Workman ha" averred that, he was under treatment for which he remained absent, and that the Departmental Enquiiy contemplated against him was a mechanical one and it was dfonc with malafide- intention lo victimize him. So the onus lies on the 2nd Party—Union to prove this either through oral or documentary evidence. But the 2nd Party—Union has failed to adduce any oral evidence or exhibited any documents in support of his case. In the other hand, the documents tiled on behalf of the Management supports their stand.

7. In absence of any oral or documentary evidence from the side of the 2nd Party—Workman it .cannot be said that the contents mads in the Claim Statements is true and correct. As I have stated earlier it is the duty of the 2nd Party—Union Lo examine the Work- man or any witness in support of their case and to produce their documents to satisfy the Tribunal that his absence was not wilful and the enquiry made was a mechanical one and it was done with malafide intention.

9. In absence of any materials before this Tribunal from the side of the Workman it can not be said that the action of the 1st Party—Management in dismiss- ing the Workman from the service is illegal and un- justified. 'Hence, this Issue is answered in favour "f the 1st Party—Management.

10. In view of my above findings in respect of Issue No. I the 2nd Party—Workman is not entitled for any relief.

11. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 24th September, 2001 S.O. 2775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Godavarikhani as sh

[No. L-22025/25/2001-IR(e-lJ)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRT- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GGDAVA'RIKHAMI

PRESENT :

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc., B.L., Chainaan- cum-iPresiding Officer.

Tuesday, fhe 28th day of August, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 2000

BETWEEN

Lakkam Rajaiah, S/o Mallaiah, Ex-Singareni Employee, R /o Perukedu village of Warangal District.

. . . Petitioner.

AND

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam Area-J, Godavarikhani.

. . .Respondent.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Vishweswar "Rao and Sri V. Venkateshwax, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following:—

AWARD

1. This is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act, 1987.

Facts of the case briefly are as follows :—

The petitioner was working as Shot Finer in the respondent company. He was removed from the ser- vice in the year, 1980.

The present petition was filed on 15-2-2000 ques- tioning his removal.

2. Respondent filed counter stating that the peti- tioner participated in an illegal strike. Chargesheet was issued a'gainst him. The petitioner submitted ex- planation to the charge-sheet. Domestic enquiry was conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. He was removed ftom the service- on 26-9-80.

The petitioner filed mercy petition on 30-10-80. The petitioner was re-instated into service on 3-12-80. but again removed from the service wx.f. 21-12-80.

3. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-5 are marked.

4. Heard both sides.

5, The point for consideration is whether the peti- tioner can be re-instated into service ?

6. Point.—The petitioner was removed from the service in the year, 1980.

The petitioner kept quiet for about 20 years and then, filed the present petition questioning his re- moval from the service.

Though there is no bar for filing petition U/s., 2-A(2) questioning removal of a workman from tine service, it is not in the interest of the Industry to re- instate the workman irrespective of his laches and delay in filing the petition U/s. ? \(2) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act.

7, In Rajendra Singh Gehlot Vs. Union of Tndia 2000-LLR Page No. 374 Rajiisthan High Court, it was held that undoubtedly there is no limitation pro- vided for making an application for reference, but it is settled proposition of law that where no limita- tion is provided, the aggrieved partv may approach the authority, Tribunal or Court within the reason- able period (vide State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Ragha- vanath AIR—1969 Supreme Court Poge 1297 and Mohd. Kavl Mohammed Ameen Vs. Fathima Begum Ibrahim 1977 (6) Supreme Court cases Page 71).

It was further held that public policy manifested in Industrial Legislation is to achieve the aim of justice and to maintain peace. Long Dormant Claims have often more of cruelty than of justice in them- selves. A legal remedy cannot be kept alive for unrea- sonable period even if the statute does not provide any limitation (vide a Court Vs. Cross (1925) 130 E.R., 540, N. Balakrishna Vs. M. Krishna Mmthy (199S) 7 Supreme Court cases Page No. 123).

8. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavan Kutti AIR 2000 Supreme Court page No. 839, it was held that Law docs not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power U/s. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercis- ed reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case afier lapse of about seven years of order of dismissing the -espondent from the service.

9. In MGMT of IISCO Ltd. Vs. P. Singh 2000-11 LLJ Page No. 653 Supreme Court of India¹ held that whether relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches, depends upon the t'acts and circumstances of each case. In this case, claim was made almost after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or justifying ground and there was nothing nn record to explain the delay.

10. In the present case, the petitioner participated in an illegal strike and he was removed from the service 20 years back. The petitioner was lafc by 20 years in filing the present petition. This Tribunal is not expected to revive disputes which were settled long back. Reviving disputes after a long time itself leads to Industrial un-rest.

I, therefore, consider that the petitioner cannot be re-instated into service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. Each party do bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 28th day of August, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-Prcsiding

Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined :

For workman—Nil.

For Management: Nil.

Exhibits

For workman—Nil.

For Management:

Ex. M-l dt. 26-9-80-—Dismissal order.

Ex. M-2 dt. 30-10-80—Mercy petition.

Ex. M-3 dt. 3-11-80—Lr. issued to the petitio- ner by General Manager, Godavarikhuni.

Ex. M-4 dt. 3/4-12-80—Office order.

Ex. M-5 dt. 19-12-80—Termination letter of petitioner.

Printed by the Munuger, Covl. of Tndia Press, Rinji Road, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2001